18 ms·

I think many of the issues that SpaceX has had with the Starship/Super Heavy project are due to the poor suitability of the launch/build site. The launch site i

I think many of the issues that SpaceX has had with the Starship/Super Heavy project are due to the poor suitability of the launch/build site. The launch site itself is tiny and directly adjacent to protected wetlands, the only access between the build and launch sites is via a two-lane public road which is the only access to the also-adjacent state park beach, etc. There were other sites under consideration, and I'm sure they had their reasons for passing on them, but it's hard to see offhand how they could be worse than Boca Chica.

bloopernova 3y ago
Are there any alternatives in the continental USA? Will the super heavy need to launch from as near to the equator as possible? Or does it require higher latitudes?
- AnotherGoodName 3y ago
  Any possibility of going outside Continental USA? A boat? Mexico?
  - marktangotango 3y ago
    Converted oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico: https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-coast-fleet-a-shortfall-of-gravitas-droneship-and-phobos-launch-platform/ https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-...
    - avmich 3y ago
      Elon recently admitted (again) the planned frequency of Starship launches could be too high even to Cape Canaveral (10/day), so ocean-based launch platform may become necessity. By the same logic Boca Chica doesn't look like a long-term high-frequency launch place.
      - mjevans 3y ago
        It does scream 'Research and Development' site way more than literal spaceport. If they get all the other issues fixed and the rockets are mostly reusable it might still be good enough as a production line.
  - ggreer 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure ITAR prevents US companies from exporting orbital rocket technology, as it's dual-use. Any government with access to a SpaceX rocket could learn a lot about how to develop long range missiles.
    - wil421 3y ago
      There’s a launch site in the Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands, and I’m pretty sure we don’t share tech with them. The ESA probably doesn’t share tech with the countries who host launches, IIRC they are French “territories” anyway.
      - rtkwe 3y ago
        I'd be wary of putting anything on an island chain like the Marshall Island. Their max elevation is only 10 meters and it's only going to get worse and they'll be hard pressed to build the sea walls needed to keep your space port open. It also doesn't solve the ITAR issues which are strict when it comes to rocket technology because it's so close to the tech needed for ICBMs.
      - baud147258 3y ago
        Unless I'm missing something, the ESA does its launches from overseas France in French Guyana and since France takes part in building the Ariane rockets, they would already have access to the tech
      - ggreer 3y ago
        It's not feasible to transport Starship or Super Heavy halfway across the Pacific. Even if you could, the launch site on Omelek Island is part of the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site[1] which is controlled by the US military. The Republic of the Marshall Islands never has access to the restricted technology. It's hard to overstate how restrictive ITAR is. For example, ITAR covers generation 3 night vision devices. The US is hesitant to allow their export to allies, even for peaceful purposes.[2] When I bought a night vision device, I had to sign an acknowledgement that I wouldn't take it out of the country or even allow non-citizens to look through it (even on US soil). People caught violating these rules can be imprisoned for years. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Test_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missil... 2. From page 10 of https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/vector/Vector_2008_Issue-1_Jan-Feb.pdf https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/vector/Vect... "New Zealand operators must ensure restricted access to the goggles to comply with the US requirements."
  - adolph 3y ago
    SpaceX's first launch attempts "were launched from Kwajalein Atoll using the SpaceX launch facility on Omelek Island and range facilities of the Reagan Test Site." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 There is also the "Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), is a dual-use commercial and military spaceport for sub-orbital and orbital launch vehicles." Private companies Astra and ABL Space Systems have launched from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Spaceport_Complex_%E2%80%93_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Spaceport_Complex_%E2%...
    - lutorm 3y ago
      They gave up on Kwaj mostly from the terrible logistics and corrosive environment though. If it was hard getting an F1 there, I can't imagine the pain of assembling Starship...
      - adolph 3y ago
        Yes, even Alaska is a bit much. I think south Texas is a great spot along with KSC, Vandenburg and Wallops Island VA. In the big picture though, given part of Starship's goal is intercontinental travel, spaceflight will happen to and from everywhere on the globe.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Rumour is that SpaceX was seriously considering Puerto Rico before it secured the Boca Chica location.
  - avmich 3y ago
    USA (!) company Sea Launch managed to launch Zenit rockets from equator, so here's the precedent...
    - moberley 3y ago
      The Spaceport Company is also trying to develop a system for providing near coastal ocean launch facilities that they call it Spaceport as a Service. Their team includes a person who helped to write the Part 450 regulations while at the FAA previously. https://thespaceportcompany.com/ https://thespaceportcompany.com/
    - lstodd 3y ago
      IIRC it was Boeing and about a half of ex-USSR space industry. So not exactly or even mostly USA. I had a girlfriend back then whose father worked on the program. Great times those 1990s.
      - avmich 3y ago
        Yeah, that was a bit odd - the main part Boeing - seemingly! - provided was the connection to the markets and to the regulatory environment. The rocket was Ukrainian, with Russian engine and a booster stage, and the launch platform was of Norway origin. But the company was still based in USA.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    It isn't completely out of the question, Rocketlab has a launch site in New Zealand for instance. But, it does involve a lot of red tape, making it more expensive and less easy to move fast with. Probably also comes with a pretty limited list of options of significant US allies in stable regions (a large number of which likely aren't meaningfully cheaper/less regulated).
- rtkwe 3y ago
  Closer to the equator makes it easier to achieve an equatorial orbit and some slight benefits from the initial speed of the Earth's rotation but Super Heavy is so ridiculously over sized it doesn't need it. Things like the ISS are highly inclined so they're easier to reach from Russia's launch site as your latitude is essentially the default inclination you're be in when you hit orbit without spending the fuel to change it.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    Coastal is still better from the perspective of being able to safely abort. The further inland you go the more risk you run of failed launches resulting in big pieces of the craft coming down over populated areas.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
justrealist 3y ago
That's really not true, there's not a lot of open east-facing coastland anywhere in the US. Basically all coastlands are protected! The only "safe" place to launch is in Florida on land that was grandfathered into being an EPA-free zone back in the 1960s by NASA.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Almost like regulatory capture is a real thing. East facing also isn't even remotely a requirement for a launch, Israel launches westward on a regular basis
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Launching westward - on the Earth, from a non-polar site, to non-polar orbits - carries a large delta-v penalty, which translates into a huge payload penalty.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    And they lose about 20% of their cargo capacity because they're fighting the Earth's spin rather than taking advantage of it. It's not like the west coast has large stretches of undeveloped unprotected land either. The only real alternative is Alaska, and that's suboptimal for other reasons.
  - elteto 3y ago
    They aren't launching West because they want to, but because they _have_ to. A quick peek at the map will tell you why.
  - nine_k 3y ago
    Launching westwards is working against the rotation of Earth, not the cheapest approach. Israel just does not have a large body of water, or a,large desert, to let the spent booster descend (or crash) into. I bet their launches all turn eastwards after reaching sufficient altitude.
    - avmich 3y ago
mordymoop 3y ago
My family owns some land in south Texas and my subjective sense from dealing with that reality and talking to people in the area is that you can’t throw a rock without hitting a protected wetland. In practice, the ubiquity of environmentally delicate tracts of land seems to be used by the state to restrict or permit industrial activities arbitrarily, likely based on political favoritism. If you think this is hyperbole, I suggest you look into the details of the various solar power projects in Texas.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I think one could make the case that the government must compensate landowners for putative environmental restrictions. After all, if it's really that important, surely the taxpayers would be willing to pay for it, right? Why make the landowner foot the bill for something that benefits everyone else?
  - flerchin 3y ago
    You'd claim large losses for being prevented from placing a toxic waste dump on your property. I'd not want to pay for that.
  - poopbutt7 3y ago
    I can't find the article where I read it, but an interesting thing about the environment is that it's connected and we need it to stay alive.
  - epivosism 3y ago
    It would be a useful way to balance the costs vs benefits. If the gov't would put a price on it, I could violate the law here but compensate 100x as much elsewhere. My town has a law where if a tree is over 10" in diameter, there's a fine of 5k if you cut it down. But actually, it's worse, because if they find out you plan to do this, or did it intentionally, they can continue to fine you arbitrarily and force you to re-plant a tree! So you may own some land and have approval to build human habitation on it... but the tree prevents you, and you simply cannot do it via any legal means. Otoh if I could... pay the town 5k, and also permanent preserve say 100 trees elsewhere... I could use my own land. I love trees as much as the next one, but it's just a huge risk to allow them to grow on my land cause once they pass that threshold, I irrevocably lose control of land I've paid for and continue to pay a lot of tax on. It's also funny that if your enemy owns land, and you "help" his trees grow that thick without him knowing, property he planned to use as say an ultimate frisbee field will be permanently unusable for him, with no way out (except begging the city council, etc. and other behavior which is indistinguishable from bribery (money or psychologically))
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Humans using the land for recreation are far more destructive to wetlands than occasional rocket launches. Canaveral and Vandenburg have become de-facto protected wildlife refuges because humans with guns keep other humans away from them. I know that if I was a turtle at Boca Chica I would rather deal with the occasional rocket launch than the ATV's that also use the beach.
- gleenn 3y ago
  I was under the impression that regular use of rocket fuel made a lot of land extremely toxic.
  - nickff 3y ago
    It depends on the fuel, and the number of leaks (the latter usually being relatively high). Some fuels such as hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid are indeed quite dangerous, but Starship mostly uses methane and oxygen.
  - cdchn 3y ago
    I figure it would depend on the rocket fuel. LOX and Liquid Hydrogen/Methane probably isn't so bad, stuff like hydrazine I could imagine wouldn't be great.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      But hydrazine makes for a great ingredient in bottled water! https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/05/real-water-contamination-case-liver-illnesses/71077761007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/05/real-w...
  - oittaa 3y ago
    Why would you think that methane is toxic? I know the average american knows nothing about even 6th grade chemistry but these kind of comment pop up on every thread about rockets.
    - 3y ago
RecycledEle 3y ago
Any launch site needs to be in the CONUS, as far South as possible, and not subject to complaining neighbors. Boca Chica is perfect.
elteto 3y ago
Boca Chica is possibly the best launch location in the entire USA. Not many people realize that it is at the same latitude as Miami! The major issue with Boca Chica was the (literal) handful of residents who lived there, some of which refused to move when SpaceX first came around with offers to buy their land. I don't know what is the current status of them.
- dtgriscom 3y ago
  Is latitude the only prerequisite for a good launch location?
  - giantrobot 3y ago
    When doing eastbound launches the rotation of the Earth gives you some free starting velocity. This free velocity is higher the closer you are to the equator. Also helpful in eastward launches is ocean to the east of the launch site. If something goes wrong and your rocket crashes the debris is likely to hit uninhabited water rather than a suburb. The bonus velocity you get for launching further south can end up increasing payload mass by significant percentages or giving a smaller mass more velocity to achieve higher orbits with the same amount of fuel.
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    Latitude and also having ocean to the east so if something goes wrong, you can abort and not worry about debris falling on people.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Cape Canaveral wasn't a super attractive location in 1950 either; swamps, hurricanes, a lot of mosquitoes, hot summers. But, same as Boca Chica, it is on US soil, relatively close to the Equator and you can launch rockets eastwards over the sea. And in both cases, closures of the sea for launches don't disrupt important sea lanes.
- avmich 3y ago
  These days launching East isn't that important as it used to be at the height of the Space Race. However some 1/5 payload advantage is still interesting, so the factor is definitely taken into account.
chasd00 3y ago
I think the issues are political. Musk hasnt done himself any favors, it seems every person has a very strong opinion of him and therefore spacex, Tesla, and X. I’m sure there’s lots of “whoopsies” going on in the agencies looking at the launch license where approvals, reviews, or even emails stay in the todo pile for weeks. One dedicated person could double the time spent at any stage in the process.
- bluGill 3y ago
  This is why most CEOs and politicians never talk publicly except what the PR team and lawyers have carefully reviewed. When they give speeches they are written well in advance and carefully practiced. Once in a while a CEO or politician does and people at first like the candidness, but eventually (see Musk, Trump) they say something that someone doesn't like. Everyone has and thinks such thoughts that make us look really bad, but most of us get away with it because nobody is listening.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    > This is why most CEOs and politicians never talk publicly except what the PR team and lawyers have carefully reviewed. TBH, I find this sad. I remember when Marcus Lemonis got into trouble for a fairly benign off-hand remark. It really drove home the point how fickle people could be at the slightest perceived slight. Then add the media that loves to fan the flames and it ends up being a really unfortunate system. We need to find a way to get people back to honest and open dialogue.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >We need to find a way to get people back to honest and open dialogue. When have humans EVER had honest and open dialogue about anything?
      - bluGill 3y ago
        Every once in a while enough people die that the remaining living choose not to kill each other. We call it being a liberal, and it doesn't happen very often (most people confuse liberal with other political stances that at one time liberals also commonly held, but these days most people we call liberal are not)
brandonagr2 3y ago
Protected wetlands are the best places to put launch sites, just look at cape canaveral / KSC, the wildlife is doing great there
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  This is literally true, you shouldn’t be downvoted. Rockets keep the humans away.
colmmacc 3y ago
I'm not a space person, so this may be a very basic question but how is this same rocket supposed to launch from locations on the Moon or Mars? The propulsion force is obviously less because the gravity is less there, but that really enough to overcome all of this work they have to do on Earth? At least at Boca Chica you can get a construction crew there.
- mmmm2 3y ago
  There is a different version of Starship for landing on the moon. Supposedly, for Mars, the single stage part of the rocket has enough acceleration to get off of Mars on its own. This does assume the rocket can refuel on Mars.
- mjamesaustin 3y ago
  The large lower booster only launches and lands on Earth. The upper section (the Starship) will be able to land and launch on other bodies, but it has only a fraction the number of engines.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  The more you look into it, the more it becomes apparent that Starship is optimized for launching very large constellations of LEO satellites, not for Mars colonization or even Moon missions. It's publicly pitched as a Mars colonization rocket because this pipe dream is the foundation of SpaceX's recruiting strategy. (It's easier to motivate rocket engineers with the dream of Mars colonies than with SDI contracts.)
  - agar 3y ago
    Other than its height, what is the concern? No other ship can launch 150+ tons in a 9m-diameter payload bay, use propellant that can be created on Mars, and can vertically land and take off again. It seems all of these are required optimizations for Mars colonization or Moon missions. The fact that NASA selected Starship as its human landing vehicle for the US's return to the moon strikes me as a remarkable vote of confidence by a highly qualified organization with far more data than we have and a lot at stake. Could you elaborate on how they got it so wrong?
stevespang 3y ago
[dead]
Robotbeat 3y ago
They looked at the other sites, as a requirement of the EIS and PEA. There are none better. The only other places already have people or are also basically protected reserves or whatever. You know of any prime beach real estate that DOESNT have people? SpaceX would gladly develop that instead! There are none. And the Florida launch site (already reaching capacity and not a suitable site for prototype testing) is, of course, also a wildlife refuge.
napierzaza 3y ago
[dead]
prepend 3y ago
Isn’t the Space Coast launch site in Florida in the middle of protected wetlands? I don’t think the area around Boca Chica is very important and the land around is not special or worth more than having a launch facility.
Danjoe4 3y ago
Because the things that can't be changed are good. Namely, lots of empty land to expand into, near the coast for shipping, good geo-position, temperate weather, sparsely populated but still close to a city and airport. We can expand the road and the state/fed gov will sell SpaceX the wetlands to cover them with concrete if necessary.
colordrops 3y ago
Perhaps it's a good thing. If they can figure out how to launch next to protected lands without damaging them, then they can set up launch facilities virtually anywhere.

bloopernova 3y ago

Are there any alternatives in the continental USA? Will the super heavy need to launch from as near to the equator as possible? Or does it require higher latitudes?

AnotherGoodName 3y ago
Any possibility of going outside Continental USA? A boat? Mexico?
- marktangotango 3y ago
  Converted oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico: https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-coast-fleet-a-shortfall-of-gravitas-droneship-and-phobos-launch-platform/ https://spaceexplored.com/2021/07/07/update-on-spacexs-gulf-...
  - avmich 3y ago
    Elon recently admitted (again) the planned frequency of Starship launches could be too high even to Cape Canaveral (10/day), so ocean-based launch platform may become necessity. By the same logic Boca Chica doesn't look like a long-term high-frequency launch place.
    - mjevans 3y ago
      It does scream 'Research and Development' site way more than literal spaceport. If they get all the other issues fixed and the rockets are mostly reusable it might still be good enough as a production line.
- ggreer 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure ITAR prevents US companies from exporting orbital rocket technology, as it's dual-use. Any government with access to a SpaceX rocket could learn a lot about how to develop long range missiles.
  - wil421 3y ago
    There’s a launch site in the Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands, and I’m pretty sure we don’t share tech with them. The ESA probably doesn’t share tech with the countries who host launches, IIRC they are French “territories” anyway.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      I'd be wary of putting anything on an island chain like the Marshall Island. Their max elevation is only 10 meters and it's only going to get worse and they'll be hard pressed to build the sea walls needed to keep your space port open. It also doesn't solve the ITAR issues which are strict when it comes to rocket technology because it's so close to the tech needed for ICBMs.
    - baud147258 3y ago
      Unless I'm missing something, the ESA does its launches from overseas France in French Guyana and since France takes part in building the Ariane rockets, they would already have access to the tech
    - ggreer 3y ago
      It's not feasible to transport Starship or Super Heavy halfway across the Pacific. Even if you could, the launch site on Omelek Island is part of the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site[1] which is controlled by the US military. The Republic of the Marshall Islands never has access to the restricted technology. It's hard to overstate how restrictive ITAR is. For example, ITAR covers generation 3 night vision devices. The US is hesitant to allow their export to allies, even for peaceful purposes.[2] When I bought a night vision device, I had to sign an acknowledgement that I wouldn't take it out of the country or even allow non-citizens to look through it (even on US soil). People caught violating these rules can be imprisoned for years. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_Test_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Ballistic_Missil... 2. From page 10 of https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/vector/Vector_2008_Issue-1_Jan-Feb.pdf https://www.aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/vector/Vect... "New Zealand operators must ensure restricted access to the goggles to comply with the US requirements."
- adolph 3y ago
  SpaceX's first launch attempts "were launched from Kwajalein Atoll using the SpaceX launch facility on Omelek Island and range facilities of the Reagan Test Site." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1 There is also the "Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC), is a dual-use commercial and military spaceport for sub-orbital and orbital launch vehicles." Private companies Astra and ABL Space Systems have launched from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Spaceport_Complex_%E2%80%93_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Spaceport_Complex_%E2%...
  - lutorm 3y ago
    They gave up on Kwaj mostly from the terrible logistics and corrosive environment though. If it was hard getting an F1 there, I can't imagine the pain of assembling Starship...
    - adolph 3y ago
      Yes, even Alaska is a bit much. I think south Texas is a great spot along with KSC, Vandenburg and Wallops Island VA. In the big picture though, given part of Starship's goal is intercontinental travel, spaceflight will happen to and from everywhere on the globe.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Rumour is that SpaceX was seriously considering Puerto Rico before it secured the Boca Chica location.
- avmich 3y ago
  USA (!) company Sea Launch managed to launch Zenit rockets from equator, so here's the precedent...
  - moberley 3y ago
    The Spaceport Company is also trying to develop a system for providing near coastal ocean launch facilities that they call it Spaceport as a Service. Their team includes a person who helped to write the Part 450 regulations while at the FAA previously. https://thespaceportcompany.com/ https://thespaceportcompany.com/
  - lstodd 3y ago
    IIRC it was Boeing and about a half of ex-USSR space industry. So not exactly or even mostly USA. I had a girlfriend back then whose father worked on the program. Great times those 1990s.
    - avmich 3y ago
      Yeah, that was a bit odd - the main part Boeing - seemingly! - provided was the connection to the markets and to the regulatory environment. The rocket was Ukrainian, with Russian engine and a booster stage, and the launch platform was of Norway origin. But the company was still based in USA.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  It isn't completely out of the question, Rocketlab has a launch site in New Zealand for instance. But, it does involve a lot of red tape, making it more expensive and less easy to move fast with. Probably also comes with a pretty limited list of options of significant US allies in stable regions (a large number of which likely aren't meaningfully cheaper/less regulated).
rtkwe 3y ago
Closer to the equator makes it easier to achieve an equatorial orbit and some slight benefits from the initial speed of the Earth's rotation but Super Heavy is so ridiculously over sized it doesn't need it. Things like the ISS are highly inclined so they're easier to reach from Russia's launch site as your latitude is essentially the default inclination you're be in when you hit orbit without spending the fuel to change it.
- jwells89 3y ago
  Coastal is still better from the perspective of being able to safely abort. The further inland you go the more risk you run of failed launches resulting in big pieces of the craft coming down over populated areas.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

justrealist 3y ago

That's really not true, there's not a lot of open east-facing coastland anywhere in the US. Basically all coastlands are protected! The only "safe" place to launch is in Florida on land that was grandfathered into being an EPA-free zone back in the 1960s by NASA.

sidewndr46 3y ago
Almost like regulatory capture is a real thing. East facing also isn't even remotely a requirement for a launch, Israel launches westward on a regular basis
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Launching westward - on the Earth, from a non-polar site, to non-polar orbits - carries a large delta-v penalty, which translates into a huge payload penalty.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  And they lose about 20% of their cargo capacity because they're fighting the Earth's spin rather than taking advantage of it. It's not like the west coast has large stretches of undeveloped unprotected land either. The only real alternative is Alaska, and that's suboptimal for other reasons.
- elteto 3y ago
  They aren't launching West because they want to, but because they _have_ to. A quick peek at the map will tell you why.
- nine_k 3y ago
  Launching westwards is working against the rotation of Earth, not the cheapest approach. Israel just does not have a large body of water, or a,large desert, to let the spent booster descend (or crash) into. I bet their launches all turn eastwards after reaching sufficient altitude.
  - avmich 3y ago

mordymoop 3y ago

My family owns some land in south Texas and my subjective sense from dealing with that reality and talking to people in the area is that you can’t throw a rock without hitting a protected wetland. In practice, the ubiquity of environmentally delicate tracts of land seems to be used by the state to restrict or permit industrial activities arbitrarily, likely based on political favoritism. If you think this is hyperbole, I suggest you look into the details of the various solar power projects in Texas.

pfdietz 3y ago
I think one could make the case that the government must compensate landowners for putative environmental restrictions. After all, if it's really that important, surely the taxpayers would be willing to pay for it, right? Why make the landowner foot the bill for something that benefits everyone else?
- flerchin 3y ago
  You'd claim large losses for being prevented from placing a toxic waste dump on your property. I'd not want to pay for that.
- poopbutt7 3y ago
  I can't find the article where I read it, but an interesting thing about the environment is that it's connected and we need it to stay alive.
- epivosism 3y ago
  It would be a useful way to balance the costs vs benefits. If the gov't would put a price on it, I could violate the law here but compensate 100x as much elsewhere. My town has a law where if a tree is over 10" in diameter, there's a fine of 5k if you cut it down. But actually, it's worse, because if they find out you plan to do this, or did it intentionally, they can continue to fine you arbitrarily and force you to re-plant a tree! So you may own some land and have approval to build human habitation on it... but the tree prevents you, and you simply cannot do it via any legal means. Otoh if I could... pay the town 5k, and also permanent preserve say 100 trees elsewhere... I could use my own land. I love trees as much as the next one, but it's just a huge risk to allow them to grow on my land cause once they pass that threshold, I irrevocably lose control of land I've paid for and continue to pay a lot of tax on. It's also funny that if your enemy owns land, and you "help" his trees grow that thick without him knowing, property he planned to use as say an ultimate frisbee field will be permanently unusable for him, with no way out (except begging the city council, etc. and other behavior which is indistinguishable from bribery (money or psychologically))

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Humans using the land for recreation are far more destructive to wetlands than occasional rocket launches. Canaveral and Vandenburg have become de-facto protected wildlife refuges because humans with guns keep other humans away from them. I know that if I was a turtle at Boca Chica I would rather deal with the occasional rocket launch than the ATV's that also use the beach.

gleenn 3y ago
I was under the impression that regular use of rocket fuel made a lot of land extremely toxic.
- nickff 3y ago
  It depends on the fuel, and the number of leaks (the latter usually being relatively high). Some fuels such as hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid are indeed quite dangerous, but Starship mostly uses methane and oxygen.
- cdchn 3y ago
  I figure it would depend on the rocket fuel. LOX and Liquid Hydrogen/Methane probably isn't so bad, stuff like hydrazine I could imagine wouldn't be great.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    But hydrazine makes for a great ingredient in bottled water! https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/05/real-water-contamination-case-liver-illnesses/71077761007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/10/05/real-w...
- oittaa 3y ago
  Why would you think that methane is toxic? I know the average american knows nothing about even 6th grade chemistry but these kind of comment pop up on every thread about rockets.
  - 3y ago

RecycledEle 3y ago

Any launch site needs to be in the CONUS, as far South as possible, and not subject to complaining neighbors. Boca Chica is perfect.

elteto 3y ago

Boca Chica is possibly the best launch location in the entire USA. Not many people realize that it is at the same latitude as Miami! The major issue with Boca Chica was the (literal) handful of residents who lived there, some of which refused to move when SpaceX first came around with offers to buy their land. I don't know what is the current status of them.

dtgriscom 3y ago
Is latitude the only prerequisite for a good launch location?
- giantrobot 3y ago
  When doing eastbound launches the rotation of the Earth gives you some free starting velocity. This free velocity is higher the closer you are to the equator. Also helpful in eastward launches is ocean to the east of the launch site. If something goes wrong and your rocket crashes the debris is likely to hit uninhabited water rather than a suburb. The bonus velocity you get for launching further south can end up increasing payload mass by significant percentages or giving a smaller mass more velocity to achieve higher orbits with the same amount of fuel.
- jtriangle 3y ago
  Latitude and also having ocean to the east so if something goes wrong, you can abort and not worry about debris falling on people.

inglor_cz 3y ago

Cape Canaveral wasn't a super attractive location in 1950 either; swamps, hurricanes, a lot of mosquitoes, hot summers. But, same as Boca Chica, it is on US soil, relatively close to the Equator and you can launch rockets eastwards over the sea. And in both cases, closures of the sea for launches don't disrupt important sea lanes.

avmich 3y ago
These days launching East isn't that important as it used to be at the height of the Space Race. However some 1/5 payload advantage is still interesting, so the factor is definitely taken into account.

chasd00 3y ago

I think the issues are political. Musk hasnt done himself any favors, it seems every person has a very strong opinion of him and therefore spacex, Tesla, and X. I’m sure there’s lots of “whoopsies” going on in the agencies looking at the launch license where approvals, reviews, or even emails stay in the todo pile for weeks. One dedicated person could double the time spent at any stage in the process.

bluGill 3y ago
This is why most CEOs and politicians never talk publicly except what the PR team and lawyers have carefully reviewed. When they give speeches they are written well in advance and carefully practiced. Once in a while a CEO or politician does and people at first like the candidness, but eventually (see Musk, Trump) they say something that someone doesn't like. Everyone has and thinks such thoughts that make us look really bad, but most of us get away with it because nobody is listening.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  > This is why most CEOs and politicians never talk publicly except what the PR team and lawyers have carefully reviewed. TBH, I find this sad. I remember when Marcus Lemonis got into trouble for a fairly benign off-hand remark. It really drove home the point how fickle people could be at the slightest perceived slight. Then add the media that loves to fan the flames and it ends up being a really unfortunate system. We need to find a way to get people back to honest and open dialogue.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >We need to find a way to get people back to honest and open dialogue. When have humans EVER had honest and open dialogue about anything?
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Every once in a while enough people die that the remaining living choose not to kill each other. We call it being a liberal, and it doesn't happen very often (most people confuse liberal with other political stances that at one time liberals also commonly held, but these days most people we call liberal are not)

brandonagr2 3y ago

Protected wetlands are the best places to put launch sites, just look at cape canaveral / KSC, the wildlife is doing great there

Robotbeat 3y ago
This is literally true, you shouldn’t be downvoted. Rockets keep the humans away.

colmmacc 3y ago

I'm not a space person, so this may be a very basic question but how is this same rocket supposed to launch from locations on the Moon or Mars? The propulsion force is obviously less because the gravity is less there, but that really enough to overcome all of this work they have to do on Earth? At least at Boca Chica you can get a construction crew there.

mmmm2 3y ago
There is a different version of Starship for landing on the moon. Supposedly, for Mars, the single stage part of the rocket has enough acceleration to get off of Mars on its own. This does assume the rocket can refuel on Mars.
mjamesaustin 3y ago
The large lower booster only launches and lands on Earth. The upper section (the Starship) will be able to land and launch on other bodies, but it has only a fraction the number of engines.
mcpackieh 3y ago
The more you look into it, the more it becomes apparent that Starship is optimized for launching very large constellations of LEO satellites, not for Mars colonization or even Moon missions. It's publicly pitched as a Mars colonization rocket because this pipe dream is the foundation of SpaceX's recruiting strategy. (It's easier to motivate rocket engineers with the dream of Mars colonies than with SDI contracts.)
- agar 3y ago
  Other than its height, what is the concern? No other ship can launch 150+ tons in a 9m-diameter payload bay, use propellant that can be created on Mars, and can vertically land and take off again. It seems all of these are required optimizations for Mars colonization or Moon missions. The fact that NASA selected Starship as its human landing vehicle for the US's return to the moon strikes me as a remarkable vote of confidence by a highly qualified organization with far more data than we have and a lot at stake. Could you elaborate on how they got it so wrong?

stevespang 3y ago

[dead]

Robotbeat 3y ago

They looked at the other sites, as a requirement of the EIS and PEA. There are none better. The only other places already have people or are also basically protected reserves or whatever. You know of any prime beach real estate that DOESNT have people? SpaceX would gladly develop that instead! There are none. And the Florida launch site (already reaching capacity and not a suitable site for prototype testing) is, of course, also a wildlife refuge.

napierzaza 3y ago

[dead]

prepend 3y ago

Isn’t the Space Coast launch site in Florida in the middle of protected wetlands? I don’t think the area around Boca Chica is very important and the land around is not special or worth more than having a launch facility.

Danjoe4 3y ago

Because the things that can't be changed are good. Namely, lots of empty land to expand into, near the coast for shipping, good geo-position, temperate weather, sparsely populated but still close to a city and airport. We can expand the road and the state/fed gov will sell SpaceX the wetlands to cover them with concrete if necessary.

colordrops 3y ago

Perhaps it's a good thing. If they can figure out how to launch next to protected lands without damaging them, then they can set up launch facilities virtually anywhere.