SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After 25 years, military told to move from "expendable" to "reusable" rockets
Less than a year and a half has passed since SpaceX first flew a used first stage of a Falcon 9 rocket, but this achievement has already shaken up the glacial process of lawmaking and military budgeting. The final version of the defense budget bill for fiscal year 2019 will make both a symbolic and a significant policy change when it comes to reusable rockets.
The conference report from the US House and Senate calls for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program of the Department of Defense, commonly known as the EELV program, to be named the "National Security Space Launch program" as of March 1, 2019. No longer will the military rely solely on expendable rockets.
Moreover, the report says the US Air Force must consider both expendable and reusable launch vehicles as part of its solicitation for military launch contracts. And in the event that a contract is solicited for a mission that a reusable launch vehicle is not eligible to compete for, the Air Force should report back to Congress with the reason why. The US House has already agreed to the conference report, and it should be taken up in the Senate next week. After that, it will need the president's signature to become law.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 28 2018, @03:58PM (3 children)
It's all eyewash and perception. NASA retrieved the SRBs for reuse not because it actually saved money, but because it looked like it was less wasteful.
The Flash Gordon style retro-thrust landings are a technological showpiece, and do save a little money, but what DoD is really doing is keeping their tech up with the flashiest known in public perception. A B52 can glass over a couple of major cities, but it's not sexy the way that a fleet of self-guided cruise missiles are, so we've got both. One to get the job done economically, and the other to show off when politics allows us to.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday July 28 2018, @05:01PM (1 child)
The Air Force in particular has been enthusiastic about SpaceX and will be an early customer for the Falcon Heavy. They want to save money. Falcon 9 reusability savings might be modest when compared to the upcoming fully reusable BFR, but Falcon Heavy is more reusable than Falcon 9.
I'm pretty sure you don't want the B-52 to be your sole way of glassing a city. And the U.S. [wikipedia.org], China [wikipedia.org], and Russia [wikipedia.org] are all working on hypersonic missiles. Is it for the flash, or the bang?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 28 2018, @05:33PM
Flash gets you elected, bang puts a damper on the golfing schedule, I'm pretty sure they care more about the flash.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday July 29 2018, @11:07PM
Reusable rockets are "eyewash and perception"? No. No they are not. Your analogy is backwards too. A cruise missile is a wasteful single use weapon where the B52 can drop bombs day after day with short breaks between runs.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.