Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3  (Read 734127 times)

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #40 on: 08/31/2014 01:53 PM »
Parcel 2 and 3 are owned by county and state. They can get them when needed.

Parcel 3 is private property (see below).

Parcel 2 is owned by the Cameron County.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5741
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1396
  • Likes Given: 1104
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #41 on: 08/31/2014 02:03 PM »
Parcel 2 and 3 are owned by county and state. They can get them when needed.

Parcel 3 is private property

You are right. The state owned property I looked at is adjacent, the next group of lots.

Online MP99



Parcel 1 has changed since this was written. Parcel 1 has grown from 4 acres to 9.5 acres.

Since the Final EIS?

Cheers, Martin

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #43 on: 08/31/2014 03:15 PM »


Parcel 1 has changed since this was written. Parcel 1 has grown from 4 acres to 9.5 acres.

Since the Final EIS?

The final deed for the combined lot was issued on June 4th, 2014, but the process of combining lots and closing streets started in August 2013.

The language and diagrams from that part of the final EIS seem old.  It certainly hasn't changed since the draft EIS from April 2013, and I suspect its the same as the EIS scoping meeting from May 2012.

Offline MTom

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • EU / Hungary
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #44 on: 08/31/2014 04:54 PM »
The New Residents: Renovation planned for house linked to SpaceX
http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1a1b2c44-2fef-11e4-aa5d-0017a43b2370.html

Start of SpaceX employee housing?

Here is that place from the photo...

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.992313,-97.182783,3a,75y,88.89h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sus-PJ_5ttHN5ITte7UEYOw!2e0

If there are renovations. maybe there are plans.. but really I don't think this house will the launch control, so maybe we should just leave it as housing .. and find something more exciting

This house is owned by SpaceX.
It is logical to take a rapid renovation before the start of the construction.
Some SpaceX-folks will need a harbour nearby for the next 1-2 years - better than only a hotel in Brownsville.
Isn't it?
« Last Edit: 08/31/2014 05:00 PM by MTom »

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #45 on: 09/04/2014 10:20 AM »
SpaceX continues to purchase land
link to article
Quote
Dogleg Park LLC picked up an additional five lots, adding to the 75 tracts of land that it now owns at and around the proposed launch site and control center. The added acreage hikes its ownership to more than 100 acres of land.

I have no idea where these 5 new lots are.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 11:21 AM by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #46 on: 09/04/2014 10:55 AM »
Recent transactions are delayed by a few weeks on the online Cameron County Real Estate Appraisal Map, but poking around there I found 2 more SpaceX purchases adjacent to Parcel 1 in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Exhibit 2.1-4b.  Those 2 new lots bring Parcel 1 up to 10.3 acres.  Parcel 1 in the EIS was only 4 acres.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 11:14 AM by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #47 on: 09/04/2014 06:25 PM »
Here's an image of the old Parcel 1 with the new Parcel 1 boundaries highlighted in yellow.  Note that the most recently purchased 5 lots are not included, so these could enlarge Parcel 1 further, or not, depending on the specific 5 lots involved.

In any case, the yellow boundaries below seem to show ample room for multiple payload processing facilities as well and a launch vehicle processing hangar. 

So it's possible Parcels 2 and 3 from the EIS will be unnecessary.  SpaceX has not purchased this Parcels 2 or 3.  Parcels 2 and 3 are also shown below for reference.
« Last Edit: 09/04/2014 06:35 PM by Dave G »

Offline Dave G

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1479
  • Liked: 533
  • Likes Given: 709
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #48 on: 09/07/2014 11:40 AM »
AsiaSat CEO says Cape Canaveral has its drawbacks
Quote
"There are a lot of regulations and clearances and restrictions, which I think hinders the processing of commercial satellites here," Wade said in an interview at Cape Canaveral ...

"Even though our processing has gone well, it's not been without some frustrations from the various teams just having to deal with some of the bureaucracy of the government in working at the Cape," Wade said. "Unfortunately, I think that's one of the reasons that SpaceX is looking at doing commercial launches on their own satellite base down in Texas."
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/012/140906capecanaveral/#.VAxCSGd0yoA

Offline WindyCity

The Space Enterprise Institute has published a six-page report on range safety issues for orbital launches from Brownsville, Texas, authored by Daniel Adamo. You may download it at http://www.spaceenterpriseinstitute.org/2014/09/range-safety-implications-for-brownsville-texas-launches-to-earth-orbit/. Free registration is required.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2014 08:32 PM by WindyCity »

Offline WindyCity

Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.

Quote
The tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3 inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3 [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.

In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3.

Presumably, SpaceX considered these issues before signing onto the Brownsville site. What would be their justification for choosing Brownsville if range safety will dramatically restrict their launch trajectory options?

Edit/CR: excessive line breaks in quote removed
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 08:26 AM by CuddlyRocket »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #51 on: 09/08/2014 08:43 PM »
Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.

Quote
The tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3 inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3 [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.

In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3.

SpaceX optimise for cost, not performance.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 08:33 AM by CuddlyRocket »

Offline billh

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 277
  • Houston
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 94
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #52 on: 09/08/2014 08:45 PM »
Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.

Quote
The tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3 inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3 [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.

In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3.

Presumably, SpaceX considered these issues before signing onto the Brownsville site. What would be their justification for choosing Brownsville if range safety will dramatically restrict their launch trajectory options?

They have been clear that Brownsville is only for GEO missions.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 08:33 AM by CuddlyRocket »

Offline WindyCity

SpaceX optimise for cost, not performance.

I understand, but if range safety drastically limits what missions they can launch from Brownsville, won't that cut into their revenue significantly?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #54 on: 09/08/2014 08:47 PM »
Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.

Quote
The tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3 inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3 [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.

In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3.

Presumably, SpaceX considered these issues before signing onto the Brownsville site. What would be their justification for choosing Brownsville if range safety will dramatically restrict their launch trajectory options?

This has been well know - at least on this forum. There is only one launch azimuth available at the moment from Brownsville/Boca Chica, and SpaceX knows this - which is why it will be used almost exclusively for commercial GTO launches.

Brownsville was chosen because they will control their own range there, with no competing launches blocking dates. Cost (taxes) was also a major factor.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2014 08:33 AM by CuddlyRocket »

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #55 on: 09/08/2014 08:49 PM »
SpaceX optimise for cost, not performance.

I understand, but if range safety drastically limits what missions they can launch from Brownsville, won't that cut into their revenue significantly?
What Lars_J said.

Offline WindyCity


They have been clear that Brownsville is only for GEO missions.

Ah. Perhaps that explains it. Odd that the author wouldn't have known that; else, why would he have written this paper, which looks at launches to LEO.

Offline WindyCity

Thanks, Lars_J and IslandPlaya, for your explanations.

Offline IslandPlaya

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Outer Hebrides
  • Liked: 163
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 3
« Reply #58 on: 09/08/2014 08:53 PM »

They have been clear that Brownsville is only for GEO missions.

Ah. Perhaps that explains it. Odd that the author wouldn't have known that; else, why would he have written this paper, which looks at launches to LEO.
He should join NSF. Perhaps he might learn something and be happy!  ;)

Offline nadreck

The justification is that the bulk of their current business outside of NASA is communications satellites and these are served well by this location. ISS flights would continue to launch from the cape, future manned ISS flights from the Cape as well, I don't know if there would be any sense to having a LEO depot/station/hotel/dry-docks in an orbit inclined 26 degrees, but if so then that could be there as well, so the potential for manned flights would exist.

Also, I presume SpaceX is planning for the eventuality (say by the 20's ) of FAA rules treating their re-usable rockets under far less stringent rules closer to aircraft since they have terminal guidance and can steer out of the way on descent even under less than nominal operating conditions.  But, the SpaceX stated goal of the Brownsville site was the GTO market.
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Tags: