Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX Is Studying Site For 'Commercial Cape Canaveral' Near Brownsville, Texas

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the but-that's-in-texas dept.

Space 69

New submitter RealTime writes "SpaceX filed a notice with the FAA (PDF) that it is preparing an environmental impact study in consideration of a site in Texas for use as a commercial spaceport. 'The site in question is in the southern tip of the state of Texas, just outside Brownsville in Cameron County, overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, over which SpaceX's launches would fly.' The proposed site would handle up to 12 commercial launches per year. 'There's plenty of red tape associated with Kennedy Space Center, and the center is often reserved for large blocks of time by other launchers. If SpaceX had its own pad, it wouldn't have to share.'"

cancel ×

69 comments

Cañaveral? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641251)

Sorry, that was before you crossed the river.

Politics (3, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641281)

Hopefully, this may get Texas' congressmen to abandon their opposition to NASA's commercial space initiatives.

Re:Politics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641343)

Wouldn't it be better for them to kill NASA so we HAVE to rely on SpaceX?

Re:Politics (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642183)

Hopefully, this may get Texas' congressmen to abandon their opposition to NASA's commercial space initiatives.

Since when have Texas congresspeople opposed anything NASA?

Re:Politics (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642655)

This may be a reference to Texas legislators pushing for more Texas NASA dollars. They don't directly oppose privatization, but they do talk about it dismissively in their quest for pork [chron.com] .

Obama’s “reliance on a promising, yet still fledgling commercial space industry” combined with retiring the space shuttle and canceling the back-to-the-moon Constellation “will severely diminish the manned space flight program and provide the JSC with no true mission objective,” the lawmakers cautioned.

Re:Politics (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643413)

In fact, it is many of the neo-cons that are hard at work at opposing private space. That includes the likes of Hutcinson(R-TX) [dallasnews.com] , Croyn(R-TX), Shelby(R), Wolfe(R), Hatch(R), Coffman(R), etc.. The new round of republicans are torn on this, but the older neo-cons within the republican party are working hard to kill off private space. The reason is that neo-cons currently control the pubs, but also many of them are from areas that represent Boeing, ULA, ATK, L-Mart, Grummun, etc. In fact, it was the republican controlled house that gutted private space funding, but the dem controlled senate restored part of it. The dems wanted it all restored, but the senate pubs (esp. those above) fought against it.

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39669529)

I'll look into it.

Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (4, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641315)

While Elon Musk is certainly one to stay in the limelight more than some of the other rocket builders, it seems like Jeff Bezos either was looking at or purchased land in the general region of Texas. Yes, I know Bezos has his test facility in west Texas, which is also licensed by the FAA-AST as a spaceport, so perhaps I'm mistaken.

If it wasn't Bezos, it seems like it was another group of commercial rocket developers. Benson Space Company perhaps?

Regardless, I would have to agree that some place other than KSC is going to be needed if SpaceX has anything close to the launch rates that Elon Musk is promising. While SpaceX doesn't need to compete against Shuttle launches any more, there still are all of the D.O.D. payloads that usually get higher priority over commercial flights. KSC can be a rather busy place from time to time.

Re:Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641369)

bezos also patented landing the 1st stage of a rocket on a barge. I guess he figures it would be cheaper than rustproofing and marine recovery. Although one wonders whether something so simple should be patentable... seems quite obvious if you want to avoid fishing your spent stage out of the sea.

Re:Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (5, Funny)

Plunky (929104) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641417)

No, if you read the claims of that patent, the stage lands on the barge neatly and does not bounce.. essentially, its a one click transaction, just NOT on the internet.

Re:Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39696633)

One click? More like one CLANG! Land 10 ton of rocket on a barge and it'll ring like a gong.

Re:Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39646385)

I'd say it's a clever idea. You get most of the benefits of landing on the ground, and the forgiving benefits of landing in the sea (if something goes wrong).

Re:Didn't Jeff Bezos also buy land nearby? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643289)

I suspect that you are mistaken about Bezo buying land. It was theorized in various places that the land being investigated was either musk or bezo, but this would appear to be it. Personally, I am surprised that Musk is not working with Bezo on this.

Article misses the point (5, Interesting)

AlienMike (1339501) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641453)

I think this article misses the point. It has nothing to do with launch schedules at the Cape or politics. This has everything to do with recovering the first stage. Look at a map. He has to launch and recover in U.S. territory in order to to comply with U.S. arms export regulations. If this is true, pickup of the first stage in Florida is not much of an option. But Puerto Rico is perfectly position for a powered landing of the first stage when doing an equatorial launch from the Brownsville Texas area.

I predict the next announcement will be a landing site in Puerto Rico for recovery of the first stage. My question is, does he even need permission to land in Puerto Rico? Can't he just get permission to land at an airfield? We aren't talking about a launch, just a powered landing. I'm sure there would be regulatory hurdles, but nothing like that needed to build a launch site.

Re:Article misses the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641661)

I would guess that the answer is no for landing at an airfield. They are going to need a fair amount of infrastructure to get a reusable first stage back to its launch site again. Not a vast amount, but enough that you might as well build it on fresh ground rather than trying to argue with airport authorities and cramming it in with all their stuff.

I will note that I have very serious doubts about their ability to get a fully reusable launcher on their current path, because the engineering difficulties in the second stage are going to be legendary, but the first stage should be relatively easy to reuse.

Re:Article misses the point (1)

J05H (5625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651509)

Vieques would be likely - Navy controlled territory in PR.

"Go" signals (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641473)

Less Mickey Mouse, and more cheap industrial labor. Sounds like "all systems go" economically.

Re:"Go" signals (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641693)

Their biggest risk isn't economic, but technical. Don't forget that they've had only two successful flights with the Falcon 9, and the now abandoned Falcon 1 (development stopped due to lack of interest from the market) had far more failed flights than successes.

It is true that their most recent flights have had a better success rate than their early failures, and nobody should dismiss them because some test flights blew up, but don't underestimate how important reliability is in the launch market.

A failed Falcon 9 flight at this point could seriously damage them. More than one failure could kill the company.

Re:"Go" signals (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643215)

Actually, F1E was stopped to focus on F9, FH, and Dragon. Unlike companies like Boeing, ATK, ULA, L-Mart, etc, SpaceX has limited money. They HAVE to make things work on fixed budgets.

However, you are correct in your last paragraph.

I immediately remembered this song (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641493)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU8EqkQKfw0

5ryn

cool and all, but..... (-1, Flamebait)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641559)

they are claiming only 12 launches with 2 being FH. Seems crazy. I would think that they would want to allow at least 2/month.
Likewise, I am wondering if they approached blue origin and seen if they want to launch from there as well. If Blue Origin will do launches from there, then hopefully, the neo-cons like Hutchinson and Croyn will reconsider trying to stop private space. As it is, I am sick and tired of the neo-cons pushing a communist approach to launch when we have a nice cheap alternative in private space. It is sick that these neo-cons put their elections ahead of the needs of the nation.

Re:cool and all, but..... (1)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 2 years ago | (#39645151)

I was pretty surprised by the low number as well, but it's possible that they're currently only planning on doing equatorial and low-inclination launches from there. Polar and high-inclination launches will probably still be from Vandenberg AFB and Cape Canaveral. I suppose it's also potentially easier to get a permit for a lower flight rate for now, and then ask for a separate permit for the increased flight rate at a later date.

Re:cool and all, but..... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39645425)

Possible. To be honest, I suspect that Texas would gladly give them a permit to launch 365 days/year. No doubt that SpaceX wants to do a number of launches. I suspect that once they are launching an FH every couple of months, they will go ahead and develop the FX/FXX. That would allow them the opportunity to increase the tonnage while lowering the costs.

I am hoping that Bezo will consider working with musk on this. It would be useful to all to increase our flight rates at the major launch sites. That lowers the costs for all.

Re:cool and all, but..... (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39662973)

I am hoping that Bezo will consider [...]

OK, just because you keep calling him that in multiple posts:
The man's name is Bezos. Jeff Bezos [wikipedia.org] . Sheesh.

JUST SAY NO TO MEXICO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641751)

They don't call it Browsville because of the Anglos !! and Mexico ain't no place to put no space theatre !! don't matter how cheap the labour is !!

SPACEX humm.... (-1, Troll)

cyberzephyr (705742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641859)

The Ansari X prise was made to see if folks had the ability to go to space.

We can take off the tin foil hats and realize that man made it to space.

THe end......

Name it after Jules Verne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641921)

Because that's the site he picked for his Moon-shot novel.

Re:Name it after Jules Verne (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642473)

No, "From the Earth to the Moon" had a launch facility in Florida, not too far from the Cape.

Location, Location, Location (3, Interesting)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642047)

There's the obvious low latitude (for the US) advantage to this location, but I see other advantages. Texas is relatively centrally located in the US, especially compared to Florida. This, and if they need any internationally sourced parts, their stated choice of location is relatively close to Houston, and Houston has plenty of infrastructure in place for getting stuff moved off of ships and onto rail. Houston already has a big shipping port.

For latitude, Florida always seemed like a great option, but for shipping parts and materials, it seemed like a very inefficient choice.

Re:Location, Location, Location (2)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642267)

Florida had Port Canaveral which is a large port. Also you have direct barge access to most of the launch sites. That's how the External Tank got from Louisiana to Kennedy Space Center.

Re:Location, Location, Location (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39643175)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Brownsville

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39648505)

I was told once that the original design for the Shuttle's SRBs did not call for segmentation. It was supposed to be on once piece shipped by boat. But because the manufacturing for contracted elsewhere for political reasons, it required a redesign of the SRBs to be segmented for cargo rail placement.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39663241)

I was told once that the original design for the Shuttle's SRBs did not call for segmentation. It was supposed to be on once piece shipped by boat. But because the manufacturing for contracted elsewhere for political reasons, it required a redesign of the SRBs to be segmented for cargo rail placement.

That's true [astronautix.com] (not even a boat needed, probably - just built more or less on site).
There was however no way to ship single-body SRBs from Utah.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643111)

Unlike OSC, SpaceX does not make heavy use of other nation's parts. He is making his locally. So, going with internationally source is not a big deal.

Re:Location, Location, Location (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39644425)

Call me ignorant, but my first thought was "based in the US - really?". The country is really mismanaged these days - not what I would call a stable environment for a cutting edge space company.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39644447)

There's the obvious low latitude (for the US) advantage to this location, but I see other advantages. Texas is relatively centrally located in the US, especially compared to Florida. This, and if they need any internationally sourced parts, their stated choice of location is relatively close to Houston, and Houston has plenty of infrastructure in place for getting stuff moved off of ships and onto rail. Houston already has a big shipping port.

While the *state* of Texas is (more-or-less) centrally located - the *city* of Brownsville is emphatically not. It's way the hell and gone down at the southern tip of Texas - about as not centrally located in the (continental) US as you can get. Nor is it "relatively" close to Houston in any useful sense of the term - it's 300 miles away. (I.E. you really need to look at a map.) Not to mention that since Brownsville has considerable construction and maintenance capacity for oil rigs... I doubt the (relatively speaking) tiny cargoes (both is size and volume of transport) that SpaceX will be an issue.
 

For latitude, Florida always seemed like a great option, but for shipping parts and materials, it seemed like a very inefficient choice.

You must not be very familiar with Florida then... Even back in the 50's (when site selection started) Florida was well connected with the rest of the US. Between mining (phosphate rocks lie essentially on the surface in many parts of the state), agriculture (citrus, vegetables, and ranching in the northern parts), and wood products (lumber, pulp, and paper goods)... there was a great deal of goods headed north out of Florida by both ship and rail. Jacksonville and Miami were both good sized ports, handling both exports (to other states and to others countries) and imports (from the Caribbean and South America). There was also Port Canaveral, lesser than Jacksonville or Miami, but still decently sized. It was also well connected for air travel, with both Imeson Field in Jacksonville and Miami International in Miami. (And Homestead AFB (Miami), and Cecil Field NAS (Jacksonville), and McCoy AFB (Orlando)...)
 
Florida was and is *very* well connected to the rest of the US. They didn't make the choice just based on latitude.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39646689)

Nor is it "relatively" close to Houston in any useful sense of the term - it's 300 miles away.

And? I'd call it close in an absolute sense not a relative sense. The closest similar industrial center to JFK Space Center is Atlanta at about 450 miles. Both locations are well connected to the industrial base of the US.

It's also worth noting that Brownsville is a significant trade hub with Mexico and a sea port. There are slight pros and cons to each from their access to the transportation systems,but the big differences come from the actual launch scenarios for these locations.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39647711)

Nor is it "relatively" close to Houston in any useful sense of the term - it's 300 miles away.

And? I'd call it close in an absolute sense not a relative sense. The closest similar industrial center to JFK Space Center is Atlanta at about 450 miles. Both locations are well connected to the industrial base of the US.

Since industrial base wasn't a point discussed in either the original post, or my reply, or a big issue in the original site selection [for Cape Canaveral] - I'm not sure what your point is.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39649745)

Since industrial base wasn't a point discussed in either the original post, or my reply, or a big issue in the original site selection [for Cape Canaveral] - I'm not sure what your point is.

Industrial base was implied when I started discussing parts. And when you started discussing mining.

Honestly, what I was thinking about was pretty much around how so much of the shuttle was built from all over the place. That might be due to pork barrel, and that might not be as much of a problem for SpaceX, but for NASA, or anything else funded by the government, it's likely to come up. California is a huge producer/manufacturer in the US, and it's about as far from Florida as you can be, without involving another country or the ocean. I'll admit I know a lot less about the original Apollo program and what the logistics where at that time. They stopped that when I was too young to remember, so maybe it was ideal then.

I felt like I was being bad about looking stuff up when I didn't check the rail lines between Houston and the proposed location, but... Heck, if it's only 300 miles, that's only 5 or 6 hours by truck for a part or supply. That's not bad. And for what it's worth, Houston isn't just a port. It still has manufacturing, and a ready supply of petrochemicals.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39650095)

Since industrial base wasn't a point discussed in either the original post, or my reply, or a big issue in the original site selection [for Cape Canaveral] - I'm not sure what your point is.

Industrial base was implied when I started discussing parts. And when you started discussing mining.

If you meant apples, why mention oranges? One doesn't even remotely imply the other. Not to mention, if you read the context, you'd note that I (barely) mentioned mining so that you'd understand that Florida was far better connected than you seemed to think - and why.
 

Honestly, what I was thinking about was pretty much around how so much of the shuttle was built from all over the place.

That would be because the manufacturers were all over the place. Despite what urban legend would have you believe, pork had very little to do with it. (The same is true (scattered manufacters, little pork) for Apollo as well.) The US is a very big place, and people and industry are scattered all across it.

Re:Location, Location, Location (1)

FairAndHateful (2522378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39650483)

Since industrial base wasn't a point discussed in either the original post, or my reply, or a big issue in the original site selection [for Cape Canaveral] - I'm not sure what your point is.

Industrial base was implied when I started discussing parts. And when you started discussing mining.

If you meant apples, why mention oranges? One doesn't even remotely imply the other. Not to mention, if you read the context, you'd note that I (barely) mentioned mining so that you'd understand that Florida was far better connected than you seemed to think - and why.

Honestly, I'm still wondering why you think "parts" doesn't tie in to "manufacturing". As for mining, you're actually trying to say that "apples" and "applesauce" aren't connected.

Spaceport America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39642067)

If he's just looking to avoid the crowd at Kennedy, what about Spaceport America [spaceportamerica.com] in New Mexico?

Re:Spaceport America (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642501)

Spaceport America is for air launched (and fairly small) sub-orbital space planes. They would never get approval to launch a multistage missile from there, when a downrange accident might take out, say, a good chunk of Houston or Dallas.

Re:Spaceport America (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643253)

A good chunk? Ever been to Dallas or Houston? That would have to be a rocket a lot bigger than a Falcon 9 to take out a "good chunk" of any city. This also assumes there's no range safety officer that hits the destruct button before anything untoward occurs.

Re:Spaceport America (1)

Teancum (67324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643463)

Armadillo Aerospace has been doing quite a few launches in New Mexico, which are all ground-launched vehicles. They are sub-orbital though and their flight path does not take them over cities like you are suggesting, but my point here is that "Spaceport America" isn't strictly for air launched vehicles... unlike Mojave which really doesn't have the facilities for ground launched rockets and is also being used for aviation purposes.

Re:Spaceport America (1)

eln (21727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643505)

One of the big reasons Spaceport America was built there was because it's right next to White Sands Missile Range, which is a vast area of land used by the military to test things like missiles (hence the name). Even if something goes wrong after the spacecraft has left the missile range, there's still a huge swath of lightly populated land before you get anywhere near a major city. By the time it got anywhere close to Houston or Dallas, assuming the flight path even takes it anywhere near them, there would have been plenty of time to abort and most of the fuel would have already been spent.

Does anyone find it strange.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39642145)

...that some of the most backwards parts of the US get the most advanced facilities?

Re:Does anyone find it strange.... (2)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642275)

Most likely because the most "backward" parts of the US have people that pretty much mind their own business. How's that offshore wind farm project going in Massachusetts?

Re:Does anyone find it strange.... (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643313)

No, it's because land is cheaper there, and people (i.e., people elsewhere) are less likely to notice if things get blown up.

Re:Does anyone find it strange.... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#39644257)

Why do you say Brownsville is backwards? Have you ever been there?

I suspect not. Just another AC who thinks he's smarter than others, but too much of a pussy to post under his real ID.

Brownsville and the rest of South Texas is populated by normal, hard working people.

Re:Does anyone find it strange.... (1)

Xandrax (2451618) | more than 2 years ago | (#39646289)

Probably because your idea of "backwards" equates to "red state" or "flyover". The problem with that is that the "advanced" blue-states are, by far, in the worst financial shape. If I was starting any business, much less a business with the potential to make billions of dollars, I'd be looking for a "backward" place to base it, too.

Closed to competition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39642355)

"...If SpaceX had its own pad, it wouldn't have to share."

I can't be the only one thinking the above is analogous to the closed pipes the telcos and cablecos enjoy, stemming expansion and growth in a nascent industry.

Re:Closed to competition? (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643353)

Not really. There's a big difference between having a dedicated facility to launch a proprietary rocket system, and hooking up a wire to a house or office building to provide service to devices manufactured to a standard.

Bahamas (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642461)

If you look at the map (actually, a globe is easier for this), the minimum energy trajectory from Brownsville takes you through the Straits of Florida, and directly over the Bahamas, which would be a natural location to recover the first stage. (Anyone with the slightest knowledge of spacecraft dynamics knows that their video, which shows the first stage returning to Cape Canaveral, is disinformation. The first stage will be recovered downrange.)

That trajectory would avoid any inhabited land before the Bahamas, passing South of Miami and North of Havana, and could probably get FAA approval.

The Bahamas are not on the list of ITAR restricted countries [stanford.edu] and there are ~ 58 airstrips [wikipedia.org] there, including 3 closed ones, so SpaceX could presumably find somewhere suitable to land the first stage.

Another poster suggested Puerto Rico, which is unlikely as it would require both more energy and (worse) an overflight of Cuba. Soon after the revolution, an errant Atlas missile (launched from Cape Canaveral) landed in Cuba and killed a few cows. The Cuban government was, shall we say, unappreciative, and since then no missile trajectories have been permitted over Cuba. I don't see the FAA / Department of State making an exception for Space X, and I don't think ITAR regulations make it necessary.

Re:Bahamas (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642969)

I thought SpaceX was building a launch pad on a Pacific island (Kwaj or something). The location was close to the equator for efficient low inclination orbits, and had polar orbit launch corridors as well.

Re:Bahamas (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643291)

They have a launch pad in Kwajalein, and I have talked to Elon Musk about it. It is too far from the US (or anywhere else) and has too many security restrictions to be a good commercial spaceport.

What about the UK? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39642713)

Hey.. why not choose the UK? We've recently thrown all our planning law in the bins, so a new space station in the country should be really easy to build. In fact, as it's a commercial venture, Heathrow was looking for a third runway... wouldn't it be even better if it was a spaceway instead?? The locals were complaining that an aeroplane runway was too loud and created too much pollution. They'd be in the best seats in the house for the launches, worth all that money to reinforce and protect their properties.

You'll have to wait till after 3rd May to see which mayor you need to send your backhanders to in order to take advantage of this superb opportunity.

Police Boxes (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643319)

Yeah, but if I understand correctly, you got rid of all of your Police Boxes back in the 70’s. It would seem the loss of that particular technology is more important then zoning laws. Or was that just London? Does Cardif still have them?

They'd better make it bullet proof. (2)

retech (1228598) | more than 2 years ago | (#39642837)

I hope something like this will bring enough attention to the area to start cleaning it up. Outside of the US I've never heard or seen so much violence, yet no one talks about it.

I lived in Brownsville a very short time. It's akin to living in my home town (Detroit) but with more bullets, less police and a complete media blackout. The Bush family has a home in the wealthy section of the subdivision so I suspect this has something to do with it. But I found it weird that grenade bombing of buildings in MX less than 1000ft from the border never hit the news. One spring when Brownsville campus of UofT had to be closed since the bullets from across the river were hitting cars and the classrooms the newspaper never ran an article on it. A few miles down the road duffel bags with human heads were found. National news never once said a word. The entire border seems to draw a dead zone of actual media events. The federal money that's pumped into Brownsville is staggering. Yet the crime is off the charts. I honestly found Detroit a less threatening and dangerous place to live.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (2)

eln (21727) | more than 2 years ago | (#39643559)

If we start reporting on how the violence in Mexico is impacting the United States, then people might want to actually do something about it, and we can't have that.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39648561)

Absolutely not. Because they're a new voting bloc. Must never piss off potential voters that hold so much power at swinging elections. Right. Right???

BTW, I still get carded for beer. It's a requirement you know.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39646399)

Welcome to the USSA.
Our so called free media will let you know exactly what we want you to know.
Rumors of Mexican murders, mutilation, rape, cartel warfare absolutely cannot be coming from our free press.
Mexicans are a peaceful productive people, and they make for excellent illegal immigrants.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (1)

dietsip (723998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39647481)

Remember if it doesn't happen on one of the coasts, it doesn't really matter to the mainstream media.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (1)

PMW (203329) | more than 2 years ago | (#39648275)

Mexican drug cartels regularly threaten & kill reporters who talk about cartel violence. That's why you don't here much about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/15/world/americas/mexico-journalist/index.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/16/world/la-fg-mexico-narco-censorship-20100816
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/23/140745739/mexican-drug-cartels-now-menace-social-media
http://www.chicagonow.com/chicanisima-latino-politics-news-and-culture/2011/09/mexican-journalist-killed-for-using-social-media/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/20/mexico-newspaper-drug-cartels

PS: This is a well-known fact (I don't live in TX but I knew about it) and is actually pretty well covered by the regular media, but somehow retech wants to blame it on Buuuuuussssshhhhh. That's an impressive display of logic & research on your part retech, I look forward to more thoughtful analysis on your part.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39654409)

Mexican drug cartels regularly threaten & kill reporters who talk about cartel violence. That's why you don't here much about it:

Thanks hombre, that me feel a whole lot better about Mexicans (and American "freedom").
Do not sell yourself short my friend, your logic is quite impressive in its own right.

Re:They'd better make it bullet proof. (1)

jafac (1449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39650945)

The federal money that's pumped into Brownsville is staggering. Yet the crime is off the charts.

These two factors may not be inversely related, but instead, may be directly related.

The Bush family has a home in the wealthy section of the subdivision so I suspect this has something to do with it.

I concur.

A few miles down the road duffel bags with human heads were found. National news never once said a word.

Not a word like "Iran-Contra" or "CIA" or "drug-smuggling". None of those words, I am certain. How this relates to ballistic missile launches and interplanetary travel, I have NO idea!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...