Why is SpaceX building the Brownsville Launch Complex?

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

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)

...Maybe a BFR would need a Silo-esque solution to mitigate the high winds?

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

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)

...Maybe a BFR would need a Silo-esque solution to mitigate the high winds?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

...Maybe a BFR would need a Silo-esque solution to mitigate the high winds?

Thing is the wind blows hard from the south-south east some days dead south, not inland as one might expect. Of course the winters are mild as hell, cold fronts barely reach boca chica, its easy for one to pass over while you are on the water an not notice it. Silo in boca-chica would simply bobble up like a cork. Around 3AM the wind dies down stays down until about noon.

[CptRichardson]

Well, not having the Atlantic Coast Shipping Lane right freaking there and in the way would particularly help. That, and being able to go 'we told them to get out of the danger zone' and launching anyway. I doubt the rigs (whatever remains ATM) are nearly as much of an issue as idiots driving around in boats and ignoring danger zones. That alone massively eases the launch considerations, even if the number of potential inclinations available decreases. 

[PB666]

2 hours ago, CptRichardson said:

Well, not having the Atlantic Coast Shipping Lane right freaking there and in the way would particularly help. That, and being able to go 'we told them to get out of the danger zone' and launching anyway. I doubt the rigs (whatever remains ATM) are nearly as much of an issue as idiots driving around in boats and ignoring danger zones. That alone massively eases the launch considerations, even if the number of potential inclinations available decreases. 

Wait a minute now, the whole purpose of recreational boating is driving around like an idiot and ignoring danger warnings.

There aren't too many recreational boaters heading south into mexican waters from BSC. they are typically heading out down the channel ship lane that goes west, so as long as the rocket launches east there should not be to much of a problem. Most of the fishermen are headed in the direction of offshore reefs that are scattered along the coast, there are a few sunken boats, 42 ft  reef is up closer to mansville, that pretty much eliminates everyone except those lingering off the coast to watch a rocket launch.  Most of the charter fisherman have a list of GPS so if you given a latitude they can stay north of that latitude.

[fredinno]

Actually, looking at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/russia-launch-progress-ms-263p-iss/

It looks like Russia's launch inclinations are limited by Chinese and Mongolian airspace, about 1000 km away from Baikinour. Thus, Polar launches are impossible from Brownsville, it would overflight Mexico.

It's only equilateral, and even then, straight out.

[PB666]

On 4/5/2016 at 0:58 AM, fredinno said:

Actually, looking at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/russia-launch-progress-ms-263p-iss/

It looks like Russia's launch inclinations are limited by Chinese and Mongolian airspace, about 1000 km away from Baikinour. Thus, Polar launches are impossible from Brownsville, it would overflight Mexico.

It's only equilateral, and even then, straight out.

Seriously, look at the map, the BCLP is east of north of the Mexican coast line, a line due south does not really reach habitable land for about 500 miles. And most polar orbits are not directly over the poles so they could go SSE a bit to give even more clearance, the bay to the south of Rio grand is a scarcely populated area.

Edited April 6, 2016 by PB666
Fixed typo

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, PB666 said:

Seriously, look at the map, the BCLP is east of north of the Mexican coast line, a line due south does not really reach habitable land for about 500 miles. And most polar orbits are not directly over the poles so they could go SSE a bit to give even more clearance, the bay to the south of Rio ground is a scarcely populated area.

Yeah, but it still actually is not allowed, Russia has to launch slightly more north as not to go into mongolian area when launching. Launching south from Mexico means that SpaceX will hit Mexican land  if a stage fails.

[PB666]

9 hours ago, fredinno said:

Yeah, but it still actually is not allowed, Russia has to launch slightly more north as not to go into mongolian area when launching. Launching south from Mexico means that SpaceX will hit Mexican land  if a stage fails.

What is your proof that this is the reason, what if they didn't want Mongolian picking up their 'accidents' and handing them over to the another group?

 

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

What is your proof that this is the reason, what if they didn't want Mongolian picking up their 'accidents' and handing them over to the another group?

 

Soyuz is a civilian rocket, and does not use military tech, and still needs to avoid Mongolia overflight. If it was that much of a problem as to avoid overflight of Mongolia, than it's bad for SpaceX to overflight Mexico for the same reasons.

[PB666]

42 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Soyuz is a civilian rocket, and does not use military tech, and still needs to avoid Mongolia overflight. If it was that much of a problem as to avoid overflight of Mongolia, than it's bad for SpaceX to overflight Mexico for the same reasons.

Is this a stated policy of Russia or are you imagining that it is, Soyuz goes to ISS which is in an inclined orbit.

 

 

[fredinno]

8 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Is this a stated policy of Russia or are you imagining that it is, Soyuz goes to ISS which is in an inclined orbit.

 

 

It was part of the ISS negotiations. Russia needed a higher inclination than the minimal inclination it can physically use, to not overflight mongolia and china. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

It was part of the ISS negotiations. Russia needed a higher inclination than the minimal inclination it can physically use, to not overflight mongolia and china. 

China it is understandable since it has nuclear weapons. I would find it hard to believe that RSA political governces cares about what mongolia believes. 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 4:22 PM, PB666 said:

Wait a minute now, the whole purpose of recreational boating is driving around like an idiot and ignoring danger warnings.

There aren't too many recreational boaters heading south into mexican waters from BSC. they are typically heading out down the channel ship lane that goes west, so as long as the rocket launches east there should not be to much of a problem. Most of the fishermen are headed in the direction of offshore reefs that are scattered along the coast, there are a few sunken boats, 42 ft  reef is up closer to mansville, that pretty much eliminates everyone except those lingering off the coast to watch a rocket launch.  Most of the charter fisherman have a list of GPS so if you given a latitude they can stay north of that latitude.

"Hey, Bubba, hold my beer and watch this......."

Seriously though, some reasons they might have picked Port Isabel:

Intracoastal Canal, permits moving large loads and bulk material via barge, right to the facility.

Former Harlingen Air Force Base has good runways and infrastructure.

The regulatory environment in Texas is much more relaxed than in California.

Texas has a business friendly philosophy, plus no state income tax.

Austin is about four road hours away, it's a major tech and R&D hub.

Rail lines nearby.

Regarding the rig map: how many of those are still above the surface? I've fished, boated, flown and conducted research all along the Gulf Coast since the 70s. One thing that has been apparent over the last 20 years is the huge decline in above water structure, most of what's out there now is submerged well heads. For some insight: RIG To Reefs

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

China it is understandable since it has nuclear weapons. I would find it hard to believe that RSA political governces cares about what mongolia believes. 

The border that Russia wants to avoid divides Mongolia and China.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Mahatma Kane Jeeves said:

"Hey, Bubba, hold my beer and watch this......."

Seriously though, some reasons they might have picked Port Isabel:

Intracoastal Canal, permits moving large loads and bulk material via barge, right to the facility.

Former Harlingen Air Force Base has good runways and infrastructure.

The regulatory environment in Texas is much more relaxed than in California.

Texas has a business friendly philosophy, plus no state income tax.

Austin is about four road hours away, it's a major tech and R&D hub.

Rail lines nearby.

Regarding the rig map: how many of those are still above the surface? I've fished, boated, flown and conducted research all along the Gulf Coast since the 70s. One thing that has been apparent over the last 20 years is the huge decline in above water structure, most of what's out there now is submerged well heads. For some insight: RIG To Reefs

The intercostal canal with heavy loads weaves through Port Isabel and butts into the Brownsville ship channel. According to their design layout it does not even come close to the launch site, everything you see is dependent boca-chica hiway which right now is a relatively low grade two-lane road. Provided that the significantly upgrade the road, they could create a facility on the south side of the of the ship channel.

Im not concerned about the Rigs, that would be fredinno, he's fretting over rigs and Mexican stargazers. I know the rig count is down, they are few and far between in the south texas offshore area.

I have run the length of the intercoastal canal from just south of Mansville down to the BSC, my favorite spots in the 70s were markers 99, 100, 101. And we also used to fish the spoil islands up near the Arroya Colorado cut-off, more recently I have fished the region in front of South Bay and at the intersection of the IC canal and Brownsville ship. South Bay is not navigable by commercial craft, its barely navigable on a spring high tide with low draft craft. This is the bay that butts up against the Space X control facility, salt marsh that butts to the launch pad is an overflow zone for the Rio Grande, it is not accessible from any of the Navigable waterways to the north.

As I said in the other thread, you could extend a channel around the west edge of South bay and connect with their space facility provided you got permission from federal and state government. Not against that at all, would improve the fishing.

[fredinno]

On 4/6/2016 at 2:59 PM, PB666 said:

Im not concerned about the Rigs, that would be fredinno, he's fretting over rigs and Mexican stargazers. I know the rig count is down, they are few and far between in the south texas offshore area.

Hey. HEY.

[grimzod]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned methane...LNG, of which there is a megabuttload nearby...and mct / raptor will be methlox...

With elon always check location against availability of resources.  

[PB666]

1 hour ago, grimzod said:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned methane...LNG, of which there is a megabuttload nearby...and mct / raptor will be methlox...

With elon always check location against availability of resources.  

Already mentioned months ago, but yeah they would pay you to take the methane off the production platforms in the northern gulf right now. 

If you created a production platform about 50 miles north east and piped it to the BSC, you could get all the methane to your hearts desire when deepwater drilling starts again in the gulf, right now theres just no liquidity to do it, and peeps would pay to use your platform and give you the gas, only problem is getting it off the platform. You could build an offshore LNG plant, and sell whats left tomEurope for a pretty penny, china also, japan also. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by PB666

[Roastduck]

On 4/5/2016 at 0:58 AM, fredinno said:

Actually, looking at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/russia-launch-progress-ms-263p-iss/

It looks like Russia's launch inclinations are limited by Chinese and Mongolian airspace, about 1000 km away from Baikinour. Thus, Polar launches are impossible from Brownsville, it would overflight Mexico.

It's only equilateral, and even then, straight out.

 

On 4/6/2016 at 0:37 PM, fredinno said:

It was part of the ISS negotiations. Russia needed a higher inclination than the minimal inclination it can physically use, to not overflight mongolia and china. 

Something tells me that Russia's diplomatic relations with China and Mongolia are NOT analogous to USA's diplomatic relations with Mexico.

On 6/18/2016 at 7:55 PM, PB666 said:

Already mentioned months ago, but yeah they would pay you to take the methane off the production platforms in the northern gulf right now. 

If you created a production platform about 50 miles north east and piped it to the BSC, you could get all the methane to your hearts desire when deepwater drilling starts again in the gulf, right now theres just no liquidity to do it, and peeps would pay to use your platform and give you the gas, only problem is getting it off the platform. You could build an offshore LNG plant, and sell whats left tomEurope for a pretty penny, china also, japan also. 

I live in SW Louisiana, where we have two or three major LNG expansions underway. Please do not take away one of our primary industries ;P

[Rakaydos]

4 minutes ago, Roastduck said:

 

Something tells me that Russia's diplomatic relations with China and Mongolia are NOT analogous to USA's diplomatic relations with Mexico.

I live in SW Louisiana, where we have two or three major LNG expansions underway. Please do not take away one of our primary industries ;P

Well, you know how much SpaceX loves their vertical integration...

[wumpus]

41 minutes ago, Roastduck said:

 

Something tells me that Russia's diplomatic relations with China and Mongolia are NOT analogous to USA's diplomatic relations with Mexico.

I live in SW Louisiana, where we have two or three major LNG expansions underway. Please do not take away one of our primary industries ;P

If you have chemical plants, they will likely need lots of methane delivered.  I can't see LNG leaving LA.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

i thought brownsville launch center was for BFR

[Roastduck]

Just now, wumpus said:

If you have chemical plants, they will likely need lots of methane delivered.  I can't see LNG leaving LA.

Before the expansion, 25% of the nation's LNG passes through here. It was suggested that there could be an LNG terminal constructed. If that happened, then there would be infrastructure in place there for other companies to establish terminals, which would definitely impact the local economy. Not saying the LNG would up and leave, but its presence here would be lessened.

[Mjp1050]

Why would Elon care about oil fields? He's the CEO of Tesla and chairman of SolarCity. He'd probably consider hitting an oil field a bonus.

This is a joke, by the way.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Mjp1050

[PB666]

Cause his rockets don't launch on solar power.