Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 22 2022, @04:54AM   Printer-friendly
from the good-and-fast-so-not-cheap dept.

SpaceX signs a deal to rocket military cargo around the world:

The US Air Force is enlisting Elon Musk's help in developing a way to deliver military supplies and humanitarian aid via SpaceX rockets.

The company has signed a contract with the US Department of Defense worth over $102 million to provide point-to-point transit for cargo via space.

[...] The contract, awarded Friday, falls under the Air Force Research Laboratory's rocket cargo program, which aims to take advantage of the falling price of heavy launch capabilities that SpaceX and other companies have brought to the market in recent years.

Program manager Greg Spanjers told SpaceNews earlier this week that the military is "very interested in the ability to deliver the cargo anywhere on Earth to support humanitarian aid and disaster relief."

The contract doesn't specify which SpaceX rocket or vehicle the initiative will utilize. SpaceX has used its Falcon 9 rocket and Falcon Heavy (which is made up of three Falcon 9 boosters) for military missions in the past, but Musk has made clear that he views Starship as the vehicle of the future.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday January 22 2022, @04:46PM (5 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday January 22 2022, @04:46PM (#1214818) Homepage Journal

    As far as I know, none of the rockets are capable of landing, and then taking off again without refueling. Military contracts are likely to send goods into areas not...well suited to high-tech refueling operations. This implies that the rockets would then be abandoned. That makes for incredibly expensive deliveries.

    Of course, the US military is not know for being sensible, when it comes to spending money. There's a reason that the US spends more than the next X countries combined, and it's not that the US military is that much larger. It's just that much more expensive.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 22 2022, @06:40PM

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Saturday January 22 2022, @06:40PM (#1214833) Journal

    Depends on where they want to land these things. They won't be going to Afghanistan anymore.

    For the refuel, they might be able to get away with very little in the tanks. They can send it back with no cargo and it's not reaching orbit.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22 2022, @08:02PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 22 2022, @08:02PM (#1214857)

    It all depends on the mission profile, and Starship is expected to be cheap enough to be expendable for deep space scientific missions. Field refuelling can't be too onerous either, since they will need to be able to refuel on Mars for the return trip. They aren't going to be flying into hot zones, so any landing zone with road access should be able to truck fuel in at leisure. Consider Tonga: A dozen Starships could deliver 1200t of personnel and relief supplies within hours, and then they can easily wait for a couple of weeks while things to clear up enough for fuel to be shipped in.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 23 2022, @12:27AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 23 2022, @12:27AM (#1214893) Journal
      Or the rocket could be shipped back via normal channels. That seems a lot less complicated, particularly given that for a while more stuff will probably be shipped to a disaster area than will be removed from it.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 24 2022, @05:37PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 24 2022, @05:37PM (#1215298)

        At 9m (30 ft) diameter and 50m (160ft) long, Starship is pretty much the definition of an oversized load. Moving one on surface requires heavy equipment and a wide, flat, paved road with no overhead obstructions all the way to the pier, but fuel can be delivered anywhere an 18 wheeler can get to. Most of the world already has access for trucks, but very little has roads capable of handling something three lanes wide. Refuelling seems to be the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to move one any significant distance.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 25 2022, @06:38AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 25 2022, @06:38AM (#1215508) Journal

          Refuelling seems to be the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to move one any significant

          I still think it's way easier to move something three lanes wide and half a football field long by road than to refuel it and move it that way. After all, you need to inspect the engine first, hope the stage didn't collapse from days of underpressurization, and then you're fueling with cryofuels in a random location. I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing that actually can be moved are the rocket engines with the rest left in place as exotic litter. Those engines definitely are small enough to be moved by road with normal clearances.

          The thing is light enough that they could move it with a cargo helicopter like a Chinook (assuming very low wind).