In general, doing things like developing the capacity to launch very large payloads to space will come with costs. We wouldn’t be able to do any such things if we weren’t willing to pay those costs to get the benefits.
This seems like a decent location in that it’s not very populated and has appropriate conditions for rocket launches. It wasn’t picked randomly so other locations were considered.
I think these complaints would apply to other locations as well.
Building rockets and doing awesome things isn’t vainglory any more than any expiration and technical improvements. Rockets are needed for space exploration. Space exploration is valuable on so many dimensions - resources, sustainability, research.
A reason for not doing it offshore could be just that it's cheaper to do onshore. We live in a capitalistic system after all
I don’t think it’s smart to assume that just because I’m not aware of some information that it’s unknown.
This article [0] describes some of the reasons why spacex is investigating offshore launches, but choosing not to do it, for now.
[0] https://maritime-executive.com/article/spacex-suspends-plan-...
>The concept of sea launch has been used successfully before, and it makes commercial sense for some applications. Orbital launch trajectories are affected by location, and a sea-based launch allows the operator to pick the site to maximize efficiency and payload. The space company Sea Launch used a secondhand MODU to launch Ukrainian-built Zenit rockets for 15 years.
...by humans. Launching the largest rocket in the middle of a habitat of endangered species is simply a bad idea from the start.
> and has appropriate conditions for rocket launches
Except for basics like the flame trench and water deluge system.
> Space exploration is valuable
Nobody disagrees with that. The point is that space exploration doesn't have to be done from badly positioned and barebones launch sites if much better alternatives have existed for decades.
How much garbage and pollution are we going to need to get some of those "resources" from space? That's not sustainable. Space might have a lot of resources, but they're practically unreachable. And our problem, right here, right now, is CO2 (and methane). You can't fire rockets to get rid of that.
And the research: that really comes in second or third place. It's nice to have a picture of a galaxy, but far from essential.
Or problem right here, right now are energy. We need energy and to get energy we need lots of minerals that will one day be easier, cheaper, and safer to pull from asteroids and comets than some terrestrial source.
They are unreachable now, but rocket launches like this one get us closer and closer.
Can't you have that with a more appropriate launch site? I don't even understand this argument where anytime anything critical about space travel is mentioned, the response is, essentially, "but space travel!!!"
My understanding is that Boca Chica will be a factory and development/testing site and Florida the primary launch location. They are also building a rocket factory at Cape Canaveral.