Reuse, Recycle, Repeat to Infinity and Beyond

I.                Introduction

“Flying cars by 2025,” they said! It turns out that in a very technologically advanced civilization plagued by the increasing  revolution that is AI, the most we have gotten are not-so-self-driving cars and reusable rockets that would have only been depicted as science fiction not too long ago.

The concept of reusable rockets was mainstreamed by SpaceX, which other companies such as Blue Origin and Rocket Lab soon later realized within their own arsenal of equipment. While these pose significant benefits to issues such as space debris and the cost of space flight overall, the only lagging piece of the puzzle doesn’t seem to be within the technology itself, rather the policies surrounding these technological advancements.

Existing space policies do not allow the continual maturity of this technology without substantial setbacks such as delays in licensing, insurance requirements, and false media in the actual effects of reusable rockets. Without significant changes in policymakers’ minds, the utilization of reusable rockets remains to be standstill, bottlenecking our continual understanding of this technology and its true implications.

II.                Rise of Reusability

Rockets have always been a single-use item. Just a few decades ago, spaceflight was more of a dream than a reality. Throughout the early beginnings, giants from the Cold War (the US and Soviet Union) had taken the lead in development and research for spaceflight in a Space Race. As we enter the modern day and age, many private companies and startups have contributed to the space sector to commercialize travel. The most common type of space flight has been that of expendable resources. However, with the introduction of SpaceX’s Falcon 9, parts of the rocket were designed to land vertically back on the ground to be reused. According to SpaceX, the total reflights since its conception totals up to an astounding 431. Alone, the number of reflights prove the efficiency that the rocket displays but the economics of reusability can be up to 65% cheaper with other environmental and build design efficiencies according to the National Security Technology Accelerator (NSTXL).

Economic analysis consistently shows material cost recovery after the second or third flight, with new launches increasing dramatically through platform-based repetition. According to Bain & Company full rocket reusability could cut launch cost to orbit by up to 80× compared to non reusables.

Other companies have also adopted reusability within their rockets and have seen significant cost effectiveness such as Blue Origin’s new Shepherd Suborbital Vehicle.

The engineering prowess that the United States has does not bottleneck the advancement of reusable designs in rockets. It is the outdated political ecosystem which dictates how far we can innovate that is averse to the idea of reusable models of rockets.

III.             Current Policies

The current political landscape surrounding reusable rockets is one that is riddled with licensing requirements, indemnification mandates, and insurance obligations constantly. This framework was designed before reusability and limits collaborative efforts on designing more of a reusable approach to spacecraft.

A large reason why there are roadblocks in licensing when it comes to reusable rockets are to “ensure that adverse public consequences remain rare events” which make it hard if a reusable rocket does not land properly, endangering others.

The FAA released a statement in which they would begin a pilot program allowing to track the real-time position of reusable rockets on re-entry to ensure that no civilians would be harmed in their course. This was released to be implemented in 2022 and projected that their work would not exceed 2 years which means the project had already ended with no way to be sure if it would continue. Efforts have been made from 2019 to enforce policies that remove obsolete framework requirements from the use of reusable rockets but those have come to little advocacy.

Given that we have an infrastructure of LEO sats and Starlink that SpaceX has created to allow for such a technology, the ability for the US to increase investment into reusable rocket technology makes far more sense than other countries where the policies haven’t allowed for the investment or advocacy of such technology.

IV.           Ethics

One of the largest arguments against the use of reusable rockets is its ethics when it comes to endangering potential civilians or causing more damage if something goes wrong. However, this assumes reusability is inherently dangerous when in reality, historic trends in data show that certain rockets like the Falcon 9 have demonstrated the utmost consistency especially in safety. If anything, the ability to repeat has created an environment where tiny errors that would have stacked up can be resolved with each iteration of a launch.

         From a broader lens, many arguments circulate around resource waste and environmental impact when it comes to the ethics of reusable rockets. According to the European Space Agency, continual contributions to the space debris in LEO will cause more collisions for future missions which could be detrimental towards advancement. With reusable rockets, because they aren’t expendable, we can reduce the number of debris significantly and even cut it off with further advancements in technology and reworking policies governing them.

         With the globalization of reusable rockets, other nations can truly tap into industry and contribute to bettering the advancement for society. The accessibility increase seems quite ethical and reasonable which draws the questions as to not whether reusable rockets are ethical, rather are expendable ones.

V.           National Security

         Reusable rockets are not only a leap forward for science and industry—they are a cornerstone for national security. The ability to rapidly launch satellites, replace damaged assets, and access orbit on short notice is no longer a luxury, but a necessity in a world where space is becoming the next strategic high ground. The United States’ position in this race will be defined by how well it can preserve its technological edge while adapting to a changing geopolitical landscape.

China, through its state-backed China National Space Administration (CNSA) and the military-linked China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), has made significant progress toward reusability. In 2023, China launched its Long March 8 variants with partial recovery systems and tested spaceplanes bearing similarities to the U.S. X-37B. These advancements signal that China understands the strategic value of rapid, repeatable access to orbit—and is willing to invest heavily to achieve it.

The U.S., for its part, already has proven assets in play. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have launched GPS III satellites and classified payloads for the U.S. Space Force, while Blue Origin and other emerging defense contractors are building their own reusable systems. These capabilities demonstrate that the private sector can deliver not just technological breakthroughs, but also critical defense infrastructure.

The advantages go beyond speed. Reusability strengthens resilience against anti-satellite (ASAT) threats. Capabilities both China and Russia have already demonstrated through kinetic tests. In a scenario where key U.S. satellites are disabled by attack or cyber interference, reusable rockets could enable the swift replacement of lost capabilities, ensuring secure communications, navigation, and surveillance remain intact.

Yet, despite these clear benefits, the same outdated policies discussed earlier still slow things down. Lengthy licensing timelines and restrictive launch approval processes threaten to neutralize the very agility that makes reusability so valuable. From a national security perspective, this is not simply an innovation bottleneck—it is a vulnerability. The debate is no longer about whether reusable rockets save money; it is about whether they will define the United States’ ability to maintain space dominance in a century where orbital access could matter as much as air superiority once did.

VI.             Conclusion

In conclusion, the policy enforcement against reusable rockets has left the US in a battle against engineering innovation alongside potential economic benefits. As space exploration continues to grow around the world, it is crucial we create policies that will take our ingenuity and utilize it. We don’t need super flashy reforms; we just need to simply change policies that prevent us from utilizing our true potential. Our rockets are starting to land. It’s time our policies start and catch up.