5 ms·

The government will give them money if they need it. American administrations since the Obama admin have pivoted to compete with China. As with the space race a

The government will give them money if they need it. American administrations since the Obama admin have pivoted to compete with China. As with the space race against the Soviets, the United States is in a space race with China to mars. SpaceX is the tip of the spear. Musk has the wherewithal to manufacture the Falcon 9 without government funds. With them his victory is guaranted. To the extent that the SpaceX business model is about selling rockets and not about selling other products, the government is an excellent customer. SpaceX can also offer the service of getting payloads to orbit.

tuatoru 4y ago
The military applications alone of something like Super Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going. Now it's possible, it has to be done. > To the extent that the SpaceX business model is about selling rockets and not about selling other products SpaceX's business is selling launches to orbit. Its great achievement to date is changing the expensive first stage from being a consumable (used up at the time) to being a fixed asset (a machine) used for launches.
- consumer451 4y ago
  > The military applications alone of something like Super Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going. I'm a pretty big SpaceX fan, but what exactly are these applications? Point to point? Ability to launch bigger payloads for the NRO?
  - uejfiweun 4y ago
    Not a military guy but I assume the ability to launch much more into orbit would enable the military to "flood the zone" so to speak. Just fill orbit with so many military satellites and weapons that space superiority is essentially guaranteed.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      Yeah, this is probably the best argument even though it’s not very specific. The only issue is that already, launch is not the largest cost component of space assets, it’s the assets themselves. Say Starship could launch 5 NRO assets at once, could we afford to build them?
      - tuatoru 4y ago
        > launch is not the largest cost component of space assets, it’s the assets themselves. This is only because they are essentially one-off projects. Plan to launch 100,000 of something: launch costs start to become important.
  - Nomentatus 4y ago
    I'm thinking point to point. What else can do the job now? Look at the ukraine war. Smart weapons such as antitank and GPS-guided munitions rule, there. But aircraft aren't delivering them - antiair, including lasers are too good now. Even drones aren't surviving that long. Artillery launched smart weapons are scanty and expensive, the acceleration is just too rude. A quick reusable launch platform that's only up where it can be hit briefly but extends the range of a cluster of anti-tank missiles by several times is obviously useful. Maybe the main future delivery platform. HiMars is a weak and too-expensive version of this; but it's rockets too.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      The problem with deploying Starship to a war zone is that it looks exactly like a ballistics missile on radar, since it is in-fact, a ballistic missile. This could somewhat understandably result in a nuclear exchange.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      I don't think that starship would survive in a hostile airspace longer than average drone. Starship is not fast, it has huge radar reflection surface and it has very hot engine. It will get shot down by basically any SAM or MANPAD made in last 50 years.
      - Nomentatus 4y ago
        Something smaller than starship (but with raptor, say) would fly briefly for a couple few minutes boost far away from the front line and head back down quickly. It wouldn't get near hostile airspace, but it's projectiles will. Moreover 3D printed engines (which other rocket companies are developing) are cheap enough that you could absorb some losses.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Point to point, 100 tons, anywhere on the globe in six hours--repeat as required; orbital kinetic energy weapons (500 kg tungsten rods) in the tens or hundreds of thousands; orbital satellite killers in the tens of thousands; directed energy weapons as alternatives to ICBMs. (Yes, Reagan's "Star Wars".) Those just off the top of my head. I'm sure military analyst types could come up with more.
    - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
      How would you get forklift into Starship so it can unload cargo from it?
      - consumer451 4y ago
        Well, the lunar version includes a built-in crane. So that could work, problem is that in this configuration the starship does not leave the landing zone, ever.
        TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        I am finding that concept amusing. They would have Starship, with (almost) empty tank and several tones of cargo in top part. And this top-heavy and probably unstable object would get a crane on its side to unload the cargo....
        consumer451 4y ago
        Don't forget leaving 9 or so bleeding-edge Raptor engines near the battlefield. Disclaimer: I don't think anyone has seriously proposed using Starship like this, have they?
    - consumer451 4y ago
      > point to point The devil is in the details. The Starship stack requires major ground infrastructure on both ends unless it’s one-time use. See: mechazilla. So it’s anywhere on earth where you’ve had a couple years to build the “stage zero” infrastructure which includes a giant propellant tank farm, and the logistics to fill said tanks. Regarding other theoretical applications, the only one that is not truly sci-fi is the ability to launch Starlink size swarms. But use of kinetic anti-space asset weapons are also likely the end of space access. It’s a very fragile theater up there.
  - georgeburdell 4y ago
    I don’t have a link handy but they got military funding to study deliver supplies anywhere in the world in an hour, so yes, point to point is of enough interest
- _hypx 4y ago
  So basically "more war" is the killer feature. Some see this as a total failure.
  - tuatoru 4y ago
    Would you prefer living in the Chinese system? Edit: I am no fan of military stuff. It'd be much better if all that went away: it's a drain on our ability to make life better for everybody in the world. But we live in the world in which we live, not some utopia.
  - qualudeheart 4y ago
    The “killer feature” is kick starting an aerospace revolution, no matter if that’s civilian or not. The “killer feature” is kick starting an aerospace revolution, no matter if that’s civilian or not. If you’re in an aerospace career, you know that the commercial aviation industry has been in a steep decline. The “air” part is struggling, but imagine the applications coming from the “space” part. Just manufacturing in space is a massive opportunity.
bwestergard 4y ago
I would hope that public servants wait for bankruptcy so they are able to purchase the company at a favorable price before folding it into NASA.
- m463 4y ago
  I suspect they wouldn't get the secret sauce (which is that spacex is not nasa).

tuatoru 4y ago

The military applications alone of something like Super Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going. Now it's possible, it has to be done. > To the extent that the SpaceX business model is about selling rockets and not about selling other products SpaceX's business is selling launches to orbit. Its great achievement to date is changing the expensive first stage from being a consumable (used up at the time) to being a fixed asset (a machine) used for launches.

consumer451 4y ago
> The military applications alone of something like Super Heavy/Starship would justify keeping the program going. I'm a pretty big SpaceX fan, but what exactly are these applications? Point to point? Ability to launch bigger payloads for the NRO?
- uejfiweun 4y ago
  Not a military guy but I assume the ability to launch much more into orbit would enable the military to "flood the zone" so to speak. Just fill orbit with so many military satellites and weapons that space superiority is essentially guaranteed.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    Yeah, this is probably the best argument even though it’s not very specific. The only issue is that already, launch is not the largest cost component of space assets, it’s the assets themselves. Say Starship could launch 5 NRO assets at once, could we afford to build them?
    - tuatoru 4y ago
      > launch is not the largest cost component of space assets, it’s the assets themselves. This is only because they are essentially one-off projects. Plan to launch 100,000 of something: launch costs start to become important.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  I'm thinking point to point. What else can do the job now? Look at the ukraine war. Smart weapons such as antitank and GPS-guided munitions rule, there. But aircraft aren't delivering them - antiair, including lasers are too good now. Even drones aren't surviving that long. Artillery launched smart weapons are scanty and expensive, the acceleration is just too rude. A quick reusable launch platform that's only up where it can be hit briefly but extends the range of a cluster of anti-tank missiles by several times is obviously useful. Maybe the main future delivery platform. HiMars is a weak and too-expensive version of this; but it's rockets too.
  - consumer451 4y ago
    The problem with deploying Starship to a war zone is that it looks exactly like a ballistics missile on radar, since it is in-fact, a ballistic missile. This could somewhat understandably result in a nuclear exchange.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    I don't think that starship would survive in a hostile airspace longer than average drone. Starship is not fast, it has huge radar reflection surface and it has very hot engine. It will get shot down by basically any SAM or MANPAD made in last 50 years.
    - Nomentatus 4y ago
      Something smaller than starship (but with raptor, say) would fly briefly for a couple few minutes boost far away from the front line and head back down quickly. It wouldn't get near hostile airspace, but it's projectiles will. Moreover 3D printed engines (which other rocket companies are developing) are cheap enough that you could absorb some losses.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Point to point, 100 tons, anywhere on the globe in six hours--repeat as required; orbital kinetic energy weapons (500 kg tungsten rods) in the tens or hundreds of thousands; orbital satellite killers in the tens of thousands; directed energy weapons as alternatives to ICBMs. (Yes, Reagan's "Star Wars".) Those just off the top of my head. I'm sure military analyst types could come up with more.
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    How would you get forklift into Starship so it can unload cargo from it?
    - consumer451 4y ago
      Well, the lunar version includes a built-in crane. So that could work, problem is that in this configuration the starship does not leave the landing zone, ever.
      - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
        I am finding that concept amusing. They would have Starship, with (almost) empty tank and several tones of cargo in top part. And this top-heavy and probably unstable object would get a crane on its side to unload the cargo....
        consumer451 4y ago
        Don't forget leaving 9 or so bleeding-edge Raptor engines near the battlefield. Disclaimer: I don't think anyone has seriously proposed using Starship like this, have they?
  - consumer451 4y ago
    > point to point The devil is in the details. The Starship stack requires major ground infrastructure on both ends unless it’s one-time use. See: mechazilla. So it’s anywhere on earth where you’ve had a couple years to build the “stage zero” infrastructure which includes a giant propellant tank farm, and the logistics to fill said tanks. Regarding other theoretical applications, the only one that is not truly sci-fi is the ability to launch Starlink size swarms. But use of kinetic anti-space asset weapons are also likely the end of space access. It’s a very fragile theater up there.
- georgeburdell 4y ago
  I don’t have a link handy but they got military funding to study deliver supplies anywhere in the world in an hour, so yes, point to point is of enough interest
_hypx 4y ago
So basically "more war" is the killer feature. Some see this as a total failure.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  Would you prefer living in the Chinese system? Edit: I am no fan of military stuff. It'd be much better if all that went away: it's a drain on our ability to make life better for everybody in the world. But we live in the world in which we live, not some utopia.
- qualudeheart 4y ago
  The “killer feature” is kick starting an aerospace revolution, no matter if that’s civilian or not. The “killer feature” is kick starting an aerospace revolution, no matter if that’s civilian or not. If you’re in an aerospace career, you know that the commercial aviation industry has been in a steep decline. The “air” part is struggling, but imagine the applications coming from the “space” part. Just manufacturing in space is a massive opportunity.

bwestergard 4y ago

I would hope that public servants wait for bankruptcy so they are able to purchase the company at a favorable price before folding it into NASA.

m463 4y ago
I suspect they wouldn't get the secret sauce (which is that spacex is not nasa).