Even if you make a deal with one group and pay them off whats to stop them from forming a new group and donating that very same cash to the new group?

Exclusion zones are acknowledged around the world. So arresting the protestors when they break the boundary can never be argued with.

Enforcing the law just needs to be done.
I would not even give the protestors a chance to take it to court. Just grab them charge them and ship them back into Mexico. Is the Mexican navy really going to stop us. If they miss their court date they get an arrest warrant and a huge fine. The next time they try to get into the US they get arrested.

I remember one of my first visits to Huntsville, where they had a V-2 right out in open, by the way.

On a wall, behind clear material, was a small nozzle that would activate occasionally.

I stood close, expecting the thruster to hiss a bit.

Instead, it screamed in fury–the loudest thing I ever heard.

In the past, I suggested that the pad be ringed with Raptors firing to the side to help evacuate exhaust products from SuperHeavy.

Aimed out to sea, the sheer noise would keep boaters away–friend or for.

I do not disagree, in principle.

However, when such behavior threatens to take others with them, or interferes with the progress of those actually doing the good work, one has to draw the line.

And look what it led to: a fleet of boats to disrupt the launches, and a recommendation that they, too, be paid extortion money.

If the extortion reward becomes high enough, maybe I should think of getting a boat and heading to the southern Texas coast of the gulf, too. If the U.S. is going to succumb to massive corruption, why shouldn[t I get may fair share, too?

“For sure this plan has problems, but also would reneging on a legally binding contract not make it easier to remove protesters?”

Is it necessary to create a contract in order to remove protesters? Aren’t they breaking the law by violating keep out zones?

“I’m just musing on a perhaps imperfect, but relatively quick and effective plan to get the show back on the road”

The aerospace industry is very used to doing the right thing (following laws, ethics, etc.) while also doing the thing right (making it work). Taking shortcuts just to get going faster often ends in disaster. Aerospace relies upon immutable laws of physics, and the reason for the processes is to use those laws to the advantage of the project. That advantage is often lost when a shortcut is taken.

The law (justice) has a similar principle. A shortcut can remove you from the moral high ground and take you to a lost court case.

In both aerospace and law, developing something new can take a while and can have setbacks along the way. Boats intentionally in the way must be dealt with in a legal way. Eliminating the heckler’s veto may not be easy, but doing it right is mandatory.

Not quick and not effective. It’s like paying ransom to kidnappers. Once they know you’ll pay, they keep jacking up the ransom. The idea that ideological communists will have any respect for the law of contracts is… amusing.

I’m not suggesting a bung for every launch, but a payment in return for a contract saying the protests will stop is not so different to what SpaceX has been doing up to now around the launch site to appease the locals.

For sure this plan has problems, but also would reneging on a legally binding contract not make it easier to remove protesters?

I’m just musing on a perhaps imperfect, but relatively quick and effective plan to get the show back on the road

I think any liability would be difficult to enforce. Sue away, you know they are going to anyway.

It’s FAFO time South of the Border.

Stupidity of this nature should not be rewarded.

Morals.

But politically, the best solution is to get Claudia to use her Coast Guard to do it. Musk (via Trump) can make that happen.

I vote for making Letters of Marque great again. Let the Americans take care of it the old fashioned way. Strike the jolly roger, Plunder’s abound or sink them maties, aRRR.

Why would SpaceX not launch when the exclusion zone is intentionally violated?

On the off chance that SuperHeavy stumbles…with umpteen tons of flaming steel falling upon their insipid little zodiacs captured live on 4K and ginned up as a Hispanic Michael Brown deal.

Danegeld or no—Elon should have bought off the wife of SpaceX employee Cabada…who would likely be the face of the movement in case the raft flotilla were mostly rent-a-mob type white kids from Marin County California. They are cannon fodder.

These people probably would.

I seem to remember one of your countrymen once writing something about the consequences of paying Danegeld – though in this particular case Beangeld might be a more appropriate word.

Too bad…I was hoping for another fireworks show
https://www.spacedaily.com/m/reports/After_repeated_explosions_new_test_for_Musks_megarocket_999.html

It’s curious that physically preventing others from lawful activity is ‘non-violent’, while speaking in support of law is ‘violence’.

A lack of boats will eventually stop them.