Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Brownsville Space Port Opposed By Texas Environmentalists
MarkWhittington writes "The proposed SpaceX space port in Brownsville, Texas, has run into opposition from an environmental group. Environment Texas is conducting a petition drive to stop the project. According to a news release by the group, the proposed space port, which would include a launch pad and control and spacecraft processing facilities, would be 'almost surrounded' by a park and wildlife refuge. 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.' The petition will demand SpaceX build the space port elsewhere." I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
Wouldn't want to scare Bambi now, would we?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
NIMBY nimrods.
Having an environmental group in Texas? How is that even real? I don't believe Environment Texas actually exists. It is contrary to everything Texans stand for.
It's people like this that make me want to leave this planet. If you want the whole planet treated like some big national park then we can do that. Just let the portion of humanity that doesn't want to live like Luddites leave the planet.
It might take us awhile... but f'ing with us at this stage is not helping.
In all seriousness, if putting this facility in Texas isn't feasible where exactly on planet earth can we put it?
Oh I know... china.
I f'ing hate these people.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I want space x in my back yard possums be dammed...che taquaches
Why can't they just use the Mojave Spaceport? Okay, yes, it would be hard to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, but at least they wouldn't have to worry about getting the idea past a bunch of environmentalists first.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I read that as Space Pot. Once again slightly confused, then disappointed by the actual issue.
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I don't see how that follows from environmental concerns. Majority (or, in this case, nearly universal) support for something doesn't necessarily mean it's good in the long term.
Really, why do people think "Because...Jobs!!" is a good way to make an argument?
Do you think it trumps the other concerns?
Maybe the problem is deeper than just one employer, maybe there are values other than just employment.
I know, putting people to work is the Holy Grail of society, but didn't we learn not to choose poorly?
'scare the heck' out of every creature in the area and would 'spray noxious chemicals all over the place.'
Yeah, that fairly describes anywhere hosting a spring break.
Oh, and Texas vermints and critters don't scare that easily. They won't give a hoot about no spaceman rockets.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Launches dont happen every day for one thing, second of all the launches in FLA have been scaring the crap out of animals for 50 years now, I think fla still has animals.
environmentalists in texas is funny to me though, didnt think any of those existed.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Why the hell is Slashdot giving this quacks even more publicity..
Don't they know that they are standing in the way of the last escape from this polluted trap?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
as demonstrated by the Merrit Island National Wildlife Refuge (http://kennedyspacecenter.com/wildlife-refuge.aspx), which includes Kennedy Space Center. Gotta say, when I watched the SpaceX launch last week, I didn't notice any 'gators running away in panic. Five minutes after the launch, the frogs were ribbiting just as loudly as before liftoff. In TX I suppose it will be 'dillos, and I doubt they'll notice launch operations any more than KSC's wildlife has over the decades of launch operations there.
Why not use one of the "space ports" we already got? Oh, I know why. Cause they probably won't be paying for the new one. The U.S. taxpayer would likely end up paying for it, as usual.
Where are you when I need you??
True but no need to put a launch complex in Texas just use the one in Florida. AKA We need the jobs since NASA got gutted.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I have. For all intents and purposes, it is desert. You might scare some rattle snakes and a few cactus. It really is one of the few places I would say sure, dump the nuclear waste here.
Science!
The mohave is hundreds of miles further away from the equator than Brownsville. The closer to the equator, the lower amount of fuel you need to reach certain orbits. The rotation of the earth adds to your relative speed, and this amount of speed provided increases the closer to the equator you get.
Why is it better to launch a spaceship from near the equator?
SpaceX should build it in Matamoros, Mexico instead.
They are already using the old Titan pad at Kennedy. But that is a single pad and not nearly enough to support the ambitious plans SpaceX has for the future.
SpaceX want to own this complex, so unless that is on the table for the NASA launch sites...
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
From the press release:
Environment Texas also pointed out the risk the project poses to the south Texas economy. According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird.
If you wanted to argue about this you could try and find some evidence that a spaceport isn't actually environmentally hazardous, but I'm getting pretty sick of hearing unsupported nonsense about jobs.
My understanding is that they want to be able to land the first stage for reuse, and if they launch from eastern Texas, then Florida is just about the right distance to provide a convenient landing point. If they launch from Florida, they don't have that.
The citizens of Brownsville have these public resources, including the wildlife and pristine lands. Does SpaceX just get to consume them for free? Shouldn't they pay for what they use, instead of being given it by the local government as corporate welfare?
What noxious chemicals are they talking about? Somehow I suspect they lack the technical expertise accurately assess the environmental impact if they will make a ridiculous claim like that. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the technologies used in SpaceX rockets.
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I suspect Timothy has never been to Brownsville and is assuming everyone thinks like he does and doesn't weigh long-term costs and benefits.
And what will the people there think if their public lands are destroyed and 10 years from now SpaceX is out of business or simply thinks this spaceport is no longer viable? Maybe they get a better offer from another locale which makes the same mistake?
This is exactly right.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
I appreciate the attention brought to this issue, but why is it that every reference to Texas uses the worst quotes to make us sound like a bunch of ignorant hicks? That's about as legit as assuming everyone who reads Slashdot is a pimpled, overweight, greasy virgin. There's probably plenty of examples of both stereotypes, but they're both offensive and really have no place for those who purport to be educated.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Boca+Chica+Boulevard,+Brownsville,+TX,+United+States&hl=en&ll=25.995698,-97.153559&spn=0.054697,0.104628&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.956293,107.138672&oq=boca+chica&hnear=Boca+Chica+Blvd,+Brownsville,+Texas&t=h&z=14
Compare with the image in a page linked in TFA:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/06/environment-texas-attempts-to-stop-spacex-spaceport/
This is what happens when you pissed off a bunch of tree huggers who paid $120,000 for a lemon that gets 50 miles range with a tailwind.
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is adjacent to Kennedy Space Center and in fact, part of the refuge is also controlled by KSC. They have not experienced gloom nor doom there, and in fact, quite the contrary: Brevard County is one of the most biodiverse areas in the United States.
That's after launching 135 Space Shuttles, multiple Saturn rockets, as well as other programs that litter American history. And next to KSC is the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's launch area, a place that has seen too many rocket launches to mention.
One has to wonder what makes the Brownsville area so much more at risk.
I've been saying this for years, but every time I do. I get modded down on /. for it. Seems like people are slowly realizing that environmentalists are nothing but short of a full load, and right up there with wanting humanity to deindustrialize.
Om, nomnomnom...
You're right. Even Space Bat faced his death with dignity. Rode the rocket up as far as he could. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts119/launchbat.html
We miss you Space Bat http://www.space-bat.com/
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
Timothy's post linked to a partisan blogger. Here are the threats, per Environment Texas:
--- "According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes."
--- "The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has many objections:
--- "noise, heat, vibration, fencing and hazardous material spills" from the project could harm endangered and threatened species and diminish the value of Boca Chica State Park (near Brownsville) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
--- TPWD previously declined SpaceX's request about "leasing parkland for the project"
--- "potential for significant contamination of very senstive resources in the event of a catastrophic event (i.e., hurricane)"
--- the area is "extremely susceptible to wildfires" which could result from launch failures and accidental fires
--- concern "with the loss of the function and value of all wetlands"
--- "recreational use of the TPWD lands as currently planned would need to be revised"
--- "the proposed project area is within the Central Flyway, a route through which over 500 species of birds migrate annually
All from:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge
Guess which 'environment' they're trying to protect?
That's right: the oil fields environment!
How about doing some research and having a scientific basis for what you say.
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge
What is the prerequisite for posting to Slashdot discussions?
It's kind of difficult to take Mark Whittington seriously after reading this.
Perhaps they could just lease the pad, like Google has done.
If it's good enough for Sergy, it should be OK with Elon.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Wait till they find out there is only a Departure gate.
Brownsville certainly isn't Laredo or El Paso, but it's no stranger to the cartels. A Brownsville space port might also arguably be a more available terror target than other sites that could feasibly serve as commercial launch sites.
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
It is, was and will be a pestilential swamp. Mosquitoes, alligators and snakes don't much mind rocket launches. There are a bunch of birds there as well but they seem pretty happy. The launch facilities really just take up a small strip of land right on the coast. Given the requirement to have lots of space around each launcher it's easy to go off a main road and end up in the bush and think you're in the middle of nowhere.
There was a fair amount of hazmat stuff from the 50's and 60's lying around but that's mostly been cleaned up now.
A bigger issue would be frequency of launches. The Cape really isn't very active these days and hasn't been for a long time. If SpaceX was pushing hundreds of launches per year, that might affect wildlife. OTOH, armadillos are pretty damned stupid. Not much bothers them. Not even Texans.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
i've been to their texas test site many times. the adjacent land is home to numerous red tail hawk, buzzards, coyotes and the occasional fox.. The site itself is full of jack rabbits, and birds of all kinds. the tests that they do there make about a hundred times more noise than any launch site would. i don't see any evidence for their claims. in fact, launch sites are probably good for protected lands as they make further development in the immediate area very unattractive.
I believe the correct location is Boca Chica State Park, Brownsville, TX, United States Not Boca Rica I have cycled in this park and would be interested in the exact siting location. The article is a little light on details. I look forward to seeing launches.
Yesteryear's hippie is today's commie. The hippies just wanted the man to leave them alone, but now that you people are the man you just want everyone else to let you control everyone and everything. Hell will be the ultimate totalitarian paradise that leftists of all flavors burn for.
As a Texan, I am afraid our idiot governor will give SpaceX a large amount of subsidies. It would get ignored by the media, whereas if some fringe environmental group complains, it gets the news. I wouldn't be surprised if these 'Environmentalists' are just a PR stunt for SpaceX.
I imagine having a spaceport wouldn't be all that different from having an airport, though an airport sees constant use and a spaceport would therefore seem to be less of a disturbance.
Throughout the world a lot of airports have wildlife preserves- especially wetlands- near them; that's the case for both of the airports closest to me. The airport and its noise make it less likely that people will drain/bulldoze the wetlands for housing developments. Bacteria in wetlandscan make short work of deicing chemicals used by the airport, which would otherwise build up to toxic levels. Bird strikes don't increase as much as you might think. There's some mutual benefits here.
Ironically, your link points to no meaningful and pertinent research at all, but nothing more than a bullshit bunch of speculative fear mongering. "OMG, things could go wrong; therefore it's not worth evaluating gains and needs against risks; there is no possible justification and the whole thing is out of the question."
Where does this information come from? And what was the condition of Merritt before NASA?
If SpaceX was pushing hundreds of launches per year, that might affect wildlife.
Do you have any basis for that?
"Scare the heck out of wildlife?" What does that mean in real actual sciencey terms? Because in five minutes I learned that they've got a decent-sized airport in the city, and the city scored the theoretical worst score on a scale of human impact on the environment, according to some arbitrary rating system invented by treehugging luddites. After about ten more minutes, I found that the actual site is so close to Mexico you'd need a passport if you tripped over a branch, and while the area is indeed known for its birdwatching potential, the only endangered thing even nearby is the ocelot, and that's well away from the site. The word "desolate" kept coming up, and this was in Texas tourism ad copy. Not "wild, windswept shores unsullied by the hand of Man." Just "ain't shit here; good fishin' though." So there's already frequent air traffic, and the area isn't exactly pristine wilderness. It's a rocket pad, not a strip mine. How much damage could it actually do to what appears to be a mile and a half of sand?
Meanwhile, it looks like the overwhelming majority of Brownsvillians not only want the site, but could use the revenue. Not to diminish the environmentalists' argument overly much, but from a distance this sure looks like a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing Austin treehuggers minding other people's business for them. I'll hazard a guess that Austin doesn't really need the money like Brownsville does, which makes it much easier for the Austin-based group to tell Brownsville that they ought to turn SpaceX (and any potential revenue) away.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
...it interferes with MY shiny pet project, in which case all who oppose me are Communist Obamanazi Weatherman PETAphile Tree Hugging Terrorists!
Now we see how it is, and it's pretty funny.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Will wind up being a documentary for this generation.
The location is mentioned at the bottom of the first page of this article Quote from Article "As part of the Proposed Action, SpaceX proposes to construct a vertical launch area and a control center area. The proposed vertical launch area site is currently undeveloped and is located directly adjacent to the eastern terminus of Texas State Highway 4 (Boca Chica Boulevard) and approximately 3 miles north of the Mexican border on the Gulf Coast. It is located approximately 5 miles south of Port Isabel and South Padre Island. At the vertical launch area, the new facilities required would include: an integration- and processing-hangar, a launch pad and stand with its associated flame duct, propellant storage and handling areas, a workshop and office area, and a warehouse for parts storage." https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/04/10/2012-8556/office-of-commercial-space-transportation-notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact If you look at the area on google maps you will see an private area north of the park that fits the description
First, you keep posting a link to the group's own press release. That's not exactly an unbiased source. But let's just go ahead and use their numbers, because they're still very obviously wrong about the overall argument.
Second, the Rio Grande Valley is much bigger than the 49 acres of land SpaceX is asking for, and the Boca Chica site is at the very farthest eastern end of the river. In fact, it's probably more accurate to think of Boca Chica as part of the Gulf Coast rather than part of the Rio Grande Valley. For reference, the Rio Grande Valley is the southern bottom of Texas, and Boca Chica is pretty much a dot on the Gulf Coast just above the Rio Grande. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd guess that it doesn't quite make up 1% of the land area of the RGV.
Third, Boca Chica State Park is completely undeveloped, and is only open during the day. There are no, repeat, no facilities in the park. The road doesn't even stay paved up to the beach. Your precious hotel taxes? Not from Boca Chica, because there are no hotels there. Sales taxes? Not from Boca Chica; there isn't so much as a lemonade stand. So the money that your group is mentioning does not even a little bit come from Boca Chica, unless you count any parking fees, of which there appear to be none, as there don't appear to be any parking spaces at the park. It is literally just a beach.
So, no, it doesn't affect jobs, and I wish you'd quit tossing out the same link to the same damn article from TFA above. Here, here's a link from Texas Parks and Wildlife: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wildlife/wildlife-trails/coastal/lower/boca-chica-loop. Boca Chica is #43 on the map.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Chica_State_Park. You can see some pictures of the place. The only development appears to be two old wooden fenceposts which show where the road stops, and a rusted-out oil drum for trash. Unless Texas hired someone specifically to drive out, straighten the fenceposts, and empty the trash, Boca Chica does not currently offer any significant employment opportunities.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
In 1 billion years all the little precious forest creatures burn to a crisp because the sun expanded and you didn't want a space port to preserve any of earth's precious genetic diversity by colonizing space...
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
There's a difference between actual productive jobs that produce wealth by by building useful things from raw materials, and service jobs that just move existing wealth around.
That is not how wealth works. Wealth is generated by trade. Taking something of little value to person a and moving it to person b who will value it more. Production jobs generate very little wealth by themselves. A farmer has no personal use for a silo of wheat. They can only eat so much bread. A miner has almost no use for several tons of iron ore. Value is created when these items are moved about.
Who is to say that your descendants in their space ships don't end up becoming environmentalists themselves? I'd imagine that after being stuck on a ship for hundreds of generations, the remaining humans would be quite fond of preserving whatever habitat they eventually find... Or they will have become metal overlords made from electrons and cold hard mathematics.
Don't they know that they are standing in the way of the last escape from this polluted trap?
You may be kidding, but this kind of language helps the enviro-extremists.
In no way can Earth as a whole be described as "Polluted trap", unless you
consider Pequim to be the Earth.
... at least they wouldn't have to worry about getting the idea past a bunch of environmentalists first.
Mohave Spaceport has legally mandated checks for desert tortoises that may have wandered onto the runway. I suppose the standard checks for foreign object debris on the runway are not enough and would somehow miss the tortoises.
This is why there are no animals within 10 miles of Cape Canaveral.
Merritt Island was a mosquito laden swamp before NASA got there. Cape Canaveral didn't really change the area all that much - it turned into a mosquito laden swamp dotted with a couple of roads and gantries with the occasional fragment of shredded aluminum scattered about.
I know this because I grew up there. Actually a bit south of the Cape but close enough.
I don't know much about SpaceX's launch frequencies. My point being that an occasional launch - every couple weeks or so - didn't seem to affect animals much, but perhaps daily explosions might be a different issue. Of course, as I mentioned, about the only thing that routinely gets the attention of a 'dillo is a car tire directly overhead.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
simple. A ship with a platform. Or an old drilling rig like the one they use for the SeaLaunch.
Yes it would be tricker than a nice big chunk of land and possibly more expensive but it should work.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That is all.
Second, the Rio Grande Valley is much bigger than the 49 acres of land SpaceX is asking for, and the Boca Chica site is at the very farthest eastern end of the river.
This argument applies in converse too, as there's a lot of land where the nature park isn't, and maybe the spaceport could be located there.
They could build a monstrous megachurch on the property and, oh yeah, out back have a rocket pad. Surely that'd be approved. Especially if they made the gantry look like a giant cross.
----- obSig
'scare the heck' out of every creature in the area and would 'spray noxious chemicals all over the place.'
If SpaceX picks up their empties after its all over, they'll be better off than at present.
Have gnu, will travel.
This particular group of environmentalist are uninformed. The miles-wide safety-easement that surrounds these types of activities actually protect wildlife because no inhabited structure (not related to the activity) are allowed inside the easement. Kennedy Space Center & Cape Canaveral Air Station are actually surrounded by Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge (as another poster noted). Another example would be the Sunnypoint Military (Ammunition) Ocean Terminal and next-door Brunswick Nuclear Powerplant in North Carolina. These are surrounded by a huge easement buffer zone and they are now one of the few places in NC where the red cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, native venus-fly traps, and pitcher-plants now flourish in the wild. They also have hundreds of acres of long-leaf pine (threatened elsewhere in the region) Same with the training ranges at Ft. Bragg, which is famous for its protection of the long-leaf pines and woodpeckers.
Is "LowEarthOrbitX" too long to paint on the side of the firecrackers?
Really?
I don't see the people of Brownsville living adjacent to the launchpad, where they'd get blasted with the noise and exhaust of a giant rocket all the time. Even the ones "looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring". Well, maybe the ones looking for the excitement.
Nor should they have to suck up exhaust and launch blasts. Neither should the animals in the park. I suppose these people think it's a good idea to put it into the park "because nobody lives there". But plenty of animals do - that's why it's a wildlife refuge.
Texas is huge. There's plenty of places in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, where the launch blasts won't have to blast any species that cares about it. We don't have to choose between launching and being humane.
--
make install -not war
The problem at Cape Canaveral is that it is a busy place, and expected to become even busier. SpaceX is looking for another launch site precisely because they can't get the launch slots available from all of the competition from other launch providers trying to launch out of that site, especially ULA but there are others. Space Florida is trying hard to get some of the rest of the launch providers to at least consider the place as well.
The problem with jobs at the Cape in Florida is mainly because the Shuttle program was winding down, and NASA did a piss poor job of providing a bridge between the jobs that used to be there under the Shuttle program and what they will be needing once everything gets shuffled around to all of the new launch providers picking up the slack trying to send the same tonnage into space.
Oh... some of the newer companies like SpaceX don't need so many people to send the same amount of stuff into space.... which sort of sucks if you were one of those people who got cut.
Let's ban thunder and lightning as well, because this also scares the bejeezus out of animals. Hell, while we're at it, let's also ban predators, because NOTHING scares an animal more than being lunch. Fact is, most wild animals live in a perpetual state of horror. That's why they run away whenever you try to pet them.
So, the guy who gets it wrong is +3 informative, and the guy who corrects him (and points out the single most informative and accessible book on rocketry, ever), is -1?
Too much crack, too little sense... and I already used up my mod points.. Damn.
This argument applies in converse too, as there's a lot of land where the nature park isn't, and maybe the spaceport could be located there.
And that "converse" applies everywhere else that SpaceX could go. The real difference between all those other places and the current place? The current place is where SpaceX wants to go. I think that trumps the "they could go elsewhere" argument, because in the end, they either go somewhere in particular or they go nowhere.
Reasonable measures?
You have never dealt with the EPA!
The jobs are created by the people coming to the park creating demand for services outside the park, because there is no development in the park but visitors consume goods and services. If there's a specious argument here, it's that there are no jobs currently supported by the park inside the park.
--
make install -not war
No, the specious argument is that this park alone supports the entire tourist income of the RGV, which is clearly what the press release implied. To say that this one park, one out of many parks in the area, is the lynchpin of Brownsville tourism income, is grossly overestimating the impact of the place. It's not the only park, it's not the only beach, and it's not even the best of the bunch, apparently.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
After 22 years working for the military I can say without doubt that the closest to a truly natural place is the target area of an artilleruy range.
Agriculture destroys habitat, housing destroys habitat, UXBs disincline both housing and agriculture.
Military firing ranges also protect indigenous heritage in a way that nothing else does - not that the indigenes ever get permission to see their heritage. It is however very well protected - and possibly even for their afterbears.
I said - don't look Ethel!..., but it was too late..., she'd already looked.
birth control. instead of worrying about how to house more people into less space, how about we just offer free vasectomies and tubal ligations to anyone who wants it?
SpaceX is leasing a launch pad at Cape Canaveral. They also have another launch site in California (at Vandenberg AFB) and even a third launch site in the Marshall Islands.
The idea has been considered already. SpaceX is simply looking for more options, as they are getting enough business to keep the rest of these spaceports busy and there are some drawbacks to the other launch sites that are causing some problems with their customers.
They allow environmentalists in Texas?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Boca Chica does not currently offer any significant employment opportunities.
Neither does the Antarctic, but that's not a valid argument to open up the area for industry (and there are plenty of people who'd want for that to happen). The space port may be in use for what, 50 to 100 years? Will the site be reverted to it's previous state once the port closes? or will it be opened up as an industrial park (as happened with so many military sites & airfields?). Despite your insistence that's jobs trump the environment, there is a historic precedence that says that once these places are developed, they are rarely allowed to return to their previous state. So ask yourself this simple question: Are you 100% certain this is the best location for a spaceport? The decisions you make today, will have consequences for the environment tomorrow, so it's important that you make the right choice......
Texas environmentalists... Isn't that an oxymoron?
Neither does the Antarctic, but that's not a valid argument to open up the area for industry (and there are plenty of people who'd want for that to happen).
What's invalid about it? It has everything a valid argument needs, namely a rational benefit (here, creating jobs and bringing money into the local economy) for doing the activity, be it launching rockets from south Texas or drilling in the Antarctic. It's not an neutral, weigh-all-options thing, but valid arguments rarely are.
The space port may be in use for what, 50 to 100 years? Will the site be reverted to it's previous state once the port closes?
I guess that will depend on what the locals and the state of Texas decide. But it's worth noting here that doing nothing will revert the site completely to nature within a few decades.
So ask yourself this simple question: Are you 100% certain this is the best location for a spaceport?
I don't know, but SpaceX picked it, so that's good enough for me as the selection process. I also find this line of questioning insincere. First, there's no "best" location for a spaceport. It depends on how you weigh various criteria. Second, any other location can use the same argument. At some point we have to accept that, like most things, site selection isn't 100% certain and never will be. It's much better to make a choice that most can agree on.
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
Yes, fuck the earth and wildlife. Tourism and jobs are a lot more important, what with all the excitement of seeing more space junk and spy satellites launching..
And the Marshall Islands site was started because of pressure from misguided environmentalists in California.
This country will regulate itself into obsolescence.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Why must we believe, let alone, acknowledge the the eco-Mentally challenged among us? Ignore them and build anyway!
and I don't remember there being an environment.
...with this spaceport being right on the Mexican border, it is only a matter of time until we see narcotics being smuggled into space.
"I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring."
Then why don't they offer their back yards for the project?
These guys know they were putting the spaceport in the middle of a wildlife refuge. There's no way they wouldn't. So instead, why don't they put it next door to where the owners of SpaceX live, or the school their kids go to?
Take a village with nothing but farmers and no outside trade. A farmer in this village would have enough food to eat but would lack many things. In real terms we would consider him poor. If you add a farmer to the village the quality of life remains unchanged. Now add a service job such as a singer. The singer trades his songs for the farmers excess food. The farmer lives have improved. They now have enough food to eat and music. The service job created wealth. In day to day terms the farmers are one step closer to living like kings. Farmers create potential wealth. But that wealth doesn't become actual wealth unless the food is eaten by someone doing something useful.
Relocate SpaceX to French Guiana and launch from Kourou spaceport. Launching near the equator will spare a little bit of rocket fuel due to the slightly larger rotation velocity. That way, the US can export that specialized workers abroad and buy launch capability from foreign nations.
'scare the heck' out of every creature in the area
Is that your medical opinion Bones?
If so, they're not doing a very good job. Texas is one of the most polluted states in the country.
Shouldn’t a petition get started AFTER all the data comes in from the environmental impact analysis report. This way people can make an educated opinion on the matter. Isn’t Luke jumping the gun on this? The repercussions of his action has lowered the overall community moral of a potentially profitable project. The petition also interferes with the psychology of sound project design. A full environmental analysis of the project is in the works by the FAA. The link is listed below.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
*** My mother and family live in the RGV and I visit SPI about three times a year. During those visits, I notice that the peak tourism is obviously Spring Break and Summer Break. Tourism dies down the other eight months out of the year and I see the struggle that this inconsistent tourism brings. Moving this project forward would revive the area into a booming tourist hot-spot. I can’t even imagine the type of positive growth this could mean for SPI and the RIO GRANDE VALLEY.
The community of Cameron County can make their own decision regarding the outcome of this project. After all, the citizens of Brownsville do know what’s best for their own needs.
I fully support the spaceport launch pad project! As a Rio Grande Valley native, I understand the awesome magnitude this port can have on its residents. Rio Grande Valley would not only benefit ECONOMICALLY but EDUCATIONALLY as well. The spaceport of SpaceX would draw in the brightest engineers of this generation to the RGV area as well as offer a peek into our inevitable future as a society. This future is ultimately a thriving community that has various opportunities to educate themselves in regards to oceanography, botany, space and technology at their fingertips.
Hopefully, SpaceX will chose Boca Chica Beach for it’s next launch pad site as the company will be able to recruit solid employees that are eager to work and learn about a technology that has been historically out of reach for the them.
Read my full post:
http://denverteacher.edublogs.org/