Why is SpaceX building the Brownsville Launch Complex?

[PB666]

14 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It is limited to GSO. There's Mexican airspace south, and Continental US and oil rigs north, so they can only launch straight east.

It's a problem because SpaceX is betting on the stable (but stagnant) GSO market, which is the only market this thing is going to be good for due to its limited inclination. Ariane 6 could push SpaceX's price advantage off, leaving Brownsville underused.

Building on top of LC-36 is actually equivilent to building a new launch pad- all the launch towers etc. have been removed by the govenrment. There may be concrete structures left as a base, or maybe a blockhouse, but it's pretty much a clean space right now.

On Brownsville, they likely need to go through more regulations, (it's currently untouched wetland), new landing pads, etc, making this really seem more or a hassle, in my opinion.

Lc-37A would work too, but that was shared with ULA when SpaceX made it's decision.

Boca need not launch inclined north, it can launch inclined south over Mexican waters. It can do equitorial, inclined, polar if it wanted to. 

[Rakaydos]

Also, GSO launch capability is also lunar and interpanetary capability. The MCT is going to need something like 3 launch pads, going my the most recent leaks- One habitat supercapsule and two orbital refueling tankers. Since the MCT plan is supposed to be finalized and publisized this year, starting work on the nessisary super-saturn pads is probably needed.

[fredinno]

39 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Boca need not launch inclined north, it can launch inclined south over Mexican waters. It can do equitorial, inclined, polar if it wanted to. 

No it can't, it would need permission from the Mexican government to do that, since it passes right over Mexican airspace. It also can't do polar, because it would then pass over Mexico.

Each dot is a well. Launches will pass over oil wells going south, too. It's less limited in Inclination, but still very limited, even it it gets Mexican permission, due to the shape of the Gulf of Mexico.

31 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Also, GSO launch capability is also lunar and interpanetary capability. The MCT is going to need something like 3 launch pads, going my the most recent leaks- One habitat supercapsule and two orbital refueling tankers. Since the MCT plan is supposed to be finalized and publisized this year, starting work on the nessisary super-saturn pads is probably needed.

I know Brownsville is needed for MCT, but it's not that anything else MCT is being built. You don't see SpaceX building 15m diameter tank factories. Even Raptor is almost certainly downsized to Merlin level, as it's getting money to be an UPPER STAGE engine by the DOD.

Edited March 23, 2016 by fredinno

[Dave G]

11 hours ago, PB666 said:

Not in Brownsville. Its actually closer to port Isabel and SPI. But then when it comes to international space politics who needs to be accurate.

If you want accurate...

[DerekL1963]

4 hours ago, KSK said:

12 hours ago, fredinno said:

I'm just asking. Is it wrong to be critical and question?

It's never wrong to question, although sometimes it's best to question in the privacy of your own head. Being critical without being aware of all the relevant facts (as we're almost certainly doing here) isn't wrong but it is a) largely pointless and b) dumb.

The problem generally isn't being critical and questioning - it's refusing to accept answers that don't fit with the pre-ordained assumptions behind the question and criticism.

[Dave G]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

It is limited to GSO. There's Mexican airspace south, and Continental US and oil rigs north, so they can only launch straight east...

 

Note that all of the SpaceX property in the above map was purchased under the name "Dogleg Park, LLC"

 

[PB666]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

No it can't, it would need permission from the Mexican government to do that, since it passes right over Mexican airspace. It also can't do polar, because it would then pass over Mexico.

Each dot is a well. Launches will pass over oil wells going south, too. It's less limited in Inclination, but still very limited, even it it gets Mexican permission, due to the shape of the Gulf of Mexico.

I know Brownsville is needed for MCT, but it's not that anything else MCT is being built. You don't see SpaceX building 15m diameter tank factories. Even Raptor is almost certainly downsized to Merlin level, as it's getting money to be an UPPER STAGE engine by the DOD.

Getting permission from the Mexican government is not as difficult as you might think. I see a path heading south east that would present as a corridor, by the time you reached yucatan you would be well over airspace. BTW not every dot on these maps are active wells, some of the Mexican wells are no longer producing.

 

 

[Rakaydos]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

I know Brownsville is needed for MCT, but it's not that anything else MCT is being built. You don't see SpaceX building 15m diameter tank factories. Even Raptor is almost certainly downsized to Merlin level, as it's getting money to be an UPPER STAGE engine by the DOD.

You know what the phrase "laying the groundwork" means?

This is literal groundwork. From what other posters say, they literally have to drain the swamp before they can build anything, and they have to build it with the weather and seasonal flooding in mind. It is probably the most time connsuming part of the whole endevor, which is why they're starting early.

[PB666]

9 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

You know what the phrase "laying the groundwork" means?

This is literal groundwork. From what other posters say, they literally have to drain the swamp before they can build anything, and they have to build it with the weather and seasonal flooding in mind. It is probably the most time connsuming part of the whole endevor, which is why they're starting early.

They are going to bring in select-fill, some sort of material with high initial compaction. Most of what I see in the satellite photo is basically rio-grande sand, basically West Texas silty sand, relatively dense with low organic content. You basically scrape any surface organic stuff to the side. Bring in the select fill and build up (From what I see 10,000s of truck loads) then depending on what you are going to do, lay down the forms pour the concrete, then take the stuff you tossed to the side, mix in some compost and layer it on top, add about an 1/8th of an inch of sand and put flats of st augustine grass on top in the high end areas and toss short growth bermuda in the middle end areas and xeroscaping stuff in the transitional zones. Although they could use xeroscaping plants and cobble across the whole area and save money on water. There are alot of choices now, south texas xeroscaping is particularly useful next to launch pads, prickly pear does not mind to much getting blasted by fire. On the east side you have a surge impact zone (it needs to be able to survive 15 knt of tidal force), so its likely they are going to drive some sort of barrier material into the ground, based on what happened during Allen, they will need to go down about 12 feet to prevent undercutting, On the south side a reasonable transition in select fill along with some permanent barrier should do.

I don't see the development in South Bay going very far, I think they are going to run into environmental impact considerations, but most of that is not property they own anyway. SPI is sinking, its got both global warming sea level rise and lower sand accumulations because the dams at Amistad and Falcon lake and water usage from New Mexico and Mexico basically prevent alluvial sands from reaching the coast and blowing up. So south bay development is also going to run into rising cost of building up to safe height. For gulf hurricane we are no longer just looking at airspeed but integrated kinetic energy instances, for example IKE, a cat1-2 storm on impact had a storm surge of 17 feet (3 meters) and basically shaved 10s of meters off parts of the coastline. Building requires insurance, and insurance companies look  now for structures that have the platform layers at 20feet or higher, preferably 25 feet above MSL, and from what I have been told piers that go down twice as far as structure goes up. Everything below, basically the insurance companies wants to blow out during a storm surge leaving only the piers and the structure on top. Road improvements are another problem, the roads out there are laid on blocks of of granite 6 to 8 ft cubed (if you look at satellite images of south jetty you can see the blocks), and basically they dig down 8 feet below sea level drop these blocks in a couple high, fill in around with aggregated and put road material on top. The bulk of the blocks was not sufficient during Allen to prevent the roads from being torn, it simply ripped the blocks up and tossed them in the laguna madre. This road is going to have to be doubled in size so that is going to be a major stumbling block to progress, once they get inland then the road bed does not need so much basement support. 

Spoiler

http://imgur.com/lKFL1G3

 

Mt chimbo doesn't look too bad now does it?

 

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by PB666

[Dave G]

26 minutes ago, PB666 said:

They are going to bring in select-fill, some sort of material with high initial compaction. Most of what I see in the satellite photo is basically rio-grande sand, basically West Texas silty sand, relatively dense with low organic content. You basically scrape any surface organic stuff to the side. Bring in the select fill and build up (From what I see 10,000s of truck loads) then depending on what you are going to do, lay down the forms pour the concrete...

 

They have to let the water drain out of the underlying earth first.  They're using wick drains for this.

This video explains the process:

 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Dave G said:

They have to let the water drain out of the underlying earth first.  They're using wick drains for this.

This video explains the process:

 

You can't drain the launch site much below MSL, it simply fills back in, there is no water blocking pan between the gulf of mexico, the riogrande and the site, it simply leaches in from the surrounding soil. I have a good experience on the eastern edge of South Bay, not pleseantly good, just experience wise. I saw a tow truck dig (Ford F350 4 x 4 base frame) itself about two feet down on terra firma, before we could get it hooked to an anchor it was already filling in with water, it was a mess the tow truck was wenching itself up on the side in order to dig sand into the bottom of the pit, then rolling across to the other side, it has about a 45' ramp on the exit side before it got out. At least in South Bay, the pan is on the surface, you break it with a vehicle, your dead in the water even if you don't see it, yeah, that was a hard lesson.  I literally took may car to the car wash and washed out the interior of the car with the blaster nozzle.

You get your compaction up (weight) to as high as you can, vibrating the soil helps to  then you start draining as much water out as you can (not much). Anything below the spring tide maximum, you wick water out, it flows back in. Anything above that it still flows by much more slowly. In fact in the village that is the reason they don't drink the water, the wells are all salted in, thats why they collect water off the roofs of their houses. I suspect now muniwater has made its way out. That neighborhood, it hasn't grown since I was there in '83, there's a reason for that.  The key is the vegetation, you see lines and ridges in the vegetation above the water line, those are areas which the salt concentration at root level is too high, marsh grasses will grow in salty water, but not full salt in hot climate, there has to be an inflow of freshwater to brackish it up a bit. The areas devoid of grasses means there is a constant inflow of salty water that basically replaces rainwater after evaporation and transport has taken its toll. This is not the everglades, soils here are very sandy, no trinity clays or equivilents and silt to sand ratios are lower than on the upper texas coast. its more of a fine grit than anything else.

[fredinno]

17 hours ago, PB666 said:

Getting permission from the Mexican government is not as difficult as you might think. I see a path heading south east that would present as a corridor, by the time you reached yucatan you would be well over airspace. BTW not every dot on these maps are active wells, some of the Mexican wells are no longer producing.

 

 

It still doesn't allow for polar launches, because those would pass over mainland mexico, but I see what you mean.

[Dave G]

SpaceX installing wick drains at the Boca Chica site:

[Rakaydos]

On 3/24/2016 at 0:36 PM, fredinno said:

It still doesn't allow for polar launches, because those would pass over mainland mexico, but I see what you mean.

Would it pass over mexico before going higher than national aerospace? I dont see it being a problem if it's got more than 100 km of searoom before hitting mainland.

 

Edit: yea, they got more than 500 miles searoom. Mainland mexico isnt an issue any more than mainland Soviet Union ever was..

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rakaydos

[fredinno]

54 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Would it pass over mexico before going higher than national aerospace? I dont see it being a problem if it's got more than 100 km of searoom before hitting mainland.

 

Edit: yea, they got more than 500 miles searoom. Mainland mexico isnt an issue any more than mainland Soviet Union ever was..

It think the bigger problem is the 1st stage. Yes, it is reused, but if the reuse fails, like we've seen...

[CaelumEtAstra]

On 3/23/2016 at 11:02 PM, fredinno said:

Actually, no, the oil rigs, and the continental US north of Brownsville highly limits the launch trajectory:

This is a map of Gulf oil rigs. Vandeberg has a few oil rigs blocking its way, but FAR less than the Gulf.

Could they just tell the rigs near Brownsville to clear the range? And once the rocket is no longer a threat, couldn't they just move back to where they were? And if the moving process takes a while, then couldn't they move them ahead of time in accordance with the launch profile and schedule? (It's not like it's that wayward boat where it could move out of the way in a matter of minutes, these are huge rigs that need to be moved with tugs or the like) 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Mrsupersonic8

[Kerbart]

10 minutes ago, Mrsupersonic8 said:

Could they just tell the rigs near Brownsville to clear the range? And once the rocket is no longer a threat, couldn't they just move back to where they were? And if the moving process takes a while, then couldn't they move them ahead of time in accordance with the launch profile and schedule? (It's not like it's that wayward boat where it could move out of the way in a matter of minutes, these are huge rigs that need to be moved with tugs or the like) 

I might be incorrect on this but the cost of an exploration platform greatly exceeds that of an average rocket launch. I'm not sure they'd be happy with being "in the line of fire."

Production platforms might be cheaper, but shutting down production for a few days is a pretty expensive adventure (and pumping oil up from well a few miles away is not like opening and closing a kitchen faucet; you have to consider the momentum of a few miles of oil, so stopping and starting that needs to be done slowly unless you want to blow out your valves).

EDIT: Oh wait, I thought you meant abandoning them. Moving them? No way. Noooo way.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Kerbart

[PB666]

They are already up a meter and half though it looks like they have pushed the back-dunes back and brought in aggregate. Looks like to the left they have already brought in concrete or asphalt waste (good choice compressed concrete, is dense, waste drains well and avoids erosion, bad on the feet and tractors, and they will need a hell of alot more of that, the iron in the concrete lowers the redox and prevents corrosion, but you have to bury it well). There is a portion of their site that in the sat image was below water, lol. The one caveat (forgot to add) is that when you go to pier down your concrete, you will have to remove the salt water leach long enough for the pour. If it infills then the concrete will degrade over time.

But I wonder if passive removal will suffice. The fenced off area is a small fraction of the total site.

Good ole boca chica, haven't been there in 3 decades, looks the same. Sand, dead grasses, scrag brush,

1 hour ago, Kerbart said:

I might be incorrect on this but the cost of an exploration platform greatly exceeds that of an average rocket launch. I'm not sure they'd be happy with being "in the line of fire."

Production platforms might be cheaper, but shutting down production for a few days is a pretty expensive adventure (and pumping oil up from well a few miles away is not like opening and closing a kitchen faucet; you have to consider the momentum of a few miles of oil, so stopping and starting that needs to be done slowly unless you want to blow out your valves).

EDIT: Oh wait, I thought you meant abandoning them. Moving them? No way. Noooo way.

Most of the production rigs along the lower Texas coast are old. Some of them aren't even manned, There is no exploration going on now that I know of, many of the companies have basically run out of cash for exploration, you can expect a spike in the price of oil in about 4 years. I think if a rocket accidentally hit a few of them you would be saving the company the cost of cutting them down.

 

If you go to the end of the jetties off of SPI with a pair of good binoculars and take a look offshore in the NE direction of the launch pad, what you will see, about 5 miles offshore is a line of tankers basically just north of the shipping lane, anchored waiting to port. Beyond that, every here and there off in the distance you will see rigs. I know someone with alot of holdings off the Texas coast mainly gas fields, I can ask what the active rig count is south of Corpus.

As for moving rigs, they are literally welded to the bottom, they have to be cut by divers to be removed, its a lengthy salvage process, the old fields the rigs can be pulled leaving a well head that basically trickles out oil, companies tend to come back to these after a decade or so and rework them horizontally, but many aren't willing to pay the leases so they eventually abandon them.

 

Edited March 26, 2016 by PB666

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, Mrsupersonic8 said:

Could they just tell the rigs near Brownsville to clear the range? And once the rocket is no longer a threat, couldn't they just move back to where they were? And if the moving process takes a while, then couldn't they move them ahead of time in accordance with the launch profile and schedule? (It's not like it's that wayward boat where it could move out of the way in a matter of minutes, these are huge rigs that need to be moved with tugs or the like) 

No, you can't move an oil rig, for all practical purposes. They are not intended to be movable structures.

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

They are already up a meter and half though it looks like they have pushed the back-dunes back and brought in aggregate. Looks like to the left they have already brought in concrete or asphalt waste (good choice compressed concrete, is dense, waste drains well and avoids erosion, bad on the feet and tractors, and they will need a hell of alot more of that, the iron in the concrete lowers the redox and prevents corrosion, but you have to bury it well). There is a portion of their site that in the sat image was below water, lol. The one caveat (forgot to add) is that when you go to pier down your concrete, you will have to remove the salt water leach long enough for the pour. If it infills then the concrete will degrade over time.

But I wonder if passive removal will suffice. The fenced off area is a small fraction of the total site.

Good ole boca chica, haven't been there in 3 decades, looks the same. Sand, dead grasses, scrag brush,

Most of the production rigs along the lower Texas coast are old. Some of them aren't even manned, There is no exploration going on now that I know of, many of the companies have basically run out of cash for exploration, you can expect a spike in the price of oil in about 4 years. I think if a rocket accidentally hit a few of them you would be saving the company the cost of cutting them down.

 

If you go to the end of the jetties off of SPI with a pair of good binoculars and take a look offshore in the NE direction of the launch pad, what you will see, about 5 miles offshore is a line of tankers basically just north of the shipping lane, anchored waiting to port. Beyond that, every here and there off in the distance you will see rigs. I know someone with alot of holdings off the Texas coast mainly gas fields, I can ask what the active rig count is south of Corpus.

As for moving rigs, they are literally welded to the bottom, they have to be cut by divers to be removed, its a lengthy salvage process, the old fields the rigs can be pulled leaving a well head that basically trickles out oil, companies tend to come back to these after a decade or so and rework them horizontally, but many aren't willing to pay the leases so they eventually abandon them.

 

No, there was plenty of exploration and development going on before the oil price crash, like here:http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/jackstmalodeepwaterp/ even following Deepwater Horizon, which slowed, but not stopped, deepwater Gulf Development.

Only problem is now these projects are uneconomical. In some cases, the companies are still pumping oil to make money, as they need to pay off the debt they went into to build them (same with fracking) but many are likely mothballed right now, waiting for the price of oil to recover.

And old rigs do not mean unused rigs. Also, wells nowadays built often build multiple wells from a single site, making a rocket hitting one of them possibly cause a disaster that makes Deepwater Horizon look like an oil slick.

[PB666]

3 minutes ago, fredinno said:

No, you can't move an oil rig, for all practical purposes. They are not intended to be movable structures.

No, there was plenty of exploration and development going on before the oil price crash, like here:http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/jackstmalodeepwaterp/ even following Deepwater Horizon, which slowed, but not stopped, deepwater Gulf Development.

Only problem is now these projects are uneconomical. In some cases, the companies are still pumping oil to make money, as they need to pay off the debt they went into to build them (same with fracking) but many are likely mothballed right now, waiting for the price of oil to recover.

And old rigs do not mean unused rigs. Also, wells nowadays built often build multiple wells from a single site, making a rocket hitting one of them possibly cause a disaster that makes Deepwater Horizon look like an oil slick.

Not reallly, deepwater horizon was one of the highest pressure wells ever drilled in the gult and it was at full untapped pressure ((IIRC 12,000 PSI on the gas pressure, but rumor has it that it was actually much higher, BP under estimated well head pressure), these old wells basically are close to the end of their life and ooze oil out. In addition there are blow out preventers at the well head. I've heard (rumor wise) that some of the companies that started projects will not be able to complete them, its likely whatever assets they have will be turned over to the fed because they are unable to pay for their leases, most of this is on the upper coast. Companies of course stll try to pump as much as they can as prices drop inorder to have total revenue as high as they can but those wells finished 2 years ago even on the shale have played way down in production, they have a higher taper rate. Some of the platforms are operated by contractors, which are the first to be let go, so thats another way to save money. Theres a trade off there. What should be happening if prices were higher is reworking and going after deeper pockets (some formations are 3 layers deep) each layer separated by 1000s of feet. That isnt happening as it normally would.

Aside from that a rocket shell traveling at 55 miles per hour is not going to take out a standing rig (even at terminal velocity its highly unlikely to take out a rig). These rigs are designed to withstand category 4 hurricane blowing over wind profiles of 100s of meters, calculate the drag forces (and some rigs have disappeared and never been found). The producing rig has its piping mostly underwater, its not in harms way, and the workers can simply go to the lowest deck. There are a few precautions that Space X could make to prevent high velocity impacts, like steering vanes. The upper Texas coast has a few set areas that are populated by rigs, but also a training area for military craft, so there is already some exposure ot oil wells to 50 ton craft flying at 200 mph. I don't think this is a major problem at all, I have been in the gulf off of PI many unfortunate times, there are not alot of platforms and they are spread far apart you can go for hours with out spotting one, so . . . its a very low risk thing for a collision.

 

[fredinno]

11 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Not reallly, deepwater horizon was one of the highest pressure wells ever drilled in the gult and it was at full untapped pressure ((IIRC 12,000 PSI on the gas pressure, but rumor has it that it was actually much higher, BP under estimated well head pressure), these old wells basically are close to the end of their life and ooze oil out. In addition there are blow out preventers at the well head. I've heard (rumor wise) that some of the companies that started projects will not be able to complete them, its likely whatever assets they have will be turned over to the fed because they are unable to pay for their leases, most of this is on the upper coast. Companies of course stll try to pump as much as they can as prices drop inorder to have total revenue as high as they can but those wells finished 2 years ago even on the shale have played way down in production, they have a higher taper rate. Some of the platforms are operated by contractors, which are the first to be let go, so thats another way to save money. Theres a trade off there. What should be happening if prices were higher is reworking and going after deeper pockets (some formations are 3 layers deep) each layer separated by 1000s of feet. That isnt happening as it normally would.

Aside from that a rocket shell traveling at 55 miles per hour is not going to take out a standing rig (even at terminal velocity its highly unlikely to take out a rig). These rigs are designed to withstand category 4 hurricane blowing over wind profiles of 100s of meters, calculate the drag forces (and some rigs have disappeared and never been found). The producing rig has its piping mostly underwater, its not in harms way, and the workers can simply go to the lowest deck. There are a few precautions that Space X could make to prevent high velocity impacts, like steering vanes. The upper Texas coast has a few set areas that are populated by rigs, but also a training area for military craft, so there is already some exposure ot oil wells to 50 ton craft flying at 200 mph. I don't think this is a major problem at all, I have been in the gulf off of PI many unfortunate times, there are not alot of platforms and they are spread far apart you can go for hours with out spotting one, so . . . its a very low risk thing for a collision.

 

Still, Delta and Atlas rockets launching from Vandeberg hold onto their boosters for longer than they would otherwise due to oil platform clearances. Even if the chance is miniscule, you still don't want to hit an oil rig, or a boat. (I know Atlas' boosters have aerodynamic problems that need to stay attached for longer to prevent the rocket from destabilizing, but still, dropping a booster on an oil rig or boat is generally considered a problem that is avoided as much as possible.

Brownsville can't really launch north anyways.

[PB666]

49 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Still, Delta and Atlas rockets launching from Vandeberg hold onto their boosters for longer than they would otherwise due to oil platform clearances. Even if the chance is miniscule, you still don't want to hit an oil rig, or a boat. (I know Atlas' boosters have aerodynamic problems that need to stay attached for longer to prevent the rocket from destabilizing, but still, dropping a booster on an oil rig or boat is generally considered a problem that is avoided as much as possible.

Brownsville can't really launch north anyways.

Not north, that would be SPI. There are things the could do, like telescoping vanes a tail drag devices that could use GPS to target certain LZ. Port of Brownsville (obviously) is not a big port, there is traffic but not like the Houston ship channel. If spend the whole afternoon in the turn basin fishing, you might see one or two ocean going ships pass. There are a ton of shrimp boats though, so port in brownsville and many port isabel, there are a few charter fishing boats, but far less trips than before they implimented to new federal snapper limits (and long line commercial fishermen started taking down the snapper stocks). You are actually more likely to hit a shrimp boat than any other vessel. Alot of mexican brown shrimp are packaged in Brownsville. The laguna madre is so well preserved (heavily grassed on the south end), that on a good night if you hit the side of the boat, live shrimp just hop right in. This is the problem with South Bay, it is one of the most pristine bays in the country, it has a relatively shallow channel that makes it difficult for a majority of boats to enter, combine that with the fact that alot of the SE quadrant is owned by TxP&W and you have major dev problems.  The thing about the launch pad side is that it catches overflow from the riogrande, its already degrade because the Mexican side dumps untreated human waste right into the river. Thats actually good for the site because althoughs docs in the water will lower the redox and prevent corrosion of the iron. If you dig into the mud and all you see is black (iron II sulfide) and smell is sulfides . . . . . . .

 

[Dave G]

18 hours ago, PB666 said:

Port of Brownsville (obviously) is not a big port, there is traffic but not like the Houston ship channel...

It depends on how you define "big".

Houston is obviously busier, but as I understand it, Brownsville can handle larger ships than the Houston.  Aircraft carriers, huge oil drilling ships, etc.

If SpaceX decides to assemble BFR cores somewhere along the Brownsville shipping channel, the ability to handle large water vessels is a big plus.

 

[Kerbart]

4 minutes ago, Dave G said:

It depends on how you define "big".

Houston is obviously busier, but as I understand it, Brownsville can handle larger ships than the Houston.  Aircraft carriers, huge oil drilling ships, etc.

If SpaceX decides to assemble BFR cores somewhere along the Brownsville shipping channel, the ability to handle large water vessels is a big plus.

 

Houston can handle panamax vessels and oil tankers. You can probably fit a dozen fully assembled rockets on a ship that can enter the port of Houston. Brownsville offers no advantages in that respect.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Dave G said:

It depends on how you define "big".

Houston is obviously busier, but as I understand it, Brownsville can handle larger ships than the Houston.  Aircraft carriers, huge oil drilling ships, etc.

If SpaceX decides to assemble BFR cores somewhere along the Brownsville shipping channel, the ability to handle large water vessels is a big plus.

 

I've fished the sides of both channels there is no comparioson whatsoever in traffic, literally to cross the houston ship channel you have to dodge barges some times 6 long and double wide, and the wakes of ocean going ships including fully loaded oiltankers. There are 4 port facilites along the channel, the is the port of galvesto, the brand new bayport favility, the port at baytown, the various portages for refineries along the channel and the port of houston ,w hich happens to handle more industry shipping than any othe port in the country. The biggest problem for a small boat is you have gulf swells that cross ship wakes they can toss things up pretty bad if you have more than two lrage craft passing. Even down at sargeant the brage traffic is still pretty heavy.

You sit on the side of briwnsville and you might see a barge pass way off ine the distance, youll see shrimpers come and go with a flock of seagulls in tow, and occassionally you will see a ship pass, maybe every three hours. 

 

Having said that the port of Brownsville is more than adequate, the channel is deep, it has a double step that goes down to about 65 feet at the jetties, routinely caught small snapper off the second edge. The inner channel is basically a deep barge canal. Queen triiger, snapper, grunt, sheephead, blackdrum, gulf trout, spade fish, large rays, sharks,  The fact there is less trasfic off the brownsville channel is a plus, imo, they have fairly good development areas to the south, as long as they stay west of South Bay, thats going to get politcal fast. That liite road from the POBv to BCv aint going to carry anything that those ships can bring invanyway, assembled. 

Like I said if they can get a permit to canal to the wset sude of BCv then they could really bring in heavy stuff, but that means buying all the land on the other side of the road all the way to the beach, creatin a drawbridge . . . . .Otherwise they are going to have to beef up 4 to handle heavy loads. 12 inch concrete slabs. They arent going to be doing anything heavy yet, they are going to have to assemble close to the launch site.

Mention here one thing, winds in florida may be bad but boca chica has the highest summer wind in Texas. The wind can blow white chop for days, and its a given after 2pm youll have chop on the bay. On the beach the sand blows hard enough to sting when it hits you, again this can go on for days in september. I was out off the coast about 15 miles out and we got hit by a rogue squall lines that was carrying 16 foot waves, the boat pulled about 8 kts and could not keep up withbthe waves they were passing us with about 2 knts to spare. After that i don't fish offshore anymore. Its one thing to be thrown up and down 16 feet over and over, but to be drenched in salt water and the occasional stinging jelly fish tentacle, but then have to smell the blowback from diesel for 2 hours. 

Its not unusual to have 20 knt strait line winds.

(forgivr the typos, posted from an iOS)