3 ms·

Elon already won this for the US. Excluding China stealing the Starpship technology so they can match the lowered cost per tonnage, there are no competitors. h

by natded 5y ago

Elon already won this for the US. Excluding China stealing the Starpship technology so they can match the lowered cost per tonnage, there are no competitors. https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-still-not-understood/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-st...

rkk3 5y ago
How is that at all relevant to the asymmetric vulnerabilities the US faces in LEO & GEO, which is the focus of the article?
- wcoenen 5y ago
  Starship would allow the US to quickly and cheaply replace any lost infrastructure in space, therefore that vulnerability would be mitigated. (I'm not sure this would be an advantage for long though. Once a working cheap launch system has been demonstrated, it will soon be copied.)
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Just because you have launch capability doesn't mean you have the payload to utilize that.
    - wcoenen 5y ago
      If launches are expensive (e.g. 400M USD for a Delta IV Heavy launch) then you have to engineer the payload to make it worth that launch cost. It needs to be super reliable and last a long time, it needs to provide a lot of value, and you may get only one shot to get it right. There's not going to be a backup James Webb telescope if there's a glitch with the first one. If launches are cheap (e.g. a few million USD targeted by Starship), you can use more off the shelf hardware and iterate to see what works. Replacing satellites is not such a big deal.
    - Robotbeat 5y ago
      Starlink, which can be used for both communication and geolocation (and some observation), does, though. I think people don’t understand the scale that Starlink operates at. SpaceX is planning to ramp up Starlink manufacturing capacity for STARSHIP, too. Falcon 9 does 40 200kg satellites at once. And plans to operate them eventually at below 400km, which makes them resistant to debris.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Are there actually asymmetric vulnerabilities in space? I also don't think that's the focus of the article and doesn't pertain to space. The article gives lots of examples of new competition from china & russia, but explicitly says for example that "the United States has idled certain of its offensive-technology programs while China and Russia actively test the same capabilities" which implies parity if not advantage. To me that asymmetric quote from Oriana Skylar Mastro seems to more reference what I do genuinely find scary: the US military's heavy heavy reliance on technology and tech controlled via space. can any of our planes even fly without computers? I assume all major powers can hack basically anything. I would hope the smarter than me military advisors have thought that through... "China attacked U.S. satellites operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA. In the latter case, they gained control of the craft, but stopped short of issuing it commands" "Among the spacefaring nations, the United States is by far the most exposed" "I think it’s no-holds-barred. Because the U.S. has the most to lose." Just by growing from behind technologically adversaries might have an advantage in they have stuff that works without computers & satellites. Though I would personally bet we might still have a small asymmetric advantage in space defense and offense. we obviously have an advantage in rapid deployment. Have been flying a mini shuttle for over 10 years. Have SpaceX. Seems wise to me to have extra satellites lying underground for rapid deployment. And hopefully we have more stuff that isn't trackable - it seems some of the shuttle stuff we know about is at least hard to track by amateurs.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    The asymmetric vulnerabilities are simply because USA has so much more satellites compared to everyone else that give it various economic and military advantages. This means that an escalation that wipes out all space resources for everyone is effectively a major loss for USA, as they lose a lot of capabilities, investment and comparative advantage, while those who had less resources up there did not suffer much because they had much less to lose; If anyone would be starting a major land/sea/air conflict with USA, then taking all space stuff out of the picture would be very useful for them.
brandmeyer 5y ago
Reproduction does not imply theft. National pride, sufficient resources, and prioritization are sufficient to replicate the technology.

by natded 5y ago

rkk3 5y ago

How is that at all relevant to the asymmetric vulnerabilities the US faces in LEO & GEO, which is the focus of the article?

wcoenen 5y ago
Starship would allow the US to quickly and cheaply replace any lost infrastructure in space, therefore that vulnerability would be mitigated. (I'm not sure this would be an advantage for long though. Once a working cheap launch system has been demonstrated, it will soon be copied.)
- dylan604 5y ago
  Just because you have launch capability doesn't mean you have the payload to utilize that.
  - wcoenen 5y ago
    If launches are expensive (e.g. 400M USD for a Delta IV Heavy launch) then you have to engineer the payload to make it worth that launch cost. It needs to be super reliable and last a long time, it needs to provide a lot of value, and you may get only one shot to get it right. There's not going to be a backup James Webb telescope if there's a glitch with the first one. If launches are cheap (e.g. a few million USD targeted by Starship), you can use more off the shelf hardware and iterate to see what works. Replacing satellites is not such a big deal.
  - Robotbeat 5y ago
    Starlink, which can be used for both communication and geolocation (and some observation), does, though. I think people don’t understand the scale that Starlink operates at. SpaceX is planning to ramp up Starlink manufacturing capacity for STARSHIP, too. Falcon 9 does 40 200kg satellites at once. And plans to operate them eventually at below 400km, which makes them resistant to debris.
dillondoyle 5y ago
Are there actually asymmetric vulnerabilities in space? I also don't think that's the focus of the article and doesn't pertain to space. The article gives lots of examples of new competition from china & russia, but explicitly says for example that "the United States has idled certain of its offensive-technology programs while China and Russia actively test the same capabilities" which implies parity if not advantage. To me that asymmetric quote from Oriana Skylar Mastro seems to more reference what I do genuinely find scary: the US military's heavy heavy reliance on technology and tech controlled via space. can any of our planes even fly without computers? I assume all major powers can hack basically anything. I would hope the smarter than me military advisors have thought that through... "China attacked U.S. satellites operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NASA. In the latter case, they gained control of the craft, but stopped short of issuing it commands" "Among the spacefaring nations, the United States is by far the most exposed" "I think it’s no-holds-barred. Because the U.S. has the most to lose." Just by growing from behind technologically adversaries might have an advantage in they have stuff that works without computers & satellites. Though I would personally bet we might still have a small asymmetric advantage in space defense and offense. we obviously have an advantage in rapid deployment. Have been flying a mini shuttle for over 10 years. Have SpaceX. Seems wise to me to have extra satellites lying underground for rapid deployment. And hopefully we have more stuff that isn't trackable - it seems some of the shuttle stuff we know about is at least hard to track by amateurs.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  The asymmetric vulnerabilities are simply because USA has so much more satellites compared to everyone else that give it various economic and military advantages. This means that an escalation that wipes out all space resources for everyone is effectively a major loss for USA, as they lose a lot of capabilities, investment and comparative advantage, while those who had less resources up there did not suffer much because they had much less to lose; If anyone would be starting a major land/sea/air conflict with USA, then taking all space stuff out of the picture would be very useful for them.

brandmeyer 5y ago

Reproduction does not imply theft. National pride, sufficient resources, and prioritization are sufficient to replicate the technology.