Talk:SpaceX Starbase

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Unsinkable Molly Brown (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 28 March 2021 (→‎Officiality of the "Starbase" name: I've responded to Rosbif73's comments.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article name

The article is currently named SpaceX private launch site, because the FAA refers to the facility by that name in the Draft EIS released in April 2013. As far as I know, the facility does not yet have a "proper noun" name given by SpaceX, which is appropriate since the launch site could still be located in several different US States. Thus, usage of the lower-case "... private launch site" terms in the article name. When we locate a better/more correct name, we can rename the article then. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the site selection complete, and construction starting, I would think that the company, as well as the various contractors and government agencies and bureaus, will begin to refer to this launch site by some more standard name. As soon as we can figure that out, from reliable source documents, I would think an article move/rename ought to be considered. N2e (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has now occurred. See section below—Talk:SpaceX_private_launch_site#Time_for_an_article_name_change—where an article move has been proposed. N2e (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More news sources on the future facility

  • and another article on SpaceX' gradual purchases of land near Boca Chica even though they have not officially/publically selected the Texas location yet while the EIS is yet outstanding: SpaceX forms subdivision dubbed 'Mars Crossing'. Land purchased is up to 88 lots now. N2e (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and another: this one with a bunch of facts on the facility and the word by the US Fish and Wildlife Service "that the SpaceX project off Highway 4 at Boca Chica beach 'is not likely to jeopardize' or 'adversely modify' wildlife there, nor the local habitat." N2e (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and they bought more land in late April 2014. Purchased 5 more lots, now up to a total of 95 lots. Currently own about 38 acres, plus the 56.5 acres leased. SpaceX buys more land. N2e (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and six more lots, in two purchases, in May 2014. Here's another article from the ever-watchful researcher and journalist at the Valley Morning Star—the journalist who has been writing stories on all these SpaceX south Texas land acquisitions for over a year now—Emma Perez-Trevino: SpaceX buys land, 24 May 2014. This one had four lots, and mentions that SpaceX purchased two lots earlier in the month of May, for a total of 101 lots purchased now. N2e (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done—have added these totals to the article now; but not the lot count. N2e (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source, this one on incentives, projected SpaceX capital investment by year 5 and year 10, etc. [1]. N2e (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related: BEDC is purchasing, and platting a subdivision, near the SpaceX Mars Crossing subdivision plat: called BEDC Stargate subdivision. Link here. N2e (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News following the early-August announcement by SpaceX

Texas EIS won't be out until at least April May 2014

Per the Brownsville Herald, the Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Texas location won't be out until at least April 2014. Here's the link: [2] N2e (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the FAA's fourth delay. Now they're saying it won't be out until May. Here's the news story: [3]. N2e (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Final EIS for the Texas site option is out, sort of. The doc saying that the FAA is done with it is out, and that the FAA has sent it to the US EPA to get it published: with "download available soon". Here is the announcement: [4]. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources worth noting on the EIS release:

Brownsville confirmed? confirmed!

At the end of a press conference today, Musk apparently confirmed the south Texas selection, but did allow for the need to obtain final environmental approvals. Here's a brief from the Chronicle journalist: Elon Musk on Texas spaceport: “We’ll probably have that site active in a couple of years.”. I'm sure longer-form articles will be out on this soon. N2e (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems like it's a done deal pending enviro approval. This is video of the National Press Club conferene. I'm a bit surprised more wasn't made of that statement...I suppose the lawsuit stole the news cycle on this one. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, true, but it was only an incidental statement by Musk. Based on the last announced delay by the FAA, when they said they would not make the April date, they said May. So the final EIS could be released this coming week. Or not, and the US government would have another delay; entirely consistent with their incentives. N2e (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SpaceX announced Brownsville is the location, on 4 August 2014. Article has been updated with the initial announcement-related detail. Feel free to expand as more info becomes available, or from many of the sources already identified on this Talk page. N2e (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement with the FAA on Historical Preservation of "historic properties"

The FAA has released the stipulations that are incumbent upon SpaceX with respect to the effects of the new launch site on a variety of historic properties that the recent FAA EIS has identified. This could be used to improve some aspects of the article about the Texas launch site. Here is the link: FAA Programmatic Agreement re construction and operation of the SpaceX Texas Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas, June 2014. N2e (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major article update underway

I've begun an extensive edit to reflect the (now likely) selection of the Texas location, the completion of the final EIS by the FAA, and general article cleanup and updating (which had been tagged/requested since April 2014). Will endeavor to use the inuse template when making lots of edits over a few hours, and the under construction template at other times, until I am done.

Feel free to help update the article when the "inuse" template is not in place. N2e (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Major update was completed by 24 July. Only minor updates since then. N2e (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean islands?

Brownsville is at 26°N 97°W. By Miami (80°W) an eastward launch will have cos(17°)≈.96 of original latitude, passing just south of Key Largo and Nassau, Bahamas. Launching 3° south of east would pass half a degree farther south, clearing Key West and passing between North Andros and Mangrove Cay. Gulf of Mexico oil platforms do not appear to be far south enough to interfere. Wonder what the Caribbean Island problems are? Passing south of Cuba into the Caribbean Sea itself would be a much higher inclination. --JWB (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Do you have a published reliable source for that? If so, the article could be improved by adding a section on post-launch rocket trajectories from Brownsville. If not, then while it may be interesting, it is not something we can add to the encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it appears that you are correct! According to Garrett Reisman, they are "threading needle between miami and cuba", and only using the Brownsville site for commercial launches to avoid FAA concerns about potential first stage impacts on land if they launched to the ISS. Source: (audio interview) — Gopher65talk 04:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the slides he talks about in the interview: slides. Slides 8 and 9 are the interesting ones. Apparently 13.1 tonnes and 53 tonnes to LEO for F9 and FH respectively already factor in first stage reusability. That means that the "disposable mode" payload to LEO for both rockets is substantially greater. I've heard rumours (take them for what they are!) that the actual F9 payload is around 17 tonnes to LEO, which drops to 13.1 tonnes due to first stage reusability. — Gopher65talk 05:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for article improvement

Construction plans and progress

Fiber optic infrastructure

The construction bids for dual-path fiber-optic runs from U. Texas out to STARGATE/SpaceX launch site are out. [5] Bids due on 12 March. N2e (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something looks weird about that webpage. The bid was issued March 10, but questions/comments were due March 10, and the bidding closes March 12? Eh, nothing worth noting in the article, but it stood out to me. Then again, I have no experience with bidding processes. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not familiar with these sorts of docs either. But it seems like it might have been issued some time ago by the bid authority, and that questions/concerns had to be identified by 10 mar, with bids occurring (live???) at 3pm local on 12 March. N2e (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an article name change

Given that SpaceX is now referring to the launch site as the "SpaceX South Texas Launch Site", and that name has now been used in a secondary source (news article) as well as on the (primary source) company website, I propose that the article be moved from SpaceX private launch site to SpaceX South Texas Launch Site.

  • SUPPORT, as nom, per company use of new name, with reliable source to back it up. N2e (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and done. Also created "Boca Chica spaceport" as a redirect, because a lot of sources refer to the site as "Boca Chica" in short form, like we have "Vandenberg" or "Kennedy". — JFG talk 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and added the primary source company website to the lead sentence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be MDY not DMY

Why is this article formatted for DMY while discussing a site in the United States along with a Use American English tag? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is just because Wiki policy says to go with whichever convention was used first. There is no particular preference for one style because it is an American company or location. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"World's first commercial orbital launch facility"

With the opening of the Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 in New Zealand, I would suppose this claim needs to be removed from the article, unless there is a nuance I'm missing. I don't think so however, since the site is commercial/private, and Electron is an orbital rocket. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the "world's first commercial orbital launch facility" because it will be the first under the commercial category. The Dallas Observer states it this way, as well as other big media sites. The site you are referring to is the first private facility, not the first commercial facility. Big difference. Huntster De88 (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@De88: Huh? Huntster is perfectly correct: Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1 is a private commercial spaceport supporting orbital launches. Boca Chica will probably be the second one… What a Dallas journalist wrote 6 months ago (parroting earlier SpaceX press releases) just got superseded by reality. — JFG talk 13:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Edited — JFG talk 13:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for only now seeing this. De88, you very much confused me with the "commercial" vs "private" argument. Rocket Lab is a private company but they will be launch commercial payloads, making them a commercial orbital launch facility, not just a private one. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are both wrong either way. The reason this is the "world's first commercial orbital launch facility" is because the project was announced nearly a year before the Rocket Lab Launch Complex 1. This SpaceX site was announced on August 4, 2014, while the New Zealand site was announced on July 1, 2015. It's not fair that just because the New Zealand site was built first, that it should give itself credit when another project, which I presume will be much larger than the one in New Zealand, held the announcement much earlier and is currently in construction. De88 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So if I had come along in 2013 an announced I was building a commercial orbital launch facility, but another company beat me in actual construction, I should still be able to hold that claim? No, having a constructed, fully operational facility makes the difference. If, however, something falls completely apart for Rocket Lab and SpaceX launches first from Boca Chica, title would revert back to them. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, we probably shouldn't say that. Construction has barely started. Recent images: [6]. Right now, there's just a big pile of dirt, a small tracking antenna, and fences. John Nagle (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SpaceX South Texas Launch Site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New source info on the launchsite

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX is offering to buy out all homeowners in the Boca Chica Village

I've updated the article, with a secondary source from CBS News, of the SpaceX offers to buy out all house owners in Boca Chica Village for 3x fair market value.

I just located a copy of the letter sent to residents, slightly redacted. It is here: SpaceX offer letter, September 2019. As a primary source, I'm uncertain of whether it might help if used in the article or not. Opinions welcome. N2e (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in SpaceX South Texas Launch Site

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of SpaceX South Texas Launch Site's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nsf20190403":

  • From SpaceX Starship: Gebhardt, Chris (3 April 2019). "Starhopper conducts Raptor Static Fire test". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  • From BFR (rocket): Gebhardt, Chris (3 April 2019). "Starhopper conducts Raptor Static Fire test". NASASpaceFlight.com. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.

Reference named "nsf20190725":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent photo history of the rapid development of this spaceshipyard and launch site

This article has quite a bit of photojournalism of the development of the South Texas launch site, particularly over 2019 to early July 2020. Aerial photos of SpaceX's Starship site reveal the stunning evolution of its Mars-rocket facility amid a South Texas beach community, Dave Mosher, Business Insider, 10 July 2020. Could be quite useful to improving the quality of the article. N2e (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Officiality of the "Starbase" name

@Rosbif73: Let's completely forget about Boca Chica Village for just a moment and focus on the actual subject of this article; the launch site itself. Does a company labeling their private property a certain name – in this case, SpaceX referring to their launch site in Cameron County as "Starbase" – not make said name official? In what situation would a name given to a private property by its owner not be, by definition, official? — Molly Brown (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can forget about Boca Chica Village in this case. It has been clearly announced that "Starbase" is the future name of the city that Elon hopes to incorporate (and thus not the name of the launch site alone). The fact that SpaceX are using the name already doesn't make it any more official. In any case, saying "referred to by SpaceX as" is indisputably correct, whereas "officially named" is debatable. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73: If "Starbase" is not the name of the launch site, then why on the "Mission" page on SpaceX's website do they refer to the Boca Chica launch site as "Starbase" and the other three launch sites by their official names – "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station", "Kennedy Space Center", and "Vandenberg Air Force Base" – and not by their locales – "Cape Canaveral", "Merritt Island", and "Lompoc" – like you insist the "Starbase" name exclusively refers to? It's clear that the word "Starbase" in a list of launch sites refers to a launch site and not a locale. — Molly Brown (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SpaceX_Starbase&oldid=1014669469"