(Ed.'s Note: To say the short launch of SpaceX "Hopper" was underwhelming, is to state the obvious. However, through the hype of Elon Musk and local mainstream media, there are serious issues that have come to the fore.
In the piece below, Camden, Ga. resident Steve Weinkle outlines his opposition to the establishment of a Spaceport there. We have kept the Camden-related arguments to a minimum and focused on his comments related to the Boca Chica site.
However, somewhere in the smoke and fire some facts have been ignored. There will not be 12 satellite launches a year at Boca Chica, no hundreds of good-paying jobs for local workers, and nothing to attract the millions of aerospace tourists that were supposed to boost the local economy.
If they had come, the show would ave lasted all of a minute. it's now clear that pristine Boca Chica Beach has been handed over to Musk as a test area for Spacex and access to the public beach denied to everyone else.)
By Steve Weinkle
SpaceX just completed the previously delayed and aborted Starhopper test at their Boca Chica test site. Although the test ignited a few grass fires, Boca Chica residents and their homes are safe.
![]()
The issue is not whether SpaceX or any launch company can eventually get it right. The question is how much financial and safety risk must the public absorb on behalf of a commercial rocket launch company and the promise of a few jobs?
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviewed SpaceX’s recent problems with fires at their Boca Chica launch site. Those recent incidents indicated that SpaceX’s activities there are far more dangerous than they originally expected.
SpaceX sought a 656-foot maximum altitude for the test. After performing a hazard analysis for the proposed launch, the FAA only allowed 492-feet.
And unbelievably, the FAA raised the third-party liability insurance requirement for the flight from $3 million to $100 million.
Read the entire FAA Permit for the Starhopper launch, and especially the very last line of the Permit.
The insurance cost increased because the FAA performed risk calculations identifying a risk envelop sufficiently large enough to harm non-involved public like those living behind the launch site in Boca Chica.
![]()
Possibly, the revised risk zone extended to homes 5 miles to the north and northwest on South Padre Island and at Port Isabel. The larger risk area also includes green-outlined areas which are Texas public parks and US Fish and Wildlife Refuges. Marine transportation in and out of the Port Isabel Channel may also be impacted.
SpaceX can afford the cost of a $100 million liability policy for a rocket test that goes up 492 feet. They’re rich enough with government contracts to have deposited a cash bond for the $100 million if they chose.
(The startup rocket companies Steve Howard and Jimmy Starline envision using Spaceport Camden [Georgia] have no successful launches, even to 492 feet. They are not billion-dollar companies with deep pockets and proven rockets. Even if Camden never allows experimental launches, there are no small rocket companies with proven safety records knocking at Steve Howard's office. They don't exist.
Is it realistic to think that if they develop a launchable rocket, they will justify launching at Spaceport Camden where the insurance will be significantly more expensive than at any other spaceport?)
In the piece below, Camden, Ga. resident Steve Weinkle outlines his opposition to the establishment of a Spaceport there. We have kept the Camden-related arguments to a minimum and focused on his comments related to the Boca Chica site.
However, somewhere in the smoke and fire some facts have been ignored. There will not be 12 satellite launches a year at Boca Chica, no hundreds of good-paying jobs for local workers, and nothing to attract the millions of aerospace tourists that were supposed to boost the local economy.
If they had come, the show would ave lasted all of a minute. it's now clear that pristine Boca Chica Beach has been handed over to Musk as a test area for Spacex and access to the public beach denied to everyone else.)
By Steve Weinkle
SpaceX just completed the previously delayed and aborted Starhopper test at their Boca Chica test site. Although the test ignited a few grass fires, Boca Chica residents and their homes are safe.
The issue is not whether SpaceX or any launch company can eventually get it right. The question is how much financial and safety risk must the public absorb on behalf of a commercial rocket launch company and the promise of a few jobs?The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviewed SpaceX’s recent problems with fires at their Boca Chica launch site. Those recent incidents indicated that SpaceX’s activities there are far more dangerous than they originally expected.
SpaceX sought a 656-foot maximum altitude for the test. After performing a hazard analysis for the proposed launch, the FAA only allowed 492-feet.
And unbelievably, the FAA raised the third-party liability insurance requirement for the flight from $3 million to $100 million.
Read the entire FAA Permit for the Starhopper launch, and especially the very last line of the Permit.
The insurance cost increased because the FAA performed risk calculations identifying a risk envelop sufficiently large enough to harm non-involved public like those living behind the launch site in Boca Chica.
SpaceX can afford the cost of a $100 million liability policy for a rocket test that goes up 492 feet. They’re rich enough with government contracts to have deposited a cash bond for the $100 million if they chose.
(The startup rocket companies Steve Howard and Jimmy Starline envision using Spaceport Camden [Georgia] have no successful launches, even to 492 feet. They are not billion-dollar companies with deep pockets and proven rockets. Even if Camden never allows experimental launches, there are no small rocket companies with proven safety records knocking at Steve Howard's office. They don't exist.
Is it realistic to think that if they develop a launchable rocket, they will justify launching at Spaceport Camden where the insurance will be significantly more expensive than at any other spaceport?)