For sure, and definitely for GEO/extraGEO launch azimuths. For the high inclination mega constellations, its a much more muted benefit. Just to put some 0th order vector-math on it, a 53° inclination launch from BC/CC essentially has a ~40m/s upside over Wallops. While the math of course isn't not
quite so simplistic, consider a 40 m/s advantage in the context of LEO orbital velocity that's well above 7+ km/s. For reference, Kourou has a ~115m/s advantage over CC for due east (GTO) launch trajectories.
Getting way sideways here, while its certainly easier to visualize the launch pad 'speed' as a function of latitude and thus that's typically used as the reason its better to launch from lower latitudes, the more impactful reason lower latitudes are preferred is because of inclination changes. The lower the launch latitude the less likely an inclination change is required in the first place, of course, and when ∆i is necessary, its yuuge. For instance, a CC GTO needs ~1.5km/s to turn into the equatorial plane. A Kourou GTO needs like ~250m/s.
Maybe? As I understand, Texas Raptor production is recurring units with R&D still based in Hawthorne.
I suspect selection of Texas for R2 production its purely a financial move that probably also comes with subsidies (apparent or not) from Texas and/or the local municipality. There's not a ton of value in building a gazillion raptors in Hawthorn. Both facilities/overhead and labor are way more expensive there, and SpaceX is better off generally keeping their skilled labor on higher value activity. Aerospace labor in LA is pretty competitive, and that's before Relativity and Rocket Lab start ramping up their production (both are building out around LGB). I can't imagine many of the folks in Hawthorne will be stoked to sit under Elon's whip on a high volume line working the same Raptor widget day in, day out, when there are plenty of other more interesting positions.
Not at all the point you were making I realize, but in the bigger picture of BC launches its worth considering flight path.
Importantly, save for Elon selling TSLA shares and dumping into SpaceX, direct and adjacent revenue from the Starlink program is what moves the needle for SpaceX, and especially in context of lifting v2 sats. When it comes to BC launches of Starlink, even if using a barge offshore to circumvent constraints on number of annual launches, the flight path necessarily goes over Mexico and Central America before it is properly orbital, and thus populated areas are within the debris field. Given that's basically not a thing with US launches, its not apparent (to me anyway) if SpaceX can change the paradigm to actually [efficiently] use BC for Starlink. There's certainly an alternative of doglegging the debris field around the Yucatan, but that's going to be a major hit to the lift. I suppose there's also an alternative of putting a platform WAY out in the gulf (maybe 600-800km from BC?), but that also seems logistically complicated.
So yeah, a Florida site--even if an offsite platform--seems absolutely imperative to me...unless PR becomes a thing.
That's exactly right. No way Starship would have launched by today regardless any apparent hold up from the environmental review. SpaceX simply isn't ready. What's important is that, instead of fans getting emotional and interpreting that kind of statement as criticism, its all simply necessary stuff to do. Things come up, things need to get resolved, and that all takes time and ripples downstream. That's the way Agile environments (like starship dev) work in reality, that's the way Waterfall environments (like Vulcan dev) work in reality.
