Dathi THorfinnsson wrote:
Is Boca Chica easier than Matagordo?
Now? A bit as the area around Matagorda (which is the way spellcheck insists on spelling it even as google maps says it's wrong : ) ) is much more built up and therefore difficult to 'fit' large new infrastructure into. Earlier Matagorda was initially considered because it lacked that build up which also meant that building it up was going to be expensive especially since it was going to have to be 'away' from the main area due to the nature of rocket launch. Boca Chica wasn't on the 'map' literally earlier because it didn't have the transportation and servicing needed to make it a viable 'hub' and THAT would have to be built first further increasing the costs.
Why is SpaceX going there now? Because that transportation system IS in place* AND Boca Chica (and the surrounding area) courted and offered incentives for the privilege which they couldn't actually do to a 'government' operation. (In fact the 'incentive' is largely on the government side in any case) In any case it's still questionable that SpaceX will actually 'launch' anything from there as BFR/BFS is rather obviously FAR over the limits of what could reasonably launched in the area unless they 'float' it out to sea. And that's ANOTHER set of issues...
The 'problem' with a Texas launch site has always been LV size and range safety needs in that such a launch site would 'close/delay' a large section of the Texas Gulf Coast air and maritime traffic as well as a number of oil platforms and off-shore operations. Frankly there's a good reason such sites have always 'failed' to fly in the past and why everyone was so surprised at SpaceX saying they were going to actually launch from there. Build, and ship (barge actually) from there to Florida yes, launch, very much not so much sense. "Reusability" be damned it would seem to be far too disruptive to be allowed often enough to be viable and that's before we get into size because 'smaller' actually is easier. Look at all the stuff they COULD overfly, (again never mind IF or the planning the people in charge of the decision have to ASSUME something will go wrong, it is their job after all) and think it through and the chances are slim SpaceX is actually going to get permission to do so.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...66ccad52215a0f!8m2!3d26.0734368!4d-97.2085762
(It was actually worse for Matagorda but had 'some' advantages for 'higher inclination' orbits which was what interested the Air Force initially:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Matagorda,+TX+77457/@24.778537,-91.7031482,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8641dbaece3569e5:0xb2cb46e9ae7cf095!8m2!3d28.691133!4d-95.9682714)
Size matters

Mostly because the bigger the LV the bigger the sound, thermal and possible 'disaster' radius but things like flight rate and operational parameters matter just as much. Spaceports will probably always have higher levels of all the above than an airport and those impact where you 'want' an airport so... (For example a Laser Launch system or Accelerator System such as a MagLev or Track will have to consider the 'down-range' effects of the system itself. Ie: Anything down-range of the laser has a chance to get 'shined' on with all that entails and the Accelerator System is throwing big chunks of stuff 'down-range' possibly over people's heads that will be throwing out large sonic boom footprints etc)
* Being honest in today's world the worldwide transportation and supply system is nearly ubiquitous so many places that earlier might be not considered today would be and would actively be seeking out such opportunities whereas earlier they might not.
Randy