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!”
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.
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.
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!
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..."
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.
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?
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?
Just because you care about the environment, it doesn't mean that you are a Luddite. Conversely, carefully and responsibly handling the use of technology to ensure it doesn't cause unintended harm raises the trust people have in technology as well as science, and thus making it easier to develop and implement technology. Instead of being careful, you seem to quickly and categorically denounce people who protest a technology project, not considering that sometimes, people who care about the environment actually have a point. And if you take a look at the map linked to in TFA, you can see the space port would basically be surrounded on all sides by the park. Of all the potential locations that could affect the environment, that one seems like one of the worst.
Besides, they don't exactly sound like Luddites to me:
"“I love the space program as much, if not more, than anyone,” said Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger."
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? I have a lot of trouble believing that the only alternative is China.
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.
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.
There's nothing wrong with having a little concern about the local wildlife. That said, SpaceX is providing a variety of exceptional opportunities for Texas, the Country, and the World. The infancy of private space exploration demands special consideration. Bring in the Nature Conservancy, identify any endangered species (if any are present, and move them someplace quieter.) Raise up a volunteer army on conservation folk (from other states ;-) and erect some noise barriers (or create anti-noise if that's a viable alternative. Take reasonable measures to make both sides good neighbor and let the good times roll.
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.
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
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!
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?
Are your statements based on any 'science'? Do you know that Environment Texas' are not?
We can observe the behavior of animals. And when we do, we see that they can ignore quite a lot. Similarly, given the chemical reaction that a Falcon 9 uses (burning liquid oxygen and RP-1), we can determine what sort of pollution it produces. Via science. That informs our judgments on this matter.
OTOH, Environment Texas just says stuff which with minor reflection on our part can be seen to be at the least exaggerated concerns. Hence, it is not scientific.
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation?
Absolutely. Most desertification and deforestation occurs in the poor parts of the world. Similarly, the weakest environmental regulations and the lions share of pollution (real pollution that harms people now not the nebulous harm of emission of carbon dioxide) occurs in the developing world.
"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!
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.
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!
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.
It isn't apparent from this snippet, but the Rio Grande Valley isn't some tiny valley that will be entirely dominated by SpaceX moving there. The Rio Grande Valley is actually a gigantic area composed of 4 entire counties and over 20,000 square miles. SpaceX is interested in a plot of land on the edge of that valley that occupies much less than a square mile, and will be firing its rockets (powered by oxygen and kerosene) out over the ocean.
Brownsville itself is super excited about SpaceX potentially moving there, and I suspect few if any of the people involved with this "Environment Texas" group actually live in Brownsville.
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!
There are alternatives. There is a spot near Miami that is competing against Brownsville, as is a spot in Puerto Rico and the Big Island in Hawaii. Hawaii has been mostly ruled out (the locals don't want SpaceX there) but the other spots are open... and the folks in Florida just have to go up the coast a little bit to see how much money spaceflight can bring to a community. The point still remains that there aren't really that many suitable locations where this kind of thing can happen and to suggest otherwise is ignoring physics and geography.
You need a location that has a whole lot of water to the east and is as close to the equator as possible. That does exist in China, a few islands in the Pacific Ocean, South America (mainly Brazil but French Guiana works just fine for the ESA), and the above named locations. This spot in Brownsville is pretty unique in the world to be in a 1st world country and at a nearly ideal latitude with a whole lot of water to the east. The purpose of water to the east is because you get an extra push from the rotation of the Earth (that is the physics part) when you launch to the east. The geography part is important because you don't want pieces of the rocket landing on people either by accident (when a rocket blows up) or even semi-accidentally (when the 1st stage goes down... it has to go somewhere and hopefully not on somebody's living room). The part of Mexico a bit further south from Brownsville could also work.... but then again do you want to export even more jobs to Mexico?
What is interesting here, as pointed out by khallow and others, is that by building a major space port at this location and perhaps even expanding that spaceport slightly for other would-be launch operators, it will do far more to protect the environment and preserve the current wildlife in the area than almost any other kind of activity which could be done at the site. If anything, fewer roads will be built, fewer visitors damaging wildlife habitat, and less of an overall environmental impact on the area in general will happen than if the area was officially recognized as a national park or formal wildlife refuge and receive an official wilderness designation.
This isn't a risk to the environment, it is a huge blessing to it. Because it will be bringing in literally millions of dollars into the local economy it will also be huge to the tax base of the area providing schools, parks, and all of the social services that you could hope for and more... and a strong reason not to use the area near the space port for any other activity. If there is pollution in the wildlife area, the tax dollars will be there to treat raw sewage and deal with the other problems to clean the area up. Law enforcement will be active in getting people out of the area during a launch (and often even between launches) and hunting in the area simply won't happen because it will simply be dangerous to do that kind of activity. Simply put, capitalism will play its hand and force the area to become a wildlife area by the nature of the activity. This isn't like building an an oil refinery at this location, as its status as essentially a wilderness is the reason they want the site. The areas around this launch site will even likely be turned more into a wilderness as well.
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
You Teabaggers are dumber than a broken record.
Make like a tree and get out of here.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia