(no title)
shade | 1 year ago
I'm not going to argue whether building it is a good idea, but it also seems like Starship has the potential to make launching a kinetic bombardment system [1] possible given the large payload capacity.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles#Brilliant_Pe... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_Unite...
credit_guy|1 year ago
In the near future that will stop being the case. The ICBM has to have, after all, a nuke, and a nuke will never be very cheap. The kill vehicle is simply a block of steel, or some other metal. A maneuverable one, but still, a much cheaper piece of equipment than a nuclear warhead. By the way, the fancy term for the nuclear warhead is "reentry vehicle", and, as the name implies, it has to be build to withstand the tremendous shocks of reentering the atmosphere. Not so with a kill vehicle: if it needs to reenter the atmosphere it means it failed to do its job and it's not needed anymore.
Of course, Russia and China have seen the writing on the wall, and that's why they started looking for alternate ways of delivering nukes. I'm talking here about hypersonic, nuclear capable, weapons.
Regardless, my point is that in the near future, SpaceX will get some eye-popping contracts from the Pentagon, and specifically for missile defense reasons.
blago|1 year ago
burnerthrow008|1 year ago
How would that work?
Starship uses cryogenic fuel, and thus isn't something you can keep on active standby for years at a time, ready to be launched with a few minutes notice. It takes hours for a Starship to be loaded with liquid oxygen and prepared for launch. By the time you finished getting it ready for launch, it would have been nuked by the other side's second wave.
The only way Starship could be practically useful for missile defense is by launching some kind of defense system stationed in orbit.
ironyman|1 year ago
audunw|1 year ago
In other words: if a country wants to play this game, reusability is a hard requirement.