> Bit like an advertorial?
The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid, and I respect them putting their money where their mouth is.
Solid-fueled rockets should not be the backbone of our missile forces anymore. That doesn’t mean we get rid of them. But we should be adding mass-produced liquid-fueled missiles to the mix. And our entire rocket force shouldn’t be able to be nerfed by hitting one plant in Utah.
> I respect them putting their money where their mouth is.
More like putting their mouth where their money is.
Thats crazy which plant tho.
> The author should have disclosed their affiliation more clearly at the top. But their arguments are solid (...)
Aren't they selling their product?
[dead]
The Soviets had liquid-fuelled rockets forever, and they come with a bunch of problems: corrosion, leaks, weight and slow deployment requiring specialized equipment.