5 ms·

Quick question - since it's South Texas and I can see the Gulf of Mexico in the screenshot... isn't that a little close to the water? Not just maybe global warm

Quick question - since it's South Texas and I can see the Gulf of Mexico in the screenshot... isn't that a little close to the water? Not just maybe global warming + sea level rises but storm surge from hurricanes. Or is that not a concern? Anyone with more knowledge on the topic could share?

sambe 6y ago
"What is striking about this architectural drawing is its compact nature, largely because SpaceX has limited land to work with at the facility and must include stormwater ponds to mitigate against flooding."
bryanlarsen 6y ago
Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. And you don't want to launch to the West so that you can take advantage of the Earth's rotation rather than fighting it. (Launch sites on the West coast are for polar orbits which launch either North or South). Given those requirements, there's no location that isn't vulnerable to hurricanes. Boca Chica actually doesn't get many hurricanes compared to Florida or further North on the Texas coast.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Thanks a lot, Bryan. I know/knew some of those things (like being close to water in general) - I guess I was concerned about how close it appeared to be :)
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. Not if you're Russia/China. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-houses-after-government-warning-to-residents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-house...
  - nickik 6y ago
    China is moving away from that as well. China did this because of the threat of capitalist invasion but the realize its dumb. Russia is a bit different and they couldn't really move it further east because it would be to far from their industrial centers. They had a hell of a time transporting the Buran system to launch already.
- asdff 6y ago
  Can you launch over the great lakes? Or a desert? Also, what about the east coast? Sure, there was Sandy, but it was nothing compared to what happens in the gulf with regularity. Part of my hunch is that the regulatory environment is favorable in nowhere, TX to bring in potentially polluting industry. No chance Elon could have had a launch site built on the tip of Montauk, for example, although he probably would have loved the press of him self driving from the city to there.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Launching closer to the equator is easier. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-impact-of-having-the-launch-pad-away-from-the-equator https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-imp...
  - baking 6y ago
    I think they would have to fly out between Florida and Cuba on orbital flights so a little more restricted than Cape Canaveral.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    I have to imagine one of the reasons you wouldn't launch of the Great Lakes is the absolute insane weather we get up here.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      I imagine the weather at Baikonur Kazakhstan and Vostochny Siberia is no better, and the Russians launch from there.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        Yea I'm not entirely sure. I see that Baikonur doesn't get a lot of precipitation, but that doesn't explain Amur Oblast which looks comparable to a place like Cleveland in terms of temperature and precipitation. I have to imagine that even if weather wasn't a concern (again no idea here just enjoying the discussion) - it would cost pretty much the same to build and launch from the Gulf Coast, so long as you don't get hurricane-d, and you can launch year-round (can you launch in snow?).
mooktakim 6y ago
I'm thinking maybe the solution would be simple as they'll just need to raise the platform and other areas by building up. The mostly empty land is not used for anything and allows for explosions without causing harm to people, they can be under water (maybe). You can raise the roads going to the platform too.
darknavi 6y ago
Not sure it is any worse than KSC in terms of proximity to danger water. Being on the cost is also nice because eventually they'll ship/fly the ships to the converted oil rig launch facilities.
- chasd00 6y ago
  fun fact, KSC is also a huge nature preserve. ...and there are alligators EVERYWHERE. Last time i was there (many years ago) they were basically as common as squirrels. Actually, i wouldn't surprised if they allowed hunters these days.
bewaretheirs 6y ago
By design, launch pads (and landing pads) will be more compatible with varying sea level than most other structures. Pads are generally flooded with water on every launch, starting shortly before the engines ignite. The water deluge system absorbs some of the energy of the rocket exhaust -- this reduces damage to both the pad and the rocket (from reflected sound).
Robotbeat 6y ago
Yeah, it’s a real concern (at high tide, the area around it is flooded), but SpaceX has traditionally addressed such things with a “we’ll just rebuild or adapt if/when that happens.” They built a huge, thin-gauge horizontal assembly building right on the old crawlerway at LC39A in Florida right by the launch pad. It could well be destroyed if a fully Fueled Falcon Heavy (or Starship) explodes or if a Cat 5 hurricane gives it a direct hit. Unlike the more hardened historic VAB that NASA uses. But SpaceX built it quickly and cheaply and it has stood for most of a decade already, so it seems to have been a fairly good decision so far.
baking 6y ago
They will truck in thousands of load of soil to build it up. The production site is probably in greater danger of flooding at the moment.

sambe 6y ago

"What is striking about this architectural drawing is its compact nature, largely because SpaceX has limited land to work with at the facility and must include stormwater ponds to mitigate against flooding."

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. And you don't want to launch to the West so that you can take advantage of the Earth's rotation rather than fighting it. (Launch sites on the West coast are for polar orbits which launch either North or South). Given those requirements, there's no location that isn't vulnerable to hurricanes. Boca Chica actually doesn't get many hurricanes compared to Florida or further North on the Texas coast.

ericmay 6y ago
Thanks a lot, Bryan. I know/knew some of those things (like being close to water in general) - I guess I was concerned about how close it appeared to be :)
ceejayoz 6y ago
> Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. Not if you're Russia/China. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-houses-after-government-warning-to-residents.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-house...
- nickik 6y ago
  China is moving away from that as well. China did this because of the threat of capitalist invasion but the realize its dumb. Russia is a bit different and they couldn't really move it further east because it would be to far from their industrial centers. They had a hell of a time transporting the Buran system to launch already.
asdff 6y ago
Can you launch over the great lakes? Or a desert? Also, what about the east coast? Sure, there was Sandy, but it was nothing compared to what happens in the gulf with regularity. Part of my hunch is that the regulatory environment is favorable in nowhere, TX to bring in potentially polluting industry. No chance Elon could have had a launch site built on the tip of Montauk, for example, although he probably would have loved the press of him self driving from the city to there.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Launching closer to the equator is easier. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-impact-of-having-the-launch-pad-away-from-the-equator https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-imp...
- baking 6y ago
  I think they would have to fly out between Florida and Cuba on orbital flights so a little more restricted than Cape Canaveral.
- ericmay 6y ago
  I have to imagine one of the reasons you wouldn't launch of the Great Lakes is the absolute insane weather we get up here.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    I imagine the weather at Baikonur Kazakhstan and Vostochny Siberia is no better, and the Russians launch from there.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Yea I'm not entirely sure. I see that Baikonur doesn't get a lot of precipitation, but that doesn't explain Amur Oblast which looks comparable to a place like Cleveland in terms of temperature and precipitation. I have to imagine that even if weather wasn't a concern (again no idea here just enjoying the discussion) - it would cost pretty much the same to build and launch from the Gulf Coast, so long as you don't get hurricane-d, and you can launch year-round (can you launch in snow?).

mooktakim 6y ago

I'm thinking maybe the solution would be simple as they'll just need to raise the platform and other areas by building up. The mostly empty land is not used for anything and allows for explosions without causing harm to people, they can be under water (maybe). You can raise the roads going to the platform too.

darknavi 6y ago

Not sure it is any worse than KSC in terms of proximity to danger water. Being on the cost is also nice because eventually they'll ship/fly the ships to the converted oil rig launch facilities.

chasd00 6y ago
fun fact, KSC is also a huge nature preserve. ...and there are alligators EVERYWHERE. Last time i was there (many years ago) they were basically as common as squirrels. Actually, i wouldn't surprised if they allowed hunters these days.

bewaretheirs 6y ago

By design, launch pads (and landing pads) will be more compatible with varying sea level than most other structures. Pads are generally flooded with water on every launch, starting shortly before the engines ignite. The water deluge system absorbs some of the energy of the rocket exhaust -- this reduces damage to both the pad and the rocket (from reflected sound).

Robotbeat 6y ago

Yeah, it’s a real concern (at high tide, the area around it is flooded), but SpaceX has traditionally addressed such things with a “we’ll just rebuild or adapt if/when that happens.” They built a huge, thin-gauge horizontal assembly building right on the old crawlerway at LC39A in Florida right by the launch pad. It could well be destroyed if a fully Fueled Falcon Heavy (or Starship) explodes or if a Cat 5 hurricane gives it a direct hit. Unlike the more hardened historic VAB that NASA uses. But SpaceX built it quickly and cheaply and it has stood for most of a decade already, so it seems to have been a fairly good decision so far.

baking 6y ago

They will truck in thousands of load of soil to build it up. The production site is probably in greater danger of flooding at the moment.