WILL SPACEX HEARING TURN INTO ANOTHER CHEERLEADING SESSION?

By Juan Montoya
The hype has been coming hot and heavy as tomorrow's hearing to discuss the Federal Aviation Administrations' Environmental  Impact Report for its proposed commercial satellite launch pad near Boca Chica Beach.
We have the local newspaper fudging over numbers released by the Brownsville Economic Development Council's VP Gilbert Salinas.
"If constructed, the new launch site is reported to directly or indirectly create about 1,000 jobs, all paying in excess of $55,000. The 12 monthly launches per year are also expected to attract up to 15,000 visitors each."
"...a resolution encouraging the construction of a commercial launch site near Boca Chica Beach as SpaceX continues to consider South Texas as a possible location for its space exploration operations."

"The FAA released a report April 15 that showed it found "few" environmental concerns with Boca Chica Beach being used as a launch site.
Mayor Tony Martinez cited that report, calling the location an “ideal place” for the launch site and noting that NASA had considered the Boca Chica area in the 1950s when it was building its first launch site, which was eventually located in Cape Canaveral, Fla."
The San Antonio Express pitched in with: "Since NASA shuttered its space shuttle program, the commercial space industry has grown in importance, led in part by SpaceX, with over $4 billion in contracts, including a $1.6 billion contract to resupply cargo to the International Space Station."
Created in 2002 by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, SpaceX manufactures rockets and now launches mainly from Cape Canaveral in Florida but needs more space to meet growing commercial demand."
There was nothing said about the SpaceX plans that we know of about constructing a rocket-building plant here. This is, as a reader noted, a new wrinkle in the works. But before we lose our heads in the stats over SpaceX, let's state what SpaceX is not:

1. The Boca Chica commercial launch satellite site is not in any way associated with the $4 billion in future space launch contracts SpaceX has with the National Aeronautics Space Administration.

2. SpaceX will not launch any craft to the International Space Station from Boca Chica.

3. SpaceX will not launch any manned spacecraft from Boca Chica.

5. SpaceX will not launch manned spacecraft to the moon, Mars, or any other planet from Boca Chica.

6. If SpaceX selects the Boca Chica site, it will operate as  private enterprise on private property. 

7. SpaceX is under no obligation to fund any educational programs, or demand that its scientists and workers be from or live in South Texas.

8. SpaceX says it plans to launch 12 times a year from the site it eventually chooses, but is under no obligation to launch any satellites except to its clients.

9. The need for a monthly launch of a relatively small payload satellite from Boca Chica will not need or create 1,000 direct or indirect jobs to the area. It will probably bring the majority of its highly-trained engineers and scientists from outside the area, leaving relatively less skilled workers and service providers locally.

10. The monthly shutting of Boca Chica Beach, the Navigation District Channel, and the Intercoastal Waterway will all be necessary to comply with FAA safety regulations during a planned launch.

12. The facilities necessary for SpaceX to launch a low-orbit small-payload satellite will be the bare minimum and geared to launch the satellite and depart until the next month's launch. 

13. There is going to be no "space exploration" operations going on at Boca Chica.

14. If listing more than two scores of endangered animals, a host of rare plant species and unique geological features are considered "few environmental concerns" by local leaders, then NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife are mistaken.

15. And no, Mayor Martinez, NASA never considered Boca Chica as a potential launch site in the 1950s. The study where Brownsville and nine other sites were considered was in 1961. Brownsville was turned down because it was not the "ideal place" as Mayor Martinez has called it because the trajectory of the launch took the rocket and the craft over populated areas like Florida and Cuba. It still does.
SpaceX's Brownsvile operation will not be related (at all) to the company's operations in Cape Canaveral or to NASA.
It is not related (at all) to the December 2008 NASA announcement that SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon Spacecraft were contracted to resupply the International Space Station (ISS). The $1.6 billion contract represents a minimum of 12 flights, with an option to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion."
In fact, NASA has nothing to do with the local project. SpaceX will not fire NASA missions from Brownsville, despite the pipe dreams of BEDC gurus.
It also will not send manned spacecraft to the ISS, the moon, or for that matter, Mars, despite the comments of Bob Lancaster, President of the Texas Space Alliance.
The reason is simple. In order to reach the ISS whose orbit is inclined at 51.6 degrees, the launch azimuth from Brownsville would be approximately 42 degrees, which would take the craft over populated land masses, a non-no in FAA regulations.
"It is exciting to think that you will be able to see the launch of a manned space mission to Mars," Lancaster said to wild applause during nthe first FAA hearing that bwas nothing moret ahan a huge cheerleading session with city officials wearing SpaceX patches and one commissioner – Jessica Tetreau-Kalifa – showed up with ehr son wearing color-coordinated apparel.
All the claims of launching to Mars and beyond were not to be.
Instead, it is to be a minor launch site where SpaceX will program launches of limited commercial payloads (communications, weather satellites, etc.) for private customers that could include foreign states or other businesses.
All the talk by BEDC spokesmen about Brownsville being the ideal location because of our geography makes little sense. The location of the competing site in Puerto Rico is closer to the equator. In fact, Cape Canaveral, the other competitor, is less than three degrees difference in latitude than Brownsville (25.9014 to 28.4556) , a negligible difference. So much for geographic advantage.
The other claim, that the rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) to be used in the first stage of the rocket was no different (and implicitly no more dangerous than) "the kerosene you use in your campfire," is also a huge stretch. SpaceX's Director of Advanced Projects Steven Davis put that shibboleth to rest admitting that the highly-refined kerosene, if it was the same as camp-fire grade fuel, would not be used to propel the rockets.
In fact, even the launching of satellites east over water, there is some objection to the craft being flown over Florida's populated areas, or worse, over Cuba.
In the 1961 NASA-Dept. of Defense study of Brownsville as a launch area for manned space flights to the moon, the site was rejected for this very fact and for the fact that "the launch azimuth would be limited to approximately 80 to 90 degrees [imagine North being 0 and east being 90] to minimize land impact of (stages)."