2 ms·

The main question is whether Texas gets to launch or if Florida and California keep a monopoly.

by adolph 4y ago

testbjjl 4y ago
Sounds like it’s not in your backyard so it’s not important, just business?
- adolph 4y ago
  I'd say YIMB but live further up the coast. I think: * there is a lot to protect there, especially the migratory bird path and turtle nesting sites * the FAA struck an honest deal to balance innovation with protection * nature is more resilient than people give it credit
  - 7952 4y ago
    Not all nature is the same. Wetland birds often have limited energy reserves, particularly if they have just migrated in. They evolved to take off when they are disturbed. Increase in disturbance can have a real impact on mortality. And the habitats are often very scarce. A single site can be very important to a species and host a significant proportion of a regional population. But the only way to know is to study it. My hunch is that construction will have a lot of effect on birds close to the site (say within a few hundred metres). But actual rocketry will be less of a problem as it is currently so irregular. Also, the presence of tourists may cause a lot of disturbance and closing parts of the beach, and banning dogs (scary to birds) could help a lot. Part of the solution could be making other parts of the reserve better.
AlexandrB 4y ago
Is there something about Boca Chica that makes it the only plausible launch site in Texas? I'm perpetually confused about Elon Musk's seemingly stubborn insistence on using this specific site.
- michael_j_x 4y ago
  I am sure any place that: a. it is by the sea so that they are not flying over populated areas b. it is remote enough so that a 1000tonne methane explosion will not endanger anyone or their property and c. it is close enough to civilization so that they have a good access to skilled and un-skilled labour will have the same issues as they are having in Boca Chica
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Due to the direction of rotation of Earth, for most launches you want to launch East-SouthEast. And you need a corridor ~1000 miles long, so that basically means you want to be on the Atlantic. Being on the Gulf also works, but it does limit you on available launch corridors due to Florida and Cuba being in the way. And you also need a 4 mile undeveloped radius from the launch site. It's really hard to find 8 miles of undeveloped East Coast coastline. OTOH for polar launches you want to launch North or South. Vandenburg is a great site to launch South from, but if Alaska is acceptable then there are many possible launch locations there.
  - valianteffort 4y ago
    How would one launch from Alaska and head southeast? Wouldn't that send you straight over Canada? I know of a small launchpad, Poker Flats which is north of Fairbanks but it's specifically for polar orbits. I think Kodiak has a launchpad as well?
    - adolph 4y ago
      Astra was the company attempting a launch from up there. It was a very austere site. The one that liftoff went sideways, then they lost another one launching from KSC. Rocketlab is launching the next couple payloads Astra had scheduled. https://spaceflightnow.com/?s=astra https://spaceflightnow.com/?s=astra
    - 0xffff2 4y ago
      For non-polar launches you generally want to be somewhat close to the equator. Alaska is only a reasonable launch site for polar North/South launches.

The main question is whether Texas gets to launch or if Florida and California keep a monopoly.

by adolph 4y ago

The main question is whether Texas gets to launch or if Florida and California keep a monopoly.

testbjjl 4y ago

Sounds like it’s not in your backyard so it’s not important, just business?

adolph 4y ago
I'd say YIMB but live further up the coast. I think: * there is a lot to protect there, especially the migratory bird path and turtle nesting sites * the FAA struck an honest deal to balance innovation with protection * nature is more resilient than people give it credit
- 7952 4y ago
  Not all nature is the same. Wetland birds often have limited energy reserves, particularly if they have just migrated in. They evolved to take off when they are disturbed. Increase in disturbance can have a real impact on mortality. And the habitats are often very scarce. A single site can be very important to a species and host a significant proportion of a regional population. But the only way to know is to study it. My hunch is that construction will have a lot of effect on birds close to the site (say within a few hundred metres). But actual rocketry will be less of a problem as it is currently so irregular. Also, the presence of tourists may cause a lot of disturbance and closing parts of the beach, and banning dogs (scary to birds) could help a lot. Part of the solution could be making other parts of the reserve better.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Is there something about Boca Chica that makes it the only plausible launch site in Texas? I'm perpetually confused about Elon Musk's seemingly stubborn insistence on using this specific site.

michael_j_x 4y ago
I am sure any place that: a. it is by the sea so that they are not flying over populated areas b. it is remote enough so that a 1000tonne methane explosion will not endanger anyone or their property and c. it is close enough to civilization so that they have a good access to skilled and un-skilled labour will have the same issues as they are having in Boca Chica
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Due to the direction of rotation of Earth, for most launches you want to launch East-SouthEast. And you need a corridor ~1000 miles long, so that basically means you want to be on the Atlantic. Being on the Gulf also works, but it does limit you on available launch corridors due to Florida and Cuba being in the way. And you also need a 4 mile undeveloped radius from the launch site. It's really hard to find 8 miles of undeveloped East Coast coastline. OTOH for polar launches you want to launch North or South. Vandenburg is a great site to launch South from, but if Alaska is acceptable then there are many possible launch locations there.
- valianteffort 4y ago
  How would one launch from Alaska and head southeast? Wouldn't that send you straight over Canada? I know of a small launchpad, Poker Flats which is north of Fairbanks but it's specifically for polar orbits. I think Kodiak has a launchpad as well?
  - adolph 4y ago
    Astra was the company attempting a launch from up there. It was a very austere site. The one that liftoff went sideways, then they lost another one launching from KSC. Rocketlab is launching the next couple payloads Astra had scheduled. https://spaceflightnow.com/?s=astra https://spaceflightnow.com/?s=astra
  - 0xffff2 4y ago
    For non-polar launches you generally want to be somewhat close to the equator. Alaska is only a reasonable launch site for polar North/South launches.