> SpaceX won't do that because they are stuck in a sunk costs fallacy. I think it's rather because that would be the kind of change that would require redoing

> SpaceX won't do that because they are stuck in a sunk costs fallacy. I think it's rather because that would be the kind of change that would require redoing permits, and while they could be very confident that they would get those permits⁰, this would almost likely take more than a year to get done. The thing to look out for is how they build their setup at the cape. If they make a conventional flame trench over there, they might just give up on their Texas launch site, at least until they can redo permits. 0: Every government actor involved seems supportive of them, and the impact on the environment would not be meaningfully larger than the current setup.