Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's Reusable Rockets Win US Air Force General's Endorsement (bloomberg.com)
As the military looks to drive down costs, 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. "It would be 'absolutely foolish' not to begin using pre-flown rockets, which brings such significant savings that they'll soon be commonplace for the entire industry, General John W. 'Jay' Raymond said," reports Bloomberg. From the report: "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."
You are mistaking the ULA Cost+ system (milk the system for everything you can making as much profit as possible and hire retiring generals/Astronauts as lobbyists to keep the gravy train running) for the Space-X system (plough profits back into developing the technologies needed in order to be able to send rockets to mars and colonise it). It's true that Space-X now has lobbyists in D.C., but no ex-generals there either to my knowledge.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
If you take out the landing gear and use its extra fuel to fly instead of land, every airplane can fly a loot more that they do right now.
But would that be a good idea?, if not, what is different in the rocket business?
If the satellite has a low mass, the F9 will have room for extra fuel to land, why not land?
Btw "half as efficient" is just false, in any way you look at it. Space shuttle main engine ISP was 366, F9 ISP is 270 thats hardly half.... ( at sea level as we are talking about 1st stage returns ) but the Space Shuttle could not get of the ground on its own, it needed busters. And those suck at ISP. Also, using that type of fuel made the rest of the ship really heavy and expensive
At price/kg, the space shuttle was $18,000 while SpaceX is below $3,000....
In how fast it could be build and lauched..... Space shuttle did what max of 6 missions a year?, how many did F9 do now?
So, how the hell is F9 less efficient than the space shuttle?........
I hate to bust your bubble (not really).
Rockets seldom burn ALL the fuel. They burn the amount the need to get to the desired trajectory. After MECA they throw the rocket and ANY unused fuel away. You have a very thick skull, so we'll give you time to absorb the info.
Elon is simply using the FUEL that is normally discarded to soften the first stage landing enough to save building another one for the next flight. The fuel used to land is not added to the launch, it was already there.
The inspection and refurb saves MILLIONS of dollars. It saves time and energy in building new rockets.
NOW, go tell your mom, you don't have a clue. NumbScull(TM)