Two-Year Delay for SpaceX's Private Spaceport (blastingnews.com) 102
MarkWhittington writes: About a year and a half ago, with then Texas Governor Rick Perry and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk in attendance, ground was broken on the first private spaceport designed to launch rockets vertically near Brownsville, Texas. At the time, SpaceX announced that it expected to launch a rocket a month, either a Falcon 9 or a Falcon Heavy in the skies over South Texas starting in 2016. But then, the Texas spaceport story fell off the face of the Earth, as it were. Fortunately, the Valley Morning Star has an explanation as to why things are taking so long.
click bait (Score:5, Informative)
for those of us wondering why its delayed
"310,000 cubic yards of soil will have been brought in...The purpose is to raise and stabilize the area before actual construction of the launch pad and associated buildings begins"
Re:click bait (Score:4, Informative)
I've seen a runway site sitting under huge amounts of dirt to compress it for a year or two.
Delay seems reasonable (Score:3)
I'm guessing that the delay at the Mars Crossing launch site is because SpaceX has its hands full on rocket upgrades and doing satellite launches to start realizing some money from their backlog, and the new launch site just isn't their highest priority as long as they are having no problems with launching from the Cape and Vandenberg.
In the long run, having their own site will give them independence from scheduling issues at the Cape and probably allow a faster launch cadence. In the short term, though, th
You get it wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people who have never had to deal with it underestimate the complexities of soil. I've seen if cost companies ... 40 to 50 million dollars in the last decade. Well, I get paid to give advice, not to have attention paid to it. Doesn't fuss me. The other contractors who lost their jobs in the resultant debacle know who red-flagged the issue (me) while the spend was within the contingency budget. After I'd been poo-poohed, but re
Soil surcharging (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Soil surcharging (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Soil surcharging (Score:4, Informative)
Guessing they didn't do the geotechnical survey until the groundbreaking, but value engineering might also be at work. Until they hit a critical mass of launches it might be cheaper to use other facilities. So, decide to surcharge the soil for a couple years rather than piling and using thicker slabs, save lots of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Soil surcharging (Score:5, Interesting)
Or situations changed. Perhaps upfront they were planning to spend more by reinforcing with concrete pylons, and discovered this cheaper situation after the fact. Or perhaps they found they were getting better economics operating out of Florida than they expected and the Texas site became a lower priority. Or a whole host of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most likely explanations, and simplest ones, seems to be it was an oversight or that they are so cash starved the needed to slow down the spending.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, things have indeed changed. They're using a different landing platform in the Atlantic, they have been granted limited landing permission, some of the government contracting barriers have been removed, etc. And I'm sure there's a lot of things have changed that aren't readily visible to external observers.
Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?
The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better. then you don't slow down your increase in capability. Unless you are thinking there is some reason that launch economics at the new Texas site would be markedly worse, which brings to question the whole plan to begin with. Why not just cancel the thing if that is the case?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?
I did not miss it. Do you have some information that would imply that there is something specific about Florida that makes launching there all of the sudden so much more economical than what they'll have in Texas. And it is enough of a difference to cause them to not meet their stated schedules and delay so significantly?
It stands to reason that they wouldn't plan a facility in Texas if it were significantly less economical to launch from there for whatever reasons you are implying exist. And, there is n
Re: (Score:2)
What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?
They're renting facilities from NASA. Even from what is public we've seen significant events in that regard, including NASA approval for ground landings, relaxing of contracting requirements, etc. They're usi
Re: (Score:2)
What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?
Please. There is nothing you stated that points to a likely cost difference so significant that the company would shift plans, and none of those items is really new, so you are them implying that they had no clue of those factors when they started the Texas facility. Any of those items could be a bit cheaper in Texas just as much as more, and you have said nothing to show any reason to believe they are significantly different.
You are trying too hard to come up with 'possible' differences. Its a reach and
Re: (Score:3)
As for the dirt, yea. Even way inland, your looking at 4 to upwards of 8 meters till you reach bedrock and a lot of that filler is clay. You can't have basements here either, cause that clay will drain water into it daily.
My grandpa realized this 30 years ago when he built his home and spent an extra 30k drilling these 5 meter cement pillars for hi
Re: (Score:3)
"They are on the coast so when a rocket goes crazy, it can go crazy in the sea. "
That is also the attraction of the Brownsville site: it's like Florida but with better weather. Once the launch operation is up and running at Brownsville, there will be fewer storm delays.
Re: Soil surcharging (Score:1)
Along the Texas coast bedrock is 200-300 feet down. Those pillars are to give your foundation some grip and stabilize it. The reason Houston ports can dredge so deep is because they're sitting on sand. Nova chica is no different, ther is no bedrock near the surface. Most of Texas was a inland sea for millions of years, hence the clay and sand all the way up to Dallas.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA does not launch rockets from Houston. Mission Control was moved to Houston because LBJ had some friends that he wanted to make rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: subsidy driven business (Score:1)
Let's get a few things defined.
Tax breaks = subsidies.
Government contracts = honest revenue.
Getting said government contract because the deciding senator is from Texas = corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Err, minus the fact that all of Europe's space-bound payloads launch from French Guyana on the north-eastern coast of South America? Just north of the mouth of the Amazon? Both from europe-mfg Ariane 5 and Russian-mfg Progress launch from there, at least one launch a month. My buddy owns a boat down there and nearly caused them to scrub a launch as he had sailed in to their exclusion zone.
Fuel costs have NOTHING to do with launches, fuel costs make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the total cost of a lau
Re:subsidy driven business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And Ariane costs $10k/kg. This is who you want SpaceX to mimic?
Re: subsidy driven business (Score:1)
Aside from spacex , NASA is closest to operating a fully 3d printed engine; they were testing their prototypes last December.
Re: (Score:3)
However, lower fuel costs are the main driver of the sea-based landing pads.
No. The sea-based landing pads are used for missions where the rocket doesn't have enough delta-V to get back to the launch site. I.e. landing downrange at sea enables them to launch heavier payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:subsidy driven business (Score:5, Funny)
The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.
Re: (Score:3)
The world DOES exist in some sort of vacuum.
That's abhorrent.
Re:subsidy driven business (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: subsidy driven business (Score:1)
Actually, for private Sat companies, all are free to launch from wherever. There is nothing that prevents them from finding a Sat company that does not make use of American tech and then launching elsewhere.
Just like there is nothing that stops you from sounding like a biggoted idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Dish Network, for example (actually Echostar, the Dish sibling which operates the satellites), has launched from Kazakhstan, China, French Guiana, and even the middle of the ocean (via Sea Launch). Wherever is cheap.
(And the sats themselves are US built, mostly by Space Systems/Loral, some of the older ones by Lockheed Martin.)
Re: subsidy driven business (Score:2)
Re: subsidy driven business (Score:2)
look at you like a lion looks at a sick gazelle
I think you meant wounded; even big cats would probably like to avoid food poisoning. :)
Re:subsidy driven business (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They're as private and market driven as they can be within the context of the law. You can't move manufacturing or launch to another country - it's ill
Re: (Score:1)
so called private space companies are not really market driven, but depend mainly on subsidies from various levels and agencies of government......
So-called private companies don't really exist at scale. Not in the space industry, nor any other sector.
I guess most smaller businesses would probably fit your idealist capitalist purely market driven world view, but virtually all larger companies are deeply embedded in politics as much as business. They put money into politics in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions and get it out again in the form of subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell Walmart scaled pretty damn well.
Re: (Score:3)
walmart isn't a private company. Is it owned by the government? No. Does it survives only via government largess? No.
As far as I can tell Walmart scaled pretty damn well.
Unlike many businesses, they rely on the government to provide a good chunk of of their employees' benefits packages.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not up to a company to give a "living wage." You give money for services rendered. I'm fixing up my house. I barter and negotiate for services, same as Walmart.
You hurt your argument when you change the definition of subsidy to suit your whims. The more you do this the less you're able to speak to
Re: (Score:2)
So in your view, some people should just crawl off and die if they get sick with a treatable illnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that the fact that whether we help these people or not - is not the same as subsidizing business.
I'm referring to the lack of clarity in your thought and understanding of the situation. Whether or not we should help people is one thing, but helping people is not the same as providing subsidies to a corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a system where the government helps everyone with health care, then that indeed is not a business subsidy. Health care would not be considered part of the cost of having employees. (But that's "socialism", Derp!)
If instead you have a system where people are expected to obtain their health care coverage from their employers or with their own income, but a subset of employers arrange to both skip on those benefits and set pay so low that the employees are below the poverty line, then when the gove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I explained exactly how it is a subsidy under our system.
Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't god damned ice cream.
As I pointed out above, that viewpoint only works as long as you're willing to let sick people who can't afford insurance on their Wal-Mart salary crawl off and die.
If this country isn't going to allow that, then it's a subsidy. So far, this country doesn't allow it (at least directly). You could work to change that if you don't want to see these subsidies. Maybe you could watch "Soylent Green" to get some ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to eat poorly, be 150 pounds over weight. Go ahead. But when you turn 50 and are diabetic don't expect top of the line medicine.
Free Health care is not a right. You have a right to do with your body as you feel. You do not have a right to someone else's savings because you chose to live foolishly.
Now, could we, should we, chose to help? Yes. Of course. But are we obligated
Re:subsidy driven business (Score:5, Insightful)
There are private space companies, and there are private space companies. Take two examples:
ULA - United Launch Alliance - a merger of the rocket divisions of Lockheed Martin and Boeing that occurred to reduce competition in the US government launch market. Their launches are primarily to the US government and are based on "Cost-Plus" contracts, where ULA receives the "cost" to launch a rocket, plus a guaranteed profit margin. The "cost" is decided implicitly by ULA, through their design and staffing decisions (i.e. more complicated designs and more managers mean more money from the government). They have been receiving one billion dollars a year merely to maintain launch "readiness" without even launching any rockets. Their launch costs are the most expensive in the world.
SpaceX - a company founded by Elon Musk primarily from his own profits from selling Paypal. SpaceX developed their rockets from their own money. During the 2008 crash, SpaceX nearly went under, but was saved by a fixed cost contract to NASA to carry cargo to the International Space Station. Since then, most of their launches are for satellites for companies outside the US. They are the world's least expensive launch option, and that is without re-using their rockets. They are on track to be the world's premier launch service provider.
Which of these two companies fits the stereotype of government funded sloth?
Re: (Score:2)
During the 2008 crash, SpaceX nearly went under, but was saved by a fixed cost contract to NASA to carry cargo to the International Space Station.
That wasn't the first time NASA had awarded them a contract though, they were also awarded the COTS contract in 2006 to demonstrate commercial orbital transport services.
Since then, most of their launches are for satellites for companies outside the US.
Out of the 23 falcon 9 launches I count 12 where the primary payload was partially or wholly for the US government
2 NASA COTS
8 NASA CRS
1 USAF/NASA/NOAA collaboration
1 NASA/NOAA/CNES
The remaining 11 break down as
1 spacex demo flight
1 payload where the immediate customer was a private canadian company but the final user of the payload was the
basically... (Score:3)
Re:basically... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
On avg the state governments put about $0.30/gallon tax and the federal government about $0.50/ gallon
The US uses over 100 billion gallons of gasoline per year (134 billion in 2013). Thats about 100 billion in gas tax per year.
Fixing the bridges is about 140 billion according to CNN and that figure is probably exaggerated for effect.
And of course the $100 billion
Re: (Score:2)
Given the huge external costs of petroleum extraction and burning, logic would dictate that the gas taxes should be raised, and a *larger* fraction of that revenue should be siphoned off to cover costs other than highways.
For example, within a few decades the government is going to be footing a multitrillion dollar bill for building seawalls and dikes around much of the United States in a futile attempt to battle rising sea levels. The current gas taxes are a drop in the bucket compared to this looming cost
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to bet you that the rise in sea level is going to be far less that you imagine it to be. If you think it's important than start voting for Libertarian and Free Market candidates who feel that the government should not subsidize flood insurance
Re: (Score:1)
To clarify, the Federal government only taxes 18.4 cents/gallon, which when added to AVERAGE state taxes, puts close to 50 cpg.
And to jeti's point: The tax difference between diesel and gas is minimal, even though industrial trucking does exponentially more damage to roadways. One solution might be for industrial trucks (semis and 18-wheelers) to fill up at special pumps that record higher taxes per gallon (such as 60 cents per gallon instead of 20.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nominally, yes. They then write that off as a business expense.
I'm not positive but I know that we used to buy things without paying sales tax on it at all - tax exempt purchases, you need a business ID and tax number (which can be your SSN, by the way - should you opt to incorporate) and they'll remove the taxes from your purchase price. Given that I still "own" several corporations, i could probably do this but I just try to remember to keep applicable receipts. I'm not that much of a stickler and I'm pre
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, just as soon as Texas charges all companies special one-off taxes to cover use of public infrastructure. (/sarcasm). If you think that the Texas tax code is broken then it's better to fix that then come up with complicated system of one-off special taxes based on armchair analyses.
Re: Please Whipslash (Score:1)
Elon is the new Steve, Bill or whatever. Once you're succcesful enough it is bound to happen. People are just that stupid. Once Elon gets old enough so that his success does not remind the haters about their failures things will settle. I mean people dont really hate Bill Gates anymore, he is just the old timer with shitload of money. But back in the day man....
Re: (Score:2)
Link to him promising any of those things, please?
It's just engineering work (Score:3)
Basically someone forgot that the soil needed to be much more stable than its default state. So they need to put a huge amount of weight on it to get it to settle, and then remove it and build the heavy stuff on top.
That's it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And NASA is famous for performing on schedule by comparison?
Perhaps you meant to write "the whole space industry is notorious for underperforming on schedule".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
SpaceX seems to be focusing on the other two portions of the venn diagram of the launch industry, "cheap" and "right". Other space launch companies have focused on the "right" and "on time" portions for decades while completely ignoring the "cheap" portion of it. Given the choice I imagine most satellite manufactures would happily (as evidenced by SpaceX's current launch backlog) wait for a launch rather than pay in excess of 4 times as much for an on time launch. They're still ironing out some kinks, and
On the subject of building bridges (Score:3)
In Maine, a few years ago, a revolutionary new bridge construction technique debuted;
- Truck in dirt to build the abutment ramps.
- Let them settle for a year or two. Instead of compacting,
- Begin building the foundations etc...
It looks wasteful, but it's efficient from a cost standpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... The only bridge building techniques that I know of, that are novel and being pioneered in Maine, are the ones with the composite arch system and the one they did in Pittsfield on 11 that they called a "bridge in a backpack." (I don't know much about the latter, something about using some sort of cloth that gets filled with concrete and is supposed to have about twice the lifespan before needing maintenance.)
Which bridge do you speak of and how did you hear about this? Or are you the guy who used to l
Re: On the subject of building bridges (Score:2)
In particular, the bridge /overpass down by the new Mercy Hospital over 95.
But innovative are the timber bridges the UM engineering students figured out. Lots of small towns using that instead of concrete.
That's not a "delay" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)