Why Isn't Texas Interested in its own Spaceport?
Is Texas forfeiting the private space race?, Houston Chronicle
“We are pretty interested in the possibility of Texas and building a spaceport there,” said Elon Musk, founder and chief executive of SpaceX. However, Musk says that interest has yet to be reciprocated by Texas officials. “There’s been a lot of good action by the authorities in the Brownsville area; there’s not been that much at the state level, and we’d certainly appreciate more from the state level,” Musk said.
Texas could land private launch site, MySanAntonio
“The state of Texas ought to be on it like a duck on a June bug,” said Tom Moser, a former NASA space station program director who led an effort to build a Texas spaceport in the 1990s. But is the state? Apparently not.”
I have to wonder if our old friend Senator K.B. Hutchison is behind the “no action, no talk” policy on this. Even though this would be good for Texas, she might see this as a “commercial” or “private” (new space) space port, which could be seen as competition for the old guard aerospace companies which she defends so vigorously with her living-in-the-past attitude. If there has been a word from on high stifling this project, then the only option would be to develop the space port with private investment money, which doesn’t seem to me to be a likelihood. But if it did happen that way, KBH will have shot herself in the foot, big time.
Steve
Doesnt private mean private investment money or are you asking the state to subsidize a private Company
States give companies all kinds of breaks to subsidize them moving to their state.
Sorry to feel I have to state the obvious.
I lived in Austin for three years. I recall them having lots of beef cattle ranches when I was there. Apparently pork is the current meat of choice.
I am very aware of that, that was the point Tax payer should not be subsidizine privite Co
But Keith, Steve and co were merely asking what is stopping this government that routinely subsides private industry, from even showing any interest in this specific private industry.
Asking what caused a change in behaviour doesn’t necessarily condone that behaviour. Nor does reciting your ideological shibboleths answer the question.
Dan,
Rereading this, I can see I wasn’t very clear. What I was thinking about was that KBH (in my mind) tends to close doors on anything that might be competition for SLS, which necessarily includes competition to KSC. She doesn’t care for competition; she just wants what she wants, and anybody who doesn’t see things her way had best tread carefully. Even though it sounds over the top, I think the federal system is breaking down because people like her are in their positions of power far too long and start to think of themselves as invincible.
Steve
In previous topics, others have pointed out the state’s apparent lack of interest in the space program, or the facilities that it already houses, (except when it doesn’t get something.) It may not be necessary to invoke a conspiracy against NewSpace when simple apathy suffices.
Paul,
Good point. Occam’s Razor.
Steve
“Why Isn’t Texas Interested in its own Spaceport?”State level Texas Republicans. That’s why.
I’d wager even the Mexican state of Tamaulipas or Agencia Espacial Mexicana would offer even some support, since they have stated interest in commercial space. Texas has none of the kind.
If I were that Mexican state governor, I’d try to to work something out to that effect utilizing NAFTA and other diplomatic measures if TX just forfeits this one.
That’s how bad Texas GOP politicians have been for this state. The JSC workforce will just keep on voting for them, to same effect they voted for Tom Delay who is now a convicted felon.
ITAR would make it essentially impossible to launch outside the US.
My W.A. G. is at least one Texas GCB Senator and some other key Texas politicos don’t want to see anything that remotely threatens Houston and JSC. , and possibly Michoud and Huntsville , so they are stonewalling this from on high . Why the nerve of that upstart South African and his private sector kerosene burner….
Folks:
The way to cut through the (possible) lobbying against Spacex getting a space port in Texas is to counter-lobby their opposition. It would be in their interests to bring this issue to the public’s knowledge… in the one place where it matters the most, the legislature.
tinker
Rockofitters comment from the last Spacex thread.
TRW spud ejector concept!
The more musk tries to make a large thrust engine?????
What do you mean by large thrust? More efficient or bigger merlin2?
Rockofitters
Please explain why this is so and what is better and if more efficient rocket engines can be as cost effective. I have been lead to believe here that the more efficient/powerful rocket engines just get too expensive at this time to be cost competitive.
I want to understand your comment.
Thanks
Not a rocket scientist
GOP is playing high stakes poker here. And they have a rotten hole card.
Because of one 3-letter acronym. JSC!
“After additional reviews and discussions between the SpaceX and NASA teams, we are in a position to proceed toward this important launch. The teamwork provided by these teams is phenomenal. There are a few remaining open items but we are ready to support SpaceX for its new launch date of May 19.”
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/…
A spaceport in Texas is not a threat to JSC (Mission Control) in Huston. However it is a big threat to KSC (launch pads) in Florida.
I think the old way of doing business with Houston as the one and only ‘Ops Center’ is over and done and will never return. Commercial Crew, which is flight ops, already moved to KSC. The Ops organization is being downsized and consolidated-it should never have been permitted to grow so large, and that growing expense without putting money into the R&D to make Shuttle more affordable is in large part what killed Shuttle without enhancing it and without having a replacement. If JSC wants a unique place at the table, it would have made sense to put that place in manned spacecraft research and design, but they’ve been giving that responsibility to others because ops forgot that was what the space center was originally known for.
I’m a big SpaceX supporter, and I think this new launch site would be great for Texas.
However, Texas might be smart not to give too much away to SpaceX. If SpaceX really thinks they can launch from Texas and land their first stages in Florida, Texas has a huge natural advantage over any competing site in the U.S. Where else can you launch east over hundreds of miles of open water and then find land to put your stage down on after that water? That site in Texas is also closer to the equator than nearly any other U.S. real estate.
So, if SpaceX already really wants to be in Texas, it wouldn’t be smart for the state to give them a lot of special tax breaks, because they’d build their pad there with or without those tax breaks.
I have no idea whether the actions (or lack thereof) by the Texas state government with respect to this site are based on this kind of analysis, or just a lack of knowledge, or, as some commenters have suggested, deliberate sabotage to help JSC. Until we have more information, we shouldn’t assume any particular one of these hypotheses.
“Where else can you launch east over hundreds of miles of open water and then find land to put your stage down on after that water? That site in Texas is also closer to the equator than nearly any other U.S. real estate.”
Gitmo. Two airbases, deep water port. US controlled. Close to the
equator. Open water to the south-east. Land 1st stage in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
OK, you have a point there. But the treaty giving the United States rights to Guantanamo Bay was a 1934 document which reaffirmed the rights in a 1903 treaty, and the 1903 treaty specifies that the U.S. gets “the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land
and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the
anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to
fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no
other purpose.”
It’s hard to argue that letting a private U.S. space launch company build a pad there is something “necessary” for a “coaling or naval station”.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/…
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/…
The United States has an agreement with the Russians not to invade Cuba. That agreement is torn up if Cuba attacks a US base.
Cuba should be made aware of this when contesting the lease.
[Belatedly. Sorry.]
“to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.”
How does “military detention centre” fit into that?
But I was just being flippant. Gitmo would only work for limited south-east trajectories. And launching what amounts to an ICBM from a place that was the focus of a Cold War stand-off over Soviet ICBMs would be… political.
If Spacex is just starting with a single launch site. And a few employees. I would think that the state government wouldn’t care. The whole point why they don’t like new space.
There’s a lot of old guard out there that only thinks in terms of NASA, government, and the contractors they are familiar with …
Absolutely. It works me up too.
And they enjoy a frenzied 2 hour rant on the subject more than 5 minutes of critical, rational thought. What they were known for.
When they were younger, they got themselves under control. Because they didn’t dare appear ridiculous – lose too much.
So, now … they are losing. How much will they let themselves lose?
This is a very true statement.
At some point, some of those employees need to come to terms about what their legacy will be. As it stands now the U.S. has no manned launch capability and if we follow NASA lead plans alone, we won’t have anything reliable or sustainable.
No group, generation or workforce wants to be known as the one that killed US manned spaceflight. At JSC, KSC and MSFC certain groups and individuals are getting very close to that determination, no matter how much diversion of blame anyone can muster.
If everyone at NASA would get on the bandwagon now and just focus on sustainable and efficient, things would be so much better. SLS for example shouldn’t have to be man-rated if another cheaper/sustainable vehicle will suffice for crew transport.
Even following older laws on the books would help. The Competitive Space Task Force in September 2011 said that the new
government launcher directly violates NASA’s charter, the Space Act, and
the 1998 Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the
“fullest possible engagement of commercial providers” and to “seek and
encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of
space”.
JSC probably figures it will continue as the center for space operations. But the days of intensive Shuttle ops is gone. I dont think any of the commercial companies is going is going to relinquish control of their vehicles to JSC. JSC is stuck with things like NEEMO and Desert Rats playing astronauts, but doing nothing real. JSC had better get with the program or it is going to be left in the dust.
Yes-its interesting that their entire management infrastructure is based on ops experience which is of little use when it comes to the new tasks ahead. JSC had better figure out how it will take part in tomorrow’s world and stake a claim for that role. In a real sense, their focus on operations to the exclusion of everything else may have killed their usefulness. Now they have so few people with an R&D background especially in leadership that they have no one to look for for direction.