Author Topic: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.  (Read 7631 times)

Offline AnimatorRob

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 21
LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« on: 06/14/2014 04:14 pm »
I was looking over the KSC Future Development Concept http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/634026main_future-concept.pdf and on page 26 in regards to potential sea level rise it states, "A “best practice” KSC for site development, whether for facilities or infrastructure like primary roads, is to assure construction is at or above an elevation of 10-feet above mean sea level." Does this affect Spacex's development at LC-39? Or are they not included because their facilities are not NASA / KSC facilities? Should they, and how could they, build to mitigate any flooding that might occur if sea levels do rise at both KSC and Brownsville?

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 06:50 am by CuddlyRocket »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21563
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #1 on: 06/14/2014 07:36 pm »
no, it does not affect them

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3687
  • Likes Given: 3590
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #2 on: 06/14/2014 07:44 pm »
Does this affect Spacex's development at LC-39?

The crawlerway is 6' and the bottom of Pad 39A's flame trench is 13'above the high tide level..

Offline AnimatorRob

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #3 on: 06/14/2014 07:54 pm »
Does this affect Spacex's development at LC-39?

The crawlerway is 6' and the bottom of Pad 39A's flame trench is 13'above the high tide level..

I was thinking about the HIF.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #4 on: 06/14/2014 08:54 pm »
"10 ft above Mean sea level" is an odd reference.  Tides in that part of Florida run 3 to 6 feet.  I would have picked the average HIGH tide mark during a Syzygy astronomical alignment, plus typical storm surge, and then add a margin on top of that.  And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 06:54 am by CuddlyRocket »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #5 on: 06/15/2014 01:44 am »
"10 ft above Mean sea level" is an odd reference.  Tides in that part of Florida run 3 to 6 feet.  I would have picked the average HIGH tide mark during a Syzygy astronomical alignment, plus typical storm surge, and then add a margin on top of that. And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.

The important thing is picking a reference that is easily and universally understood.  You can then make the regulation to be any distance from that reference level.  If you only need say 5 feet above some unusual high tide mark, it's better to calculate that distance from mean sea level.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 06:59 am by CuddlyRocket »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #6 on: 06/15/2014 01:59 am »
"10 ft above Mean sea level" is an odd reference.  Tides in that part of Florida run 3 to 6 feet.  I would have picked the average HIGH tide mark during a Syzygy astronomical alignment, plus typical storm surge, and then add a margin on top of that.  And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.

How do you know they didn't do that?

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 06:57 am by CuddlyRocket »
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3687
  • Likes Given: 3590
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #7 on: 06/15/2014 03:35 am »
The crawlerway is 6' and the bottom of Pad 39A's flame trench is 13'above the high tide level..

I was thinking about the HIF.

Yes, the new HIF will be built right on the crawlerway thus the same elevation.

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 976
  • Liked: 447
  • Likes Given: 561
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #8 on: 06/15/2014 10:47 am »
And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.
The important thing is picking a reference that is easily and universally understood.  You can then make the regulation to be any distance from that reference level.  If you only need say 5 feet above some unusual high tide mark, it's better to calculate that distance from mean sea level.
I think he meant that with the potential effects of any climate change it may be that tides will be higher than ever in future. And yes, I would use highest tide to date instead of average/mean/etc. I do not see any use of these statistics. If you are flooded, you are flooded. Using averages instead of known highest value just makes it more probable to be flooded.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:01 am by CuddlyRocket »
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Tide measuring
« Reply #9 on: 06/15/2014 11:28 am »
And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.
The important thing is picking a reference that is easily and universally understood.  You can then make the regulation to be any distance from that reference level.  If you only need say 5 feet above some unusual high tide mark, it's better to calculate that distance from mean sea level.
I think he meant that with the potential effects of any climate change it may be that tides will be higher than ever in future. And yes, I would use highest tide to date instead of average/mean/etc. I do not see any use of these statistics. If you are flooded, you are flooded. Using averages instead of known highest value just makes it more probable to be flooded.

We're talking past each other.  It doesn't matter how high above the previous highest high tide you want to build, you'll still measure that point from the mean sea level or from mean high tide.  Say you want to put the limit 3 ft above some previous high tide.  You find that height, then measure how far it is from mean sea level.  When making a guideline, you stipulate the distance from the mean sea level.  The point is that you want your "zero point", what you're measuring from, to be universally understood and easily identifiable.  If my guideline says, "Assure construction is at or above an elevation of 10-feet above that one high tide we had about five years back (i.e. the one that flooded Dan's rose bushes)" I might run into some trouble.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:04 am by CuddlyRocket »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online mikes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Norwich, UK
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #10 on: 06/15/2014 11:42 am »
"10 ft above Mean sea level" is an odd reference. Tides in that part of Florida run 3 to 6 feet. I would have picked the average HIGH tide mark during a Syzygy astronomical alignment, plus typical storm surge, and then add a margin on top of that. And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.

Nautical charts are annotated using Mean Sea Level. They will (presumably!) have done calculations similar to what you suggest, then provided the result relative to MSL so that areas affected can be easily seen on existing charts.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:06 am by CuddlyRocket »

Offline spacekscblog

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #11 on: 06/15/2014 12:19 pm »
I don't have specific numbers, but as someone who drives up the Cape Road all the time the LC-39 pads are inland quite a way from the seashore, at least a half-mile.  NASA just invested in building up the shoreline with higher berms that help protect from erosion and flooding; those are on the east side of the Cape Road, and the business parts of the pads are inland some distance on the west side.

The new SpaceX hangar will probably be built to the west of the 39A, which puts it about a mile inland.  If there's flooding, it would be from neighboring swamps, but I doubt that would happen either.  If you look at the LC-40 operation, the hangar is elevated at the same level as the pad so the launch vehicle can roll out horizontally to the pad.  If they do the same at 39A, they'll haul in a lot of fill to elevate the current crawlerway ramp to 42 feet (the elevation of the pad) and the hangar will be at that elevation.

Just my speculation ... but I wouldn't worry about flooding.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21563
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #12 on: 06/15/2014 12:40 pm »
  If you look at the LC-40 operation, the hangar is elevated at the same level as the pad so the launch vehicle can roll out horizontally to the pad.  If they do the same at 39A, they'll haul in a lot of fill to elevate the current crawlerway ramp to 42 feet (the elevation of the pad) and the hangar will be at that elevation.


That is because they are using the existing rail system at SLC-40.  SLC-4 (the pattern which LC-39 is going to follow) uses a wheeled transporter.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #13 on: 06/16/2014 05:19 pm »
"10 ft above Mean sea level" is an odd reference. Tides in that part of Florida run 3 to 6 feet. I would have picked the average HIGH tide mark during a Syzygy astronomical alignment, plus typical storm surge, and then add a margin on top of that. And don't use 'historical averages going back 100 years', but more recent, and allow for forecast increases (including, as a precautionary measure, those due to potential sea level rise if global warming does occur) over the expected lifetime of the facility.

Nautical charts are annotated using Mean Sea Level. They will (presumably!) have done calculations similar to what you suggest, then provided the result relative to MSL so that areas affected can be easily seen on existing charts.

Yes, figuring out where you want the limit and then translating that back to mean sea level is fine.  I should have been clearer: I do not think 10ft above current mean sea level is enough.  Those charts are based on historical averages.  The mean level could be rising this century if global warming occurs, and the storms getting worse.

Edit/CR: See my post of 15 September 2014
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 07:09 am by CuddlyRocket »

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1682
  • United States
  • Liked: 2092
  • Likes Given: 3200
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #14 on: 06/16/2014 06:31 pm »
The HIF 5 location option (at the base of pad 39-A) is designated Zone X500 land.  Zone X500 represents areas between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year flood, or certain areas subject to 100-year flood with average depths less than 0.3 m (1 ft), or where the contributing drainage area is less than 2.6 km2 (1 mi2).

Here's a flood map and inundation map from the 2013 environmental assessment report.

You can read the whole report here:  http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/documents/FinalMultiuseEA.pdf
The floodplain and inundation sections begin on page 35 (which is slide 55).
« Last Edit: 09/15/2014 01:30 pm by sghill »
Bring the thunder!

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #15 on: 09/15/2014 07:19 am »
This thread was locked and removed to the Moderator Area as it was in danger of becoming a debate about global warming. Whether or not global warming is or will be occurring is off-topic for this site. Obviously if global warming does occur and sea levels do rise as a consequence there may well be consequences for coastal space facilities, but any discussion of same should be couched in terms of potential effects if global warming and sea level rises do occur.

I have gone through the thread and modified posts accordingly. Any future posts that do come down one way or the other on the question of global warming are liable to simply be deleted.

Having cleaned up the thread, I have returned it to the SpaceX General Section, should people wish to continue the discussion after three months!

Offline CT Space Guy

  • Member
  • Posts: 74
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: LC-39A and Brownsville Flood mitigation.
« Reply #16 on: 09/15/2014 12:09 pm »
Removed....except for the 8 times that the pharase "global warming" was left on the first page

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1