Slashdot Mirror


Proposed SpaceX Spaceport Passes Its Final Federal Environmental Review

An anonymous reader writes "The proposed SpaceX spaceport in Brownsville, Texas, has passed its final federal environmental review. 'The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which had raised concerns about possible impact on habitat for some endangered species, ultimately concluded that "the project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed or proposed to be listed species nor adversely modify piping plover critical habitat". But wildlife officials don't expect the project to be harmless: Two individual cats, either from the endangered ocelot or jaguarondi species, could be lost as a result of the project in spite of efforts to avoid just that with measures such as posting warning signs along the road leading to the launch site. And federal wildlife officials also anticipate that more than 7 miles of beachfront used by nesting sea turtles could be disturbed by security patrols, though driving is already permitted on the beach.'"

13 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, two whole cats. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Does it bother the Feds that those cats are going to die of old age one of these days anyway?

    If there are only two affected cats in the area, they're already effectively extinct in that place....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Wow, two whole cats. by Zobeid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Texas at one time had six native cat species: bobcat, mountain lion, ocelot, jaguar, jaguarundi and margay. Jaguars and margays have been gone for about a hundred years, and now ocelots and jaguarundis are rare, with just a few hanging on at the southern tip of the state. We'd really prefer not to give them up.

    2. Re:Wow, two whole cats. by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      get real, you've just given the proof that groups of both these two individual cats exist elsewhere. these individual cats can't breed, they don't matter.

  2. What has happened in Florida? by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The government established a wildlife preserve surrounding the Kennedy Space Center and the wildlife has been flourishing there for more than a half century. Because a launchpad is used so infrequently (12 times a year is what SpaceX proposes for Brownsville), it inflicts very little harm on the environment.

    1. Re:What has happened in Florida? by hey! · · Score: 2

      You're missing the point. The *specifics* of the site, particularly the specific *species* it hosts, makes a difference. That's why you check. Sometimes its not *what* you are building that's the problem, but where you're proposing to build it.

      The outline at least of the process is reasonable. Before you start bulldozing, you check to see what it is you'll be demolishing and what the impact on your neighbors will be.

      We can argue about what should be sufficient to red light a project, but since the project got the green light the project's owners don't have anything to complain about. Like breaking ground (which comes later), passing the environmental impact review is an important but routine milestone in a project.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:What has happened in Florida? by Richy_T · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not just cumulative, exponential. In a few years, the site will be destroying the earth, in a few decades, most of the known universe.

    3. Re:What has happened in Florida? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Disclaimer: My comment/question isn't based upon any scientific background, so feel free to throw mud on my theory.

      So, if a species is only found in a tiny area, is that species really viable?

      Answer: often it is. Many species show signs of having done through a "genetic bottleneck" and subsequently grew to considerable populations. In the 1890s, there were fewer than 30 northern elephant seals in the whole world. Today there are hundreds of thousands, but back then a single project could have wiped them out. All the cheetahs in the world today descended from only seven individuals that lived ten thousand years ago. But they subsequently went on to be a highly successful species, with a range that covered all of Africa and Central and South Asia. Even humanity went through a population bottleneck 100,000 years ago. We could well have gone extinct.

      If their survival is that fragile, that they can't survive outside of that area, is there value in making the effort to helping them, or are they more likely to go extinct anyway?

      You're mixing up different questions: whether there is value in making efforts to help endangered species (which is an philosophical question, not a scientific one), or whether they're likely to go extinct "anyway" (which is an exercise in prognostication).

      "Anyway" is a loaded term. Extinction *is* a natural process, but we are living in a period extinction rates unprecedented in the lifetime of our species. That means that the vast majority of species facing extinction face it as the result of human activities. Where merely tweaking an activity can save a species from extinction, say placing a facility *here* rather than *there*, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.

      And taking steps to protect endangered species works. Not 100% of the time, of course, but enough of the time to show it's worth giving it a try. I'm old enough to remember when seeing a bald eagle was a once-in-a-lifetime event. When I was a small kid, there were maybe a thousand bald eagles in all the contiguous 48 states. Today there are about ten thousand nesting pairs. As a result of conservation efforts, most conservation efforts are no longer needed. It's still a thrill for me to see a nesting pair soaring over some pond, but it's actually a very commonplace sight these days. I suppose if you don't remember a time when seeing an eagle was a rare even than seeing a wild bison is today, you might not realize how successful a conservation program can be.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Playing Devil's advocate by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    I've seldom seen such large expanses of unspoiled habitat than at Cape Canaveral. The "safety areas" between launch and observation areas are so huge that most of it becomes some of the best protected environment you can have.

  4. Re:Cats cannot read by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    no worries, we'll have a reader posted at each sign so the cats just have to listen. cats have very good hearing.

  5. Re:And so Putin approves $50 billion for Sochi by Talderas · · Score: 2

    The same plan as every night Pinky. Take over the world.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  6. Re:Why do they need their own spaceport? by EmperorArthur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Out of curiosity, what do they need their own spaceport for, especially if (as an earlier poster notes) they only intend to launch about once a month? Are there constraints on the use of launchpads at Cape Canaveral, where there's already been a great deal of investment in building launchpads, support structures, etc.?

    That's a part of it. Without looking into the details, Cape Canaveral doesn't seem to want to deal with more than one rocket launch within a week of each other. Wile the US Gov launches from Vandenberg, they also launch from Cape Canaveral. Plus the Orbital Sciences launches, other commercial launches, and everything else that happens there. The current story is often launch attempt one aborts, launch attempt two has a delay to make sure they fixed the problem, then it's a several week delay because Cape Canaveral had another launch planned.

    The other reason is the idea of recovering the Falcon 9 rocket. It could be easier to launch from Texas and recover at Cape Canaveral.

    --
    So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  7. TFA: But several steps remain... by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let us not forget the primary purpose of federal environmental impact studies: They take years, employ dozens of bureaucrats, and somehow, there's always one more step, one more required study. The "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" has long since taken over...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:TFA: But several steps remain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also true of local governments. Our new runway here in Seattle cost more in "environmental" studies and related changes than all other costs combined. Also, environmental groups wouldn't allow the project to finish until very close to twenty years. The original cost estimates were just over $200 million, but after the environmental groups sued dozens of times and required expensive changes that had no purpose, it ended-up costing over a billion. Environmental groups were against it because it will save an estimated two billion dollars of fuel in 25 years! They always fight hard to damage the environment so they can get more power. In this case, they stole $800 million from the residents of WA, and caused almost 15 years worth of delays for passengers and 15 years of increased fuel due to planes circling because they couldn't land.

      The airport is now trying to add more efficient air conditioning so that planes don't have to run their APUs. The Sierra Club is fighting this with everything they have. We get hate calls from them nearly every day because we're trying to help the environment.