SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @06:26PM (6 children)
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)
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)
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)
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 takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)
"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." [seasteading.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:39PM
"...to co-create a seazone with “a special government framework”
Oh, dear..
"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
And similarly, neither things like the FCC for spectrum management?