Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the spread-the-word-to-the-SLS dept.

The head of the U.S. Air Force Space Command is "completely committed" to launching future missions using reused SpaceX rockets, following certification of the reused boosters for military use:

The head of U.S. Air Force Space Command said he's "completely committed" to launching future missions with recycled rockets like those championed by SpaceX's Elon Musk as the military looks to drive down costs. It would be "absolutely foolish" not to begin using pre-flown rockets, which bring such significant savings that they'll soon be commonplace for the entire industry, General John W. "Jay" Raymond said in an interview Monday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. "The market's going to go that way. We'd be dumb not to," he said. "What we have to do is make sure we do it smartly."

[...] The Air Force won't be able to use the recycled boosters until they're certified for military use, a process that Raymond suggested may already be in the works. "The folks out at Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles that work for me would be in those dialogues," he said, declining to specify when certification could take place. "I don't know how far down the road we've gotten, but I am completely committed to launching on a reused rocket, a previously flown rocket, and making sure that we have the processes in place to be able to make sure that we can do that safely."

SpaceX's has just added a secretive "Zuma" mission no earlier than November 10th.

Here is a recent Reddit AmA about SpaceX's "BFR" (writeup and another one).


Original Submission

Related Stories

Trump Space Adviser: Mars "Too Ambitious" and SLS is a Strategic National Asset 52 comments

Trump space adviser: Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets aren't really commercial: Scott Pace likens heavy-lift rockets to aircraft carriers.

In recent months, the executive secretary of the National Space Council, Scott Pace, has worked assiduously behind the scenes to develop a formal space policy for the Trump administration. In a rare interview, published Monday in Scientific American, Pace elaborated on some of the policy decisions he has been helping to make.

In the interview, Pace explained why the Trump administration has chosen to focus on the Moon first for human exploration while relegating Mars to becoming a "horizon goal," effectively putting human missions to the Red Planet decades into the future. Mars was too ambitious, Pace said, and such a goal would have precluded meaningful involvement from the burgeoning US commercial sector as well as international partners. Specific plans for how NASA will return to the Moon should become more concrete within the next year, he added.

In response to a question about privately developed, heavy-lift boosters, the executive secretary also reiterated his skepticism that such "commercial" rockets developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX could compete with the government's Space Launch System rocket, which is likely to make its maiden flight in 2020. "Heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets, like aircraft carriers," Pace said. "There are some people who have talked about buying heavy-lift as a service as opposed to owning and operating, in which case the government would, of course, have to continue to own the intellectual properties so it wasn't hostage to any one contractor. One could imagine this but, in general, building a heavy-lift rocket is no more 'commercial' than building an aircraft carrier with private contractors would be."

I thought flying non-reusable pork rockets was about the money, not strategy. SpaceX is set to launch Falcon Heavy for the first time no earlier than December 29. It will have over 90% of the low Earth orbit capacity as the initial version of the SLS (63.8 metric tons vs. 70).

Previously: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
First SLS Mission Will be Unmanned
Commercial Space Companies Want More Money From NASA
U.S. Air Force Will Eventually Launch Using SpaceX's Reused Rockets


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:36PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:36PM (#583557)

    There is nothing real about his enterprises; ultimately, they all rely heavily on false market forces, such as hype and governments' theft.

    • (Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:43PM (13 children)

      by looorg (578) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:43PM (#583563)

      Why can't Elon has his turn sucking off Uncle Sam? I'm sure everyone else already had their turn.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:45PM (10 children)

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:45PM (#583566)

        I'm moving across the pond when I start my own company, since it's likely much more pleasant to suck at Marianne's teat [wikipedia.org].

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:58PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:58PM (#583572)

          From your link:

          "Marianne is... an icon of freedom and democracy against all forms of dictatorship."

          Yet, democracy is a dictatorship by the majority.

          For there to be no dictatorship, there must be only voluntary exchange of resources; if there is only voluntary exchange, then that's pure capitalism. So, Marianne should be an icon for capitalism, not democracy.

          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:10PM (7 children)

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:10PM (#583580)

            You must be a blast at parties.

            Modern democracies are not a dictatorship by the majority. Taking into account the needs of the minorities, while making decisions reflecting the will of the majority, is indeed possible.

            Anyway: Boobs. Real-while-symbolic boobs. Not "Sam's Teat", Marianne's soft famous model/actress-insipired tits. (Not a condemnation of your particular tastes, just a stated preference by the majority).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:26PM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:26PM (#583587)

              (Not a condemnation of your particular tastes, just a stated preference by the majority).

              It's not just a stated preference. You made me pay for it; you forced your preference onto me; you've dictated your preference, and you've forced me to work extra hours to fund it.

              • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:25PM (5 children)

                by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:25PM (#583609)

                Are you walking dirt trails, stopping to request access from each land owner on the way, because it's absolutely unacceptable that someone could spend your money to build a road somewhere you might never go?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:31PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:31PM (#583638)

                  Obviously, it would be profitable to people to be able to travel cheaply and easily; there is a market for (and culture for) roadways—a governmental solution (e.g., taking resources from people involuntarily) is neither necessary nor likely optimal.

                  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:46PM (2 children)

                    by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:46PM (#583647)

                    So.. How's that private infrastructure going? Like the Interstates, or do you refuse to drive on "government" roads?

                    --
                    tau = 300. Greek circles must have been weird.
                  • (Score: 2) by terryk30 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:37PM

                    by terryk30 (1753) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:37PM (#583981)

                    And similarly, neither things like the FCC for spectrum management?

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:58PM

            by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:58PM (#583688) Homepage
            > if there is only voluntary exchange, then that's pure capitalism

            You've confused capitalism with the free market. There are variations on socialism (the opposite of capitalism) that include a free market. You're confusing ownershop (and thus internal control) with (external) control.
            --
            Life is a precious commodity. A wise investor would get rid of it when it has the highest value.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:07PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:07PM (#583628)

        Elon isn't welcome in this military-industrial complex party! We don't need dweeby dorks who can't get laid on this gravy train!

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:54PM

      by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:54PM (#583570) Journal

      When the government has its tits out, companies are going to suck them. Just as if there is a tax loophole, companies are going to plunge into that hole.

      Musky is just better at milking those tits than most. After all, he has gained the favor of both Obama and Trump, and was able to back away from Trump's CEO club without getting trashed on Twitter or having the government tits wrested from him. That's real.

      SpaceX is doing plenty of commercial launches now anyway. SpaceX launched for both Iridium and EchoStar last week.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:01PM (#583578)

      as cimpared to Boeing (ok, they have commercial aircraft), Lockheed, or ULA?

      • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:06PM (#583579)

        Seriously. What is your point?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:14PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:14PM (#583583)

      Soooo, what about ULA? FFS, what about any company that sells their products and services to the government? I am not sure why you aren't railing against auto makers that sell to GSA, fucking leeches. Or why not those that sell food to the military mess halls, goddamned freeloaders. Or the paper manufacturers supplying congress, the FBI, CIA, etc . . .

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) Subscriber Badge <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:18PM (#583584) Journal

        The answer is something like #ComplicitInTheViolentlyImposedMonopoly

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:26PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:26PM (#583588)

          Huh? You mean the violently imposed monopoly spacex had to sue to get around?

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:43PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:43PM (#583564)

    "pre-owned" or "pre-flown" are bullshit terms.
    If you can't tell yourself that your $2B spy sat is on top a of a booster which already got stressed by a takeoff and landing, would you, pretty please, use the proper term "refurbished"?
    I could tolerate the cute "flight-proven", as long as none blows up on the second attempt.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:06PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:06PM (#583602)

    When Elon Musk started his Space X enterprise, I thought he would fail, considering the few resources he had. But against the odds, Space X has become a cash cow mainly because of low overhead and reliable launch vehicle they have managed to produce and improve. Elon have started a real space race now, for cheapest launch. And this is vitally needed for any sort of space fuel depot and stepping stone to the solar system. Everyone else has been content to sit on their asses for last 50 years when it comes rocket efficiency. They more it cost, the better. And now finally real competitor has arrived.

    Boeing and Lockheed are slowly getting a fucking they deserve. And Elon, makes sure not to use any lube!!

    Godspeed Elon, godspeed.

    • (Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)

      by jimtheowl (5929) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:18PM (#583606)
      Are you indeed considering the resources he had? He could have stuck with , Kimbal, X.com or PayPal but he built on them to forge ahead to do what he believed in instead of milking the proverbial cash cow.

      That said, I mostly agree with the rest of your post.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:49PM (#583620)

        Are you indeed considering the resources he had? He could have stuck with , Kimbal, X.com or PayPal

        Yes.

        Consider the industry sector. Aerospace Engineering. Developing a new air plane to production is in the billions generally. Just look at the Bombardier story. Or A380. Or F35. And this is flying in the air. This is where economics are well knows and backers are available.

        Now consider the space sector. Here billions can mean nothing. Literally. And Elon only had few hundred million. His competition in comparison has infinite deep pockets -- they tell governments what they need and they get it appropriated. Space X either managed to get that NASA contract or not. And frankly, they got lucky, more than once to get that contract. He did the right move, at the right time, and lucky it worked for him.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @07:34PM (#583617)

    Don't responsible government actions make you fill with pride and joy?

(1)