Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Space

US Military Told To Move From 'Expendable' To 'Reusable' Rockets (arstechnica.com) 90

Posted by BeauHD from the reduce-reuse-recycle dept.
schwit1 shares a report from Ars Technica: The conference report from the U.S. House and Senate calls for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program of the Department of Defense, commonly known as the EELV program, to be named the "National Security Space Launch program" as of March 1, 2019. No longer will the military rely solely on expendable rockets. Moreover, the report says the U.S. Air Force must consider both expendable and reusable launch vehicles as part of its solicitation for military launch contracts. And in the event that a contract is solicited for a mission that a reusable launch vehicle is not eligible to compete for, the Air Force should report back to Congress with the reason why. The U.S. House has already agreed to the conference report, and it should be taken up in the Senate next week. After that, it will need the president's signature to become law. [...] It is quite a change from the state of play just 13 years ago, when ULA was dominant and SpaceX was roundly dismissed by the courts and the broader aerospace community.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Told To Move From 'Expendable' To 'Reusable' Rockets More

US Military Told To Move From 'Expendable' To 'Reusable' Rockets

Comments Filter:

  • *Froth froth*. It's political correctness gone mad. *Froth froth*.

  • Why the rush to rapid, responsive?
    Do entire networks of existing satellites all need replacing in the same year?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Strider- ( 39683 )

      You need to get an observation bird over a new hotspot, or one of your existing NRO birds goes dark. That's what this concept is for.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Can the NRO hand craft the needed observation systems at that rapid rate from bespoke 100% made in the USA parts?

        • Have backups on standby (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @06:41AM (#57031924)

          Can the NRO hand craft the needed observation systems at that rapid rate from bespoke 100% made in the USA parts?

          If they have a brain in their skulls they already have backups sitting on the ground on standby in a launch ready (or nearly so) condition. If they are already building one it saves a lot of money to build a second (or more) at the same time. Heck even commercial companies like SiriusXM build backup satellites that are ready for launch should one of their orbiting satellites experience a problem. It would be almost criminally stupid for a government agency tasked with defense to not do the same thing.

          • It would be almost criminally stupid for a government agency tasked with defense to not do the same thing.

            Contact (Movie) - S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

          • "If they have a brain in their skulls they already have backups sitting on the ground on standby "

            This is the Military, they call their backups 'reserve'.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Possibly due to a change in the trend of satellites moving to swarms of smaller ones. This is to give them redundancy, and make them more difficult for an enemy to take out.

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordHighExecutioner ( 4245243 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @02:33AM (#57031486)
    ...the ICBM will become reusable ?!?

    • uh, no (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2018 @03:47AM (#57031608)

      It's for space launch and not for ballistic missiles which are actually used surface-to-surface (with a bit of space in between).

      It is pretty funny though to see the big rusty and spoiled old fat-and-lazy-on-cost-plus-contracts defense contractors that benefitted so well from an earlier such government mandate (the one that created the EELV program) now on the other end of such a mandate. Given that none of the overpaid morons managing these firms took SpaceX seriously, none will be on an even footing with SpaceX for future contracts. If the clowns pretending to be CEOs of these firms do not wise-up and order a major shift to reusability then it's likely Blue Origin will be ready with a reusable wile the big3 old school firms are still debating a course of action. Can it be that we are about to see a colossal abuse of taxpayers finally get punished? It probably depends on how many corrupt members of congress the big old firms can buy and whether its enough to defeat the policy change.

      LockMart is currently designing their non-reusable Vulcan launch vehicle as their next-gen replacement for the Russia!Russia!Russia!-engined Atlas launch vehicle.

      Boeing seems to be prepping to retire the Delta launch vehicle with no replacement.

      NothrupGrumman (who have recently absorbed Orbital ATK) is home to the non-reusable Russian-engined Antares launch vehicle and they are currently designing a newer non-reusable solid-motor-based launch vehicle (the Omega) for the future.

      • It probably depends on how many corrupt members of congress the big old firms can buy and whether its enough to defeat the policy change.

        Methinks the definition of "reusable" is about to get very flexible. The legacy contractors will take many years to develop and deploy reusability on anything remotely approaching the level SpaceX has already achieved. That said, however, even SpaceX is still throwing away their upper stages. We'll have to wait for BFR (or maybe Skylon) to get a fully reusable ride to space.

        • Re:uh, no (Score:5, Insightful)

          by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @07:45AM (#57032128)
          Skylon is sadly a stillborn concept. They're so obsessed with the complicated that they overlooked the simple. Making a rugged winged first stage would have been much more practical than building a winged SSTO at the outermost of our capability.

          • Skylon has never been more than a placeholder. Reaction Engines has been working on the engine only, and current plans include a two-state to orbit vehicle [wikipedia.org] as it'll be a lower-risk development than Skylon, with Skylon penciled in for the 2040 timeframe.

            • The problem is that once you go the TSTO route, SABRE becomes irrelevant and a combination of a ramjet and a simple rocket engine becomes highly competitive with your technologically risky SABRE (and we're good at building both ramjets *and* rocket engines). I did once some very rudimentary calculations for a Skylon-sized TSTO with a ramjet and a rocket engine and the payload was +50% above the most recent SSTO Skylon concept, all because you lose over 50 tonnes of dead mass with staging at ~3 km/s. A "dumb

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Megane ( 129182 )

          The way I read TFS, it's not requiring them to use reusables, it's requiring them to not reject reusables. This is a subtle difference, but still a big step that acknowledges that it works. Right now we've got one and a half reusable launch companies (Blue Origin is still only capable of tourist launches until they can get an orbital launcher working, but they're committed to re-usability) and a bunch of old companies who didn't even want to try.

          They don't need laws to help them win, just to level the play

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ...the ICBM will become reusable ?!?

      Damn right.

      Trump's gonna make the Chinese give us back the missiles we use to nuke them. :-D

  • SpaceX launch was jaw-dropping in this respect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @02:39AM (#57031498)
    SpaceX's recent launch of a Tesla vehicle as proof of concept was cool, perhaps poetic and arty even, but not the most impressive part: I have to admit that my jaw dropped open when I saw 2 of the 3 rockets returning and landing again (3rd one was lost). I found it a triumph of good engineering, really impressive that it actually worked considering the rocket shape and gigantic powers involved.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      ...and the only reason the 3rd failed to land was that it ran out of "lighter fluid" and couldn't restart its engines. But that double landing was one of the most amazing things ever accomplished by humanity. Too bad they aren't likely to do it again even a dozen more times, because they would rather use a bigger rocket instead.

  • Bullets are a major consumable expense - they should be reusable. Or, you know, create a long-lasting peace the world over.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by darkain ( 749283 )

      As much as I would love total world peace too, I'm here to chime in on the first part instead.

      Bullets? You do realize these same companies are actively working on energy based weapons, yes? Once these are perfected, bullets will be meaningless.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dohzer ( 867770 )

        If they're going to make Hydra 70 rockets reusable, why not make bullets reusable too?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If they're going to make Hydra 70 rockets reusable, why not make bullets reusable too?

          Uh, we DO reuse bullets when we dig the lead out of the dirt at shooting ranges to melt back down, and gather up the brass. Ever heard of bullet re-loading? I've not bought a manufactured bullet in years. Most who enjoy competition shooting couldn't afford that sport any other way.

          Let's just stop with this argument, because it's rather ignorant and shortsighted.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            I fire caseless frangible ammo you insensitive clod!

      • Woohoo! Kill 'bad guys' without allowing said bad guys to delete your resources. W00t! That's almost as weapons-budget-efficient as lasting worldwide peace. Well done arms dealers for your commitment to reducing global CO2 emissions.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nyet ( 19118 )

        LOL @ hand held energy based weapons beating kinetics any time soon

        You're dreaming.

    • Re:Bullets (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 30, 2018 @04:35AM (#57031680)

      Bullets are mostly reusable.
      The casing can be reused directly, and the projectile might need to be remelted.
      Other than that just replace the primer, and repack with powder.

      • Thanks; any tips on the long-lasting peace?

  • A reusable Space Shuttle engined rocket (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Michael Woodhams ( 112247 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @03:57AM (#57031624) Journal

    Here [nasaspaceflight.com] is a story about a reusable rocket-plane using a modified Space Shuttle main engine, designed for DARPA, to launch medium sized military satellites (a bit over two tonnes.) It is intended to have 24 hour turnaround.

    Like Falcon 9, the booster stage is reusable but the second stage is not. Unlike Falcon 9, the booster will glide back to a runway like a shuttle. First flight is targeted for 2021.

    • Spacex looked into that. To glide back, you need wings and control surfaces added to the rocket. All additional weight. Spacex came up with a way to do it that uses the rocket engines that are part of the rocket already. The less your rocket weights, the more payload it can place in orbit.

      • Spacex looked into that. To glide back, you need wings and control surfaces added to the rocket. All additional weight. Spacex came up with a way to do it that uses the rocket engines that are part of the rocket already.

        For a fair comparison you have to consider the extra fuel that must be carried by the SpaceX rocket for the deceleration and landing burns. Well, I suppose the spaceplane may also require a deceleration burn, unless its exterior can handle the heat of aerobraking. The SpaceX rocket has small control surfaces as well.

        All in all, it seems like the SpaceX approach is more efficient, but it's not free.

        • The space plane will need a boost back burn. You are not going to be able to glide back from hundreds of kms out to sea where you reenter the atmosphere. Unless you land on an aircraft carrier. You will also need fuel for the entry burn unless you carry the additional weight of a heat shield. Both methods need some kind of landing gear/legs.

    • Hmmm...5000 pounds to orbit (2250kg) for this new spaceplane.

      Falcon 9 Block 5...50,000 punds to orbit (22500kg).

      It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get a Block 5 Falcon 9 ready for relaunch.

      And how often 2250kg to LEO is useful as opposed to 22500kg to LEO....

      • Falcon 9 Block 5 can put almost 9,000 pounds to MARS Orbit..

        https://www.spacex.com/about/c... [spacex.com]
    • I think they did a *massive* mistake by not going for hydrocarbons in the winged stage. Aside from getting rid of the RS-25 boondoggle, it would empty (a 2.6 times increase in propellant density!) a lot of space in the stage for a payload bay that would simultaneously enable larger diameter payloads *and* get rid of the expendable fairing. Hell, it might even increase the payload mass. But I guess pork is pork...

  • "The Expendables" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tsolias ( 2813011 ) on Monday July 30, 2018 @04:57AM (#57031708)

    are now being replaced by "The Reusables"

  • Not sure but it is old news about the development of reusable rockets instead of expandable once.
  • Now if there was only a company who had the reusable rocket technology that the gov't could pilfer/commandeer in the name of national security.....
  • I think the idea of reusable rockets is the way they should be built! I am old enough to remember The Polaris (Buzz Corbit's rocket) landing tail first and have always thought that is the way it should be! However, one thing I very quickly learned a long time ago and far away in a tropical jungle was that ..... In combat EVERYTHING is considered expendable. It is something you learn very early. Everything and EVERYBODY IS expendable.

  • Headline on the summary immediately above this one:

    Dads Pass On More Than Genetics In Their Sperm

    Headline on this summary:

    US Military Told To Move From 'Expendable' To 'Reusable' Rockets

    Coincidence? I think not!

  • Space X ate the ULA's lunch leaving the ULA with existing contracts and the DoD. Now Space X just ate their dinner leaving the ULA to survive on rations. I wouldn't be surprised if the ULA evaporates in the next year.

  • RPGs are single use rockets. What?? Make them reusable so the enemy doesn't need to pay the full cost of launching them back? How PC of them.
  • It's the next step. You know it makes sense.

  • ...in writing the requirements!

Slashdot Top Deals

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.

Close