A new Spaceport Camden press release includes these statements by Commission Chair Gary Blount:
"Opponents of Spaceport Camden have tried to sell a tale that Spaceport Camden isn’t necessary. That’s a myth that has now been fully debunked by this Pentagon study. Not only is Spaceport Camden necessary to protect US strategic interests, this catalyst project is of local and regional significance."
The original Pentagon source document says no such thing:
Only Spaceport Camden promoters grabbing at one last fictional straw have described their spaceport as a strategic asset.
Camden, GA. (not "Spaceport Camden") is mentioned one time in a single paragraph of the 42-page “report.”
The entire paragraph:
"Efforts to establish all-new vertical launch sites
have historically encountered resistance from
environmentalists and local citizenry. SpaceX’s Boca
Chica launch site required about eight years from initial
plans to the first experimental launch, and an effort to
develop a new launch site in Camden, GA, has been
ongoing since 2012."
That's it. There's nothing else in 42 pages about Spaceport Camden. The document Camden’s paid PR "experts" reference has misleading errors and statements.
And it even proves why Camden is a bad place for rocket launches. The highlights alone on page 18 are a mess!
Didn't the Pentagon have someone check with Vandenberg Space Force Base before they paid for the document?
Very simply:
Spaceport Camden has taken almost 9 years to reach possible approval for a fictional rocket that is one-half the size of the smallest US commercial rocket to achieve orbit.
The current utilization of small launchpads for US-licensed rockets remains less than 2% 9 years after Steve Howard started his quest for even more under-utilized launch pads.
POINT 1:
Usually, when there is an oversupply of a product the value drops, but the costs, including promotional costs, always grow. Commissioner Blount is supremely worried about $600,000 a year the County contributes to county-wide parks and recreation facilities and activities that every Camden family can use. Yet he approves $750,000 to a million or more every year, plus millions of future expenses that he won't disclose, for the spaceport that has far less accountability. POINT 2: Steve Howard and his gang of PR specialists should be asked what strategic value can be found in a spaceport approved for tiny rockets. Or are spaceport promoters and Board of Commissioners planning an immoral, and possibly illegal, bait and switch that first required deceiving the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the National Park Service, the Department of Defense, the citizenry of Coastal Georgia, and their constituents?