[prepend]

The benefit of improved space travel and all that comes with that.

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.

[alpaca128]

> This seems like a decent location in that it’s not very populated

...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.

[freejazz]

>The benefit of improved space travel and all that comes with that.

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!!!"

[tgv]

> Space exploration is valuable on so many dimensions - resources, sustainability, research.

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.

[prepend]

I think asteroid mining will produce a lot less environmental harm than terrestrial mining.

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.

[kevviiinn]

Is there any reason that these launches can't take place a bit offshore?

[prepend]

Yes, of course. Do you think that this expensive and complicated launch platform is built there because it could take place a bit offshore? And all the other launch facilities.

[kevviiinn]

So what are those reasons

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

[prepend]

I hate to be that person, but feel free to research them. I’m not going to enumerate them here. But perhaps start with the FAA request and resolution.

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-...

[kevviiinn]

That article doesn't seem to mention any reasons not to launch at sea and goes on to state:

>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.

[prepend]

So what else did you find? What do you think are the reasons that SpaceX and other launch centers (NASA, roscosmos, cnsa) use ground based launches instead of offshore?