SpaceX Brownsville Space Port Opposed By Texas Environmentalists 409
MarkWhittington writes "The proposed SpaceX space port in Brownsville, Texas, has run into opposition from an environmental group. Environment Texas is conducting a petition drive to stop the project. According to a news release by the group, the proposed space port, which would include a launch pad and control and spacecraft processing facilities, would be 'almost surrounded' by a park and wildlife refuge. Environment Texas claims the launching of rockets would 'scare the heck' out of every creature in the area and would 'spray noxious chemicals all over the place.' The petition will demand SpaceX build the space port elsewhere." I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
Oh dear! (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't want to scare Bambi now, would we?
HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't they know that they are standing in the way of the last escape from this polluted trap?
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Escape to where, exactly? Alarmist as they may be at times, environmentalists have a point: we all live here, and we haven't found anywhere else to populate. Evacuating the Earth is a fantasy even more remote from reality than the most extreme environmentalist solutions.
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:5, Funny)
Stop pissing in my Cheerios. I was raised on Star Trek, and won't take reality for an answer to faith in Scientism.
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:5, Informative)
Rocket launching is far more dangerous to humans than to wildlife.
The wildlife at Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral seems not too spooked by anything short of an actual launch, and then only briefly.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=27 [nasa.gov]
I specially like the shot of the Osprey nesting on the parking lot sign [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
It is strange that sites such as this become wildlife reserves. apart from occaionaly blowing things up or scattering vast amounts of toxic materials all over the place they are pretty much not interfered with by humans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/30/porton-down-staff-insect-monitors
Yes you do not really want to know what they did there. In America there are the Nevada test ranges that have similar status.
So you are equating some spilt rocket fuel with nuclear weapons testing then?
Overreach much?
Re: (Score:3)
All I can do is hear "Smoking in the Boys Room" [wikipedia.org] in my head.....
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, a spaceport needs lots of empty, human free area around it. That goes nicely with the interests of creating a wildlife preserve. A rocket launch isnt teribly more noisy or violent than a nasty thunderstorm. No, it's not ideal for the critters, but it's also good use of space when we have it.
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:5, Interesting)
We have pretty good amount of space here on earth too. We can colonise the sea for instance, or build down instead of up. There is lots of space available before we even come up with crazy plans to build O'Neil colonies in space.
Building into the ocean is much harder than it looks. It would be seriously cheaper to build at L-5 than to build a floating platform in the Gulf of Mexico (where the climate is at least fairly agreeable). If you could seastead in a fairly economical manner, it would be done in a serious way right now.
Antarctica is often suggested as a place you can go that is more hospitable to life than Mars, and I'd have to agree. The problem with Antarctica is that politically you can't do anything there because of the various treaties and a very real concern that a major colonization effort in Antarctica would result in a major world conflict like World War II over who owns what on that continent. Treating the place as a playground by scientists is one way to diffuse the issue and kick the can down the road for another century or more, where hopefully resources from space will make anything that can be obtained from Antarctica irrelevant.
Digging down is just plain stupid. Again, it would be done much more than it is if it was so easy. Most of the time people are digging up into the sky, which is something that has been happening for a couple of centuries and the last century in particular. While the very tall skyscrapers have all of the headlines, there are a great many smaller buildings that still go over a dozen stories and include both residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. Digging up into the sky does cost money and is only done in urban centers where it makes sense.
I might agree that an archology [wikipedia.org] could be built that could house up to a million people in a relatively small footprint of land and be able to be self-sufficient. These do require a substantial supply of raw materials and in order to get built require the urban services of a large metro area to at least get started until self-sufficiency is attained. For myself though, I think it will take building stuff like an O'Neill colony and learning how to manage resources effectively in space to be able to build proper archologies on the Earth. Furthermore, it will be from space where the raw materials to build stuff like that will come from rather than from digging stuff out of the ground here on the Earth.
Space is huge. So mingbogglingly huge that you can't possibly imagine just how much room you have to expand in space. The future of humanity is up there, not on this rock... which can be turned into an ecological reserve in due time. The only other end game if we stay here on the Earth is to do some sort of Malthusian genocide as the current growth of mankind can't survive on limited resources. In space there are more galaxies than people, and more stars in this galaxy than people. It will also take a long, long time before it can even be remotely considered to be crowded in this Solar System alone.
Re:HIPPIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Space exploration with today's technology might well be like trying to build a 747 in medieval times. It's not going to go any faster no matter how much money you pour into hot air balloon building. The best thing you could have done at the time was to fund research in physics.
If you really want to explore space, you probably need to invest in the LHC and similar fundamental research.
Re: (Score:3)
Space exploration with today's technology might well be like trying to build a 747 in medieval times. It's not going to go any faster no matter how much money you pour into hot air balloon building. The best thing you could have done at the time was to fund research in physics.
If you really want to explore space, you probably need to invest in the LHC and similar fundamental research.
I'll admit that spaceflight around the solar system today is very similar in nature to what it was like to travel across oceans in the 1600's. It is a dangerous activity that pushes the limits of construction technology as well as presents hazards that we haven't really experienced before, but that doesn't imply you need to stay on your behind and not try.
I completely disagree that basic research into physical science is needed at all. You don't need to know anything but celestial mechanics and perhaps a
Re:HIPPIE^WCOMMIE DIRTBAGS! (Score:4, Funny)
You Teabaggers are dumber than a broken record.
Make like a tree and get out of here.
Re:Oh dear! (Score:5, Informative)
Turns out it was one of the best things that could have happened down there.
Besides, I've seen Texan deer, your dog is probably bigger.
Re:Oh dear! (Score:4, Interesting)
Turns out it was one of the best things that could have happened down there.
How so? (asking because I've never been there)
Re: (Score:3)
I had the tour there and they seemed pretty serious about the environment - and they showed species which have found safe harbors in the space center area.
I'm no expert in evaluating if the environment would be better off without the Space Center and it was all propaganda but it very much seemed that they do care, and have attracted all kinds of life there. I guess you could build a space center in a way that you just make a giant concrete parking space out of every inch and make sure anything alive in the
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the same way wildlife benefit greatly from the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea [wikipedia.org]: No humans (or very few and infrequent), and no development.
It's a Wildlife *Refuge*, You Insensitive Clod (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the people of Brownsville living adjacent to the launchpad, where they'd get blasted with the noise and exhaust of a giant rocket all the time. Even the ones "looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring". Well, maybe the ones looking for the excitement.
Nor should they have to suck up exhaust and launch blasts. Neither should the animals in the park. I suppose these people think it's a good idea to put it into the park "because nobody lives there". But plenty
Is that even legal? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Funny)
It consists of unemployed people from California, who moved to Texas looking for work.
mod points... MOD POINTS....! (Score:2, Funny)
Where are you when I need you??
Re: (Score:3)
That and its tantamount in Texas to coming out of the closet as openly gay and vegan... "Hi, my name is Mike and I'm an environmentalist", "Oh, I need to introduce you to my cousin Steve!"
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
It consists of unemployed people from California, who moved to Texas looking for work.
You're not too far off from the truth there. While there's always been a small contingent of native liberals that gather in Austin, native Texans are vocally concerned about the waves of Californians moving to surrounding states. The thinking is that these people supported stupid policies that transformed California from the nation's envy to Greece with a Valley Girl accent, and now they're leaving California like locusts that have eaten up one field and are moving on to others. I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
Re: (Score:3)
Those policies would be the ones that stop the state from raising taxes, but insist on spending vast amounts subsidizing oil corps and taking on debt. Oh, and buying energy from protected monopolists like Houston's Enron.
In other words, what's wrong with California is failing to protect itself from what's most wrong with Texas.
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
You mean, a place with high-paying jobs that offer health-insurance, as well as some idea that just dumping crap into the environment might be a bad idea? That might actually be an improvement.
In the meantime, keep your paranoia to yourself.
It is not at all an unreasonable concern that people will vote for crap, California, and then when that place turns into the crap the voted for they go somewhere else and upon arrival they continue to vote for crap. Paranoia it isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Except as the post to which you blindly replied pointed out, California is a better place to live and work than Texas is.
It depends. California has a better climate and for now a larger economic base. BUT Texas is just a better place to live and work otherwise. And it has those high paying jobs with health care benefits that California just can't seem to keep around.
That's why there's such a huge outflow of people and businesses from California to other states, including Texas. There's an awful lot of "losers" who just can't make it in California, but have no problems in other states like Texas.
What is meaningful is that California's doing great, except that some of its people refuse to pay in taxes what they consume in services.
Reminds me of the dead parro
Re:Is that even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Texas has a lot of hunting folks, and they tend to be in favor of preserving the environment . . . the environment is great hunting land.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh heck, just give 'em all SAMs and they can go hunt launching/landing spaceships. Problem solved.
But wait... which environment? (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess which 'environment' they're trying to protect?
That's right: the oil fields environment!
Re:Move along.. (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing wrong with having a little concern about the local wildlife. That said, SpaceX is providing a variety of exceptional opportunities for Texas, the Country, and the World. The infancy of private space exploration demands special consideration. Bring in the Nature Conservancy, identify any endangered species (if any are present, and move them someplace quieter.) Raise up a volunteer army on conservation folk (from other states ;-) and erect some noise barriers (or create anti-noise if that's a viable alternative. Take reasonable measures to make both sides good neighbor and let the good times roll.
Mojave? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mojave? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now, Kennedy is also in the middle of a wildlife preserve, as is the Stennis Space Center where they do engine testing. Animals don't have the heck scared out of them at either location. Nor are their noxious chemicals spread all over.
Actually, they do spread noxious chemicals all over. Such as those caused by the shuttle. [popsci.com] I'm not saying it is something that can't be controlled with a little regulation, and besides, Brownsville is kind of a shit hole anyways. Nevertheless, launching rockets into space DOES spew large amounts of toxic chemicals all over the place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well SpaceX doesn't use solid rocket motors (which do produce some nasty chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, in their exhaust). Their Falcon rockets use liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene - if you burn these two together, the only stuff you get is H20 and C02.
Re:Mojave? (Score:5, Informative)
if you actually read what you linked to you would realized that the main problem had nothing to do with the shuttle or even the rocket launches them selves but rather a 50's-60's-70's NASA that was operating without any environmental regulation. SpaceX uses LOX / RP-1 which has about the same by products as Jets. While yes it will put more soot into the air per flight than a jet, i have a sneaking feeling that it will be no where near the total amount over time that is put into the air of normal large airport.
Again the cleanup you linked to was for a chemical that isn't used much any more and is a problem because they where pouring it into the ground when they where done because at the time no one knew any better.
Re: (Score:3)
Efficiency, thats why. (Score:5, Informative)
Science!
The mohave is hundreds of miles further away from the equator than Brownsville. The closer to the equator, the lower amount of fuel you need to reach certain orbits. The rotation of the earth adds to your relative speed, and this amount of speed provided increases the closer to the equator you get.
Why is it better to launch a spaceship from near the equator? [northwestern.edu]
Sweet dyslexia (Score:4, Funny)
I read that as Space Pot. Once again slightly confused, then disappointed by the actual issue.
Popular argument, non-sequitur (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I don't see how that follows from environmental concerns. Majority (or, in this case, nearly universal) support for something doesn't necessarily mean it's good in the long term.
Yeah, that's a good argument. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, why do people think "Because...Jobs!!" is a good way to make an argument?
Do you think it trumps the other concerns?
Maybe the problem is deeper than just one employer, maybe there are values other than just employment.
I know, putting people to work is the Holy Grail of society, but didn't we learn not to choose poorly?
Re:Yeah, that's a good argument. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Do you think it trumps the other concerns?
When the "other concerns" are scaring bambi and burning a little bit of kerosene... yes. It does trump those.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It turns out it affects jobs too.
"According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-n [environmenttexas.org]
Enviros who double-majored in Deceptive Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
First, you keep posting a link to the group's own press release. That's not exactly an unbiased source. But let's just go ahead and use their numbers, because they're still very obviously wrong about the overall argument.
Second, the Rio Grande Valley is much bigger than the 49 acres of land SpaceX is asking for, and the Boca Chica site is at the very farthest eastern end of the river. In fact, it's probably more accurate to think of Boca Chica as part of the Gulf Coast rather than part of the Rio Grande Valley. For reference, the Rio Grande Valley is the southern bottom of Texas, and Boca Chica is pretty much a dot on the Gulf Coast just above the Rio Grande. I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd guess that it doesn't quite make up 1% of the land area of the RGV.
Third, Boca Chica State Park is completely undeveloped, and is only open during the day. There are no, repeat, no facilities in the park. The road doesn't even stay paved up to the beach. Your precious hotel taxes? Not from Boca Chica, because there are no hotels there. Sales taxes? Not from Boca Chica; there isn't so much as a lemonade stand. So the money that your group is mentioning does not even a little bit come from Boca Chica, unless you count any parking fees, of which there appear to be none, as there don't appear to be any parking spaces at the park. It is literally just a beach.
So, no, it doesn't affect jobs, and I wish you'd quit tossing out the same link to the same damn article from TFA above. Here, here's a link from Texas Parks and Wildlife: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wildlife/wildlife-trails/coastal/lower/boca-chica-loop [state.tx.us]. Boca Chica is #43 on the map.
Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boca_Chica_State_Park [wikipedia.org]. You can see some pictures of the place. The only development appears to be two old wooden fenceposts which show where the road stops, and a rusted-out oil drum for trash. Unless Texas hired someone specifically to drive out, straighten the fenceposts, and empty the trash, Boca Chica does not currently offer any significant employment opportunities.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between actual productive jobs that produce wealth by by building useful things from raw materials, and service jobs that just move existing wealth around.
Services are how most of the wealth in the world is built.
move existing wealth around (Score:3)
There's a difference between actual productive jobs that produce wealth by by building useful things from raw materials, and service jobs that just move existing wealth around.
That is not how wealth works. Wealth is generated by trade. Taking something of little value to person a and moving it to person b who will value it more. Production jobs generate very little wealth by themselves. A farmer has no personal use for a silo of wheat. They can only eat so much bread. A miner has almost no use for several tons of iron ore. Value is created when these items are moved about.
Sounds like Spring Break on South Padre Island (Score:5, Informative)
'scare the heck' out of every creature in the area and would 'spray noxious chemicals all over the place.'
Yeah, that fairly describes anywhere hosting a spring break.
Oh, and Texas vermints and critters don't scare that easily. They won't give a hoot about no spaceman rockets.
not this crap again (Score:3)
environmentalists in texas is funny to me though, didnt think any of those existed.
Re: (Score:3)
Launches dont happen every day for one thing [...]
Well, I'm sure SpaceX would love it if they happened every day. Hell, I'm sure SpaceX would love it if they happened every hour, because they're getting paid for them.
Environmentalists can go play with themselves... (Score:5, Informative)
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
Re: (Score:2)
True but no need to put a launch complex in Texas just use the one in Florida. AKA We need the jobs since NASA got gutted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX want to own this complex, so unless that is on the table for the NASA launch sites...
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps they could just lease the pad, like Google [wikipedia.org] has done.
If it's good enough for Sergy, it should be OK with Elon.
Re:Environmentalists can go play with themselves.. (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that they want to be able to land the first stage for reuse, and if they launch from eastern Texas, then Florida is just about the right distance to provide a convenient landing point. If they launch from Florida, they don't have that.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly right.
Re: (Score:2)
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida doesn't seem to be an issue - pretty much everything Nasa has had in its arsenal has been launched from within it at some point or another, and we haven't seen any animals with nervous breakdowns...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
Re:Environmentalists can go play with themselves.. (Score:5, Informative)
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
It is, was and will be a pestilential swamp. Mosquitoes, alligators and snakes don't much mind rocket launches. There are a bunch of birds there as well but they seem pretty happy. The launch facilities really just take up a small strip of land right on the coast. Given the requirement to have lots of space around each launcher it's easy to go off a main road and end up in the bush and think you're in the middle of nowhere.
There was a fair amount of hazmat stuff from the 50's and 60's lying around but that's mostly been cleaned up now.
A bigger issue would be frequency of launches. The Cape really isn't very active these days and hasn't been for a long time. If SpaceX was pushing hundreds of launches per year, that might affect wildlife. OTOH, armadillos are pretty damned stupid. Not much bothers them. Not even Texans.
Re:Environmentalists can go play with themselves.. (Score:4, Informative)
Merritt Island was a mosquito laden swamp before NASA got there. Cape Canaveral didn't really change the area all that much - it turned into a mosquito laden swamp dotted with a couple of roads and gantries with the occasional fragment of shredded aluminum scattered about.
I know this because I grew up there. Actually a bit south of the Cape but close enough.
I don't know much about SpaceX's launch frequencies. My point being that an occasional launch - every couple weeks or so - didn't seem to affect animals much, but perhaps daily explosions might be a different issue. Of course, as I mentioned, about the only thing that routinely gets the attention of a 'dillo is a car tire directly overhead.
Remember what happened to Space Bat (Score:2)
We miss you Space Bat http://www.space-bat.com/ [space-bat.com]
Space ops are compatible with wildlife (Score:5, Insightful)
as demonstrated by the Merrit Island National Wildlife Refuge (http://kennedyspacecenter.com/wildlife-refuge.aspx), which includes Kennedy Space Center. Gotta say, when I watched the SpaceX launch last week, I didn't notice any 'gators running away in panic. Five minutes after the launch, the frogs were ribbiting just as loudly as before liftoff. In TX I suppose it will be 'dillos, and I doubt they'll notice launch operations any more than KSC's wildlife has over the decades of launch operations there.
Re: (Score:2)
I said this elsewhere, but ...
What's the condition of Merritt? Before and after NASA started launching from there? Is it affected the same way as Brownsville would be?
It's interesting that people on Slashdot pushing science uber alles don't seem to use skeptical, critical thinking when it comes to projects they support.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the condition of Merritt?
Looked pretty good when I was there a few years ago. Same with the adjacent NASA property. No sign of pollution (in Merritt and little apparent in NASA's property) and plenty of healthy plants and animals. I'm not any sort of professional observer in this sort of matter nor did I do an extensive survey, but a lot of stressed plant life or absence of wildlife would be hard to miss.
My take is that they're more at threat from the wild pig population than NASA there (I saw a family of pigs plus plenty of sig
Perhaps better than just compatible (Score:3)
I imagine having a spaceport wouldn't be all that different from having an airport, though an airport sees constant use and a spaceport would therefore seem to be less of a disturbance.
Throughout the world a lot of airports have wildlife preserves- especially wetlands- near them; that's the case for both of the airports closest to me. The airport and its noise make it less likely that people will drain/bulldoze the wetlands for housing developments. Bacteria in wetlandscan make short work of deicing chemica [earthtimes.org]
Have ya been to Brownsville? (Score:5, Informative)
Matamoros (Score:2)
SpaceX should build it in Matamoros, Mexico instead.
How can I tell the editors didn't RTFA? (Score:3)
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
From the press release:
Environment Texas also pointed out the risk the project poses to the south Texas economy. According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird.
If you wanted to argue about this you could try and find some evidence that a spaceport isn't actually environmentally hazardous, but I'm getting pretty sick of hearing unsupported nonsense about jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think a couple launches a year will hurt tourism? If anything, it will bring more tourism.
Re: (Score:3)
Then again they aren't building a nuclear weapons testing ground either so this won't be wiping all that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How can I tell the editors didn't RTFA? (Score:4, Informative)
Environment Texas also pointed out the risk the project poses to the south Texas economy. According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird.
It isn't apparent from this snippet, but the Rio Grande Valley isn't some tiny valley that will be entirely dominated by SpaceX moving there. The Rio Grande Valley [wikipedia.org] is actually a gigantic area composed of 4 entire counties and over 20,000 square miles. SpaceX is interested in a plot of land on the edge of that valley that occupies much less than a square mile, and will be firing its rockets (powered by oxygen and kerosene) out over the ocean.
Brownsville itself is super excited [facebook.com] about SpaceX potentially moving there, and I suspect few if any of the people involved with this "Environment Texas" group actually live in Brownsville.
Does SpaceX get the resources for free? (Score:2)
The citizens of Brownsville have these public resources, including the wildlife and pristine lands. Does SpaceX just get to consume them for free? Shouldn't they pay for what they use, instead of being given it by the local government as corporate welfare?
Re: (Score:2)
spray noxious chemicals all over the place? (Score:5, Insightful)
What noxious chemicals are they talking about? Somehow I suspect they lack the technical expertise accurately assess the environmental impact if they will make a ridiculous claim like that. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the technologies used in SpaceX rockets.
Re:spray noxious chemicals all over the place? (Score:5, Informative)
SpaceX rockets burn Kerosene and Liquid Oxygen. The combustion products are less harmfull than your car exhaust, and are dispersed mostly at high altitudes.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a good thing they don't burn hydrazine.
Timothy from Brownsville (Score:2)
I suspect a lot of people in Brownsville are instead looking forward to the jobs, tourists and excitement that a spaceport would bring.
I suspect Timothy has never been to Brownsville and is assuming everyone thinks like he does and doesn't weigh long-term costs and benefits.
And what will the people there think if their public lands are destroyed and 10 years from now SpaceX is out of business or simply thinks this spaceport is no longer viable? Maybe they get a better offer from another locale which makes the same mistake?
Kennedy Space Center Proves (Score:5, Informative)
The Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is adjacent to Kennedy Space Center and in fact, part of the refuge is also controlled by KSC. They have not experienced gloom nor doom there, and in fact, quite the contrary: Brevard County is one of the most biodiverse areas in the United States.
That's after launching 135 Space Shuttles, multiple Saturn rockets, as well as other programs that litter American history. And next to KSC is the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's launch area, a place that has seen too many rocket launches to mention.
One has to wonder what makes the Brownsville area so much more at risk.
Here are the environmental threats (Score:5, Informative)
Timothy's post linked to a partisan blogger. Here are the threats, per Environment Texas:
--- "According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes."
--- "The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird."
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has many objections:
--- "noise, heat, vibration, fencing and hazardous material spills" from the project could harm endangered and threatened species and diminish the value of Boca Chica State Park (near Brownsville) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge
--- TPWD previously declined SpaceX's request about "leasing parkland for the project"
--- "potential for significant contamination of very senstive resources in the event of a catastrophic event (i.e., hurricane)"
--- the area is "extremely susceptible to wildfires" which could result from launch failures and accidental fires
--- concern "with the loss of the function and value of all wetlands"
--- "recreational use of the TPWD lands as currently planned would need to be revised"
--- "the proposed project area is within the Central Flyway, a route through which over 500 species of birds migrate annually
All from:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge [environmenttexas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
That's some pretty impressive fearmongering on the part of the Environment Texas group, but if you read the actual letter [nasaspaceflight.com] from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department you'll see their supposed "objections" are actually fairly minor concerns and recommendations that they'd like SpaceX to address. If anything they're as concerned or more concerned about litter from the up to 10,000 spectators that might go to see launches than they are about the complex itself.
Seriously, not snark or sarcasm (Score:5, Informative)
"Scare the heck out of wildlife?" What does that mean in real actual sciencey terms? Because in five minutes I learned that they've got a decent-sized airport in the city, and the city scored the theoretical worst score on a scale of human impact on the environment, according to some arbitrary rating system invented by treehugging luddites. After about ten more minutes, I found that the actual site is so close to Mexico you'd need a passport if you tripped over a branch, and while the area is indeed known for its birdwatching potential, the only endangered thing even nearby is the ocelot, and that's well away from the site. The word "desolate" kept coming up, and this was in Texas tourism ad copy. Not "wild, windswept shores unsullied by the hand of Man." Just "ain't shit here; good fishin' though." So there's already frequent air traffic, and the area isn't exactly pristine wilderness. It's a rocket pad, not a strip mine. How much damage could it actually do to what appears to be a mile and a half of sand?
Meanwhile, it looks like the overwhelming majority of Brownsvillians not only want the site, but could use the revenue. Not to diminish the environmentalists' argument overly much, but from a distance this sure looks like a bunch of Birkenstock-wearing Austin treehuggers minding other people's business for them. I'll hazard a guess that Austin doesn't really need the money like Brownsville does, which makes it much easier for the Austin-based group to tell Brownsville that they ought to turn SpaceX (and any potential revenue) away.
Re:We're trying to leave... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with treating most of the planet like a national park, IMO. The problem is that ecosystems aren't as fragile as these idiots think. Just spraying "chemicals" all over the place isn't going to hurt anything, nor will some extremely occasional noises scare any animals or plants into oblivion. Different ecosystems may have achille's heels. Science will help to identify those and other issues.
What definitely kills animals and plants is deforestation and destruction of the landscape, mostly (excluding extractive industries) committed by poor and indigent people all around the world because of lack of alternative economic opportunities.
Re: (Score:3)
Damn chemicals, nature is already covered by dihydrogen monoxide!
Won't someone think of the plants animals?
Re:We're trying to leave... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation? Really?
You know how I can tell you're not very familiar with the former Soviet republics?
Re:We're trying to leave... (Score:4, Informative)
Are your statements based on any 'science'? Do you know that Environment Texas' are not?
We can observe the behavior of animals. And when we do, we see that they can ignore quite a lot. Similarly, given the chemical reaction that a Falcon 9 uses (burning liquid oxygen and RP-1), we can determine what sort of pollution it produces. Via science. That informs our judgments on this matter.
OTOH, Environment Texas just says stuff which with minor reflection on our part can be seen to be at the least exaggerated concerns. Hence, it is not scientific.
So you are saying that industrial and other economic activity by rich economies isn't the major source of environmental degradation?
Absolutely. Most desertification and deforestation occurs in the poor parts of the world. Similarly, the weakest environmental regulations and the lions share of pollution (real pollution that harms people now not the nebulous harm of emission of carbon dioxide) occurs in the developing world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They may actually have a point you know, since they actually live there. I don't have enough information either way, why so quick to judge?
Re: (Score:3)
They may actually have a point you know, since they actually live there.
As an aside, I glanced through every staff profile on the Environmental Texas website. Everyone there came from somewhere else, as far as I can tell. So while they currently live in Texas, as immigrants, I'd have to say that they're pissing in someone else's pool.
Re: (Score:3)
If they live there, it's their pool.
Unless you're insisting we give Texas back to the Indians Texans stole it from. Whichever particular phase of Indian immigrants that might be. Which maybe isn't a bad idea, considering Texas didn't get messed up until Texans took it over.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you care about the environment, it doesn't mean that you are a Luddite. Conversely, carefully and responsibly handling the use of technology to ensure it doesn't cause unintended harm raises the trust people have in technology as well as science, and thus making it easier to develop and implement technology. Instead of being careful, you seem to quickly and categorically denounce people who protest a technology project, not considering that sometimes, people who care about the environment actua
Re:We're trying to leave... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I don't understand is why they absolutely want this location despite the risk to the environment it would have. Isn't there plenty of suitable locations in the USA that aren't literally surrounded by a state park?
There are three things to note here. First, as AC noted, Brownsville is as far south as you can get in the lower 48. Closer to the equator means more delta v and more payload to orbit. Second, as has been noted elsewhere, JFK Space Center is downrange from Brownsville and allows SpaceX a convenient place for their reusable first stages to land.
Third, being surrounded by a refuge is a feature not a bug. Rockets have a risk of not going where they're supposed to. It's better to create a crater in a refuge than a crater in a town, as the Chinese found out.
Re:We're trying to leave... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are alternatives. There is a spot near Miami that is competing against Brownsville, as is a spot in Puerto Rico and the Big Island in Hawaii. Hawaii has been mostly ruled out (the locals don't want SpaceX there) but the other spots are open... and the folks in Florida just have to go up the coast a little bit to see how much money spaceflight can bring to a community. The point still remains that there aren't really that many suitable locations where this kind of thing can happen and to suggest otherwise is ignoring physics and geography.
You need a location that has a whole lot of water to the east and is as close to the equator as possible. That does exist in China, a few islands in the Pacific Ocean, South America (mainly Brazil but French Guiana works just fine for the ESA), and the above named locations. This spot in Brownsville is pretty unique in the world to be in a 1st world country and at a nearly ideal latitude with a whole lot of water to the east. The purpose of water to the east is because you get an extra push from the rotation of the Earth (that is the physics part) when you launch to the east. The geography part is important because you don't want pieces of the rocket landing on people either by accident (when a rocket blows up) or even semi-accidentally (when the 1st stage goes down... it has to go somewhere and hopefully not on somebody's living room). The part of Mexico a bit further south from Brownsville could also work.... but then again do you want to export even more jobs to Mexico?
What is interesting here, as pointed out by khallow and others, is that by building a major space port at this location and perhaps even expanding that spaceport slightly for other would-be launch operators, it will do far more to protect the environment and preserve the current wildlife in the area than almost any other kind of activity which could be done at the site. If anything, fewer roads will be built, fewer visitors damaging wildlife habitat, and less of an overall environmental impact on the area in general will happen than if the area was officially recognized as a national park or formal wildlife refuge and receive an official wilderness designation.
This isn't a risk to the environment, it is a huge blessing to it. Because it will be bringing in literally millions of dollars into the local economy it will also be huge to the tax base of the area providing schools, parks, and all of the social services that you could hope for and more... and a strong reason not to use the area near the space port for any other activity. If there is pollution in the wildlife area, the tax dollars will be there to treat raw sewage and deal with the other problems to clean the area up. Law enforcement will be active in getting people out of the area during a launch (and often even between launches) and hunting in the area simply won't happen because it will simply be dangerous to do that kind of activity. Simply put, capitalism will play its hand and force the area to become a wildlife area by the nature of the activity. This isn't like building an an oil refinery at this location, as its status as essentially a wilderness is the reason they want the site. The areas around this launch site will even likely be turned more into a wilderness as well.
Re: (Score:3)
A few dozen miles north means a few gallons more fuel. There are other locations even further South than Brownsville that don't have much wildlife, but just a little further North there's even more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why NOT put it overseas?
MAN needs to explore space. Mankind doesn't need the US to do it.
The mission of the USA is now enforcement of corporate globalism.
We have ceased to be a force for good, and development of other nations would provide greater benefit to humanity.
You aren't going to get a space ride unless you are insanely rich or an astronaut willing to devote decades to a career in hopes of getting a shot, so stop dreaming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is self contradictory.
If we're about corporate globalism then why would we pay any attention to these idiots?
The simple fact that the environmental movement is relevant in these matters renders your whole argument void.
Again... I don't want to argue with you or the environmentalists... You can have the earth. Keep it in good health.
Just let me leave. It might take another 10,000 years to get there... who knows. But we're leaving this mud ball and you're f'ing welcome to it. Do what you want so
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying this for years, but every time I do. I get modded down on /. for it. Seems like people are slowly realizing that environmentalists are nothing but short of a full load, and right up there with wanting humanity to deindustrialize.
Re: (Score:2)
How about doing some research and having a scientific basis for what you say.
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-near-texas-wildlife-refuge [environmenttexas.org]
What is the prerequisite for posting to Slashdot discussions?
Re:To coin a phrase: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To coin a phrase: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's why Northern California never builds anything. And why you live inside a a coal plant.
You corporate power worshippers are suicidal.
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly it. I often use the term "Omni-obstructionist" to describe these cretins.
Obviously, I'm not referring to intelligent people who have valid, supportable objections to things that are genuinely harmful. But based on the ignorant scare-mongering that permeates their press release that has been spammed in this topic any number of times, that does not describe these "Environment Texas" wackos.