3 ms·

wow is drone warfare going to go under RAPID evolution, but... https://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/starships

wow is drone warfare going to go under RAPID evolution, but... https://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html Nuts and bolts: if the economics mature Starship can deliver kinetic weaponry that is more effective and cheaper than any major artillery round within 30 minutes of anywhere in the world. ... that makes big assumptions about achieving 10$/kg, but likely with the capabilities it enables, the pentagon would be happy with 50-100$/kg. Starship is a pure economic strategic weapon. It is very difficult to engineer some sort of launch platform with such (purported) economics. While the US is usually the one playing loss leader in weapons usage, Starship would reverse this against any nation state. It's not just artillery, imagine drones and troop delivery in 30-60 minutes around the world. BUT, we'll see. Orbital test of Starship missed 2022, it's supposed to be attempted soon? Starship also enables orbital battle platforms with the mass it can load. Alas, militarization of space seems inevitable. One of the fermi filters? everyone has nukes, someone gets to space, and has strategic nuke delivery advantage (you can delivery a nuke from orbit to surface a lot faster than an intercontinental arc), that may trigger the nuke exchange before the space militarization finances a piggybacked space economy.

KineticLensman 4y ago
> imagine drones and troop delivery in 30-60 minutes around the world. To win the fight, you have to get to the fight. Starship re-entry would be challenging in contested air space. > Starship also enables orbital battle platforms with the mass it can load. Some ball bearings in a counter-orbit would be a good asymmetric countermeasure.
- Qem 4y ago
  > Some ball bearings in a counter-orbit would be a good asymmetric countermeasure. Artificial Kessler syndrome probably the cheapest superweapon available. Probably won't require even an unreasonable amount of bearings. Just enough to shred some satellites do generate more shrapnel.
ianburrell 4y ago
I need to dig into this more cause I generally dislike kinetic weapons cause they are overhyped. But I have a few issues. Starship needs to launch, drop, projectiles, and then land. The problem is without of cross range fuel, it is likely to come within range of the enemy. Who will shoot it down and out the cost of whole Starship. He mentions guidance but guidance is a huge problem with hypersonic missiles and orbital would be worse. Anti-ship are right out but GPS guided is probably doable. He also mentions projectiles but it might be projectile. The problem is that it takes a large projectile to make it to Earth since smaller ones burn up. Smaller things can return from orbit but they use heat shields to slow down; ICBM warheads slow down to Mach 10. I haven't seen any studies about how projectile needs to make it down. Also, using Starship like this is really destabilizing. It looks like a reusable ICBM. Starship can carry hundreds of nuclear warheads. Them coming down looks like a first strike. The enemy has to assume that they are nuclear not kinetic. This is why ideas of conventional ICBM for prompt strike fail cause of the risk.

KineticLensman 4y ago

> imagine drones and troop delivery in 30-60 minutes around the world. To win the fight, you have to get to the fight. Starship re-entry would be challenging in contested air space. > Starship also enables orbital battle platforms with the mass it can load. Some ball bearings in a counter-orbit would be a good asymmetric countermeasure.

Qem 4y ago
> Some ball bearings in a counter-orbit would be a good asymmetric countermeasure. Artificial Kessler syndrome probably the cheapest superweapon available. Probably won't require even an unreasonable amount of bearings. Just enough to shred some satellites do generate more shrapnel.

ianburrell 4y ago

I need to dig into this more cause I generally dislike kinetic weapons cause they are overhyped. But I have a few issues. Starship needs to launch, drop, projectiles, and then land. The problem is without of cross range fuel, it is likely to come within range of the enemy. Who will shoot it down and out the cost of whole Starship. He mentions guidance but guidance is a huge problem with hypersonic missiles and orbital would be worse. Anti-ship are right out but GPS guided is probably doable. He also mentions projectiles but it might be projectile. The problem is that it takes a large projectile to make it to Earth since smaller ones burn up. Smaller things can return from orbit but they use heat shields to slow down; ICBM warheads slow down to Mach 10. I haven't seen any studies about how projectile needs to make it down. Also, using Starship like this is really destabilizing. It looks like a reusable ICBM. Starship can carry hundreds of nuclear warheads. Them coming down looks like a first strike. The enemy has to assume that they are nuclear not kinetic. This is why ideas of conventional ICBM for prompt strike fail cause of the risk.