A surprise from Blue Origin commenting on the EIS for Starship launching from KSC LC-39A.
Starship is awesome but if it's THAT powerful, it sounds like a crappy deal for any sea life in the vicinity. When I saw the shock waves in Scott Manley's coverage of IFT4, my first thought was that I'd hate to be a bird flying in that. Can't imagine what regular launches would be like for all the sea life that relies on sound to survive.
I'm not saying there's a right answer to this question, but outsourcing human discomfort of land-based launches to other species doesn't sit well with me. How much are we willing to sacrifice for this, and who gets to decide?
Um well, it was already decided that the Cape would be a launch site long ago now so... this isn't really a discussion right now. Not unless you are questioning in bad faith like BO.
It's absolutely not a bad faith question, more that the sheer power of Starship is a level of magnitude different from anything that's come before, particularly if it's launching on a nearly weekly basis.
Also, my concern isn't about the impact on the Cape but on launching at sea instead of from the Cape, or any other land-based site.
You clearly dont understand the physics involved here if you think Starship has greater thrust than any rocket planned to launch from the Cape.
Are you genuinely suggesting the US can never launch a bigger rocket? If not, then it's gunna happen at the Cape. There's no discussion here.
SPX is not asking to launch from virgin wilderness.
You clearly dont understand the physics involved here
100%. I'm not a physicist or an engineer and I can only apologise for that, but I'm sure I've regularly seen Starship discussed in those terms. Not sure quite what you mean though by "planned to launch from the Cape"?
SPX is not asking to launch from virgin wilderness.
Sure, but there seems to be an attitude in a lot of posts of "feck it, we'll launch from the ocean instead", as if it's a magic place where you can do anything with no consequences.