In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
Environmental group starts petition drive to stop SpaceX Texas launch site:http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-texas-wildlife-refugeQuoteBut launching big, loud, smelly rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles...KSC launched much larger rockets from the middle of the Merritt Island wildlife refuge and their creatures seem to be fine with it.
But launching big, loud, smelly rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles...
It's not the first environmental dispute to halt progress around here. Golden cheeked warbler anyone?
Quote from: Jim on 06/01/2012 10:02 PMIn Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.What's going on with LC36A/B at the moment? As far as I can tell they're currently inactive.Edit: And LC 17A/B? It seems like there are several pads at the Cape that SpaceX could in principle make use of...
Folks, does anyone know if SpaceX considered Matagorda Island? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Matagorda+Island,+Texas&hl=en&ll=28.274149,-96.596603&spn=0.393976,0.516014&sll=40.31733,-74.619879&sspn=0.085273,0.129004&t=h&geocode=Fb3SrQEdeeI7-g&hnear=Matagorda+Island&z=12HMXHMX, would it be possible to launch FH from there? If so, desirable? If so, what would it take?
...the control center would be immediately adjacent to TPWD property along Eichorn Boulevard.
Is it not the case that anywhere far enough from inhabited areas to be safe but close enough to be accessible with enormous trucks is going to be near a nature reserve and/or inhabited by lots of wildlife?Seems like SpaceX is caught between a rock & a hard place, really.
Will be interesting to see how SpaceX handles this one.[...]Environment Texas claims the launching of rockets would "scare the heck" out of every creature in the area and would "spray noxious chemicals all over the place."
A petition is not the same as a legal suit. The authorities evaluate the concerns of the petition (which is already a part of the study) and then make their decision. In a situation where the political support is so strong such petitions, besides making the parties fulfill due diligence, carries little weight in the final decisions. The decision is made by the local governments (county and state), EPA and FAA with either all for issuing the permit or one against. The local governments are for it so it only requires a yes by the EPA and FAA for SpaceX to be able to do launches from the site.
There are no other sites available for polar launches and KSC/CCAFS was set up for the Cold war. The issue here is that there are other alternatives to this site. Spacex is going to have to try really hard to justify its flight rate predictions that necessitate another launch site. Just because the USAF might be a little difficult to deal with and a few times a year, other launches may interrupt ops at CCAFS is not enough justification to "take" wildlife. When doing an EA, one of the steps in the process is to describe what are the alternatives if no action is taken. For example, MSL would not launch and there would be a limited ability to explore Mars without the use of RTGs. NASA science missions have done a 10 year EA, and the impact of no action would be that NASA would no longer do space, climate, and planetary science.In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
I hope that, compared to Vandenberg, Boca Chica has relatively few pinnipeds.