SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 1

[dcporter]

Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.

I went there in broad terms because this board was bashing environmentalism in very broad terms. I assume that a happy middle ground between wild-eyed conservationists and wild-eyed conservationist-bashers can be found, and correct oversight is exactly what I support. But the amount of unanswered snideness about how much trouble "they" always cause "us", and the examples of evil, obnoxious environmentalists getting thrown about, were unacceptable to me. This isn't a pro- or anti-conservation board, so I have no particular problem asking the anti-folks to cool their jets a little. They chill, I chill, and this thread goes back on topic.

EDIT: I actually agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mark & JBF.  "Extinction" is apparently way more of a buzzword than I realized, so I apologize for effectively derailing my own argument up front.

[Prober]

Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.

but remember SpaceX is NOT NASA.

[mr. mark]

And your point? SpaceX will still have to go by Texas and US environmental,standards. They will not get a free ride in this. Remember we are talking about 6 or less launches a year. That's only one launch every several month at most, tops. This is not an airport and will not have the environmental footprint like a Spaceport America that plans near daily flights.

[Robotbeat]

Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.

I went there in broad terms because this board was bashing environmentalism in very broad terms. I assume that a happy middle ground between wild-eyed conservationists and wild-eyed conservationist-bashers can be found, and correct oversight is exactly what I support. But the amount of unanswered snideness about how much trouble "they" always cause "us", and the examples of evil, obnoxious environmentalists getting thrown about, were unacceptable to me. This isn't a pro- or anti-conservation board, so I have no particular problem asking the anti-folks to cool their jets a little. They chill, I chill, and this thread goes back on topic.

EDIT: I actually agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mark & JBF.  "Extinction" is apparently way more of a buzzword than I realized, so I apologize for effectively derailing my own argument up front.

Not only that, but there need not be antithesis between conservation and space travel. Arguably, the unique perspective given by space travel provided the motivation for the modern environmental movement:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BFO2usVjfQc&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/BFO2usVjfQc&rel=1</a>

And astronauts started this environmental project:
http://www.fragileoasis.org/

[ChileVerde]

There are several things mentioned here that I haven't heard of before, such as Perry's May 9 letter to the FAA and Musk's statement that Florida and Puerto Rico have had stronger cases.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-141476-meeting-elon.html

State ramps up attempt to lure SpaceX to Brownsville
June 16, 2012 9:50 PM
By LAURA B. MARTINEZ/The Brownsville Herald

Days after a meeting between Gov. Rick Perry and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, the governor’s office is doing all it can to persuade the multimillionaire to build a launch pad near Brownsville.

“We are looking at pretty much anything that we can do,” said Lucy Nashed, deputy press secretary for the governor. “Pretty much everything is on the table at this point because we are really interested in the project.”

(snip)

Texas has been working with SpaceX, short for Space Exploration Technologies, for about a year and is working on an incentives package to help lure the company to Cameron County. Because negotiations are still under way, no details are being released, Nashed said.

In a letter dated May 9 to the Federal Aviation Administration, Perry expressed his support for the SpaceX launch site coming to the Brownsville area. He states the project could mean “well-paying jobs and economic development to South Texas.”

“Please know that I strongly support the efforts of SpaceX and the Brownsville community to bring this business to Texas. I ask you to favorably approve their application for a South Texas launch site,” he wrote.

Although Musk has said that Florida and Puerto Rico have made stronger cases than Texas for the new launch site, he also said that things were changing.

SpaceX could not be reached Friday for comment.

Sources have reported after Texas appeared last week to be gaining the top spot in the competition to lure the new SpaceX launch site, Florida is trying to sweeten the deal they offered the company.

“We are no stranger to competition,” Nashed, Perry’s spokeswoman said. “If Florida wants to step up their game, then of course we are certainly open to that. We really want this project to be here and we are committed to doing what we can to get it here.”

(snip)

[ArbitraryConstant]

All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.

I'm guessing they want to crank the launch rate at the fully custom site higher than the others though, so that's a fairly sizable disadvantage.

As usual though, the optimal strategy is to pursue everything at once. I've seen it suggested that all they really want is bargaining power at the cape, but I think they went into this willing to pull the trigger on any of the above in the right circumstances. If it's a partially a bargaining tactic it's because the threat is credible.

[douglas100]

All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.

I'm guessing they want to crank the launch rate at the fully custom site higher than the others though, so that's a fairly sizable disadvantage.

As usual though, the optimal strategy is to pursue everything at once. I've seen it suggested that all they really want is bargaining power at the cape, but I think they went into this willing to pull the trigger on any of the above in the right circumstances. If it's a partially a bargaining tactic it's because the threat is credible.

I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H. They can't easily convert SLC 40 to handle it without the the substantial modifications that have been discussed elsewhere: second hanger, second set of tracks coming in at 90 degrees to the current set etc. That work would probably lead to considerable downtime which would affect traffic to ISS and other F9 missions.

KSC might be an alternative to Texas for F9H. In which case, I think you're right: there is an element of bargaining going on.

[clongton]

I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H.

Wallops

[meekGee]

All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.

Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site. 

[douglas100]

I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H.

Wallops

You think so? For GTO missions?

[ArbitraryConstant]

Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site. 

Self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.

[douglas100]

All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.

Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site. 

You mean if they master re-usability.

As far as self-ferrying rockets are concerned, they are so far down the line (even if this ability were needed, which I doubt) that they have no relevance to whether SpaceX sets up a Texas launch site or not.

[meekGee]

Yes - "If", not "when".  But IF they do, there will be a track record of performance, and I don't see a problem flying overland.  Airplanes fly fully fueled over cities, and airplanes have accidents into cities.  It's accepted.  Of course jetliners are incredibly reliable, but they also fly a lot, and at the end of the day, we do have a major incident about once a year or two.

There are reasonable precautions to take, such as starting and ending each burn in a "safe" flight envelope, so that failure to ignite (or RUD on ignition) will always crash into a cleared area, but at least the rocket won't be circling over town in a waiting pattern for 30 minutes before being allowed to land.

And sure - everything about rapid-reusable first stages is not going to happen next year.  But they are not building a TX site while thinking only a couple of years ahead, are they?

All I'm saying is that assuming rockets will be able to rapid-reuse, then odds are they will self-ferry, and once they do, there will be a launch pad whose main requirement will be being next to the stage integration floor, wherever that might be.

[ArbitraryConstant]

All I'm saying is that assuming rockets will be able to rapid-reuse, then odds are they will self-ferry, and once they do, there will be a launch pad whose main requirement will be being next to the stage integration floor, wherever that might be.

Bringing us back to the point: self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.

[meekGee]

self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.

TBD, I guess.   There are a number of LTA proponents from the 1920's that would like a quick word meanwhile...