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.
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?
Mojave is only certified for horizontal launch of spacecraft, such as Scaled Composite's White Knight/SpaceShip1 combo. SpaceX is launching rockets. Doesn't really fly to launch those over land. People tend to complain. That's why they are all located on coasts. Kennedy, Wallops, Vandenberg... Brownsville is an ideal location. Now, Kennedy is also in the middle of a wildlife preserve, as is the Stennis Space Center where they do engine testing. Animals don't have the heck scared out of them at either location. Nor are their noxious chemicals spread all over.
There's nothing wrong with treating most of the planet like a national park, IMO. The problem is that ecosystems aren't as fragile as these idiots think. Just spraying "chemicals" all over the place isn't going to hurt anything, nor will some extremely occasional noises scare any animals or plants into oblivion. Different ecosystems may have achille's heels. Science will help to identify those and other issues.
What definitely kills animals and plants is deforestation and destruction of the landscape, mostly (excluding extractive industries) committed by poor and indigent people all around the world because of lack of alternative economic opportunities.
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..."
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.
They may actually have a point you know, since they actually live there. I don't have enough information either way, why so quick to judge?
Texas has a lot of hunting folks, and they tend to be in favor of preserving the environment . . . the environment is great hunting land.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Your argument is self contradictory.
If we're about corporate globalism then why would we pay any attention to these idiots?
The simple fact that the environmental movement is relevant in these matters renders your whole argument void.
Again... I don't want to argue with you or the environmentalists... You can have the earth. Keep it in good health.
Just let me leave. It might take another 10,000 years to get there... who knows. But we're leaving this mud ball and you're f'ing welcome to it. Do what you want so long as at the end of it all my descendants don't have to listen to your descents bleat on about more stupid shit.
Sorry if this is rude... I'm fed up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It consists of unemployed people from California, who moved to Texas looking for work.
You're not too far off from the truth there. While there's always been a small contingent of native liberals that gather in Austin, native Texans are vocally concerned about the waves of Californians moving to surrounding states. The thinking is that these people supported stupid policies that transformed California from the nation's envy to Greece with a Valley Girl accent, and now they're leaving California like locusts that have eaten up one field and are moving on to others. I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation? Really?
You know how I can tell you're not very familiar with the former Soviet republics?
Nah, the enviro Luddites have moved beyond NIMBY, they are now BANANAs. (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
The thing I don't understand is why they absolutely want this location despite the risk to the environment it would have. Isn't there plenty of suitable locations in the USA that aren't literally surrounded by a state park?
There are three things to note here. First, as AC noted, Brownsville is as far south as you can get in the lower 48. Closer to the equator means more delta v and more payload to orbit. Second, as has been noted elsewhere, JFK Space Center is downrange from Brownsville and allows SpaceX a convenient place for their reusable first stages to land.
Third, being surrounded by a refuge is a feature not a bug. Rockets have a risk of not going where they're supposed to. It's better to create a crater in a refuge than a crater in a town, as the Chinese found out.
I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
You mean, a place with high-paying jobs that offer health-insurance, as well as some idea that just dumping crap into the environment might be a bad idea? That might actually be an improvement.
In the meantime, keep your paranoia to yourself.
It is not at all an unreasonable concern that people will vote for crap, California, and then when that place turns into the crap the voted for they go somewhere else and upon arrival they continue to vote for crap. Paranoia it isn't.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
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
Yes, that's why Northern California never builds anything. And why you live inside a a coal plant.
You corporate power worshippers are suicidal.
--
make install -not war