4 ms·

For normal people sure, but for VIPs and especially military it will happen. Imagine being able to drop Seal Team Six into Taipei, the Red Square, or literally

For normal people sure, but for VIPs and especially military it will happen. Imagine being able to drop Seal Team Six into Taipei, the Red Square, or literally any other piece of earth with a ~50ft clearing on ~30 minutes notice? That's a capability which is very hard to put a price on.

vkou 3y ago
I'd like to not imagine a boots-on-the-ground shooting war, where you are launching a craft that is indistinguishable from an ICBM at a nuclear power's capital. I'd like anyone at the DOD who is imagining it to either be fired or shot, before they drag the rest of us into their geno-suicidal fantasies.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Starship is worse than an ICBM. ICBM carries a handful of MIRV warheads. Starship potentially carries hundreds of warheads. It is a single rocket first strike. Nobody would put that many warheads on one rocket, but the target needs to act like it could.
vinaypai 3y ago
In real life adetachment of a couple of hundred soldiers with very limited support dropped into the middle of enemy territory, with their destination known 30 minutes in advance to anyone with tracking satellites will be very quickly overrun. Said adversary will also be thankful for the gift of the vehicle delivered to them with now way to get it out.
- SEJeff 3y ago
  You sir, have clearly never met us special forces. A “couple hundred” with combat load would be an absolute force to be reckoned with.
  - Breza 3y ago
    Special Forces aren't great in head-to-head combat against well-equipped and well-supplied soldiers who know they're coming. They lose their advantage. Plus they would need a whole lot of resupply.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Is there any reason this would be more possible with a rocket than with, say, a plane? It has to land slow enough that the passengers survive, and during that process it can be spotted and shot down, or surrounded. I mean I’m definitely in favor of getting some sci-fi style orbital drop troops, but I think it will require some development beyond the rockets; we’ll need to figure out how to get people who can survive a bunch of extra G’s.
    - thereisnospork 3y ago
      A human being can withstand ~8g's for medium short duration with minimal accommodation, say tens of minutes - see fighter pilots. I would imagine that would be enough to get someone on the ground pretty quickly. 30 minutes door-to-door is also incredibly fast, how much of the world could be covered by AA or a fighter plane in time? As a for instance, imagine if in the initial invasion of Ukraine Russia had the capability to drop a starship heavy's worth of men and supplies onto Antonov airport as soon as it was secure, instead of waiting for transport planes that didn't arrive in time.
      - vinaypai 3y ago
        You don't need the whole world to be covered. There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere. The air force can certainly respond within minutes to threats to major cities and strategic targets. A starship wouldn't have made that much difference in the invasion of Ukraine. You're talking maybe two additional MBTs.
        thereisnospork 3y ago
        >There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere Most of everywhere is the middle of nowhere and almost everything behind the lines is poorly guarded[0]. The vast vast majority of military strategy relies on two basic facts: things are far apart from each other[1] and one needs to move through another place to get to where one is going[2]. Ballistic transport gets around both of these limitations, which is why it is going to happen, costs be damned. Maybe it'll be drones getting dropped, or bombs, instead of people, but it'll be done nonetheless. I don't know if you've ever played bughouse - but the timely application of even small amounts of resources can have a drastically outsized effect. A starship could have easily doubled the resources the Russians had to take that airport, a few more could have taken another while everyone was busy with the first. [0]Because those resources are better spend on/near the line. [1]Lines vs. back-lines vs. civilian areas, conventional logistics and its demands [2]Walls, trenches, emplacements, AA defenses
ianburrell 3y ago
Starship is insanely vulnerable for landings. It starts fast but has to slow down for landing. Which means that is vulnerable to every SAM in Beijing region. I guess it could be done as drop of pods or something. The problem is that target can’t know the pods are troops and has to assume that they are nukes and this is first strike. China has no choice but to launch ICBMs immediately. Plus, this risks the Starship itself. It might be possible to drop pods, now space and recently capable, and change directions. But is more likely that get in range of anti-ballistic missile.

vkou 3y ago

I'd like to not imagine a boots-on-the-ground shooting war, where you are launching a craft that is indistinguishable from an ICBM at a nuclear power's capital. I'd like anyone at the DOD who is imagining it to either be fired or shot, before they drag the rest of us into their geno-suicidal fantasies.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ianburrell 3y ago
Starship is worse than an ICBM. ICBM carries a handful of MIRV warheads. Starship potentially carries hundreds of warheads. It is a single rocket first strike. Nobody would put that many warheads on one rocket, but the target needs to act like it could.

vinaypai 3y ago

In real life adetachment of a couple of hundred soldiers with very limited support dropped into the middle of enemy territory, with their destination known 30 minutes in advance to anyone with tracking satellites will be very quickly overrun. Said adversary will also be thankful for the gift of the vehicle delivered to them with now way to get it out.

SEJeff 3y ago
You sir, have clearly never met us special forces. A “couple hundred” with combat load would be an absolute force to be reckoned with.
- Breza 3y ago
  Special Forces aren't great in head-to-head combat against well-equipped and well-supplied soldiers who know they're coming. They lose their advantage. Plus they would need a whole lot of resupply.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Is there any reason this would be more possible with a rocket than with, say, a plane? It has to land slow enough that the passengers survive, and during that process it can be spotted and shot down, or surrounded. I mean I’m definitely in favor of getting some sci-fi style orbital drop troops, but I think it will require some development beyond the rockets; we’ll need to figure out how to get people who can survive a bunch of extra G’s.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    A human being can withstand ~8g's for medium short duration with minimal accommodation, say tens of minutes - see fighter pilots. I would imagine that would be enough to get someone on the ground pretty quickly. 30 minutes door-to-door is also incredibly fast, how much of the world could be covered by AA or a fighter plane in time? As a for instance, imagine if in the initial invasion of Ukraine Russia had the capability to drop a starship heavy's worth of men and supplies onto Antonov airport as soon as it was secure, instead of waiting for transport planes that didn't arrive in time.
    - vinaypai 3y ago
      You don't need the whole world to be covered. There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere. The air force can certainly respond within minutes to threats to major cities and strategic targets. A starship wouldn't have made that much difference in the invasion of Ukraine. You're talking maybe two additional MBTs.
      - thereisnospork 3y ago
        >There is no point dropping special forces into the middle of nowhere Most of everywhere is the middle of nowhere and almost everything behind the lines is poorly guarded[0]. The vast vast majority of military strategy relies on two basic facts: things are far apart from each other[1] and one needs to move through another place to get to where one is going[2]. Ballistic transport gets around both of these limitations, which is why it is going to happen, costs be damned. Maybe it'll be drones getting dropped, or bombs, instead of people, but it'll be done nonetheless. I don't know if you've ever played bughouse - but the timely application of even small amounts of resources can have a drastically outsized effect. A starship could have easily doubled the resources the Russians had to take that airport, a few more could have taken another while everyone was busy with the first. [0]Because those resources are better spend on/near the line. [1]Lines vs. back-lines vs. civilian areas, conventional logistics and its demands [2]Walls, trenches, emplacements, AA defenses

ianburrell 3y ago

Starship is insanely vulnerable for landings. It starts fast but has to slow down for landing. Which means that is vulnerable to every SAM in Beijing region. I guess it could be done as drop of pods or something. The problem is that target can’t know the pods are troops and has to assume that they are nukes and this is first strike. China has no choice but to launch ICBMs immediately. Plus, this risks the Starship itself. It might be possible to drop pods, now space and recently capable, and change directions. But is more likely that get in range of anti-ballistic missile.