Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump's Border Wall Could Split SpaceX's Texas Launchpad In Two (latimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the no-fly-zones dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Los Angeles Times A launchpad on the U.S.-Mexico border, which it plans to use for rockets carrying humans around the world and eventually to Mars, could be split in two by the Trump administration's planned wall... Lawmakers said they were concerned about the effect on the company's 50-acre facility after seeing a Department of Homeland Security map showing a barrier running through what they described as a launchpad...

James Gleeson, a SpaceX spokesman, declined to provide details on how the fence would affect the facility. "The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently requested SpaceX permit access to our South Texas Launch site to conduct a site survey," he said in a statement. "At this time, SpaceX is evaluating the request and is in communication with DHS to further understand their plans...." Musk is working on a new, more powerful vehicle known as Starship to eventually ferry humans to Mars. SpaceX recently announced that it would test the Starship test vehicle at the site in south Texas.

94 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious First Post by mykepredko · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have to do this to protect against illegal aliens.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re: Obvious First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That whoosing sound is the joke flying over your head.

    2. Re:Obvious First Post by magarity · · Score: 1

      You have to do this to protect against illegal aliens.

      One wonders exactly how aliens would apply for visas.

    3. Re:Obvious First Post by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      All he wants is a monument to his ego that he can stroke his micro-penis to.

      Too bad marrying a hot Slovenian fashion model half his age didn't check those boxes...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re: Obvious First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both said a border of some kind is a good idea. However, both did NOT say give me 5 billion or I shut down the government.

    5. Re:Obvious First Post by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't he get his head on Mt Rushmore? It could be a view of the back of his head. That'd be a lot easier to carve.

    6. Re:Obvious First Post by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Too bad marrying a hot Slovenian fashion model half his age didn't check those boxes...

      He's a 72-year old man with bright blonde hair (totally believable) so I think we both know he hasn't hit that in 10 years or more. She does not look like a woman who's gettin' it regular.

      And let's be real- Melania knew just where to dig for gold; she's no innocent babe who stumbled across a millionaire and it somehow just blossomed into a magical fairy tale romance. She wedged her way in and caused his 2nd divorce, essentially fucking her way to wealth in the most direct way possible.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    7. Re: Obvious First Post by youngone · · Score: 2

      Walls work great because a country is just like a golf course.
      If you go ahead and build the wall around all the ports and airports it will work great. Ports and airports are where the people and drugs come in.

    8. Re: Obvious First Post by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      That's only an issue now because of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re: Obvious First Post by PhilipGay · · Score: 1

      LOL. Thanks for proving his point repubtard. Keep sucking trumps dick. You saw how far that got stormy didn't you?

      Move to Venezuela you idiot. Trumps a great president and you just have T.D.S.

    10. Re: Obvious First Post by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      And you are full of shit... Liberal trash

      Thank you for that insightful and compelling rebuttal. I'll make sure to give it all the consideration it deserves.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re: Obvious First Post by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Move to Venezuela you idiot. Trumps a great president and you just have T.D.S.

      No thanks. As someone else remarked, I'd rather stay and fix things.

      Also, if you want to build a wall, why don’t you put Hillary’s emails at the border since nobody can get over them?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    12. Re: Obvious First Post by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Walls dont work. Thats why we already built a bunch at major border entry points, rich people like Nancy and Obama have walls around their mansions, jails have them, the military uses them in various forms for defense, golf courses for the rich use them, dog parks use them, the federal government uses them at high security facilities and so on.

      Walls work IF you have people guarding against attackers using ladders, tunnels, write cutters, or other tools/techniques to bypass, damage, or destroy the walls. In all the examples you gave except perhaps for the dog parks, there are people whose job it is to monitor the wall and act if they see someone climbing or breaking the wall.

      People have climbed over the wall around the White House. They were stopped by Secret Service agents. If the agents weren't present, the wall wouldn't prevent someone from trespassing. At best it stopped the lazy from trying to enter and slowed the determined attackers enough for the Secret Service agents to get into position.

    13. Re: Obvious First Post by sjames · · Score: 2

      The shutdown happened when the GOP controlled House, Senate, and the Oval office. It's the first single party shutdown in the history of the United States.

    14. Re: Obvious First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Walls work IF you have people guarding against attackers using ladders, tunnels, write cutters, or other tools/techniques to bypass, damage, or destroy the walls.

      Sure, as long as no-one makes any claims about the wall stopping drugs, because then the wall also needs to stop planes, drones, submarines and bribed border patrols.

    15. Re: Obvious First Post by PhilipGay · · Score: 1

      There surely were enough of them, but you may remember crooked Hillary deleted them before anyone could get to them.. They were probably about the fake dossier..

    16. Re: Obvious First Post by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    17. Re: Obvious First Post by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The shutdown happened when the GOP controlled House, Senate, and the Oval office. It's the first single party shutdown in the history of the United States.

      Even better, after the new congresscritters were seated January 3, 2019 and the House was officially under Democratic control, the new house voted to approve the Republican sponsored appropriations bill from the Republican controlled Senate, so it was still a single party shutdown.

      Mitch McConnell has very peculiar motivations.

  2. twofer clickbait article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trump and Musk in one story. This should bring out trolls and shills from every direction.

    1. Re:twofer clickbait article by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The word "iPhone" does not appear in the title.

    2. Re:twofer clickbait article by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      If only there was a way to pay for the wall in Bitcoin the trifecta would be complete.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. OK, but why... by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 2

    ...is Elon Musk building his launchpads partly in Mexico/within feet of the border? Isn't that a security risk to the launchpad?

    1. Re:OK, but why... by Strider- · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a few miles away from the border. The dirty secret behind this stupid wall is that it's often several miles inland from the actual border due to practical construction considerations.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:OK, but why... by dfm3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually visited the site last year...

      Someone once explained the physics to me, and from what I understand it's advantageous to launch a rocket eastward, and as close to the equator as possible, because you're using the earth's spin to give you a little extra speed. Otherwise you have to expend more fuel to generate enough speed for low earth orbit.

      Now, you don't want to build your facility in a location where if a rocket fails, pieces could fall onto populated areas, so you want to build near water. And most of the lower Rio Grande valley is either agricultural land, developed suburbs, or is marshy and easily flooded, so those make poor locations to build a launch facility. But there's a large river delta east of Brownsville that is undeveloped, has areas of relatively "high ground" (low gravel sandbars a few feet above sea level) and is not suitable for agriculture, so land is fairly cheap.

      As for security? A CBP agent stationed there told me that although you could wade across the Rio Grande (it's 50 feet wide and very shallow), almost nobody wants to... they'd have to cross miles of marshland north of Playa Bagdad and then bushwhack across a heavily monitored wildlife refuge, and nobody wants to do that. Somebody who is trying to cross the border outside of a port of entry (which is actually how most people with illegal intent enter the US) will generally avoid facilities with chain link fences and surveillance, because they don't want to draw attention to themselves... they just go to Matamoros and find an easier crossing close to the city where they can quickly disappear into the suburbs.

    3. Re: OK, but why... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      and the illegals stop traipsing though this land leaving trash, dead bodies, fires and a basic ecological nightmare behind

      A few centuries too late for that, don't you think? :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: OK, but why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do I know you've never lived around Indians before?

    5. Re:OK, but why... by caseih · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correct. Most illegal aliens entered the country at a port of entry and overstayed their visa. In fact the country of origin with the most number of illegal aliens in the US is.... Canada.

      Most drugs come across ports of entry, or by boat. There was a major drug bust recently along the southern border at a port of entry that reinforced that fact.

      NPR did a story a while back on a bit of border wall (already funded, not part of the Trump demands) that will soon cut right through the middle of one of the US's only butterfly sanctuaries. This will not only inconvenience the land owners and the many thousands of people who visit this place (including campers), but it will also cut off many animals from their only source of water, and interfere withe the migratory paths of many species. And even stranger, there were not any existing problems with hordes of illegal aliens crossing over the frontier there or drugs. One wonders why the administration was so bent on pushing this wall through in this spot. Doesn't make any sense.

    6. Re: OK, but why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's not a dirty little secret. One of those practical reasons is it allows the border patrol to patrol both sides of the wall.

    7. Re:OK, but why... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      How do you know the contraband the 'refugees' are carrying across the board is worth $10,000 per kilo?

    8. Re:OK, but why... by Crash+Dummy+Redux · · Score: 1

      But the idea that the wall is "miles" inside the US border is not true though.

      You need to have space between the wall and the border for all the mines that will be relocated from the Korean DMZ after Donald Trump gets Nobel peace prize for unifying the Korean Peninsula.

    9. Re:OK, but why... by rufey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed. The SpaceX property, according to Google Maps (plus code: XRWV+X3 Port Isabel, Texas), is situated north of the Rio Grande river, which *is* the border between the US and Mexico. The terminus of the Rio Grande river where it dumps into the Gulf of Mexico is right there, and from satellite images, the ground looks kinda like wetlands.

      Its located at the mouth of the river where it dumps into the Gulf of Mexico. The land looks like a mix of dry and marshy ground. The issue isn't that part of SpaceX's property is in Mexico (its not). Its that you can't build a wall like is being proposed in wet, marshy ground, so the actual wall will be north of the actual border, which means you can be on the south side of the wall and yet be standing on ground belonging to the US.

    10. Re:OK, but why... by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      You haven't apparently been paying attention to drug prices. good weed(nothing you would get from mexico) is about $2k/lb making a kilo about $5k and cocaine and heroin are $20k+ per kilo and its been a while but I would assume meth is still around $15-16k/kilo. So the monetary value of drugs somebody can carry across the border unless talking about weed.... Well I'm sure you know math.

    11. Re: OK, but why... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      In fact the country of origin with the most number of illegal aliens in the US is.... Canada.

      How do you convince yourself of such retarded shit? Is this like some new meme on the far left which I'm not aware of? Or did you just make it up on the spot and hope that nobody would question it?

      Mexicans make up half of all illegal immigrants, at around 5 million:

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

      The entire population of Canada is just over 30 million. Did you really expect people to believe that 15% of the Canadian population had illegally immigrated into the USA?

    12. Re:OK, but why... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Getting into orbit involves more than just going up. You need lateral momentum too. Gravity is always pointed straight down towards the earth, but if you are moving sideways fast enough, you'll "miss" as you plummet towards your doom, and if you always miss, we call that "orbit".

      That's the anyone-can-understand-it version. The more mathy types will understand that adding two perpendicular vectors gives a diagonal. If you know a kid at about the right stage of learning this sort of thing, and who is interested in rockets, you can sneak a preview of calculus into his education four or five years early by showing that adding the vectors of smaller and smaller time increments yields a curve - the limit as delta-t approaches zero.

      So that's why we launch most things to the east. The equatorial thing is for a different reason. Orbits are planar and that plane goes through the center of the earth (really the mutual center of mass of the system, but close enough). That plane also includes your launch site, so your initial orbit is inclined by the same amount as your starting latitude.

      Changing the orbital plane's inclination is the most expensive maneuver that a spacecraft might have to do, so we try to launch as close to the intended orbit as we can. For equatorial satellites, that is as close to the equator as possible. Add the desire to launch eastward, and the desire that the flight path not be over population (for safety) and you get Cape Canaveral.

      If you want a polar orbit, for example so that the earth's rotation will (eventually and repeatedly) bring the whole world under the lens of your spy satellite, you want a more northerly launch site so you get Vandenberg Air Force Base. It is only about 6 degrees further north, but it helps. The launch path is towards the south pole, over the ocean, again for safety.

      In reality, things are a little bit more complicated. Boost vehicles generally have a little bit more than the absolute bare minimum amount of fuel needed to reach the starting orbit. This capacity is used to buy the spacecraft a little bit more initial altitude, or to buy a slightly more desirable initial plane inclination, or to buy a little bit more initial circularity, or some combination of those.

      Regarding the wall, eventually the whole thing will need to be done. A while back, we built walls on the "easy" areas, but over time that traffic just diverted to more difficult and dangerous sections of the border. To illustrate this, at least one of the two kids who died recently crossed in an area that did not have a barrier because during the previous round of barrier construction, that section of border was considered to be too dangerous to cross on foot.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    13. Re:OK, but why... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Correct. Most illegal aliens entered the country at a port of entry and overstayed their visa.

      Is there a reference about this?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:OK, but why... by quonset · · Score: 1

      Unlike all those U.S. citizens supporting the con artist who, the moment the last government shutdown happened, went into Joshua Tree National Park and started cutting down the Joshua Trees, or who drove their ATVs and pickup trucks where they would normally not be allowed and dug large paths, or even created new roads by destroying the environment.

    15. Re:OK, but why... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      you can't build a wall like is being proposed in wet, marshy ground

      Everyone said I was daft to build a wall on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. And that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. MAGA!

    16. Re: OK, but why... by caseih · · Score: 1

      Nope didn't make it up. But I was clearly misinformed on that point.

    17. Re:OK, but why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You know, if we put the wall at the Canadian border, we could cover both borders for the price of one!

    18. Re:OK, but why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Before any of the walls, migrants would cross at convenient places. Well known routes. But there was a big push in the 80s and 90s to beef up border monitoring and funnel that migrants into the desert. The goal, which was not even kept that secret, was that the harshness of the desert and all the deaths there would be a discouragement to crossing the border. In other words, the politicians deciding on this wanted some migrants to die for what is essentially a low level economic crime.

      However this didn't work, people still make the crossing despite all the known risks. Today most of the big waves are not trying to cross in the desert, they're trying to get themselves turned in and apply legally for amnesty and refugee status. First thing they're doing is to find a border guard. They're not MS13 and they're not drug smugglers.

    19. Re: OK, but why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Generally easements are done with a legal process, if you can afford it. Eminent domain comes when the owner hasn't come to a sales agreement quickly enough for the government. For the wall, and a few other things, the feds can say "this is so vitally important we're just going to take it and later decide to pay you what we decide it was worth to you". It bypasses a lot of normal eminent domain processes unless you get lawyered up. And the government is going to say "this is a strip of desert so it's worth $2.50 an acre".Some lawsuits from Dubya's use of eminent domain to build parts of the wall are still ongoing. Usually eminent domain takes land from poor people who can't afford pesky lawyers. Freeways don't go through the middle of the rich enclaves. Eminent domain also must be approved by congress as well.

      You can bypass for a national emergency, which Trump seemed to hint at, but we're not at war or imminent war so the statute covering this couldn't be used (Trump seems to read a lot of Junior high School Level civics texts then explains stuff to the public as if they don't already know it, "not a lot of people know this, but...").

      There's a problem with just declaring a "national emergency". The snag is that when parties change power, the new parties retain the power. It's the height of naivete to assume your favorite party will be in power forever (which Newt learned too late). Thus the next presidency of... Bernie? could then use those power as well. Giving the presidency too much power is a terrible thing, no matter which party it is.

      Finally, for those with a real conservative mind set, eminent domain is anathema. It violates their sacred view of private property. Libertarians would explode at the idea of a government seizing private property by force. At the very least if Trump uses Eminent domain through Texas he's going to lose a lot of supporters, especially the more ideological and educated side of his base (which he may not care about to be honest).

    20. Re:OK, but why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Eventually you get enough wall sunk into the ground that it becomes solid!

    21. Re: OK, but why... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Well. Fair enough. I'm honestly at a loss as to how that could possibly have happened, but thanks for being honest enough to admit to your error.

    22. Re:OK, but why... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But why build in the US then? Is Musk afraid of building the launch site further south?

    23. Re:OK, but why... by clovis · · Score: 1

      ...is Elon Musk building his launchpads partly in Mexico/within feet of the border? Isn't that a security risk to the launchpad?

      It's not on the border.
      https://www.google.com/maps/@2...

    24. Re:OK, but why... by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

      Puerto Rico was a strong candidate but was less favourable for logistics.

    25. Re: OK, but why... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of Canadians who go to Florida, Arizona and such for the winter and overstay their visa. I've also heard somewhere that Canada is one of the major sources of illegals. The difference is that they are mostly illegal tourists rather then illegal workers so not considered a problem.
      Googling, I can't find much besides 65000-85000 Canadians living down there by one estimate.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    26. Re: OK, but why... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of Canadians who go to Florida, Arizona and such for the winter and overstay their visa.

      That would be quite the accomplishment given that they don't actually need a visa to enter the USA.

      I suppose that if they stay more than 6 months that would technically make them illegals, regardless of the fact that they didn't need a visa to enter. 6 months is a little longer than just "overstaying the winter" but OK. If you think the number of Canadian retirees illegally hiding out in Florida is even remotely close to the number of illegal Mexicans living in the USA ... you're not thinking very clearly.

      I've also heard somewhere that Canada is one of the major sources of illegals. The difference is that they are mostly illegal tourists rather then illegal workers so not considered a problem.

      You think that Canadians are sneaking illegally over the border ... despite being able to enter legally pretty much any time they want to .... and doing it order to go see the statue of liberty?

      Seriously?

    27. Re: OK, but why... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I said I had heard it somewhere, not that I believed it, though to a degree there is truth. Shit, I've gone across saying (and intending) it was a quick trip and then stayed a week, which strictly made me an illegal I believe. Even with out a visa requirement, you're supposed to declare how long you're planning on staying.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    28. Re:OK, but why... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Europe is up to similar things in places. Once we tightened port security a bit, people got desperate enough to start crossing the Mediterranean on dangerously undersized boats. In response to this, Italy - which has one of the most strongly anti-immigration governments in the EU - started deliberately hampering rescue and patrol boats. Refusing them permission to dock, threatening to charge the crew with aiding criminal acts. Again there is no secret of the intent: The more migrants die making their dangerous journey, the fewer there will be arriving in Europe.

      There was news coverage about a year ago of a clash on the US southern border - some activist groups were leaving emergency water caches at published locations in the desert, so immigrants trying to cross would be less likely to die. They also left hidden cameras, which captured the border patrol agents who then turned up to deliberately empty the water containers onto the ground.

    29. Re: OK, but why... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You have to say how long you're staying, yes, but I don't believe there's anything legally binding about actually sticking to what you tell them. I've done the same; half the time I don't really know how long I'll be staying. I'm pretty sure they only ask in order to make sure you're not planning on staying longer than the allowed maximum.

  4. Floodplains & new borders? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Apparently there are floodplain issues in the area which requires the wall to be built away from the border towards the interior of the US. As I understand it, SpaceX's property isn't on a floodplain but floodplains surround the facility. So to prevent excessive flooding/water build up the walls will have to built away from the border, further into US territory.

    My question is, does this mean that with the wall, will the US will be giving land to Mexico? If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours - does this apply here? By putting in border fencing/walls/barriers inside US territory cede the land outside the fencing/walls/barriers to Mexico?

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
    1. Re:Floodplains & new borders? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours

      Not true, presence of a wall somewhere on your property doesn't move the property line. Nor does the lack of a fence/wall prevent an adverse possession.

    2. Re:Floodplains & new borders? by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours

      Not true, presence of a wall somewhere on your property doesn't move the property line. Nor does the lack of a fence/wall prevent an adverse possession.

      That depends on many factors. It depends on how well-defined the legal boundary is, on how long the adverse possession continues, on what use the other party makes of the bit of your property, and more.

      I doubt you could find any competent attorney who wouldn't counsel you to immediately raise a complaint about the location of the fence. You might not have to insist on it being moved, but you almost certainly want to make it abundantly clear to your neighbor that you know where the actual boundary is, and make sure they and the relevant land registrar do, too.

      I almost had to go to court over a misplaced fence once, but avoided the battle by quickly moving the fence to the correct location when the land changed hands. In my case the issue was further complicated by the fact that the adverse possession was incorporated into a right-of-way... but when the farmer who owned the field behind my house sold to a real-estate developer the right-of-way was removed anyway; it became part of the backyards of a row of homes and a new right-of-way, on a paved suburban street, was added. My attorney counseled me to quickly move the fence after the property changed hands and before construction started. The developer still might have tried to dispute the change, but it put them in the position of trying to move an established boundary marker that also matched the legal boundary -- an easy argument for me and hard for them. In any event the developer never contacted me and my new neighbor never knew there had been any dispute. Possibly the farmer never told the developer about it.

      If I'd waited until a house was built and sold and then tried to assert my ownership of part of my neighbor's backyard, my lawyer says I may well have lost, even though the legal description of the actual boundary was clear. The nature of the use of the adverse possession (right-of-way, at first, residential property, later) and the way you go about trying to fix it matter. Grabbing it back while it wasn't used at all was the ideal solution.

      In the case of a wall between the US and Mexico, that boundary has its own problems, but the wall clearly wouldn't change anything. In the area where the border is defined by the course of the Rio Grande, there have been many disputes over land that switched sides when the river moved. In 1970 a treaty was signed that settled all the previous disputes and established clear rules for addressing new changes in the river course. This is well settled, and the presence of a wall on US soil wouldn't change anything.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Floodplains & new borders? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      A right-of-way or easement through a piece of property is a nightmare waiting to happen; sounds like you dodged a bullet there.

      I doubt the developer could have claimed adverse possession since the right-of-way was documented (so there was permission to use it, it wasn't adverse). Plus it would have delayed his project for years.

      If I'd waited until a house was built and sold and then tried to assert my ownership of part of my neighbor's backyard, my lawyer says I may well have lost

      Yup, that would put the burden on you to prove that the old fence was not marking the boundary per an earlier agreement. Moving it shifted that burden to the developer.

    4. Re:Floodplains & new borders? by Hall · · Score: 1

      If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours - does this apply here?

      Another "not true" reply here. At least in most localities, zoning rules require any structures - a fence, wall, shed, garage, etc - to be setback a certain distance from any property lines.

  5. If true... by tomhath · · Score: 1

    If true, this is still a big "Who Cares?" story.

    I find it hard to believe the southern boundary of the launch site is open to Mexico today.

    1. Re:If true... by Sique · · Score: 1

      Actually, it isn't. Just the border wall has to be built a few miles away from the actual border at this point due to flooding considerations.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. Here's a map link by Mandrel · · Score: 1

    Location of the SpaceX site: https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

  7. Second Priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    But that's not his main goal. His main goal is to "drain the swamp" by putting in charge a corrupt businessman who won't reveal his tax returns to the public.
    #soDrained

    1. Re:Second Priority by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      you're confused, president is under no obligation to make tax return public.

      And there's no obligation for him not to, so why won't he release them? After all, he promised he would. So any rational person has to ask- just what is he hiding?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Second Priority by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you go for presidency on a platform to "drain the swamp" (ie combat corruption) most sane people would argue that transparency is a key component in that fight.

      Alas, even though he showed his tax returns, this precedent was somewhat set by Obama. How? He promised to run the most transparent administration in history, and wound up running the least transparent... at least until this one. I don't argue that it excuses anything, but it does make that argument a lot more difficult to carry off.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Second Priority by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh "precedent" was set long before... but it was just a cutesy. There are bigger things to worry about with Trump than tax returns.

      Hiding? the government does get to see them

      believing any politicians promises will lead you to disappointment

      Obama was a lying sack of shit too

  8. There seem to be some disputed facts here? by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Lawmakers said they were concerned about the effect on the company's 50-acre facility after seeing a Department of Homeland Security map showing a barrier running through what they described as a launchpad..."
    Does it? Let's check this out: As you can see on the wiki about the South Texas site ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and a map of the site from SpaceX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... show that the launch sites (ostensibly the "pads") are just south of Brazos Island State Park pretty much right on the coast, with the control center buildings almost directly west of them. The launch area is about 2.8 miles north of the Rio Grande, which is actually the border (but the Trump wall wouldn't of course be precisely in the river, it would logically be set back somewhat).

    Yet https://www.usatoday.com/borde... USA today says:

    The Texas fencing is full of gaps.
    The border fence begins in Texas, but it's miles inland from the border's edge at the Gulf of Mexico. Elsewhere, fences start and stop with huge gaps in between. This is all pedestrian fencing, pictured in red on the map, designed to stop people from crossing

    ...with the diagrammed fence just east of Brownsville, complaining that the proposed fence starts "miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico"...ie 10-12 miles from the SpaceX site, and nearly 15 miles from the pads themselves.

    So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.

    Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      'the diagrammed fence just east of Brownsville, complaining that the proposed fence starts "miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico"'

      That location is the start of a currently exisiting section of wall.

    2. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Wait -- are we talking about the *existing* border fencing, or the "wall" which Trump wants to build?

      If we are talking about a map of the *planned* route of the *new* wall, a map showing that wall through the facility would be a legitimate concern.

      Like all good political slogans, the "wall" adjusts to fit the needs of the moment and audience. It can be an unbroken concrete barrier stretching from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific, or it can be a much more realistic patchwork of physical barriers and electronic surveillance (like Israel uses on its border with Lebanon). The president has even uttered the phrase "virtual wall" a few times, although now that Pelosi has announced willingness to consider such a thing it's probably off the table.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      The site is in a saltmarsh estuary, on a narrow spit of sand. There isn't much "around" the launch pad to build anything without being in the muck.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by quantaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.

      Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.

      Yes, the currently proposed and constructed wall starts a dozen miles west of the SpaceX facility.

      Now DHS and CBP is proposing even more wall and fencing (after all, the usual narrative includes walling the entire border). And one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's plenty of "around" around. Just not much solid ground.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."

      Link? Map?

      Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Some Democrats say DHS was surveying their property.
      We don't know what "their property" encompasses, but Democrats are insisting that it's going to go "over a launch pad"...when SpaceX isn't saying anything, and the geography of the zone would seem to suggest there's no reason for them to build there.

      That would seem to be the pretty much standard definition of "disputed facts" (or someone is lying).

      And no, of course we would never see the cadre of folks that cheerfully lied daily during the Kavanagh character-assassination session, lie to torpedo the building of the wall, would we?

      --
      -Styopa
    8. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      "one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."

      Link? Map?

      The link is the article this story is based on.

      And there's no map because there is no publicly available map yet. We're talking about the map that DHS is developing for the next set of walls.

      Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.

      There's a wildlife park directly below the SpaceX facility. They might be planning to send the fence north because a) putting a fence through the middle of a wildlife park is really bad PR, and b) it might be a wildlife park because it's really hard to build on, unlike the terrain SpaceX built on.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.

      But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no?

      Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:There seem to be some disputed facts here? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.

      But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...

      Except that elected officials have seen a map showing the wall going through the SpaceX launchpad and DHS requested access to survey the property.

      What more evidence do you need that DHS is considering a wall through the SpaceX facility?

      it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no? Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?

      Well no, the goal is to raise the alarm and stop a stupid policy decision before it's gone too far to be stopped.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  9. !Viva la maquiladora espacial! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    We can't read the linked article because it's paywalled, but did SpaceX actually locate half its facility in Mexico? If not, then any wall that does get built will not divide the facility. If it actually does straddle the border, then just set the Mexican half up as a maquiladora.

    1. Re:!Viva la maquiladora espacial! by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      No, it is a couple of miles inland from the border.

      And it really isn't like anyone was planning to build the wall through the launchpad either. The article says that they've been contacted about letting people in to do a site survey but haven't yet.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  10. Re:Floodplains & new borders? Asylum Corridor by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 2

    >> If I was to build a fence inside my property,
    >> after a number of years the land would
    >> become legally my neighbours

    Adverse Possession is what you refer to. In most states your neighbour has to possess that property, adversely. You can put a fence anywhere you want on your property without giving any land to anybody. However there is a problem for 45 with this - if an alien gets on USA property the alien can claim refugee status. Build that wall miles inside the USA then have border patrol agents mainly along the wall and not along the actual border seems like an invitation to asylum seekers. Screw the wall, patrol the border.

  11. Re:Floodplains & new borders? Asylum Corridor by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    If an alien was already in a safe country where they could have claimed refugee status, they can not travel further into the next country to claim refugee status. Mexico is letting in all these refugees from Central America. it is their responsibility to give asylum.

  12. Re:Floodplains & new borders? Asylum Corridor by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 2

    As I understand the international law (IANAL) a person seeking refugee status can do it at any NON adjoining country. Mexicans can't claim refugee status in USA, Guatemalans can't claim in Mexico but they can here. Should Mexico allow them transit to the USA? I think not, but what will you do with a Guatemalan that is HERE claiming refugee status? You must let them in, while the validity of the claim is investigated. If you don't like that you must change international law and agreements.

  13. Re: Exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    SpaceX has spent years surcharging the soil (compacting it) to support the weight of the launch pad and rocket. There is swamp to the north and south of the compacted land, making it undesirable to build a wall elsewhere. Invocation of eminent domain could try to make use of this wonderfully compacted land.

  14. No it won't. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    It won't be cutting anything in half since it will never exist. This isn't a taunt, it's simply a political reality because if it was ever going to happen then it would have happened when Republicans controlled both chambers of congress. The reality is that neither party really wants the wall but Republicans in congress are demanding it now because they know there is no danger of it being built and only wish to be viewed as in favor of it.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:No it won't. by snapsnap · · Score: 1

      They didn't have 60 in the Senate to beat a fillibuster, so your point isn't valid.

    2. Re:No it won't. by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      There was nothing to filibuster. They never broached the subject at all.

    3. Re:No it won't. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      They never broached it because it had no chance. Both sides are posturing to make the other look bad in the run-up to 2020. At this point I think the Republicans are slightly ahead because they've reminded everyone why Pelosi was kicked out of the Speaker's chair eight years ago.

    4. Re:No it won't. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That might be the plan, but there's a wildcard in play: Trump. He isn't a conventional politician, he doesn't care to appeal to moderates at all, and he is unpredictable. It's quite possible that he will resort to extreme measures to build the wall, like declaring a state of emergency or reclassifying it as an anti-drugs measure. The resulting legal mess could take a decade to resolve in court through all the inevitable jurisdictional games and appeals, during which time it is possible that some part of the wall will be built.

  15. Re:Exactly. by Hall · · Score: 3, Informative

    Would someone PLEASE explain how a launch pad would be "cut in two" by a border wall that would sit on the US-Mexico border?

    I pay little to no attention to the subject of the proposed border wall but one part I understand is it won't be located exactly on the border. Two pretty simple reasons why it won't be - or can't be - are 1) physical barriers in the way. Part of the US-Mexico border is the Rio Grande River. Not going to build a wall in the middle of a river. 2) In order to build a fence, wall, etc, you have to work on both sides of the structure. That means workers would be in Mexico.

  16. Re: Floodplains & new borders? Asylum Corridor by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    As I understand the international law (IANAL) a person seeking refugee status can do it at any NON adjoining country. Mexicans can't claim refugee status in USA, Guatemalans can't claim in Mexico but they can here.

    No clue where you got that from. There is nothing even remotely like this in the international agreements. On the contrary, a guatamalan traveling through Mexico cannot claim asylum in the USA; he would be rejected on the grounds that he should have claimed asylum in Mexico.

  17. Re:Floodplains & new borders? Asylum Corridor by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    In most cases adverse possession is a few feet to maybe a few tens of feet of property. In this case, it's miles. Over time, I can definitely see the actual border getting fuzzier and fuzzier, as who is really going to care if someone is a few feet across the border if they're miles from you. Human nature being what it is, over time the border is going to be "over there, but we don't go there", and it will gradually creep closer and closer to the wall.

    As you note, it's a real issue due to the legalities of crossing the border onto US soil. Pop up a little shack, call in the doctor, and roll a very pregnant woman just across the border. Just clearly document that she's given birth on US soil, and boom, that kid's a citizen. Putting a wall on the border itself solves few problems. Putting one miles from the border doesn't seem to accomplish anything, and really seems to have more negatives than positives.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  18. Re:Exactly. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Also, unless you want a wall to be effective you have to exercise control of both sides of it.

    Put the wall right on the border and you have to have your own people violate the other nation's border any time they want to respond to what someone on the far side is doing. That makes it pretty trivial to dig tunnels, stockpile ladders, encourage anyone dumping trash and construction debris to do so against the wall to form a handy ramp(slow, but has the advantage of being really cheap to do over large areas and being carried out by the mostly-innocent activity of locals committing minor improper waste disposal; which makes shooting them a PR nightmare), etc. unless you are actually willing to commit a more or less unlimited number of provocative and illegal cross-border activities.

    Once you've set the wall back far enough that your jurisdiction actually covers the area where people might stage crossings or work to compromise it you end up with a nontrivial slice of your own territory on the far side of the wall.

  19. Would you get the joke if I said... by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    That the fence was needed to prevent problems with Uranus?

    Jesus, not everything is political.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  20. How about that by Z80a · · Score: 1

    You just get, and build the launchpad ON the wall.
    This way it is a wall AND a launchpad.

    Until System-D grows even larger and the wall becomes part of it as well of course.

  21. Who is the ultimate authority in the US? by quenda · · Score: 1

    Here on the other side of the planet, I was taught that the US is a representative democracy, with Rule of Law.
    So the president must obey the law, and the congress passes the law.
    Therefore, if congress opposes the wall, that should be the end of it.
    Surely the talk of emergency powers is a bluff, and it would never survive a court challenge?

    So why doesn't Trump just give up, and blame the awful congress for its failure? Surely all his advisers have told him it was a stupid idea that would never work?
    If he is serious about the problems of illegal immigration, why not look for more effective strategies? Whatever you think about migration, walls just don't work. Even the Soviets only walled Berlin, not the entire east-west border, which is a lot smaller than the US-mexico one.

  22. Re:Exactly. by sjames · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine Trump finds that much of an obstacle. We've already illegally fired less lethal rounds into a crowd in Mexico.

  23. Re:Exactly. by Geodesy99 · · Score: 1

    Hmmm ... "Once you've set the wall back far enough that your jurisdiction actually covers the area where people might stage crossings or work to compromise it you end up with a nontrivial slice of your own territory on the far side of the wall." .... Following that reasoning we could just pull the wall siting back to the White House perimeter, and be done with it! ( Mr. Burns voice ): Exxcccellent.