

State Incentives Bringing SpaceX Commercial Launch Facility to Texas - lsh123
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/20001/

======
mrtimo
I lived in Cameron County 11 years ago. One of the poorest counties in the
USA. The joke down there is, "I love living here because it is so close to the
United States!"

Most people in the USA don't realize how far south texas goes. This place is 6
hours south of Houston and 4 hours south of San Antonio. Nice to see this
investment made! Excited to go back and visit.

~~~
enraged_camel
I like taking virtual tours of remote locales using Google Street View. Here
is a lovely neighborhood in Edinburg, TX, at the southern tip of the state:
[http://bit.ly/1y09dGC](http://bit.ly/1y09dGC)

~~~
nitrogen
Reminds me of some neighborhoods in inland California.

------
lutorm
Speaking of SpaceX, T-15min to Asiasat-8 launch now:
[http://www.spacex.com/webcast/](http://www.spacex.com/webcast/)

~~~
adityasankar
Looks like the launch was aborted at T-0:12.

~~~
dlgeek
They actually called it at T-0:46, just didn't update the counter.

------
cbsmith
$15.3 million for 300 jobs. That's $51,100 per job. Not counting what no doubt
are significant tax incentives as well.

Free markets are awesome eh? ;-)

~~~
dagw
I recently read about a study of these sorts of programs in the US and it
concluded that the average price to get jobs to your State is $100,000 pr job.

~~~
Dwolb
Did the study conclude these deals are a cost to the states that provide them?
I guess what I mean is are these tax incentives a net negative over 20 years?

~~~
cbsmith
Yes, over 20 years they probably are a net positive for the states (though
perhaps not always in _direct_ revenue for the employers). However, that's
looking at the deal in isolation, rather than the the impact this has on the
market as a whole. It becomes a huge competitive advantage for larger,
national & international companies, not to mention a huge distortion on the
market and in the end substantially cuts down state revenues (the company was
going to set up shop _somewhere_ even if they weren't offered a cent).

~~~
Dwolb
I guess I'm not so sure it's a negative for the market as a whole. It allows
for some sort of company-buying-market where a non-attractive-location-state
can really pull in valuable employers which they otherwise they would not
have.

~~~
cbsmith
You mean if we can funnel tax friction on local businesses to distort the
market enough so that the national & international employers they compete with
have reduced friction if they make otherwise suboptimal decisions for locating
parts of their business, everyone wins? ;-)

In isolation maybe, but in aggregate it means national & international
employers have an additional advantage over local employers, state coffers are
thinner, and far more jobs lack long term prospects (because hey, if it only
made sense to set up shop when there was a big windfall attached to it, sooner
or later it makes sense to go after another windfall somewhere else and shut
down what you are doing there).

~~~
Dwolb
Haha yeah pretty much your first paragraph sums up what I was thinking. I
wouldn't word it so drastically, but I like the point you make at the end: if
there's no real investment by business in the community, then why not just
relocate when the conditions are optimal? (e.g. another tax break)

------
taspeotis
> offering $2.3 million ... also offering $13 million

$15.3 million seems like a paltry incentive compared to what I _perceive_ the
cost of a launch facility to be. Can someone in the know clarify how generous
these grants are, especially relative to the cost of a launch facility?

~~~
tedsanders
The article says "this facility will create 300 jobs and pump $85 million in
capital investment into the local economy." I suspect that means the launch
site will cost $85 million to build.

~~~
taspeotis
Yes I read that, but I imagine that means that the total cost is at least $85
million. R&D and components done/made elsewhere aren't going to be figured in
to that $85 million.

------
psherman
I seem to recall reading that it is advantageous to launch a rocket closer to
the equator, and Cameron County is at the southern tip of Texas. Wouldn't it
seem more likely that location played a bigger role in SpaceX choosing Texas
than the incentives?

~~~
tedsanders
Florida and Puerto Rico, alternatives considered by SpaceX, have locations
even closer to the equator than Texas. And non-US locations have options far
closer to the equator. Being southern is good, but other factors are important
too.

~~~
vonmoltke
Florida is closer, but the possible launch sites are not. Still, both those
sites and the Texas site are far enough south that, as you say, going further
south doesn't buy much.

------
spamizbad
Surprised Musk did this after Texas kind of fucked him over by banning direct
sales of Tesla motors.

Good to know he doesn't hold grudges at least.

~~~
kar2014
Texas is right-to-work state. Musk is a smart guy.

~~~
dba7dba
You should pay a visit to SpaceX company. Union/non-union is a non-issue.

Edit: Come to think of it, Elon would be very very happy if rocket
manufacturers really had to deal with union the way car/plane makers do. That
would mean rocketing across space is really like getting on a jet liner. But
we all know that's many years away.

So yeah, union/non-union is a non-issue for SpaceX.

~~~
FiatLuxDave
Union/non-union may not seem like an issue inside SpaceX, but the view from
other workers in the industry may not match that. Last month, I was at a 4th
of July party which happened to be mostly space workers, and when I brought up
the subject of SpaceX the consensus was, 'Cool company. I'd totally work there
if the salaries weren't so low.' It surprised me, since I tend to associate
up-and-coming companies with money from the Valley with higher salaries.

There are definitely unions in the aerospace industry. My uncle was involved
with a strike at United Launch Alliance a few years ago. It's actually the
only time I can remember any member of my family going on a picket line.

~~~
toomuchtodo
You definitely don't work at SpaceX for the money. Their salaries are below
market rate, the hours are brutal, but you're bootstrapping planetary travel.
Just depends on what your motivations as a person are.

Disclaimer: I applied for a low-paying SpaceX IT position in Cape Canaveral,
because Mars.

------
loteck
Not being a rocket scientist, I am unfamiliar with some details. Aren't there
only a very small number of launch sites even viable for consideration in the
US for this kind of activity? Something about being close to the equator, and
not landing your rocket on a major city. So, South Texas and... ummm...

~~~
tedsanders
Yes. To save fuel, many rockets are launched west to east (they get a
headstart from the Earth's rotation). Launching close to the equator helps the
most, because rockets get the biggest headstart. To minimize risk to people,
launch sites are in locations that have low-population corridors for long
distances to their east. Texas and Florida are both southern, with ocean to
their east, so they make ideal launch sites for the United States.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_launch_sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_launch_sites)

For polar orbits, there is a spaceport in Southern California that launches
north to south (so that its flights also go over ocean).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base)

Interestingly, you might think that launching from high elevation helps
(starting at Mr Everest would give you a headstart), but the benefit is small,
a fraction of a percent.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The velocity boost for launching from nearer the equator is only part of the
advantage. Another major factor is that many of the most expensive commercial
payloads (such as major geosynchronous comsats) need to end up in equatorial
orbits. The latitude of the launch site is also the minimum inclination of the
initial orbit the launch vehicle can provide. At the equator you can launch
into any orbital inclination. At the North Pole you can only launch into polar
orbits. At 45 deg. latitude you can only launch into orbital inclinations of
45 to 90 deg. The higher the initial orbital inclination the more work you'll
have to do (the more delta V you'll have to apply) in a plane change burn in
order to get into an equatorial orbit.

~~~
simonh
Bonus points if you didn't learn that from playing KSP.

------
marktangotango
I've always thought the goal was to launch from south Texas and to land the
1st stage in Florida. I don't know if that's too far, or not far enough. Maybe
second stage? Although the second stage is a lot higher and faster at the end
of it's burn.

~~~
simonh
The actual goal stated by SpaceX has always been to land the first stage at
the facility it launched from. Bear in mind the first stage doesn't actually
travel all that far down range comparatively speaking. It's primary job is to
get the second stage up out of as much atmosphere as possible.

------
sosuke
Yay! I sure hope this brings back a space themed license plate in the years to
come.

~~~
njharman
Recharging a SpaceX licence plated Tesla with Solar City PV installation. Only
thing missing is a Blow-up Musk doll for the passenger side?

