Slashdot Mirror
Two-Year Delay for SpaceX's Private Spaceport (blastingnews.com)
MarkWhittington writes: About a year and a half ago, with then Texas Governor Rick Perry and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in attendance, ground was broken on the first private spaceport designed to launch rockets vertically near Brownsville, Texas. At the time, SpaceX announced that it expected to launch a rocket a month, either a Falcon 9 or a Falcon Heavy in the skies over South Texas starting in 2016. But then, the Texas spaceport story fell off the face of the Earth, as it were. Fortunately, the Valley Morning Star has an explanation as to why things are taking so long.
for those of us wondering why its delayed
"310,000 cubic yards of soil will have been brought in...The purpose is to raise and stabilize the area before actual construction of the launch pad and associated buildings begins"
For the lazy and if I may pick the low-hanging fruit, here and here are some articles about soil surcharging. It's actually an interesting technique. They mitigate risk of shear related failure by stiffening the ground.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Even Elon Musk is having to wait until the dust (more specifically 310,000 cubic yards of soil) to settle...if I was the Texas DoT, I'd also be charging SpaceX for all the additional maintenance needed on S.H. 4.
Good luck shipping very sensitive payloads across Central / South American highways. However, lower fuel costs are the main driver of the sea-based landing pads. As of yet, there really isn't any Central / South American countries that aren't riddle with extreme corruption from bribery, that also have the technical and physical infrastructure to even begin anything like this. For V, the best "location" would probably be either Manta, Ecuador or someplace that is along the equator. But trying to build a space port at the mouth of the Amazon river would be incredibly difficult.
Plus, building rocket engines is incredibly difficult. Getting the right metallurgy is sometimes more akin to alchemy than just science, and takes years of experience for engineers to properly understand it. There is a reason so few countries have managed to get into orbit...
Only two states have locations that far south, and southern Florida real-estate ain't cheap.
It really is private and market driven. Contracts are determined by price and efficiency. Do you think the world exists in some sort of vacuum? You an economics major or something? There's a little something you should look into called "risk" and another called "political stability". Both of these are huge, huge factors in pricing. Namely, being priced out of the market. Want to open a factory in a cheap area that's not stable? There's an excellent chance the locals will look at you like a lion looks at a sick gazelle. You can put numbers on these factors and they'll tell you to build somewhere cheaper, i.e. less risky. Texas is an excellent place to do business, they don't look at companies as the enemy - which is not the case in many states in America.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Let's get a few things defined.
Tax breaks = subsidies.
Government contracts = honest revenue.
Getting said government contract because the deciding senator is from Texas = corruption.
The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.
Basically someone forgot that the soil needed to be much more stable than its default state. So they need to put a huge amount of weight on it to get it to settle, and then remove it and build the heavy stuff on top.
That's it.
ITAR regulations won't allow a US company to have the rockets built outside the US or to transport them to a launch site in another country. It's technology with military applications.
Err, minus the fact that all of Europe's space-bound payloads launch from French Guyana on the north-eastern coast of South America? Just north of the mouth of the Amazon? Both from europe-mfg Ariane 5 and Russian-mfg Progress launch from there, at least one launch a month. My buddy owns a boat down there and nearly caused them to scrub a launch as he had sailed in to their exclusion zone.
Fuel costs have NOTHING to do with launches, fuel costs make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the total cost of a launch -- about $350,000 per launch out of a $60-200 million dollar launch.
The problem of rocket technology is solved, both SpaceX, Blue Origin and NASA are all 3D printing (laser sintering) rocket engines now and have over a year of flight heritage
moox. for a new generation.
They're as private and market driven as they can be within the context of the law. You can't move manufacturing or launch to another country - it's illegal.
Elon is the new Steve, Bill or whatever. Once you're succcesful enough it is bound to happen. People are just that stupid. Once Elon gets old enough so that his success does not remind the haters about their failures things will settle. I mean people dont really hate Bill Gates anymore, he is just the old timer with shitload of money. But back in the day man....
Most people wouldn't consider 1,500 miles to be "just north", which is the distance from Kourou to the mouth of the Amazon.
so called private space companies are not really market driven, but depend mainly on subsidies from various levels and agencies of government......
So-called private companies don't really exist at scale. Not in the space industry, nor any other sector.
I guess most smaller businesses would probably fit your idealist capitalist purely market driven world view, but virtually all larger companies are deeply embedded in politics as much as business. They put money into politics in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions and get it out again in the form of subsidies.
And Ariane costs $10k/kg. This is who you want SpaceX to mimic?
"Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh)
Uh, because American government should make decisions that benefit Americans? Just like the Venezuelan government need only made decisions that benefit their people, and the Bolivian government need not take the interests of international corporations into account before taking actions that benefit their own people. I really don't get what is so controversial about helping your own side. The entire world does it. That's pretty much the entire point of a government, if they don't represent their own people then they're not legitimate and shouldn't exist.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Sounds like forward thinking. One could build a concrete foundation at sea level, but given that it's practically on a Caribbean beach, it makes sense to raise the whole site several feet to survive several storm surges in the upcoming years.
SpaceX is notorious for underperforming on schedule. I thought the whole idea behind commercial space was that they were fast. Bah.
You're right. Texas will sell their future dirt cheap by letting you pollute, dig, drill just about anything. They'll also let you pay workers less and not worry so much about things like safety and stuff. After all, humans are just another resource to exploit and Texas doesn't 'hate business' (though it does seem rather ambivalent twoards its actual citizens)
Awesome for corporations and corrupt politicians. Not so awesome for anybody who might have to live there in the aftermath 20 years from now.
Now if we'd only make it illegal for a few other industries we'd have a great economy.
But the species can't wait that long to explore space! Come on nerds! Let's unite our 3D printers and help SpaceX!
walmart isn't a private company. Is it owned by the government? No. Does it survives only via government largess? No.
As far as I can tell Walmart scaled pretty damn well.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
However, lower fuel costs are the main driver of the sea-based landing pads.
No. The sea-based landing pads are used for missions where the rocket doesn't have enough delta-V to get back to the launch site. I.e. landing downrange at sea enables them to launch heavier payloads.
I'm guessing that the delay at the Mars Crossing launch site is because SpaceX has its hands full on rocket upgrades and doing satellite launches to start realizing some money from their backlog, and the new launch site just isn't their highest priority as long as they are having no problems with launching from the Cape and Vandenberg.
In the long run, having their own site will give them independence from scheduling issues at the Cape and probably allow a faster launch cadence. In the short term, though, the Cape seems to be serving their needs.
In Maine, a few years ago, a revolutionary new bridge construction technique debuted;
- Truck in dirt to build the abutment ramps.
- Let them settle for a year or two. Instead of compacting,
- Begin building the foundations etc...
It looks wasteful, but it's efficient from a cost standpoint.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It's called "construction", did someone expect a spaceport to spring fully formed in the coastal swamps simply because SpaceX purchased the land?
Actually, for private Sat companies, all are free to launch from wherever. There is nothing that prevents them from finding a Sat company that does not make use of American tech and then launching elsewhere.
Just like there is nothing that stops you from sounding like a biggoted idiot.
And yes, we can see what happens to American businesses when we dropped all tariffs and others did not. Or when nations like China, Japan, India, South Korea manipulate their money's as well as dump on America.
And as to competing for business, American private, Russian gov owned, european gov owned , and Japan gov ownef all compete for american and european private SATs. However, when it comes to launching gov owned, then each nation, group uses their own. In addition, Russian and Japanese gov require their companies to use their own launch systems. So in what way is America not competitive?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.
That's abhorrent.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
walmart isn't a private company. Is it owned by the government? No. Does it survives only via government largess? No.
As far as I can tell Walmart scaled pretty damn well.
Unlike many businesses, they rely on the government to provide a good chunk of of their employees' benefits packages.
Link to him promising any of those things, please?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
There are private space companies, and there are private space companies. Take two examples:
ULA - United Launch Alliance - a merger of the rocket divisions of Lockheed Martin and Boeing that occurred to reduce competition in the US government launch market. Their launches are primarily to the US government and are based on "Cost-Plus" contracts, where ULA receives the "cost" to launch a rocket, plus a guaranteed profit margin. The "cost" is decided implicitly by ULA, through their design and staffing decisions (i.e. more complicated designs and more managers mean more money from the government). They have been receiving one billion dollars a year merely to maintain launch "readiness" without even launching any rockets. Their launch costs are the most expensive in the world.
SpaceX - a company founded by Elon Musk primarily from his own profits from selling Paypal. SpaceX developed their rockets from their own money. During the 2008 crash, SpaceX nearly went under, but was saved by a fixed cost contract to NASA to carry cargo to the International Space Station. Since then, most of their launches are for satellites for companies outside the US. They are the world's least expensive launch option, and that is without re-using their rockets. They are on track to be the world's premier launch service provider.
Which of these two companies fits the stereotype of government funded sloth?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Not in the slightest. Minimum wage was never meant to support a family. It was meant to say that below this amount is exploitation. (Whether true or not is a different story and a different debate.)
It is not up to a company to give a "living wage." You give money for services rendered. I'm fixing up my house. I barter and negotiate for services, same as Walmart.
You hurt your argument when you change the definition of subsidy to suit your whims. The more you do this the less you're able to speak to people with opposing views as you become more and more extreme (and less precise in your language and thinking).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
look at you like a lion looks at a sick gazelle
I think you meant wounded; even big cats would probably like to avoid food poisoning. :)
It is actually a distraction. Look carefully where the trucks are removing the earth, is the site of the future Musk secret underground lair.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Like the EU's Ariane rocket program? It has launch facilities in French Guiana South American.
During the 2008 crash, SpaceX nearly went under, but was saved by a fixed cost contract to NASA to carry cargo to the International Space Station.
That wasn't the first time NASA had awarded them a contract though, they were also awarded the COTS contract in 2006 to demonstrate commercial orbital transport services.
Since then, most of their launches are for satellites for companies outside the US.
Out of the 23 falcon 9 launches I count 12 where the primary payload was partially or wholly for the US government
2 NASA COTS
8 NASA CRS
1 USAF/NASA/NOAA collaboration
1 NASA/NOAA/CNES
The remaining 11 break down as
1 spacex demo flight
1 payload where the immediate customer was a private canadian company but the final user of the payload was the canadian government.
1 payload for the Turkmenistan National Space Agency
8 flights where the primary payload was communication or broadcast sattelites (sometimes with more than one sattelite per flight)
I agree that spacex is closer to what one would consider a normal private company than ULA but it's also pretty clear that a lot of spacex's revenue comes from the US government and that NASA took a punt on them. When the CRS contract was awarded Falcon 9 had not flown at all and Falcon 1 had only flown test flights.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
So in your view, some people should just crawl off and die if they get sick with a treatable illnesses.
That was a complete non sequitur.
I'm saying that the fact that whether we help these people or not - is not the same as subsidizing business.
I'm referring to the lack of clarity in your thought and understanding of the situation. Whether or not we should help people is one thing, but helping people is not the same as providing subsidies to a corporation.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yep. Dish Network, for example (actually Echostar, the Dish sibling which operates the satellites), has launched from Kazakhstan, China, French Guiana, and even the middle of the ocean (via Sea Launch). Wherever is cheap.
(And the sats themselves are US built, mostly by Space Systems/Loral, some of the older ones by Lockheed Martin.)
-- Alastair
Actually, only spacex is using it currently, the other agencies/companies are either researching it or has plans to use it for their next rocket. It's not like you can just 3d print a current design as the metal has different properties then current metal and the engine design has to take into account for it. SpaceX was the first to use 3d printing for it's engine and prove that it was viable hence why other players in the rocket business are only now using it for their next design whenever that comes out.
That said, rocket techonology is still incredibly expensive. You can't exactly say it's "solved" when there are still so much failure and uncertainties when creating new rockets. Current rocket design are just still too expensive and newer rocket designs are still fairly unproven. Even spaceX with all it's success is far from saying it's "solved" and constantly working on improving it. Also include the fact that only a few players in the world can actually make a working rocket, you can't really say the technology is wide spread as launching rockets is hard especially when you want human-rated rockets.
If you have a system where the government helps everyone with health care, then that indeed is not a business subsidy. Health care would not be considered part of the cost of having employees. (But that's "socialism", Derp!)
If instead you have a system where people are expected to obtain their health care coverage from their employers or with their own income, but a subset of employers arrange to both skip on those benefits and set pay so low that the employees are below the poverty line, then when the government steps in to provide that health care so people don't die in the gutter, it damned well is a business subsidy. Wal-Mart could not set its prices so low without offloading a portion of the cost of employment onto the government.
I don't think the government should help everybody with their health care. I think that would be foolish in a whole slew of ways. What was a non sequitur was saying that businesses are being supported (subsidized) by the govt because they don't provide said insurance to their employees, or because they pay their employees less than what you think is right.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I explained exactly how it is a subsidy under our system.
Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Ok. We will have to agree to disagree. A subsidy is a good or service given to a business. If we as a populace decide that everyone should have a particular benefit (say chocolate ice cream with bacon chips once a week) it is not the responsibility of companies to provide said benefit. IF their employees cannot afford said benefit (say they would rather spend their money on something foolish like vanilla ice cream with butterscotch sauce) then it is not a subsidy to the company if we (as a society) provide the chocolate ice cream to those people who did not buy it (for whatever reason).
Feel free to substitute health care for chocolate ice cream and internet/cable for vanilla ice cream.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
This isn't god damned ice cream.
As I pointed out above, that viewpoint only works as long as you're willing to let sick people who can't afford insurance on their Wal-Mart salary crawl off and die.
If this country isn't going to allow that, then it's a subsidy. So far, this country doesn't allow it (at least directly). You could work to change that if you don't want to see these subsidies. Maybe you could watch "Soylent Green" to get some ideas.
Aside from spacex , NASA is closest to operating a fully 3d printed engine; they were testing their prototypes last December.
Sorry I prefer freedom. If you want to take heroin. Be free to but I shouldn't have to support your foolish decision.
You want to eat poorly, be 150 pounds over weight. Go ahead. But when you turn 50 and are diabetic don't expect top of the line medicine.
Free Health care is not a right. You have a right to do with your body as you feel. You do not have a right to someone else's savings because you chose to live foolishly.
Now, could we, should we, chose to help? Yes. Of course. But are we obligated to help those who chose to drink themselves to death get a new liver? No. This has nothing to do with Soylent Green. This has to do with what's right. You have a right to drink and be foolish. I don't have an obligation to fix you up after you've pissed your body away.
You obviously disagree with me. Fine. I prefer freedom to life in a government subsidized cage.
Regardless of this disagreement you are foolish and ridiculous if you call helping others to be synonymous with a government subsidy to a corporation. Keep on saying such things and you will continue the divide that will lead this country to civil war. Stop it. Be precise with your terms. Giving aid to those less fortunate is not a subsidy to business.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond