Environmentalists Oppose Proposed SpaceX Commercial Launch Site

Posted
by
Doug Messier
on June 4, 2012, at 5:07 am
in News
. Tags: , , , .
Comments: 10 responses
10 Comments

SpaceX's proposed commercial spaceport is outlined in red. It is almost entirely surrounded by Boca Chica State Park (in green). (Credit: Environment Texas)

AUSTIN (Environment Texas PR) – Environment Texas launched a petition drive today to stop the proposed construction of a spaceport on 49 acres of land almost completely surrounded by a south Texas park and wildlife refuge. California company SpaceX – which made news last week when their commercial spacecraft successfully attached to the International Space Station – has applied to the Federal Aviation Administration for a license to launch million pound rockets from an area home to endangered sea turtles, ocelots and falcons.

“I love the space program as much, if not more, than anyone,” said Environment Texas Director Luke Metzger. “But launching big, loud, polluting rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles and spray noxious chemicals all over the place. It’s a terrible idea and SpaceX needs to find another place for their spaceport.”

On Tuesday, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration outlining significant concerns with the proposed facility, which would include a hangar, a launch pad, a stand that contains a flame duct, propellant storage tanks, and more. TPWD wrote that “noise, heat, vibration, fencing and hazardous material spills” from the project could harm endangered and threatened species and diminish the value of Boca Chica State Park (near Brownsville) and the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. SpaceX had previously approached TPWD about leasing parkland for the project, which the agency declined. SpaceX then instead leased 49 acres of land almost completely surrounded by the state park (see attached map). TPWD also noted

  • “potential for significant contamination of very sensitive resources in the event of a catastrophic event (i.e., hurricane)”
  • the area is “extremely susceptible to wildfires” which could result from launch failures and accidental fires
  • concern “with the loss of the function and value of all wetlands”
  • “recreational use of the TPWD lands as currently planned would need to be revised”
  • “the proposed project area is within the Central Flyway, a route through which over 500 species of birds migrate annually”.

Environment Texas also pointed out the risk the project poses to the south Texas economy. According to a 2011 Texas A&M study, nature tourism generates about $300 million a year in the Rio Grande Valley, created 4,407 full- and part-time jobs and $2.6 million in sales taxes and $7.26 million in hotel taxes. The Rio Grande Valley has been named the number two destination in North America for birdwatching and attracts visitors from all over the world to view almost 500 species of bird. The petition calls on SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to find suitable land for the project elsewhere.

Be Sociable, Share!

Permalink

Post Comment

  • Paul451

    Lack of research by Enviro-Texas. Having a space-port is a guarantee that no further development will ever be carried out in the surrounding area. And rocket tourism, plus direct employment from SpaceX, will augment eco-tourism.

    Compare this to getting, say, another refinery. Or a tannery, or a thousand other types of industries that actually pose a risk to wildlife.

  • Andy

    Agreed. Perhaps Luke Metzger should speak with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about how endangered species in the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge have coexisted with rockets for over 50 years.

  • Brian

    I agree with Mssrs. Paul451 & Andy and would suggest that Mr. Metzger, who it would seems has his finger on the pulse of the environment and wildlife of the area, post notices on the launch schedules for SpaceX and perhaps set up group counseling during the transition period. Worried about frightening the wildlife…indeed!

  • Warshawski

    As above the noise is loud but not that loud or that often and the first stage burns kerosene, effectively very clean diesel os it is less toxic than a motor home or pick up truck. I wish the environmentalists would come up with reasonable alternatives instead of always objecting to everything. The SpaceX facility has the potential to support a brand new high tech industry but instead of asking for reasonable restrictions such as reasonable levels of acoustic suppression, bunding of fuel tanks etc they completely oppose all development.

  • Anonymous

    There is no question there are some environmental risks to building a spaceport near a wildlife refuge. With little or no land left for wildlife and man continuing to stomp endlessly across the landscape, someone has to speak for the creatures less able to defend themselves. The objections against this project bare discussion and it would seem that an accomodation could be crafted. The truth is that within the community of Brownsville, unemployment is substantially higher than the rest of Texas. We need jobs to support the people just as much as we need to support the animals. Compromise must be the order of the day because losing these jobs is not an option.

  • ReusablesForever

    How about Matagorda Island, off the coast of Texas and north of the proposed site? It was considered some years ago by some now defunct company. There is an abandoned SAC Air Force base there. Launches could be made East and range to the south for polar missions.

    I agree with Andy and Warsharski a launch site could be made compatible and not disturbing to wildlife if sufficient planning and design is done up front from day one.

  • Colleen

    There is sufficient space in Texas to relocate the launch site, without disturbing the wildlife and ecosystem processes that play a vital role to human services in the area. SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to send a capsole to the ISS so they should be capable of researching adequate launch sites that are outside the boundaries of protected parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges.

  • David O.

    As someone has already pointed out, Kennedy Space Center and the Merritt Island Wildlife Reserve have already proven to be a safe combination, not to mention that the land area occupied by SpaceX relative to the Boca Chica Park is much smaller than the ratio of KSC to the Merritt Island Park. I agree that this is simply some environmentalists trying to be contrary rather than an actual threat to the surrounding wildlife.

  • http://www.parabolicarc.com Doug Messier

    The Cape Canaveral facilities were established long before any of the real strict environmental regulations were passed. Things are much stricter now, so the review will be much more rigorous.

  • warshawski

    @Colleen the trouble with land launches is the possibility of debris from launch failure. In Russia they have very large areas of very low population and the legal liability issues are not a problem. That is not the case in Texas. Even in Australia from Woomera when orbital rocket testing was underway all persons in the flight path for over 1000 miles had shelters built and were advised to be in/near them during launch. Because of the flight path being mostly over desert the population was very sparce but Texas is not that big and there are more people so a launch over land would be very difficult to approve.