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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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) Journal

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

                  --
                  "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
                • (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) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> 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.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (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: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:31PM

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:31PM (#583639) Journal

        You take that back, fucker! Musky can have any actress or model [eonline.com] he wants (but he prefers the white ones)! He doesn't need to trap them like Harvey Weinstein; he is always the Alpha in the relationship! He's not even dweeby; he called someone a nerd on Reddit [reddit.com]!

        What's more, he will import women to Mars, the Planet of War, just to conquer and impregnate them with his musky seed!!!

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @05:54PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.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) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.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?