The president has issued a memorandum. I’m skimming it right now, but new policy was definitely needed with the upcoming planned cadence of launch, landing, and entry.
The president has issued a memorandum. I’m skimming it right now, but new policy was definitely needed with the upcoming planned cadence of launch, landing, and entry.
OK, so the internal voice I heard whilst reading through this was unmistakably Trump’s. But that aside, I mostly like what I read here. A little concerned about the emphasis on standards. I get the broad idea, but we are still very early in the game for too much emphasis on standardization. Do it where it really matters, otherwise let time tell.
This was the part that stood out to me:
“(h) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Administrator of NASA, the Secretary of Transportation, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall each report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), the APST, the APEP, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget on actions to secure United States space launch infrastructure on Federal real property, including any recommendations for additional policy direction, resources, or authorities required to secure United States space launch infrastructure.”
The federal government finally seems inclined to recognize the military importance of launch facilities and their current essentially undefended nature. Vandy, KSC-Canaveral and Wallops need to be treated more like Area 51 than Disney World. So, for that matter, does Starbase and whatever SpaceX is soon building out on Pecan Island. There should be continual armed drone overwatch at all such places and their environs, anti-drone defenses, terminal point defense against missiles and on-site ground defense assets including armored vehicles, heavy weapons and troops.
That ought to apply to CONUS military facilities of all types for that matter. Even Old West forts had stockades. That’s because there were hostiles operating on the ground who might attack at any moment. Sadly, that vulnerability has returned. Too many current CONUS military bases don’t even have chain-link fences. The Biden regime allowed an unknown number of hostile military personnel into CONUS and, until we have found and removed all such – if we ever do – we should assume any US military facility in CONUS is vulnerable to a combined ground and drone attack and act accordingly.
It was also good to see the strong emphasis on opening up extant re-entry ranges such as White Sands and the establishment of new ones on federal land. The fact that Varda and other US firms have to land their downmass return vehicles in Australia because of hidebound US bureaucracy is a national disgrace.
I still say it’s time to look at inland launch complexes for fully reusable vehicles that have passed a certain point. Even things like Falcon 9 could launch eastward from Edwards on many inclinations. By the time the instantaneous impact point got to densely inhabited areas (if it did, some inclinations never), it’d be moving quickly.
Ditto.
Even if this were permitted, I’m not sure launch companies would be all that interested.
It may become legal, but you’re opening a can of worms WRT liability and NIMBYs.
NIMBY’s can be avoided by building out at the ass end of nowhere. No neighbors, no problem. Think New Shepard and Bezos’s Van Horn, TX “ranch.”
Liability should be mainly an issue anent overflight of populated areas either on ascent or descent. This has proven to be a manageable issue for aircraft. As spacecraft reliability improves, risks will diminish.
Given the coastal locations of current US spaceports, ascents – all over water – aren’t really a problem. But returns from space have been rare heretofore – mainly 133 Shuttle landings over 30 years. Starship, given its intended concept of operations, will likely be generating about that many landings per quarter within a few years. Stoke Space’s Nova will also be generating an unknown, but likely significant, number of annual re-entries by that time as well.
So this is a matter than needs to be sorted out fairly soon.
One of the reasons I mention Jackass Flats, NV, is because it was already used for atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. In any case, an RLV that’s already launched thousands of times from coastal sites is not going to generate more liability than airliners. People cite flight history of airliners, but forget how often airliners fly, which generates additional liability compared to what RLVs will do in the next few decades. Also, for orbital launches, you can simply avoid exit corridors that pass over major population centers. By the time a launch from Las Vegas or Edwards reaches the Mississippi (assuming due east for whatever reason) the IIP is moving 12,000mph and the Atlantic is minutes away.
Ditto again.
Spaceport America and Midland Airport, Texas, are both licensed inland spaceports. If robust orbital RLVs ever evolve, and can demonstrate expectation of casualties on the order of 1E-8, FAA will have a difficult time refusing them launch licenses.
True. But not great P2P destinations or departures either unless large amounts of people & stuff is trucked or flown in and out.
With everything else it has recently added to its plate, I don’t see P2P Starship service any longer being very high up SpaceX’s priority list except in military forms. If SpaceX ever gets around to doing terrestrial P2P for civilians, it will likely stick to the original concept of connecting pairs of large cities via offshore facilities.
I was thinking even of orbital. Maybe less cumbersome than any P2P plans, but still not ideal logistics.
Spaceport America is suitably remote, but Midland is a city airport and VTVL launch/recovery ops are not what was originally planned for there.
There will be robust orbital RLVs and quite soon.
Agree about the FAA. Right now, I think it views space launches and re-entries as minor nuisances. One hopes Pres. Trump’s policy directive will get some attention and change some minds.
Robust orbital RLVs are about 3 years away, 1E-8 maybe ten or so? Assuming things in the US don’t go down the shitter and out to sea in that time frame.
Hat trick Ditto.