47 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I am not sure what the significance of the nature reserve is in this debate. Cape Canaveral is surrounded by the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge.

 

From the map I saw, the nature reserves are closer. Pretty much surrounding the site and the ocean on the other side.

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

I might add, Martin, there were residents who were given no choicde.  The birds and wildlife of the wildlife refuge that became littered with debris and nests and bird eggs that were scorched by the flames.

I guess is your and Musk's mind those don't count.  Everything is worth sacrificing for space!

I fervently hope the FAA bans them from launching those huge rockets there anymore.  It'sd irresponsible to build launching pads so close to human and wildlife habitat.

Noel

 

There will always be wildlife nearby, unless you can find a sterile plot of land that's utterly lifeless.  There would literally be no domestic houses, no towns, no cities, no aircraft factories (and I know you like aircraft)  no car factories, no domestic product factories, no energy stations, nothing at all if we attempted to avoid all wildlife issues. In fact there would be no civilization.

I get it, you don't like Musk, have no intertest in space flight... but you are still happy to make use of the numerous inventions and technologies that came from the space program. For example, the Apollo program helped, in part, to accelerate the silicon chip revolution, and here you are utilizing a device based on silicone chips. I don't see you throwing your PC away becuse the Apollo program impacted wildlife, and the huge thrust from the Saturn V killed wildlife. 

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I am not sure what the significance of the nature reserve is in this debate. Cape Canaveral is surrounded by the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge.

As far as I can see, the Saturn V produced 120dB at 1.5miles and the Starship produced 136dB at 1.5km. I can't translate the Starship sound level to a 1.5 mile value but if I took a guess, I'd say it could be 130dB. This is still eight times louder than the Saturn V, based on a 3dB exchange rate.

Edited May 2, 20233 yr by dmwalker

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

There will always be wildlife nearby, unless you can find a sterile plot of land that's utterly lifeless.  There would literally be no domestic houses, no towns, no cities, no aircraft factories (and I know you like aircraft)  no car factories, no domestic product factories, no energy stations, nothing at all if we attempted to avoid all wildlife issues. In fact there would be no civilization.

That's a bit of a silly take on the situation. This wildlife refuge was there before SpaceX showed up and pushed bought their way in. Yes, people have an impact on the environment wherever we go, but we set aside areas such as these refuges to minimize our impact. If they want to operate there, they should be held to a higher standard. What happened in the past launch should not happen again, including the failed decision making process that lead to it. I do think SpaceX's efforts are worthwhile, but completely ignoring or discounting all criticism is not good.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

And it will be a good thing when the pad at the cape is finished and flights transition to there.

SpaceX plans to be in Boca Chica for a long time. Flights for NASA will almost certainly move to Florida, but SpaceX is planning on conducting plenty more from Texas.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/spacex-reveals-the-grand-extent-of-its-starport-plans-in-south-texas/

52 minutes ago, goates said:

SpaceX plans to be in Boca Chica for a long time

In any case, where else could they have located on the east coast? Maybe this was the only location other than Cape Canaveral.

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

In any case, where else could they have located on the east coast? Maybe this was the only location other than Cape Canaveral.

That may well have been the only realistic option, and I'm not entirely opposed to them being there. However, they should be held to a higher standard to be there.

One option that SpaceX did look at, and which might have been a more ideal location for launches, was offshore platforms. They did buy a couple oil rigs a few years ago, though I believe they sold them in the mean time. Probably figured the logistics were too much. Certainly wouldn't have had any issues with a concrete pad disintegrating.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/01/spacex-rigs-starship-spaceports/

Edit: Actually sounds like they haven't entirely dropped the idea of offshore launches, and want to better understand the rocket first.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-drops-plans-to-covert-oil-rigs-into-launch-platforms/

Edited May 2, 20233 yr by goates

Quote from the arstechnica.com article posted above:

"SpaceX has always been willing to take risks during development programs in order to move more quickly."

And if people and/or wildlife are put at risk so be it.  When ambition trumps the welfare of people or wildlife in refuges (some of which are endangered species) then something is wrong.  Just because you have the ability to pay the damages or fines doesn't make it right.

And no amount of money could replace the endangered ocelot which makes that refuge home and which Musk would sacrifice for his ambition.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/05/texas-spacex-elon-musk-environment-wildlife

Several years ago a rancher on the Border of the Bitter Lake National Wildlife Refuge where I was a volunteer was welding a fencepost during a period of high wind.  It started a wildfire that crossed the fence into the refuge and threatened the spring and sinkhole of the endangered Noel's Arthropod (no, not named after me) that is found nowhere else.  The rancher was heavily fined for that bit of carelessness.

It's one thing when Elon takes risks that affect only him and his projects.  It's another when he takes risks that endanger people, wildlife, and the environment.

Noel

 

1 hour ago, goates said:

Edit: Actually sounds like they haven't entirely dropped the idea of offshore launches, and want to better understand the rocket first.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-drops-plans-to-covert-oil-rigs-into-launch-platforms/

“We want to talk about dozens of launches a day, if not hundreds of launches a day.”

Sounds a bit optimistic. How quickly can they build a Starship? Even one a day maybe too much for the FAA. If it's going to be offshore launch platforms, how far offshore are they going to be? How will they be accessed from land? If they are one mile offshore, that's still going to be like one mile on land so they are still going to be 125-130dB onshore. 

Optimistic and SpaceX have a long history together, and would add this to the long list.

It doesn't seem like it takes them long to build Starship. The main body is made of stainless steel in part to make it easier to produce, and they're producing one Raptor engine per day now.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/spacex-is-now-building-a-raptor-engine-a-day-nasa-says/

For the offshore launches, I get the impression they were looking at doing much further offshore, possibly even in international waters. I imagine they would at the very least want to get far enough out to avoid sound or other complaints. There are something like 2,000 oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, with most being well out to sea. SpaceX having a couple platforms well offshore shouldn't be too hard to do.

Airlines are also starting to push back against the increasing number of rocket launches from Cape Canaveral, so moving elsewhere is probably a good idea. Moving far enough offshore might be one way to help with this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/09/airlines-rocket-launches-crowd-airspace.html

NASA had an even more novel idea for rocket launches, doing it straight from the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

Edited May 2, 20233 yr by goates

Gives new meaning to the term, "Crowded Skies".

Noel

I know it's not relevant but I was checking water depths off the east coast of Texas for possible sites for launch platforms and I spotted three dumpsites from roughly 100 to 800 miles east of Corpus Christi. One industrial waste, one explosives and one organochlorines. There was a fourth area marked "unexploded ordnance".

Further east I spotted an industrial waste dumpsite a few hundred miles south of New Orleans.

All of these dumpsites are discontinued.

Also, pipelines all over the place.

I just thought it was interesting to see.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/environmentalists-sue-faa-over-spacex-launch-license-texas-2023-05-01/

15 hours ago, goates said:

That's a bit of a silly take on the situation.

 

Why is it a silly take on the situation? It's fact.  Noel said he saw it as "sacrificing everything for space" which of course it isn't. I was pointing out to Noel that total protection of the environment isn't possible and that there will always be some impact. 

 

Quote

If they want to operate there, they should be held to a higher standard.

 

Of course they should, don't forget, I'm the guy that doesn't advocate them being there in the first place. As I said before, it was the wrong choice for a location, they are surrounded by wildlife reserves, not to mention numerous conservations organizations, including a native American Indian group, some of them very well funded.  As for "being held to a higher standard" they are held to a higher standard, hence the FAA's involvement and the requirement for an assessment of the environmental impact and requirement for a launch license. Hence why the environmental groups are now suing the FAA, not SpaceX, because they feel that the FAA should have completed the full environmental assessment before issuing the launch license, which of course they didn't. So yes, they have a point, and a chance of winning the case. 

 

Quote

but completely ignoring or discounting all criticism is not good.

 

Who's done that? 

 

Edited May 3, 20233 yr by martin-w

Its been speculated that environmental groups are suing the FAA rather than SpaceX as delaying tactics. Its advantageous to Texas for SpaceX to remain where they are rather than shift operations to Florida. If they sue a federal government organization Texas judges aren't involved in the decision. Texas judges aren't going to want to take billions of dollars of business out of the state. Its speculated that the environmental groups wish to delay so long that Musk gives up and moves operations to Florida.

Musk has previously said that if they are forced to move operations out of Texas that would delay the program by 6 to 8 months. He also previously said that he sees the future role of Starbase as a research and development facility.  

 

Edited May 3, 20233 yr by martin-w