But I cannot overstate what a bad sign this is, and I congratulate my former colleagues -- Janes among them -- for refusing to sign restrictions that clearly violate the First Amendment. That even such ridiculous 'news' networks as Newsmax refused to sign is telling.

The military has to follow orders from political figures and appointees, but I am not sure that many military officials have fully grasped what kicking the media out of the Pentagon means. I know some have, and those may be excellent (if anonymous) sources in the coming months.

So Rocket Cargo is a platinum-plated project of extremely limited use, with limited payoff but potentially catastrophic drawbacks.

It's a DoD logistician's dream to be sure, but DoD's money would be better spent on almost anything else.

Insane cost aside -- what cargo could possibly justify such a price? -- it looks an awful lot like a ballistic missile in flight. Even if it's a squad of Marines, generally speaking, any receiving country is likely to seriously consider whether or not they are about to be nuked.

Rocket Cargo might cost around $50m a shot or more.
Reusability is probable but not guaranteed, so there's a pretty high likelihood of simply disposing of the vehicle after a single flight.

Rocket Cargo's goal is to transport 100 tons of cargo anywhere almost instantaneously. That's not much more than a single C-17 can carry, but at -- I'm estimating here -- roughly 200x the price of a C-17 flight.

For one thing, unlike the fever-dream of Golden Dome, Rocket Cargo is an organic idea of the USAF. It has survived multiple administrations, and the USAF keeps requesting small but increasing amounts of funding.

Now, unlike some far-out programs *coughGoldenDome!*, Rocket Cargo is actually technically feasible. The technology effectively exists to loft 100 tons of cargo on a suborbital trajectory.

So why is this program so ridiculous?