3 ms·

I think the parent comment was not (only) about facilities close to the coast, but, more importantly, at a low altitude, more prone to floods. Couldn't the lau

• nonameiguess 4y ago
  Where? I don't believe Florida has any seaside cliffs. There's California, but the cliffside beach regions are subject to wildfires and mudslides. There's Hawaii, but I imagine transporting the equipment there would be a challenge, and they're not going to move all manufacturing facilities to Hawaii.
  • LorenPechtel 4y ago
    California isn't an option, either. The ideal launch site: 1) As close to the equator as possible. 2) Has open water to the *east* of the launch site. (Wasteland is also acceptable, that's what Russia does. They also care less if they drop it on somebody's head. China doesn't seem to care--we've seen them drop a rocket on a village.) 3) Has a huge amount of open space around it in case the rocket goes boom on the pad. California fails the east requirement, it's used for polar launches (where you want water to either the north or south) but you can't insert into a normal equatorial orbit from there. Hawaii fails the space requirement. Not to mention all the logistics hassles it would cause. Thus Florida it is and assume the infrastructure will in time be lost.