5 ms·

US military. Besides cost and risk there's nothing preventing this from being used on earth, in fact I've already seen the use case mentioned here on HN.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
DOD is already talking to SpaceX for rapid cargo transport applications. “A military team is working with SpaceX to flesh out the prospect of shipping routes that pass through space, the head of U.S. Transportation Command said Oct. 7.” “That group could demonstrate as early as 2021 whether quickly sending cargo around the globe via space is feasible, Army Gen. Stephen R. Lyons said.” “Think about moving the equivalent of a C-17 payload anywhere on the globe in less than an hour,” Lyons said at a National Defense Transportation Association event. “Think about that speed associated with the movement of transportation of cargo and people. There is a lot of potential here.” https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-spacex-may-soon-prove-the-military-can-ship-cargo-through-space/ https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-spacex-may-soon-prove-the-mi...
- golergka 6y ago
  > rapid As in rapid disassembly?
- luma 6y ago
  Anywhere on the globe in less than an hour... plus months of planning and days of preparing the launch vehicle. How fast can one "scramble" a Starship off the ground?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    I assume fast turn around times from the Boca Chica (Texas) spaceport. Pick whichever Starship SN is refreshed and ready to go. Less Space Shuttle, more Southwest Airlines. Vehicles on the ground are vehicles not generating revenue.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Problem is you kinda need a spaceport at the destination so that the starship can get back to you.
      - rlt 6y ago
        You might be able to have a hub and spoke model, where the Starship drops off its cargo then hops back to a hub for stacking on another Super Heavy.
        ben_w 6y ago
        Given the drone ship landings of the Falcon first stages, I wonder: could you land a Starship on a US aircraft carrier? And the obvious next question: given Musk is happy to take ship names from pop culture and sci-fi, might he name one of the Starship vehicles “Enterprise”, and could the Starship Enterprise land on the USS Enterprise (CVN-80)?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - rlt 6y ago
    Less than one hour turnaround. Three flights per day per Starship. According to Elon (who can be admittedly optimistic): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50346.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50346.0
  - mikewarot 6y ago
    The cost is likely to fall in the 1%-3% range of that of a C-17. The War Department could buy 100-200 of them for the cost of 2 C-17 Globemaster IIIs. I would be interested to see if some form of portable, quickly constructed landing pad could be deployed, much like the mats used as runways during WWII.
    - wmf 6y ago
      Cost per what? Per flight?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikewarot 6y ago
        To go 1/2 way around the world, at 590 mph is 21+ hours. Cost per hour, according to https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ is $23.811 So, the one way cost to get a C-17 full of cargo anywhere in the world is about $500,000 1 Million round trip. I had the cost wrong, I thought it was per vehicle, it's per launch... $2,000,000. If it could fly back, it's only $4,000,000 per round trip.... just 4 times the cost of a C-17 delivery and return.
    - modeless 6y ago
      Geez, I had no idea C-17s cost $200 million each. That's crazy.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Do they need a landing pad? They have to be capable of landing on unimproved martian or lunar rock, with enough spare capacity for either the fuel for a return flight (from the moon) or a local fuel generator (from Mars).
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        That should work, but it will likely not be able to safely launch again even if you managed to refuel it. The engine power needed to launch in Earth gravity, even with a small hop fuel load might be too much for engines so close to the ground & with thick atmosphere preventing the exhaust from dissipating.
  - neaanopri 6y ago
    US Military is used to training recruits to use high tech equipment, and had the pockets to buy hardware to sit around "just in case"
- ckozlowski 6y ago
  A C-17 load that doesn't require a ground stop in a foreign country or a tanker based in another country to refuel that same cargo plane. Advantage indeed.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Realistically this means Orbital DropShip Trooper as a role designation is probably 10-20 years out. Launch a Starship, kick out the drop pod "over" the target and then coast suborbital to landing zone (or go orbital and return to launch site). A one-hour deployment capability anywhere in the world would revolutionise special forces.
    - techdragon 6y ago
      Yuri Gagarin technically performed the first “orbital drop” style manoeuvre if you want to get into the semantics. The Soviets were concerned about the efficacy of the landing systems and made the decision (and designed the capsule to facilitate this) have him egress the and parachute to a nearly guaranteed safe landing rather than accept the risk of his death in an accident on landing.
    - garmaine 6y ago
      "Space Force" has become the butt of jokes, but when you actually look at the numbers it clearly is the future of American military dominance. (Not that surprising, considering it was a bipartisan idea that predates Trump.)
- cma 6y ago
  Isn't that going to trigger icbm monitoring systems? NASA works in concert with hem and schedules, etc., but military use that needed readiness like this seems like it would be asking for accidents.
  - atq2119 6y ago
    This is a very good point. If transportation through space becomes routine, does that affect the ability to detect nuclear first strikes, and what does it do to the calculus of mutually assured destruction? Hopefully this can be solved with comparable improvements in monitoring and/or adjustments to second strike capabilities.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.
      - cma 6y ago
        Launchers for MIRVs are huge.
        giardini 6y ago
        MIRV warheads are smaller than regular nuclear warheads. The launch platforms for MIRVed nuclear warheads are the same as those for regular nuclear warheads. But on a MIRV, instead of one regular nuclear warhead there are multiple small nuclear warheads. So, no, launchers for MIRVs are NOT huge.
        cma 6y ago
        I'm thinking of things like r36m, but I guess it is used for non-mirv too. Warhead size is irrelevant as they use Mylar radar decoys or something right? Those can appear as any size so I was focusing on the launch vehicle size for monitoring. Speed may be a differentiator like you originally said, I'm not sure if they need to end up around the same speed anyway for reentry or not (ones targeting high altitude blast for EMP maybe don't need to reentry at all?).

toomuchtodo 6y ago

DOD is already talking to SpaceX for rapid cargo transport applications. “A military team is working with SpaceX to flesh out the prospect of shipping routes that pass through space, the head of U.S. Transportation Command said Oct. 7.” “That group could demonstrate as early as 2021 whether quickly sending cargo around the globe via space is feasible, Army Gen. Stephen R. Lyons said.” “Think about moving the equivalent of a C-17 payload anywhere on the globe in less than an hour,” Lyons said at a National Defense Transportation Association event. “Think about that speed associated with the movement of transportation of cargo and people. There is a lot of potential here.” https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-spacex-may-soon-prove-the-military-can-ship-cargo-through-space/ https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-spacex-may-soon-prove-the-mi...

golergka 6y ago
> rapid As in rapid disassembly?
luma 6y ago
Anywhere on the globe in less than an hour... plus months of planning and days of preparing the launch vehicle. How fast can one "scramble" a Starship off the ground?
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  I assume fast turn around times from the Boca Chica (Texas) spaceport. Pick whichever Starship SN is refreshed and ready to go. Less Space Shuttle, more Southwest Airlines. Vehicles on the ground are vehicles not generating revenue.
  - fastball 6y ago
    Problem is you kinda need a spaceport at the destination so that the starship can get back to you.
    - rlt 6y ago
      You might be able to have a hub and spoke model, where the Starship drops off its cargo then hops back to a hub for stacking on another Super Heavy.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Given the drone ship landings of the Falcon first stages, I wonder: could you land a Starship on a US aircraft carrier? And the obvious next question: given Musk is happy to take ship names from pop culture and sci-fi, might he name one of the Starship vehicles “Enterprise”, and could the Starship Enterprise land on the USS Enterprise (CVN-80)?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- rlt 6y ago
  Less than one hour turnaround. Three flights per day per Starship. According to Elon (who can be admittedly optimistic): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50346.0 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50346.0
- mikewarot 6y ago
  The cost is likely to fall in the 1%-3% range of that of a C-17. The War Department could buy 100-200 of them for the cost of 2 C-17 Globemaster IIIs. I would be interested to see if some form of portable, quickly constructed landing pad could be deployed, much like the mats used as runways during WWII.
  - wmf 6y ago
    Cost per what? Per flight?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikewarot 6y ago
      To go 1/2 way around the world, at 590 mph is 21+ hours. Cost per hour, according to https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ is $23.811 So, the one way cost to get a C-17 full of cargo anywhere in the world is about $500,000 1 Million round trip. I had the cost wrong, I thought it was per vehicle, it's per launch... $2,000,000. If it could fly back, it's only $4,000,000 per round trip.... just 4 times the cost of a C-17 delivery and return.
  - modeless 6y ago
    Geez, I had no idea C-17s cost $200 million each. That's crazy.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Do they need a landing pad? They have to be capable of landing on unimproved martian or lunar rock, with enough spare capacity for either the fuel for a return flight (from the moon) or a local fuel generator (from Mars).
    - m4rtink 6y ago
      That should work, but it will likely not be able to safely launch again even if you managed to refuel it. The engine power needed to launch in Earth gravity, even with a small hop fuel load might be too much for engines so close to the ground & with thick atmosphere preventing the exhaust from dissipating.
- neaanopri 6y ago
  US Military is used to training recruits to use high tech equipment, and had the pockets to buy hardware to sit around "just in case"
ckozlowski 6y ago
A C-17 load that doesn't require a ground stop in a foreign country or a tanker based in another country to refuel that same cargo plane. Advantage indeed.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Realistically this means Orbital DropShip Trooper as a role designation is probably 10-20 years out. Launch a Starship, kick out the drop pod "over" the target and then coast suborbital to landing zone (or go orbital and return to launch site). A one-hour deployment capability anywhere in the world would revolutionise special forces.
  - techdragon 6y ago
    Yuri Gagarin technically performed the first “orbital drop” style manoeuvre if you want to get into the semantics. The Soviets were concerned about the efficacy of the landing systems and made the decision (and designed the capsule to facilitate this) have him egress the and parachute to a nearly guaranteed safe landing rather than accept the risk of his death in an accident on landing.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    "Space Force" has become the butt of jokes, but when you actually look at the numbers it clearly is the future of American military dominance. (Not that surprising, considering it was a bipartisan idea that predates Trump.)
cma 6y ago
Isn't that going to trigger icbm monitoring systems? NASA works in concert with hem and schedules, etc., but military use that needed readiness like this seems like it would be asking for accidents.
- atq2119 6y ago
  This is a very good point. If transportation through space becomes routine, does that affect the ability to detect nuclear first strikes, and what does it do to the calculus of mutually assured destruction? Hopefully this can be solved with comparable improvements in monitoring and/or adjustments to second strike capabilities.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    ICBMs are far smaller and designed to travel far faster than any rocket carrying people would presumably go. It doesn't seem likely they could be easily confused.
    - cma 6y ago
      Launchers for MIRVs are huge.
      - giardini 6y ago
        MIRV warheads are smaller than regular nuclear warheads. The launch platforms for MIRVed nuclear warheads are the same as those for regular nuclear warheads. But on a MIRV, instead of one regular nuclear warhead there are multiple small nuclear warheads. So, no, launchers for MIRVs are NOT huge.
        cma 6y ago
        I'm thinking of things like r36m, but I guess it is used for non-mirv too. Warhead size is irrelevant as they use Mylar radar decoys or something right? Those can appear as any size so I was focusing on the launch vehicle size for monitoring. Speed may be a differentiator like you originally said, I'm not sure if they need to end up around the same speed anyway for reentry or not (ones targeting high altitude blast for EMP maybe don't need to reentry at all?).