Are there any military applications for a rocket that can land

File: 1453734879337.jpg (15KB, 250x267px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 250x267px

>>29547935
for when you hit the wrong button

File: 1452913273919.jpg (160KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 624x624px

Overly complicated suicide bomb/missile.

I think it would just be easier to fire 200 rounds from a .50 m2 strait up in the air.

>Rocket fired towards target
>Flies directly down at target and detaches its warhead
>Warhead dive-bombs target while rocket flies back to launch site to be refitted

Rocket dive-bomber.

>>29548744
>using 2x the fuel of a regular rocket

File: soduku.jpg (827KB, 1104x1539px) Image search: [Google]

827KB, 1104x1539px

>>29547935
If you´re japanese

>>29547935
Well, you send this up, it helps to put something in orbit by providing the bulk of the delta V budget then reuse the bulk of the rocket several times.
>thing in orbit has plenty of uses

I honestly can't figure out why parachutes + floaties + sealant system + a recovery boat wouldn't make more sense.

>rocket goes up, drops load, parachute, floats engage from rocket, soft floaty landing in the ocean, iris style seals block critical parts from sea water. Converted whaling boat picks up rocket.

>>29548943
just looked up that question, it's because Elon Musk wants similar design for Moon and Mars with low atmosphere and no Ocean.

Makes sense from that perspective, but that is really reaching forward in time (not a bad thing).

>>29548769
price of fuel vs price of a whole new rocket body

>>29548943
Because such system was thought up, tested and realized caused more engineering issues than slapping landing legs and software enhancements.

Parachutes are heavy and are at the mercy of the winds. Floats are also heavy and adds needless weight. Plus the agonizing and time consuming testing, retesting, certification and application of sealing systems shoves costs way up.

Easiest way is to slap landing legs, add light steering vanes and use existing systems to help it land. Space X has landed successfully twice now one on land and on a barge.

File: x-37b-size-comparison.jpg (36KB, 575x353px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 575x353px

>>29547935
Yes, obviously.

For example, the military has abundant applications for satellites: reconnaissance, communications, global positioning, etc.

To get those satellites into orbit requires a multi-stage launch vehicle. A reusable first stage, such as by landing at its point of origin to be retrieved and refurbished, would make military satellite launches cheaper. Thus presenting a military application for a rocket that can land at its point of origin.

How is this not obvious, OP?

>>29547973
s-sauce?

>>29550501
Typically, rockets haven't been that expensive compared to the cost of making them reusable.

>>29551120
>Reusable Falcon 9
>40m USD

>Disposable Atlas V
>224m USD

>>29547935
Rapid buildup of a FOBS network in response to treaty breaks.

>>29548943
Salt water is very corrosive. Not something you want to dunk delicate gazillion dollar rocket engines in.

Even ULA is proposing an aerial catch system (similar to what they used to do for some spy satellites) to recover engines only instead of dumping them in the sea.

File: 1456334765624.jpg (22KB, 293x276px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 293x276px

>>29547973
Wut.

What in the flying fuck did I just read