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.

Comments

Elon hasn't delivererd

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon hasn't delivered.

I'm shocked... At for stupid Slashdot has gotten.

click bait

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Re:click bait

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems odd that there would be so much hoopla over this spaceport 2 years ago when no one bothered to even check the ground before celebrating a "Mission accomplished" in Texas...

Re:click bait

[dbIII]

Makes sense.
I've seen a runway site sitting under huge amounts of dirt to compress it for a year or two.

Re:click bait

[RockDoctor]

Soil is a complex and very variable material. Well colour me surprised, not.

Most people who have never had to deal with it underestimate the complexities of soil. I've seen if cost companies ... 40 to 50 million dollars in the last decade. Well, I get paid to give advice, not to have attention paid to it. Doesn't fuss me. The other contractors who lost their jobs in the resultant debacle know who red-flagged the issue (me) while the spend was within the contingency budget. After I'd been poo-poohed, but retained, they sunk another 30 million bucks into the project before the soil support fell apart. The initial 10 million, they had contingency for ; 40 million they couldn't cover.

Oh dear.

What a pity.

Never mind.

Great photo

[Anonymous Coward]

Elon really does look ridiculous in that photo...

I mean there is going bald with style... And then there is Elon with his hair implants. A billion dollars can't but you dignity.

Re:Great photo

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he is an egotistical little man with a throng of idiot worshipers. You're going to have that kind of thing going on.

Keanu Reeves and Jim Carrey in the same movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bad Batch (2016)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt43...

Storyline:
"A dystopian love story in a Texas wasteland and set in a community of cannibals."

Genres: Romance

ROMANCE? HAHahahhahhah!

Production Co: Human Stew Factory, Annapurna Pictures, Vice Films See more Â

A production company called HUMAN STEW FACTORY? WTF?!

About a shit head.

[Anonymous Coward]

Que bom que vai começar o inverno, e essa merda vai embora daqui.

Soil surcharging

[Iamthecheese]

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.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

My question is why they did not know surcharging was needed to begin with?

Re:Soil surcharging

[aaarrrgggh]

Guessing they didn't do the geotechnical survey until the groundbreaking, but value engineering might also be at work. Until they hit a critical mass of launches it might be cheaper to use other facilities. So, decide to surcharge the soil for a couple years rather than piling and using thicker slabs, save lots of money.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

I'd be surprised if they chose a site without doing the survey. Although the process may be cheaper, multi-year schedule delays carry significant costs & risks. Maybe they just didn't realize how costly this would be and are minimizing the pain overall.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Rei]

Or situations changed. Perhaps upfront they were planning to spend more by reinforcing with concrete pylons, and discovered this cheaper situation after the fact. Or perhaps they found they were getting better economics operating out of Florida than they expected and the Texas site became a lower priority. Or a whole host of other things.

Re:Soil surcharging

[WarlockD]

Its the reason why the NASA space ports are at Huston and Cape Canaveral. They are on the coast so when a rocket goes crazy, it can go crazy in the sea.

As for the dirt, yea. Even way inland, your looking at 4 to upwards of 8 meters till you reach bedrock and a lot of that filler is clay. You can't have basements here either, cause that clay will drain water into it daily.

My grandpa realized this 30 years ago when he built his home and spent an extra 30k drilling these 5 meter cement pillars for his home. He hasn't had any foundation issues while our neighbor had to repair his 3 times over the same period.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Applehu Akbar]

"They are on the coast so when a rocket goes crazy, it can go crazy in the sea. "

That is also the attraction of the Brownsville site: it's like Florida but with better weather. Once the launch operation is up and running at Brownsville, there will be fewer storm delays.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

Is there any indication that the economics our of Florida have improved so much, or even changed? That seems unlikely, particularly with Musk's tendency to be over-optimistic with projections to begin with. If launch economics are better, then that is a reason to accelerate new launch capability, not delay it.

I think the most likely explanations, and simplest ones, seems to be it was an oversight or that they are so cash starved the needed to slow down the spending.

Re: Soil surcharging

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the Texas coast bedrock is 200-300 feet down. Those pillars are to give your foundation some grip and stabilize it. The reason Houston ports can dredge so deep is because they're sitting on sand. Nova chica is no different, ther is no bedrock near the surface. Most of Texas was a inland sea for millions of years, hence the clay and sand all the way up to Dallas.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Rei]

Actually, things have indeed changed. They're using a different landing platform in the Atlantic, they have been granted limited landing permission, some of the government contracting barriers have been removed, etc. And I'm sure there's a lot of things have changed that aren't readily visible to external observers.

Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?

The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better. then you don't slow down your increase in capability. Unless you are thinking there is some reason that launch economics at the new Texas site would be markedly worse, which brings to question the whole plan to begin with. Why not just cancel the thing if that is the case?

Re:Soil surcharging

[LWATCDR]

NASA does not launch rockets from Houston. Mission Control was moved to Houston because LBJ had some friends that he wanted to make rich.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it wasn't until they started fracking.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Rei]

The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better

Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better

Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?

I did not miss it. Do you have some information that would imply that there is something specific about Florida that makes launching there all of the sudden so much more economical than what they'll have in Texas. And it is enough of a difference to cause them to not meet their stated schedules and delay so significantly?

It stands to reason that they wouldn't plan a facility in Texas if it were significantly less economical to launch from there for whatever reasons you are implying exist. And, there is no shortage of demand for launches, so deferring Texas would only defer revenue and profits unless they don't need Texas at all to meet the entire demand, which is also pretty unlikely. I think it makes sense that if they can figure out how to launch economically from Florida, that they can from Texas as well. But if you don't agree, I'd like to hear why.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Rei]

I did not miss it. Do you have some information that would imply that there is something specific about Florida that makes launching there all of the sudden so much more economical than what they'll have in Texas.

What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?

They're renting facilities from NASA. Even from what is public we've seen significant events in that regard, including NASA approval for ground landings, relaxing of contracting requirements, etc. They're using a different drone ship now. And there's thousands of other factors that affect everything, some of which can't have been predicted in advance, others of which can readily shift - from local fuel costs to port fees to local taxes to crane rental costs and on and on ad nauseum.

It's ridiculous to assume that all costs for everything are going to be A) fixed in price, and B) equal in every location, and C) that plans never become overtaken by changing operational environments due to external factors.

Re:Soil surcharging

[Mr D from 63]

What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?

Please. There is nothing you stated that points to a likely cost difference so significant that the company would shift plans, and none of those items is really new, so you are them implying that they had no clue of those factors when they started the Texas facility. Any of those items could be a bit cheaper in Texas just as much as more, and you have said nothing to show any reason to believe they are significantly different.

You are trying too hard to come up with 'possible' differences. Its a reach and it flies in the face of the company's original plan to build in Texas. But OK, since we don't have the details we can speculate. Your speculation is as good as any, but if true then they really didn't do their homework when planning Texas.

And on top of that, it stands to reason that a new facility could incorporate all the lessons learned and operate at a lower cost. That's how it usually works.

The more likely reasons seem to be that they didn't plan for it, or they knew it was possible but decided to take the risk and not plan for it intentionally, or they are in a pinch and are delaying spending cash. Speculation as well, but no so far fetched.

subsidy driven business

[sittingnut]

so called private space companies are not really market driven, but depend mainly on subsidies from various levels and agencies of government.
wonder if they would have chosen this site(which seems to be the main cause of delay) if not for subsidies and benefits offered by texas.

btw if this was really private and market driven, and contracts determined by price and efficiency, spaceports will be situated in some other more suitable and cheaper country(central/south america?), most manufacturing will be done in asia, and most of the companies will be subsidiaries of asian industrial giants. perhaps some designing will be left in usa.
however there are some talk about private south koreans entering the market, so may be i am wrong about dependence of subsidies , but will admit that when it actually happens.

Re:subsidy driven business

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

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...

Re:subsidy driven business

[houstonbofh]

Only two states have locations that far south, and southern Florida real-estate ain't cheap.

Re:subsidy driven business

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[sittingnut]

your ignorant prejudice do not amount to facts; on highways in particular, and where there is presence and absence of corruption(vague term anyway, even subsidies are form of corruption) in general, among others,
specific location was mere speculation on my part anyway, point was locating in usa was not the market driven. btw if not central/south america, there is africa , former ussr central asia, etc, there is already esa's (somewhat subsidy driven) french guiana space center.

"building rocket engines is incredibly difficult ... takes years of experience for engineers"
are you saying only old government agencies can do it?
if so called private space companies in usa can do it, so can others elsewhere. if market driven, they can hire same engineers as usa ones, if necessary.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.

Re:subsidy driven business

[jeti]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Hadlock]

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

Re:subsidy driven business

[tsotha]

btw if this was really private and market driven, and contracts determined by price and efficiency, spaceports will be situated in some other more suitable and cheaper country(central/south america?), most manufacturing will be done in asia, and most of the companies will be subsidiaries of asian industrial giants. perhaps some designing will be left in usa.

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Most people wouldn't consider 1,500 miles to be "just north", which is the distance from Kourou to the mouth of the Amazon.

Re:subsidy driven business

[sittingnut]

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.

if it is "really is private and market driven"as you say , why not let companies decide on "huge, huge factors in pricing" unassisted by government ? why not let foreigners have legal right to fight for same business? why not let foreign spaceports right to launch for usa based businesses?
then if your prejudices about "risks", "political stability", local hungry "lions", etc are correct about all the eligible cheap areas outside usa, they will stay inside usa (even texas).
why does usa( and texas ) hide behind laws that cramp private companies and market ? answer that! politics? corruption? answer!

in usa, decisions in this business are made for political reasons and are government subsidy driven.
when those protections coddling the inefficient businesses, like spacex, are down and removed, you can make your case. but currently your argument can be made only by an ignorant person.
btw all can see what happened to most usa companies where those protections are not available. lol
   

Re:subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Rei]

And Ariane costs $10k/kg. This is who you want SpaceX to mimic?

Re:subsidy driven business

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if we'd only make it illegal for a few other industries we'd have a great economy.

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[hackertourist]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. The *planet* exists in some sort of vacuum. The *world*, with very few exceptions, exists on and around the surface of the planet.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[WindBourne]

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?

Re:subsidy driven business

[chispito]

The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.

That's abhorrent.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[catchblue22]

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?

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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).

Re: subsidy driven business

[Type44Q]

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. :)

Re:subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the EU's Ariane rocket program? It has launch facilities in French Guiana South American.

Re:subsidy driven business

[petermgreen]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Waffle Iron]

So in your view, some people should just crawl off and die if they get sick with a treatable illnesses.

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[AJWM]

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.)

Re:subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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.

Re:subsidy driven business

[Waffle Iron]

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.

Re: subsidy driven business

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from spacex , NASA is closest to operating a fully 3d printed engine; they were testing their prototypes last December.

Re:subsidy driven business

[GLMDesigns]

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.

basically...

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

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.

Re: basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ha ha ha.... Good lord, you crack me up.

Elon pay the government?? I don't think you understand anything!

Re:basically...

[spire3661]

They pay their taxes on fuel like anyone else....Those roads are paid for at the pump.

Re:basically...

[jeti]

They aren't. The tax on gas only covers a small part of the cost of road maintenance in the US. Also the wear of roads depends on the axle load with an exponent of four. It's an investment by the state in the hope to collect on other taxes as well.

Re:basically...

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Those taxes aren't taking into consideration thousands of pounds of dirt being hauled on one specific highway over and over again.

Re:basically...

[GLMDesigns]

The gas tax is put into a state and federal slush fund. If the gas tax was used only for the highways there would be a huge surplus.

On avg the state governments put about $0.30/gallon tax and the federal government about $0.50/ gallon

The US uses over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per year (134 billion in 2013). Thats about 100 billion in gas tax per year.

Fixing the bridges is about 140 billion according to CNN and that figure is probably exaggerated for effect.

And of course the $100 billion in revenue mentioned above does not count tolls.

Here's an idea guys: have the gas tax pay for the roads and bridges and if there is some extra use it buy land to add to national parks. Don't add the funds to a general slush fund.

Re:basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think trucks empty most of the time? Perhaps you could argue for an increase in the diesel tax on all vehicles but not on a specific company/individual.

Re: basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet, studies prove you wrong. In fact, logic would also prove you wrong. The last time we raised fuel tax was 1992. IOW, almost 25 years ago.

Re:basically...

[KGIII]

Nominally, yes. They then write that off as a business expense.

I'm not positive but I know that we used to buy things without paying sales tax on it at all - tax exempt purchases, you need a business ID and tax number (which can be your SSN, by the way - should you opt to incorporate) and they'll remove the taxes from your purchase price. Given that I still "own" several corporations, i could probably do this but I just try to remember to keep applicable receipts. I'm not that much of a stickler and I'm pretty lazy.

What I do not know is how this would apply to fuel as the taxes are added at the pump. It wouldn't surprise me if they had their own fuel depot and filled from there. In the case of my business, we simply kept applicable receipts and wrote it off at that point. We were not major fuel consumers or anything similar so we'd have not gone through any special means to get there.

Re:basically...

[Waffle Iron]

Given the huge external costs of petroleum extraction and burning, logic would dictate that the gas taxes should be raised, and a *larger* fraction of that revenue should be siphoned off to cover costs other than highways.

For example, within a few decades the government is going to be footing a multitrillion dollar bill for building seawalls and dikes around much of the United States in a futile attempt to battle rising sea levels. The current gas taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to this looming cost.

Re:basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify, the Federal government only taxes 18.4 cents/gallon, which when added to AVERAGE state taxes, puts close to 50 cpg.

And to jeti's point: The tax difference between diesel and gas is minimal, even though industrial trucking does exponentially more damage to roadways. One solution might be for industrial trucks (semis and 18-wheelers) to fill up at special pumps that record higher taxes per gallon (such as 60 cents per gallon instead of 20.)

Re:basically...

[Anonymous Coward]

If my back of the napkin calcs are correct just in the fuel tax state/federal governments receive over $107 Billion per year. That is about $27,000 per mile of road per year, sounds like plenty to me. I'd wager most of the problem is waste, I know a few years back when they were talking about redirecting some money to road work in my state it was quietly revealed that less than half of the fuel taxes made it to the roads, the rest of the money was sucked up in "administration" and funneled into states the general fund.

Re:basically...

[GLMDesigns]

No. If sea levels rise they rise. Good bye to most places below sea level. It would be like the moronic effort to save New Orleans over the last 80 years. It's the Mississippi fu(king Delta. You ain't gonna stop the river for very long with dikes.

I would be willing to bet you that the rise in sea level is going to be far less that you imagine it to be. If you think it's important than start voting for Libertarian and Free Market candidates who feel that the government should not subsidize flood insurance.

Re:basically...

[MattskEE]

Sure, just as soon as Texas charges all companies special one-off taxes to cover use of public infrastructure. (/sarcasm). If you think that the Texas tax code is broken then it's better to fix that then come up with complicated system of one-off special taxes based on armchair analyses.

moD 0p

[Anonymous Coward]

40,000 workst4tions and enjoy all the

Please Whipslash

[Anonymous Coward]

Please Whipslash. WTF is going on here? Everyone is hating on Elon. You promised to fix the moderation system and get rid of the ACs.

Re: Please Whipslash

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Re:Please Whipslash

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Administration,

(whining) something something people are being mean to me because I want to get to the front of the line to suck Elon's dick. I hate sloppy seconds. (pouting).

Signed,
Slashdot Users

Re:Please Whipslash

[KGIII]

Link to him promising any of those things, please?

It's just engineering work

[homb]

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.

Fort Musk, Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They never perform to schedule

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX is notorious for underperforming on schedule. I thought the whole idea behind commercial space was that they were fast. Bah.

Re:They never perform to schedule

[Rei]

And NASA is famous for performing on schedule by comparison?

Perhaps you meant to write "the whole space industry is notorious for underperforming on schedule".

Re:They never perform to schedule

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX seems to be focusing on the other two portions of the venn diagram of the launch industry, "cheap" and "right". Other space launch companies have focused on the "right" and "on time" portions for decades while completely ignoring the "cheap" portion of it. Given the choice I imagine most satellite manufactures would happily (as evidenced by SpaceX's current launch backlog) wait for a launch rather than pay in excess of 4 times as much for an on time launch. They're still ironing out some kinks, and they do need competitors to keep them honest, but no one who has been paying attention can say with a straight face that they haven't been a force for advancement (both in cost & technology) in the launch industry.

Two years!?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the species can't wait that long to explore space! Come on nerds! Let's unite our 3D printers and help SpaceX!

Delay seems reasonable

[XXongo]

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.

On the subject of building bridges

[rickb928]

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.

Re:On the subject of building bridges

[KGIII]

Hmm... The only bridge building techniques that I know of, that are novel and being pioneered in Maine, are the ones with the composite arch system and the one they did in Pittsfield on 11 that they called a "bridge in a backpack." (I don't know much about the latter, something about using some sort of cloth that gets filled with concrete and is supposed to have about twice the lifespan before needing maintenance.)

Which bridge do you speak of and how did you hear about this? Or are you the guy who used to live in Maine but moved away, the one that I spoke with a while back and forgot their name? (If so, don't be mad, I forget everything.)

Re: On the subject of building bridges

[rickb928]

In particular, the bridge /overpass down by the new Mercy Hospital over 95.

But innovative are the timber bridges the UM engineering students figured out. Lots of small towns using that instead of concrete.

That's not a "delay"

[Bugler412]

It's called "construction", did someone expect a spaceport to spring fully formed in the coastal swamps simply because SpaceX purchased the land?

Re:That's not a "delay"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "construction", did someone expect a spaceport to spring fully formed in the coastal swamps simply because SpaceX purchased the land?

I thought the Texas DOT purchased, and is developing the land.
SpaceX in an agreement with the Texas DOT that they will occupy, and use the facility.

Re:That's not a "delay"

[Bugler412]

fair enough, the "construction" statement still stands though, even if the land is purchased by others for that usage.

You get it wrong.

[TheDarkMaster]

It is actually a distraction. Look carefully where the trucks are removing the earth, is the site of the future Musk secret underground lair.

Re:You get it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone knows his layer is in island volcano. He tweeted about it.

Re: You get it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about the secret lair, not the public one.