2 ms·
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 air
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoSomething 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.