Community > Forum > Other US Government Space Activities > USAF Seeks Flyback Booster

USAF Seeks Flyback Booster

Posted by: sanman - Mon May 03, 2010 6:28 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 4 posts ] 
USAF Seeks Flyback Booster 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:59 pm
Posts: 188
Post USAF Seeks Flyback Booster   Posted on: Mon May 03, 2010 6:28 pm
The United States Air Force seeks a reusable flyback booster:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... cepts.html

This seems like a lot more sensible successor to launch systems like the Space Shuttle, since it's more likely to live upto the goals of a truly reusable and flexible launch system.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:59 pm
Posts: 188
Post Re: USAF Seeks Flyback Booster   Posted on: Thu May 06, 2010 6:14 pm
More detail on the flyback booster initiative - seems like NASA will be involved:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:51 am
Posts: 448
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe, Earth
Post Re: USAF Seeks Flyback Booster   Posted on: Thu May 06, 2010 7:01 pm
Sounds very promising to me, but I really don't understand one thing:

Quote:
“The EELV is rapidly escalating in cost,” says Hampsten, in part because of increased overhead resulting from the Obama administration’s decision to cancel development of NASA’s Ares I crew launch vehicle.

Why is there an "increased overhead" (what kind of overhead?) on the EELV program because of cancellation of Ares I? Where is the connection?

_________________
pride comes before a fall


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 1:04 pm
Posts: 254
Location: Norway
Post Re: USAF Seeks Flyback Booster   Posted on: Fri May 07, 2010 6:36 pm
Cancelation of something always creates increased overhead for everything else, unless part of that overhead is being cut back, or what was cancelled is replaced with something that requires at least the same amount of overhead.

Just an idiotic way of saying that the overhead will be transfered over to the other projects using the same overhead pool.


Back to top
Profile ICQ
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use