> I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site looks very "min-viable" (at best). If you're getting that impression

> I know SpaceX is very efficient and that they hustle to a degree, but their launch site looks very "min-viable" (at best). If you're getting that impression by comparing it with SLS/Shuttle, the thing to keep in mind is that SpaceX gets a huge benefit by not using solids. SLS/Shuttle had to move a rocket where some of the parts were fully fueled, which means much greater weight. Additionally, solids can't really be "turned off", which means there are much greater safety requirements. This is apparent, not just in launch sites, but also with launch escape systems - Starliner needs a much more performant launch abort system than Crew Dragon for example. Of course, that doesn't affect some things like the water deluge system.