SpaceX Receives $102 Million Contract for Military Rocket Cargo Delivery
The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has awarded SpaceX a $102 million contract to provide more concrete data on how the company’s reusable Super Heavy/Starship vehicles could be used to rapidly deliver cargo to remote locations on Earth. C4ISRNET reports:
The U.S. Air Force in its fiscal 2022 budget request designated the program one of AFRL’s Vanguard efforts, boosting its profile as a potentially transformational technology. [Program manager Greg] Spanjers told C4ISRNET in an email this week the program represents “a big-bet [science and technology] investment,” noting its designation as a Vanguard effort is a recognition it could offer a “game-changing capability.”
To date, AFRL has awarded several Rocket Cargo contracts for analytics, landing material research, wind tunnel sensors and command-and-control systems development, but this week’s award to SpaceX is the first deal with a launch vehicle provider. According to Spanjers, the lab is engaged with other launch providers and will consider awarding additional contracts later in the program.
Spanjers said the SpaceX work is focused in four areas: collecting data from commercial orbital launches and landings; exploring cargo bay designs compatible with U.S. Transportation Command containers and support rapid loading and unloading; researching landing systems that can operate on a variety of terrain; and demonstrating the heavy cargo launch and landing process.
35 responses to “SpaceX Receives $102 Million Contract for Military Rocket Cargo Delivery”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
wasteful spending by a military with to much money
The last part is very interesting – demonstrating the heavy cargo launch and landing process.
Sounds like most of it will go towards a test mission and SpaceX will have to do one for that portion of the funding.
I have not read the entire thing but if most of its spending is checked by a test mission. fine. at least it all wont go up in smoke. there is nothing interesting in a p2p version of a vehicle which as simply not flown
\
Seems to me that was the argument everyone used against COTS, before it worked and everyone claimed they knew it would.?
actually no. Rich Kolker and I wrote the piece on COTS that is without a doubt the first mention of it…back in the late 90’s. we wrote it in a Weekly Standard Piece and Spacenews. the argument against COTS was not the practicality of it, but rather how NASA would pay for it and how the safety content of it would be examined. We address those two issues.
the arguments again P2p start with an unproven vehicle. particularly when we are talking 100 million which is real money in my view.
The contracts that NASA had awarded for COTS in 2006 were for unproved vehicles as not even the Falcon I had successfully flown yet.
In terms of utility, the ability to deliver assets anywhere in the world in under a hour would have value. Just look at Tonga after the recent eruption as an example.
As for money being able to retire risk you just to look at Boeing’s other space project – Starliner…
lol you really think we are going to send a Starship into a place like Tonga…and then what? its homeless shelters? it makes no sense. Aside from the fact it is not flying and has many design uncertainties…the reality is this system will have some of the most complex ground infrastructure in the world. so yes we send it to someplace where electricity is at a premiium.
you spaceX folks have stopped thinking
I dont comment for the company and anything I say should be taken as just my own opinion. they have learned a lot from starliner SpaceX went through that learning cure with DRagon cargo…beyond that I am uncomfortable saying more
And there is infrastructure on the Moon to support it?
I know, you are thinking that it’s like an airplane and will need to takeoff again…
No, it doesn’t. When the supplies are delivered the Starship would just be dragged to the port and loaded on a barge for a slow return to Starbase…
thats not practical or realistic
It isn’t necessary either.
and it wont happen but the fan boys talk about it a lot
Dragon 1 worked the first time out. Starliner, not so much.
As for Tonga, that’s exactly where a Starship cargo capability would be most valuable. Airlifter engines and volcanic ash are not compatible. Starship wouldn’t care about the volcanic ash in the air. Tonga has airports. Starship could land on one with enough propellant left to, after unloading, get itself to, say, a U.S. airbase on some other Pacific island where a methalox storage infrastructure could be sited.
I’m guessing you’d have to have some pre-prepared payloads that could be loaded into Starship and sent on short notice, otherwise I’m not sure what the value would be besides Starship being able to vertically land at the destination (and even then landing would be tricky because a Starship would kick up a ton of dirt and dust and weighs a lot). But I suppose there are two other options-
1. Fly Starship out to a ship closer to the destination on short notice, then use aircraft to fly it out to the destination. But of course you’d have to weigh that against just keeping more supplies at a base, and you’d lose the whole “cargo anywhere in an hour” idea.
2. Have Starship do a flyover and kick out payload with an expendable landing phase of parachutes and rockets.
This still all seems kind of shaky to me as a rationale, given the cost. If you came up with a large-scale cargo plane that could do VTOL reliably, I think you’d lose a lot of the rationale for this.
we have in many ways entered into the SNL sketch period concerning starship
First nothing really has flown. some minor hops that all ended either in the big RUD or landings with the vehicle on fire. but yet many are so desperate that they are already building colonies on Mars with no economic system to support them (have you seen the thread on NASASF.com about a Mars economic system? its comical.
Second. right now the entire System requires one of hte most complex pad arraingements in history…so we are now talking about landing it on unprepared ground ….
third. all the points you make. by the time the stuff is loaded on planes, flown to a major “starhub” and then loaded then a countdown and then a flight. the B747 or C5 or C17 is there already…
fourth …once the “starhoper” gets there it is like the LunarStar stuck. once the lunar star takes off from earth, is refueled, flies to the Moon meets the astronauts, lands and takes back off. its out of fuel. When the Star whatever p2p to some distant area its stuck unless of course there is the horsepower to produce all those cryo fuels, load them and then fly off
the US military has far far to much money if it is spending this kind of money on these studies. what a waste
You really seem to be assuming a lot about how it will be done. Let’s see what is the result of the study.
As for Starship flying, that is in the hands of the FAA deciding to have the courage to ignore the political lobbying of the environmentalists and give them the license to fly. Of course courage and bureaucracy tend not to go together…
I think the FAA is doing its job. I dont think Rich people should get a pass on things the rest of us have to do. but we have had that discussion
He is not getting a pass on it, he is waiting on their issuing a license. But the the reality is that the pace of activities in space is speeding up and the FAA AST is going to have to up their game to not hold it up.
they are doing ok the FAA
Not where space is concerned. And it isn’t just SpaceX waiting to get a spaceport licensed. Astra is also waiting on a garden-variety launch license just to fly their rocket out of Canaveral.
In my experience career bureaucrats have very little motivation to up their game to accommodate anything. My personal experience/loses slant my opinions of course. When one loses years, momentum, savings, and has a project double in cost for no defensible reason, it affects the viewpoint something fierce. Especially when it contributes to going broke when the recession hit.
There is a need for some regulation. Unfortunately there are many that make a living and career out of perpetuating the regulatory environment regardless of the damage it does to individuals and the country. In many cases it has reached the point that only the rich have the means to fight through the obstructions.
I’ve almost reached the point that I consider rational regulation to be an oxymoron. The quality median between no control and over control just gets crushed in the middle all too often.
Actually the first Starship test flight nearly aced it, an engine problem at the last moment made for a spectacular end to what was otherwise an impressive first attempt. And they did land successfully on the fifth attempt with no RUD in spite of a small fire that lasted for a few minutes.
The catch arm idea is yet another one of Musk’s ideas that makes you say “What?”, but then you realize that it actually makes some sense. Landing on catch arms is harder but only relatively so compared to landing on a concrete pad or a barge in the ocean. But the benefits will eventually be significant in terms of turnaround time, even if at the moment other factors will make turnaround slow for other reasons until the entire process is refined.
That being said, a high percentage of SpaceX fans were convinced in 2021 that Starship orbital flights would take place by the end of that year, that Yusaku Maezawa would be flying around the Moon shortly afterwards, and that people would be flying Starships to Mars within five years. Musk in my opinion is a genius, but not a magician. He has admitted that his estimates are based on everything going right, although he acknowledges that they usually don’t. But even though things will take longer than some people seem to think it will, I think Starship has a very good chance of success, and the schedule of development will likely be quick compared to traditional projects (SLS of course being a low bar).
I think Starship will eventually be capable of providing the Air Force with cargo delivery if that’s what they want. The question is whether what they want is what they actually need. I think the jury is still out on that.
Steve. As I am fond of saying its Musk money, his plans, he has made a lot of money with his plans…so there. My only point is that a lot is being betted here with little flight data and the “landings” are the last of it. for all I know Musk is going to get another halo or two with the crowd as he goes to a magnificent victory with this. But if it takes him as long to get a recoverable system as it did with F9. he is going to spend a lot of money with no one paying for the first stage. the testing he did with the first stage were free after someone paid for the launch. thats not true here see how it works out
That’s true, but in one sense the first stages (and second stages) will be paid for through Starlink revenue since the first many flights will be Starlink launches. True that the “credit” won’t be paid back until later when Starlink begins making a profit, and also depends on both Starship and Starlink being successful, neither of which is an absolute certainty at this point. Although I think they have a good chance of it based on their track record and what we have seen so far.
you are going to see more and more of this as the US Figures out the last 20-30 years have been wasted and looks for more and more game changer weapons against the Chinese as we likely wave goodbye to the Ukraine 🙂
Yes. The creation of Space Force has been very tonic anent stimulating efforts at military innovation.
The first thing I want to know is, what’s the payload that needs to be delivered on a global basis in such a short period? Don’t invoke penetrating airspace you don’t own, because a Starship coming down from orbit is the biggest target every surface to air missile going back to the 1960’s can handle. In order for Starship to land in a combat zone, you need complete air supremacy.
I take it back there is a payload with global reach that could be delivered by Starship Super Heavy. Munitions. Bombs, KE rods and missile shuttles. As a bomber SS/SH mak some sense. Esp for targeting mobile missile platforms, ships, railroads and trains, supply columns, troops in concentration. C-130’s land and take off from dirt. Starship lands and is out of fuel.
there is nothing non munitions that meets this time span. and if it becomes a bomber then all bets are off
first off it is very vulnerable, it has a RCS and infrared profile as big as a house and a lot of treaties simply collapse…and now in a regional war the Chinese would be justified targeting our conus
its just a waste
Disaster relief supplies would be quite valuable in Starship-deliverable quantity. That would likely be most of the actual use cases anyway.
they would be useless. this is fantasy and make up. I have a friend on the island of Tonga. it was quite some time that one could get a C17 in much less something as complex as a starship…and the C17 could leave the starship would be stuck there. goofy idea
Regardless of what cargo it carries, how are you going to get Starship back for reuse? As you said, it’s out of fuel. This limits its potential landing zones to areas developed enough and peaceful enough to truck Starship back out or fly it out in a large cargo plane – if there is a cargo plane large enough.
If launched on a Super Heavy, a Starship military cargo carrier could arrive with a full payload and enough remaining propellant to get it either back to the U.S. or at least to someplace at which it could be gassed up sufficiently to make it back to the U.S. on a 2nd hop.
Biconic upper shell in place of true Starship.
As a bomber, Starship would make more sense based on-orbit than on the ground. And I don’t think anyone is contemplating sending Starship cargo flights from CONUS to some FOB in Bumfuckistan.
I could just see if flying over a B-36 in a retro Pop Mech magazine
I see the NSF folks have come after this site and Doug. lol from Jupiter to SpaceX a page full of non rocket scientist but a lot of fan boys (sorry could not resist) Fly safe