Talk:Reusable Booster System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contracts have been awarded, Dec 2011[edit]

As of this morning, 6 Dec 2011, USAF has issued contracts to Boeing, Andrews Space, and Lockheed Martin for the RBS tasks. Here's a link: Andrews Space & Boeing also [in addition to Lockheed Martin] win Reusable Booster System demo contracts. There should be a lot of mainline aerospace press coverage in a few days. N2e (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the AvWeek article on the contract awards U.S. Air Force Plans Reusable Space Booster, Aviation Week, 9 Dec 2011. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reusable Booster System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could add detail from the NRC 2012 report[edit]

The NRC 2012 report has lots of good detail in its 115 pages. It describes the phasing (subscale Pathfinder, larger RB-demo, RBS-Y prototype), and the various technology risk areas (eg the rocket engine development, the automatic flyback control system, the rocketback maneuver). Has specs for the Pathfinder and RBD phases and discusses the business case. Figure 4.7 shows that possible commercial expendible (eg SpaceX) costs could undercut the costs of EELV and destroy the USAF business case. - Rod57 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]