> Based on what, your gut feel? Based on the fact that every orbital launch requires airspace restrictions, local road closures, blocked patches of sea and lau

> Based on what, your gut feel? Based on the fact that every orbital launch requires airspace restrictions, local road closures, blocked patches of sea and launch permissions. The regulatory framework alone is incapable of dealing with that (keep in mind that every orbital rocket is basically an ICBM), let alone the fact that you'd have to spread launches over multiple sites therefore rendering considerable patches of air- and waterways completely closed up for weeks on end. And that's just the regulatory side of things. There's also the logistical side wherein you'd have to consider methane production and -storage as well as ground operations. 100t-class orbital rockets aren't aeroplanes and the procedures involved in checking, refuelling and launch are much more involved. Keep in mind that SpaceX of all companies was the first company who managed to lose a rocket during fuelling in over 5 decades. Now scale that risk (of currently 1:129 - make that 1:1000 since I'm being generous here) to 9,000 launches and you'd be looking at about 9 major explosions (worst case) per launch campaign and that's without the added stress from an unprecedented launch cadence taken into account. You'd be looking at this: https://youtu.be/AOFVuAmcoCA?t=43 https://youtu.be/AOFVuAmcoCA?t=43 two times a week and handwaving that away by quoting fantasy goals for the achievable reliability isn't going to change the fact that even one such incident would halt the entire program for a considerable amount of time.