Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brownsville SpaceX Space Port Faces More Regulatory Hurdles

Posted by samzenpus on from the hurry-up-and-wait dept.

MarkWhittington (1084047) writes "It turns out that the recent FAA environmental impact statement that seemed to give a stamp of approval for the proposed SpaceX space port in south Texas is not the end of the regulatory process, but the end of the beginning. A story in the Brownsville Herald reminds us that the report has kicked off a 30 day review period after which the FAA can allow SpaceX to apply for a launch license to start work on the Brownsville area launch facility. And that in turn kicks off a 180 day process during which the FAA makes the decision whether or not to grant the required licensing and permits.

But even that is not the end of the regulatory hurdles that SpaceX must face before the first Falcon rocket roars into the skies over the Gulf of Mexico. The Longview News-Journal reports that a number of state and federal agencies must give their approval for various aspects of the space port before it becomes operational. For instance, the Texas Department of Transportation must give approval for the movement of utility lines. Environment Texas still opposes the space port since it is close to a wild life reserve and a state park. SpaceX has already agreed to enact measures to minimize the impact the space port would have on the environment, 'such as containing waste materials from the construction and enforcing a speed limit in the control center area.' Environment Texas is not impressed, however. Whether it is disposed to make trouble in the courts is an open question."

12 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Non News by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    These are all formalities.

    The US Government knows that they need SpaceX, and Texas definitely wants SpaceX to stay in Texas, and folks, both for the completely obvious reasons.

    Of course there are reviews to take place, and itâ(TM)s my guess that none of this is either a surprise nor going to be a roadblock to the SpaceX Thunderdome in Texasâ¦

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Non News by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's all pretty standard for any kind of large project. Why should a spaceport face less environmental review than a shopping mall?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Non News by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember "Love Canal"? This is what happens with no regulation, minimal regulation, or simply ignoring regulation.

      You mean the waste dump the local government pushed the company to sell to them and then built a school on, after having been warned that it was, in fact, a waste dump?

      Yes, if only government had been more involved in that debacle, it would clearly have been much better.

    3. Re:Non News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, the government's lack of involvement was quite distressing. They could have prevented the waste from being placed there, they could have removed the waste after it was placed there. They could have made sure the site was secure. They didn't. A company was allowed to put toxic substances in the ground, in a fashion that was simply inappropriate, and the standards of the time were wholly inadequate.

      And this was repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times across the country, in all sorts of circumstances. What, you think Love Canal is the only site on the Superfund list? It's not even the only site in Niagara that was operated by Hooker Chemicals. We're actually quite lucky that it was a school that suffered harm, people paid attention to it, rather than just brushed off.

      Though it still took until the 1980s for things to start to get done. Which meant that in several cases, the parties responsible for poisoning the environment can barely be identified. So the rest of us often end up paying for it.

    4. Re:Non News by kimvette · · Score: 2

      This regulation makes sense because it holds companies responsible and avoids further polluting an environment we've already damaged.

      Contrast that to idiots who want to block off-shore wind farms because it's "unsightly as I cruise in my yacht" and avoid new LNG depots because of unsightly tanks and extending gas pipelines to small towns despite it being a greener option than burning diesel to heat homes.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  2. Re:of course the environmentalists are against it by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 2

    I wonder if these environmentalists have ever been to Florida. Where they launch lots of rockets. Where they launch rockets right next to a wildlife preserve.

    Pretty sure quite a few of them go there to watch and cheer, then go home and say "not here!"

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
  3. Re:Shades of the Massachusetts' State Fire Marshal by Austrian+Anarchy · · Score: 3, Informative

    the Massachusetts' State Fire Marshall, an early form of busybody bureaucrat, forced Goddard to move and this is merely a continuance of that grand governmet tradition.

    Correction: my bad. The fire marshall only forced Goddard to move onto a military base, before he moved a few years later to New Mexico.

    --
    Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
  4. Re:of course the environmentalists are against it by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Most "environmentalist" concerns are NIMBY concerns.

  5. Mexico by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

    Would probably approve this in 24 hours.

  6. Re:of course the environmentalists are against it by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

    as long as you don't have disasters, wildlife parks are great place for rocket launches. You want a buffer of several miles between the rockets and the rest of humans... which means 80% of the land is left wild like at Kennedy.

  7. Texas has regulations? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    More seriously, I have always wondered why NASA didn't set up its Apollo-era launch facilities in Brownsville to begin with. It's as far south as you can get in the lower 48, it has open water to the west, and it doesn't have that terrible Florida weather that kept delaying every launch. Also unlike Florida, it would have been not nearly so far from the Houston command center.

  8. what? by thexfile · · Score: 2

    When did Texas start believing in science?