Really interesting read on the whole natural gas plant, but is there any info on whether this is a processing plant in conjunction with generating power, or just a power plant? They will need thousands of tons of pure liquid methane (not just LNG, it has enough impurities to cause issues with the engines) per launch, and we're talking about a lot of launches. Also would be interesting to see you write a cost-benefit analysis of the environmental impact compared to the potential for space development that Starship enables.
Most LNG that goes out for export is 99% or greater methane, if you read the entry about the LNG it covers this. Their own engine simulation appears to show 2 carbon species in it as well, but I'm not completely confident in my interpretation of it.
Making a cost benefit analysis is tough because you can't just count carbon or another fungible resource. What value do you put on individual species of birds?
Thanks for the comment, I don't have lots of big picture answers, but I think it merits discussion. I'm mostly concerned about the abuse of established law and implications thereof.
Ahh yes, since posting I read the prior posts. I'm not sure what value to place on individual birds species, or regular beach access to the public. Personally, I'm big on space development, so my own biases would show. I do think that Starship development is important to everyone, and I'm concerned about NIMBYism, but this whole LNG situation seems pretty sketchy, especially with the technical difficulties (or lack of technical documentation) you've brought up here.
Really, they should have started planning for this years ago. I am admittedly biased against Musk (which I fully admit to and own) but I don't know how to proceed. I think space exploration is great too fwiw
Why is Starship development "important to everyone" ? Count me out, please. I would like to see efforts to counter climate change/damage, efforts to bring food/health/education to parts of this planet where people lack these essentials, etc. That is important to me (and everyone else). Space development (now) is one big wet dream for coddled billionaires. Something that apparently we all pay for. We already have a space-ship, it is called Earth - and at the moment our Earth needs a lot of maintenance. It is once again obvious: money speaks, but hardly ever the truth.
Why is space development so important in the first place? And does it truly justify destroying one of the few places along that coast that hasn't been ruined by development already?
Would the environment recover if Falcon Heavy launches were halted after damage was done? You know, build it, learn from mistakes, and then move the facility to another part of the country if needed. Bob Zimmerman writes that wildlife around the Kennedy Space Center has if anything thrived from being in an off limits for commercial development area.
so SpaceX is operating on hundreds of acres of land in Boca Chica? What kind of environmental damage could be caused by activity on such a small site ( relative to the Texas gulf coast )? If Biden allows more test launches and there is measurable destruction, the damage would not be irreversible, correct?
Musk and SpaceX are destroying the Earth and plan to destroy Mars by modifying its natural ecosystem. It would be simpler to just focus on saving Earth.
SpaceX is destroying the Earth by launching a large rocket every month from a hundred acre site off the Texas gulf coast? Compared to 5670 commercial flights in the US every day? I do not think democrats are being sincere in their stated reasons of blocking Elon. Heck, how much land is paved over in the US every year to accommodate millions of immigrants?
Saying commercial aviation is bad for emissions does not justify bad space launch emissions. The US welcomes less than 700k new legal immigrants every year (not including reclassified current residents) which is significantly less than the multiple millions who are born in this country; not to mention the idea that new immigrants are paving over the prairie instead of cramming into overoccupied and dilapidated existing infrastructure. The Democrats aren't sincere in blocking Elon? The Nixon administration established the EPA Jack, get it right.
Nothing but misinformation from your site. You do not even know the difference between mineral rights and gas rights. "hundreds of wells" when there is a gas glut in TX and an existing unused pipeline. Go suck Bezos.
there is no pipeline, which has been covered repeatedly here and elsewhere. A 4 inch low pressure pipe (which was there until it was permanently disabled in 2016) will feed a small boiler.
That's ok though, thanks for reading, glad you learned something!
Eric, Thank You for doing this. i was appalled when i first learned what SpaceX was up to in Boca Chica. How this facility ever received permits for building in such a biologically fragile environment is beyond me. i've emailed Earth Justice a couple of times in an attempt to get them involved, but received no response at all which greatly disappointed me.
Sorry for stupid questions but why would SpaceX want to create a gas plant anyway (by which you mean a gas power station I think)? SpaceX needs liquid methane as fuel for their Starship rocket, along with liquid oxygen. They don't need to burn methane to create electricity: they use electricity from the grid.
In general if you want to save the environment you should campaign against the use of cars not against rockets or SpaceX. Cars produce millions of times more CO2 than rockets ever have. After cars, look at aviation again it's millions of times more CO2 and other pollutants than the entire rocket industry going back to Sputnik. It's true that a rocket taking off will create large amounts of local noise and pollution. When the Saturn Vs launched in the 1960s birds flying nearby were roasted in mid air. People took the attitude it was worth it and I agree. If you want rockets to launch they have to launch from somewhere and local people will always object. If your attitude it "never launch another rocket, never leave Earth again" that's an attitude I respect but don't agree with.
As for FAA being in the pocket of SpaceX, if that were the case why have they repeatedly delayed their decision now putting it off till 28 March?
1. Methane needs to be separated from natural gas, which is why they need a gas plant
2. I don't know all their power needs but they wrote that they intend to build a 250 MW power plant, not me. You can even see it for yourself in the documents
You obviously have no idea how this facility has already detrimentally affected the surrounding eco system. Boca Chica is a unique and fragile ecosystem located along an international migratory route and for that reason alone warrants preservation. SpaceX never should have received approval to build there Period. Launch activities there have generated multiple brush fires in the surrounding areas destroying habitat in their wake which affects many species of plants and animals not just Birds. The area has also become littered with trash and debris left behind from many failed launch attempts.
So if your attitude is "So what if a few Birds get roasted in the process", then clearly You have Zero comprehension in regards to the debilitating effects of habitat loss and the effects of extinction for not only the flora and fauna in localized areas, but the ultimate existence of the planet and the human race as well.
It's definitely Not OK (and not much of a Vision Statement) to generate such destruction in order for a few billionaires and those of their ilk to joy ride through space on a whim. Keep the rocket launches in Cape Canaveral where they belong.
How does the process look going forward? Can SpaceX adjust their environmental assessment? That is, could they decide not to build some of the related infrastructure, such as the gas power plant, the liquefier and the pretreatment facility. This would mean the proposed operations would more closely resemble the original 2014 permit. SpaceX could instead get the liquid methane they need delivered by truck. Such an adjustment will most likely be more costly for SpaceX, but perhaps quicker (in terms of acquiring the necessary permits to launch rockets). The years-long environmental assessment of the gas power plant, liquefier, and pretreatment facility could perhaps be done in parallel (or are you not allowed to split an environmental assessment into smaller distinct parts?)
I'll write more on this tonight. I suspect this is what they'll do but they already said in the PEA that they NEEDED these things, and there was no alternate place to do them
If they axe that part, it could be viewed as an implicit admission that they lied or exaggerated about the need and may bring into question the rest of the accuracy and reliability of the PEA.
It's why I was so stunned they tried to sneak this Natural Gas stuff in there
But this is a matter of national security, continued prominence of the US in reusable rocket technology, national prestige, even boosting the morale of the American people. In comparison, who cares whatever a PEA is. What is the Biden end game? If he destroys Elon, that negatively impacts the US ability to launch large payloads into orbit. Politically, there are a lot of SpaceX fans. More than a few of them voted for Biden.
So tell SpaceX what to do. Do not block them from test launches for what will be over a year before this is over. How does the US compete with China on missions to the moon if SpaceX is not allowed to test its equipment? Reusable, quick turnaround heavy lift into orbit could be critical in the years to come. Russia just blew up a satellite as warning to not interfere in Ukraine. US has to be able to quickly replace disabled satellites. Making the case that national security at stake. Is anyone in administration pushing back against Biden? Seems very petty and reckless.
Does SpaceX have anyone in the Biden administration on its side, who want rockets to be launch for the purpose of boosting national pride and advancing technological progress and leadership of the US in space exploration? My great fear is Biden is consumed with a dislike of Elon for political reasons.
Really interesting read on the whole natural gas plant, but is there any info on whether this is a processing plant in conjunction with generating power, or just a power plant? They will need thousands of tons of pure liquid methane (not just LNG, it has enough impurities to cause issues with the engines) per launch, and we're talking about a lot of launches. Also would be interesting to see you write a cost-benefit analysis of the environmental impact compared to the potential for space development that Starship enables.
Most LNG that goes out for export is 99% or greater methane, if you read the entry about the LNG it covers this. Their own engine simulation appears to show 2 carbon species in it as well, but I'm not completely confident in my interpretation of it.
Making a cost benefit analysis is tough because you can't just count carbon or another fungible resource. What value do you put on individual species of birds?
Thanks for the comment, I don't have lots of big picture answers, but I think it merits discussion. I'm mostly concerned about the abuse of established law and implications thereof.
Ahh yes, since posting I read the prior posts. I'm not sure what value to place on individual birds species, or regular beach access to the public. Personally, I'm big on space development, so my own biases would show. I do think that Starship development is important to everyone, and I'm concerned about NIMBYism, but this whole LNG situation seems pretty sketchy, especially with the technical difficulties (or lack of technical documentation) you've brought up here.
Really, they should have started planning for this years ago. I am admittedly biased against Musk (which I fully admit to and own) but I don't know how to proceed. I think space exploration is great too fwiw
Why is Starship development "important to everyone" ? Count me out, please. I would like to see efforts to counter climate change/damage, efforts to bring food/health/education to parts of this planet where people lack these essentials, etc. That is important to me (and everyone else). Space development (now) is one big wet dream for coddled billionaires. Something that apparently we all pay for. We already have a space-ship, it is called Earth - and at the moment our Earth needs a lot of maintenance. It is once again obvious: money speaks, but hardly ever the truth.
Why is space development so important in the first place? And does it truly justify destroying one of the few places along that coast that hasn't been ruined by development already?
This is a very important question to ask
Would the environment recover if Falcon Heavy launches were halted after damage was done? You know, build it, learn from mistakes, and then move the facility to another part of the country if needed. Bob Zimmerman writes that wildlife around the Kennedy Space Center has if anything thrived from being in an off limits for commercial development area.
That is a MUCH larger facility with a large wildlife refuge built around it. The site in Boca Chica isn't remotely similar.
so SpaceX is operating on hundreds of acres of land in Boca Chica? What kind of environmental damage could be caused by activity on such a small site ( relative to the Texas gulf coast )? If Biden allows more test launches and there is measurable destruction, the damage would not be irreversible, correct?
establishing natural earth habitats on mars is a way to safeguard all species on earth. factor that in.
Musk and SpaceX are destroying the Earth and plan to destroy Mars by modifying its natural ecosystem. It would be simpler to just focus on saving Earth.
SpaceX is destroying the Earth by launching a large rocket every month from a hundred acre site off the Texas gulf coast? Compared to 5670 commercial flights in the US every day? I do not think democrats are being sincere in their stated reasons of blocking Elon. Heck, how much land is paved over in the US every year to accommodate millions of immigrants?
Saying commercial aviation is bad for emissions does not justify bad space launch emissions. The US welcomes less than 700k new legal immigrants every year (not including reclassified current residents) which is significantly less than the multiple millions who are born in this country; not to mention the idea that new immigrants are paving over the prairie instead of cramming into overoccupied and dilapidated existing infrastructure. The Democrats aren't sincere in blocking Elon? The Nixon administration established the EPA Jack, get it right.
what is the value of earths entire biosphere?
If the FAA approves all the things that violate the law, isn't it sort of routine to file a lawsuit?
Nothing but misinformation from your site. You do not even know the difference between mineral rights and gas rights. "hundreds of wells" when there is a gas glut in TX and an existing unused pipeline. Go suck Bezos.
there is no pipeline, which has been covered repeatedly here and elsewhere. A 4 inch low pressure pipe (which was there until it was permanently disabled in 2016) will feed a small boiler.
That's ok though, thanks for reading, glad you learned something!
Bots and $TSLA shareholders don't learn anything. Don't bother responding to them.
Bullshit
Eric, Thank You for doing this. i was appalled when i first learned what SpaceX was up to in Boca Chica. How this facility ever received permits for building in such a biologically fragile environment is beyond me. i've emailed Earth Justice a couple of times in an attempt to get them involved, but received no response at all which greatly disappointed me.
Sorry for stupid questions but why would SpaceX want to create a gas plant anyway (by which you mean a gas power station I think)? SpaceX needs liquid methane as fuel for their Starship rocket, along with liquid oxygen. They don't need to burn methane to create electricity: they use electricity from the grid.
In general if you want to save the environment you should campaign against the use of cars not against rockets or SpaceX. Cars produce millions of times more CO2 than rockets ever have. After cars, look at aviation again it's millions of times more CO2 and other pollutants than the entire rocket industry going back to Sputnik. It's true that a rocket taking off will create large amounts of local noise and pollution. When the Saturn Vs launched in the 1960s birds flying nearby were roasted in mid air. People took the attitude it was worth it and I agree. If you want rockets to launch they have to launch from somewhere and local people will always object. If your attitude it "never launch another rocket, never leave Earth again" that's an attitude I respect but don't agree with.
As for FAA being in the pocket of SpaceX, if that were the case why have they repeatedly delayed their decision now putting it off till 28 March?
1. Methane needs to be separated from natural gas, which is why they need a gas plant
2. I don't know all their power needs but they wrote that they intend to build a 250 MW power plant, not me. You can even see it for yourself in the documents
You obviously have no idea how this facility has already detrimentally affected the surrounding eco system. Boca Chica is a unique and fragile ecosystem located along an international migratory route and for that reason alone warrants preservation. SpaceX never should have received approval to build there Period. Launch activities there have generated multiple brush fires in the surrounding areas destroying habitat in their wake which affects many species of plants and animals not just Birds. The area has also become littered with trash and debris left behind from many failed launch attempts.
So if your attitude is "So what if a few Birds get roasted in the process", then clearly You have Zero comprehension in regards to the debilitating effects of habitat loss and the effects of extinction for not only the flora and fauna in localized areas, but the ultimate existence of the planet and the human race as well.
It's definitely Not OK (and not much of a Vision Statement) to generate such destruction in order for a few billionaires and those of their ilk to joy ride through space on a whim. Keep the rocket launches in Cape Canaveral where they belong.
Space Channel has been covering this from the beginning
https://spacechannel.com/fate-of-spacex-in-boca-chica-tx/
A crew with FESCO Petroleum Engineers appeared on the SpaceX Boca Chica site today, with a heavy truck and mobile crane . 20 Jan 2022
How does the process look going forward? Can SpaceX adjust their environmental assessment? That is, could they decide not to build some of the related infrastructure, such as the gas power plant, the liquefier and the pretreatment facility. This would mean the proposed operations would more closely resemble the original 2014 permit. SpaceX could instead get the liquid methane they need delivered by truck. Such an adjustment will most likely be more costly for SpaceX, but perhaps quicker (in terms of acquiring the necessary permits to launch rockets). The years-long environmental assessment of the gas power plant, liquefier, and pretreatment facility could perhaps be done in parallel (or are you not allowed to split an environmental assessment into smaller distinct parts?)
I'll write more on this tonight. I suspect this is what they'll do but they already said in the PEA that they NEEDED these things, and there was no alternate place to do them
If they axe that part, it could be viewed as an implicit admission that they lied or exaggerated about the need and may bring into question the rest of the accuracy and reliability of the PEA.
It's why I was so stunned they tried to sneak this Natural Gas stuff in there
of course they claimed there are no suitable alternatives. They want what they want, when they want it.
But this is a matter of national security, continued prominence of the US in reusable rocket technology, national prestige, even boosting the morale of the American people. In comparison, who cares whatever a PEA is. What is the Biden end game? If he destroys Elon, that negatively impacts the US ability to launch large payloads into orbit. Politically, there are a lot of SpaceX fans. More than a few of them voted for Biden.
The number of one issue voters with that issue being "don't make Elon Musk wait for anything" is a few thousand people at best.
I think the American space business will be just fine if SpaceX is forced to make some alterations in their plans
So tell SpaceX what to do. Do not block them from test launches for what will be over a year before this is over. How does the US compete with China on missions to the moon if SpaceX is not allowed to test its equipment? Reusable, quick turnaround heavy lift into orbit could be critical in the years to come. Russia just blew up a satellite as warning to not interfere in Ukraine. US has to be able to quickly replace disabled satellites. Making the case that national security at stake. Is anyone in administration pushing back against Biden? Seems very petty and reckless.
Does SpaceX have anyone in the Biden administration on its side, who want rockets to be launch for the purpose of boosting national pride and advancing technological progress and leadership of the US in space exploration? My great fear is Biden is consumed with a dislike of Elon for political reasons.