4 ms·

The location isn't arbitrary. For safety reasons, rockets launch over the ocean; for orbital mechanics reasons, they launch eastward, starting as close to the e

The location isn't arbitrary. For safety reasons, rockets launch over the ocean; for orbital mechanics reasons, they launch eastward, starting as close to the equator as possible. Of all the places that a spaceport could reasonably be built, Boca Chica is the least-populated.

areoform 6y ago
This map highlights working land in Texas, including depleted land near the Ocean that would meet the requirements, https://www.txaglandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/texasmapimages.jpg https://www.txaglandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tex... These are the wildlife appraised portions of the state, https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/agricultural_land/resources/WLAppraisalRegions_MinAcreage.jpg https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/agricultural_l... There are plenty of other sites that satisfy the constraint. The only reason why Boca Chica was chosen was due to its closeness to the Equator. A few degrees upwards would not drastically change the ∆v savings acquired. Furthermore, a launch site does not need to be the development site for a rocket. They can test fire and develop rockets anywhere, including, say, farm land in Kansas or other states.
- jimrandomh 6y ago
  What is that first map a map of, exactly? It appears to be some sort of heatmap, but there's no label or legend.
  - areoform 6y ago
    Rapid conversion of working lands, http://www.nolandnowater.org/pdfs/TXLandTrends2014FactSheet9_30.pdf http://www.nolandnowater.org/pdfs/TXLandTrends2014FactSheet9... https://www.txaglandtrust.org https://www.txaglandtrust.org
- aw1621107 6y ago
  > This map highlights working land in Texas, including depleted land near the Ocean that would meet the requirements Texas probably isn't a great launch site since the vast majority of launch trajectories would take you over populated land at some point or another. There are only narrow corridors between Mexico/Cuba and Cuba/Florida, and that's far too limiting to be worth using as a launch site. > A few degrees upwards would not drastically change the ∆v savings acquired. In this case, moving the launch site from Boca Chica (approximate latitude 18.5 degrees north) to southern Texas (approximate latitude 26 degrees north) would result in geostationary orbit insertion burns needing 139 m/s of extra delta v. Not entirely sure how that translates to restrictions on payload size/lifetime. > They can test fire and develop rockets anywhere, including, say, farm land in Kansas or other states. They can, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. IIRC rockets tend to be awkward to move around, with larger ones needing barge access, so being able to develop, test, and launch from the same place probably makes things more convenient. Whether that convenience is worth the cost to the development area, though, is another question.
  - rurban 6y ago
    Texas is a great launch site because it has all the required points, south, starting eastwards over the gulf, corrupt government, no taxes. plus if you look at their the beaches it's clear that they destroyed all of them for oil/chemical/nuclear money over the decades already. Even if it has a wildlife protected area sticker attached to it, this means nothing in Texas.

areoform 6y ago

This map highlights working land in Texas, including depleted land near the Ocean that would meet the requirements, https://www.txaglandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/texasmapimages.jpg https://www.txaglandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tex... These are the wildlife appraised portions of the state, https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/agricultural_land/resources/WLAppraisalRegions_MinAcreage.jpg https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/land/private/agricultural_l... There are plenty of other sites that satisfy the constraint. The only reason why Boca Chica was chosen was due to its closeness to the Equator. A few degrees upwards would not drastically change the ∆v savings acquired. Furthermore, a launch site does not need to be the development site for a rocket. They can test fire and develop rockets anywhere, including, say, farm land in Kansas or other states.

jimrandomh 6y ago
What is that first map a map of, exactly? It appears to be some sort of heatmap, but there's no label or legend.
- areoform 6y ago
  Rapid conversion of working lands, http://www.nolandnowater.org/pdfs/TXLandTrends2014FactSheet9_30.pdf http://www.nolandnowater.org/pdfs/TXLandTrends2014FactSheet9... https://www.txaglandtrust.org https://www.txaglandtrust.org
aw1621107 6y ago
> This map highlights working land in Texas, including depleted land near the Ocean that would meet the requirements Texas probably isn't a great launch site since the vast majority of launch trajectories would take you over populated land at some point or another. There are only narrow corridors between Mexico/Cuba and Cuba/Florida, and that's far too limiting to be worth using as a launch site. > A few degrees upwards would not drastically change the ∆v savings acquired. In this case, moving the launch site from Boca Chica (approximate latitude 18.5 degrees north) to southern Texas (approximate latitude 26 degrees north) would result in geostationary orbit insertion burns needing 139 m/s of extra delta v. Not entirely sure how that translates to restrictions on payload size/lifetime. > They can test fire and develop rockets anywhere, including, say, farm land in Kansas or other states. They can, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. IIRC rockets tend to be awkward to move around, with larger ones needing barge access, so being able to develop, test, and launch from the same place probably makes things more convenient. Whether that convenience is worth the cost to the development area, though, is another question.
- rurban 6y ago
  Texas is a great launch site because it has all the required points, south, starting eastwards over the gulf, corrupt government, no taxes. plus if you look at their the beaches it's clear that they destroyed all of them for oil/chemical/nuclear money over the decades already. Even if it has a wildlife protected area sticker attached to it, this means nothing in Texas.