4 ms·

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

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.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  >The Starship stack requires major ground infrastructure on both ends Yes, it needs an (automated) aircraft carrier fleet equivalent, or bases strategically place around the world. Not really a problem. The kinetic weapons, I was assuming, would be aimed at ground targets. Directed energy weapons for space targets (and very unlikely for ground. The atmosphere is thick.)
  - consumer451 4y ago
    Ok, so let’s accept the logistics of ground support as a done deal. What type of cargo is it exactly that needs to be moved in 45 minutes, vs 12-16hrs in a C-17/130?
    - Vecr 4y ago
      A JSOC team, probably. I assume they could take the G forces, but I'm not sure about the vibration. Could be a problem because Starship is not human rated. 45 minutes is not bad on SCBA, as long as the operators stay calm.
      - consumer451 4y ago
        That was my first thought as well, but there is no hiding the coming and going of a ballistic missile (Starship) from any real enemy. I think stealth is probably an important component of SF teams, right? Starship is the opposite of stealth. I would imagine it would be better to pre-deploy SF teams close to potential theaters of operation. Then get them closer by normal means. I think I just described what JSOC currently does btw. So I still don’t know what this magical 45 minute cargo would be.

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.

tuatoru 4y ago
>The Starship stack requires major ground infrastructure on both ends Yes, it needs an (automated) aircraft carrier fleet equivalent, or bases strategically place around the world. Not really a problem. The kinetic weapons, I was assuming, would be aimed at ground targets. Directed energy weapons for space targets (and very unlikely for ground. The atmosphere is thick.)
- consumer451 4y ago
  Ok, so let’s accept the logistics of ground support as a done deal. What type of cargo is it exactly that needs to be moved in 45 minutes, vs 12-16hrs in a C-17/130?
  - Vecr 4y ago
    A JSOC team, probably. I assume they could take the G forces, but I'm not sure about the vibration. Could be a problem because Starship is not human rated. 45 minutes is not bad on SCBA, as long as the operators stay calm.
    - consumer451 4y ago
      That was my first thought as well, but there is no hiding the coming and going of a ballistic missile (Starship) from any real enemy. I think stealth is probably an important component of SF teams, right? Starship is the opposite of stealth. I would imagine it would be better to pre-deploy SF teams close to potential theaters of operation. Then get them closer by normal means. I think I just described what JSOC currently does btw. So I still don’t know what this magical 45 minute cargo would be.