[gpm]

> Texas was an inspired choice - California would have been a knife fight regulatorily.

California is also just on the wrong coast. You almost always want to launch eastward so you get the free rotational velocity from the earth to help you reach orbit, for the same reason you want to be as close to the equator as possible, and you can't (regulatory/safety wise) have a flight path over land. From within mainland US the only reasonable options are Texas and Florida.

The exceptions to this are polar orbits (for which the rotation of earth just doesn't help) and the rare military spy satellite that wants a retrograde orbit for ... reasons. The US/SpaceX does launch out of california for those orbits, but it's a small fraction of launches.

[bserge]

Not being able to fly over land seems ridiculous. Planes fly over land, right?

Sounds like the same shit as nuclear power plant regulations. As a civilization or even a species, we'll "safety" our way into extinction.

[geenew]

Rockets also drop parts as they fly - see what's happened in China with their inland launches.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/01/04/photos-long-march-rock...

[bserge]

Here's hoping they get ahead of everyone else technology wise.