Comment by worik
1 day ago
The SLS being a government funded competitor to SpaceX has little hope...
That said I am unsure if that is that much of a blow. The government is very good at some things, it looks to me (I am a casual observer) that SpaceX has eaten their lunch in terms of a space programme.
But the James Webb was exactly the sort of incredibly difficult, high risk project that NASA (and Government labs generally) excel at. No private company would ever do something like that. It is a huge achievement and is changing our view, again, of the Universe.
So I guess it will be doomed now too. Noting so dangerous as a good example.
The SLS being a government funded competitor to SpaceX has little hope
SLS was never about being the most practical and/or efficient launcher. It is a pork barrel project, but one with an important role. In particular, it is maintaining vital aerospace industrial capacity. If the US wants things like ICBMs then programs like SLS are a necessary evil.
If the US wants ICBMs they'll leverage existing designs. The SLS has nothing to do with them, not in the slightest, aside from the fact that they're all cylindrical in shape.
Not the designs, the people and supply chains that build them…
1 reply →
Maybe they are also orange?
Oh man, Elon is going to propose a Falcon-9 based ICBM isn't he? Might as well go full Bond villain at this point.
ICBMs have usually been solid fuelled as they can be stored ready to launch.
Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.
5 replies →
No one is seriously going to propose a liquid fueled rocket for the nuclear deterrence mission. It simply doesn't work.
However, there are potential military applications for a vehicle like Falcon 9. For example, imagine being able to insert a Special Operations team almost anywhere in the world on a few hours notice. In a potential near-peer conflict there will also be a need to quickly launch replacement military satellites to make up attrition losses.