Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Quick question - since it's South Texas and I can see the Gulf of Mexico in the screenshot... isn't that a little close to the water? Not just maybe global warming + sea level rises but storm surge from hurricanes.

Or is that not a concern? Anyone with more knowledge on the topic could share?

View on HN

Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. And you don't want to launch to the West so that you can take advantage of the Earth's rotation rather than fighting it. (Launch sites on the West coast are for polar orbits which launch either North or South).

Given those requirements, there's no location that isn't vulnerable to hurricanes. Boca Chica actually doesn't get many hurricanes compared to Florida or further North on the Texas coast.

Thanks a lot, Bryan. I know/knew some of those things (like being close to water in general) - I guess I was concerned about how close it appeared to be :)

> Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people.

Not if you're Russia/China.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-house...

China is moving away from that as well. China did this because of the threat of capitalist invasion but the realize its dumb.

Russia is a bit different and they couldn't really move it further east because it would be to far from their industrial centers. They had a hell of a time transporting the Buran system to launch already.

Can you launch over the great lakes? Or a desert? Also, what about the east coast? Sure, there was Sandy, but it was nothing compared to what happens in the gulf with regularity. Part of my hunch is that the regulatory environment is favorable in nowhere, TX to bring in potentially polluting industry. No chance Elon could have had a launch site built on the tip of Montauk, for example, although he probably would have loved the press of him self driving from the city to there.

Launching closer to the equator is easier.

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-imp...

I think they would have to fly out between Florida and Cuba on orbital flights so a little more restricted than Cape Canaveral.

I have to imagine one of the reasons you wouldn't launch of the Great Lakes is the absolute insane weather we get up here.

I imagine the weather at Baikonur Kazakhstan and Vostochny Siberia is no better, and the Russians launch from there.

Yea I'm not entirely sure. I see that Baikonur doesn't get a lot of precipitation, but that doesn't explain Amur Oblast which looks comparable to a place like Cleveland in terms of temperature and precipitation.

I have to imagine that even if weather wasn't a concern (again no idea here just enjoying the discussion) - it would cost pretty much the same to build and launch from the Gulf Coast, so long as you don't get hurricane-d, and you can launch year-round (can you launch in snow?).

You want to launch east to get a boost from earth's rotation, and as close to the equator as possible. Even ignoring that, the great lakes are not big enough for sufficient safety area (if that sounds preposterous, consider that Cuba, that is a thousand miles away from their launch site, actually limits available inclinations from Boca Chica), and there are no deserts in the Americas that don't have cities between them and the east coast.

I get that people want to work the political angle here, but Boca Chica was definitely the best remaining place to launch rockets from continental US, no arguments from regulatory environment needed.

A desert would be excellent. We lost a Space Shuttle due to humid Florida air leading to condensation, ice, a heavy torn-off chunk of foam, a fractured wing edge, and heat-induced structural failure.

Southern Arizona would work, especially at high altitude. We used to do that, but moved to Florida after Mexico complained about debris crossing the border.

By design, launch pads (and landing pads) will be more compatible with varying sea level than most other structures.

Pads are generally flooded with water on every launch, starting shortly before the engines ignite. The water deluge system absorbs some of the energy of the rocket exhaust -- this reduces damage to both the pad and the rocket (from reflected sound).

"What is striking about this architectural drawing is its compact nature, largely because SpaceX has limited land to work with at the facility and must include stormwater ponds to mitigate against flooding."

Not sure it is any worse than KSC in terms of proximity to danger water.

Being on the cost is also nice because eventually they'll ship/fly the ships to the converted oil rig launch facilities.

fun fact, KSC is also a huge nature preserve. ...and there are alligators EVERYWHERE. Last time i was there (many years ago) they were basically as common as squirrels. Actually, i wouldn't surprised if they allowed hunters these days.

I'm thinking maybe the solution would be simple as they'll just need to raise the platform and other areas by building up. The mostly empty land is not used for anything and allows for explosions without causing harm to people, they can be under water (maybe). You can raise the roads going to the platform too.

Yeah, it’s a real concern (at high tide, the area around it is flooded), but SpaceX has traditionally addressed such things with a “we’ll just rebuild or adapt if/when that happens.” They built a huge, thin-gauge horizontal assembly building right on the old crawlerway at LC39A in Florida right by the launch pad. It could well be destroyed if a fully Fueled Falcon Heavy (or Starship) explodes or if a Cat 5 hurricane gives it a direct hit. Unlike the more hardened historic VAB that NASA uses. But SpaceX built it quickly and cheaply and it has stood for most of a decade already, so it seems to have been a fairly good decision so far.

They will truck in thousands of load of soil to build it up. The production site is probably in greater danger of flooding at the moment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com