4 ms·
I think you're downplaying the level of difficulty of building an ICBM from scratch(I'm assuming it would be from scratch).
by lp4vn 3y ago
I think you're downplaying the level of difficulty of building an ICBM from scratch(I'm assuming it would be from scratch).
- malfist 3y agoI would not be from scratch. We know how to build them, just look at the Trident missiles
- derefr 3y agoI’ve consistently heard that there isn’t too much of a difference between an ICBM and a space rocket. So I presume the military could “just” buy some modern heavy launch stages from SpaceX or the like, and then strap regular SLBMs to them as their payloads.
- rgmerk 3y agoModern space launch vehicles are liquid fuelled because it’s the most energy-dense fuel and you can shut the rocket down if necessary. In SpaceX’s case, you can also refuel the rocket for reuse. But you have to fuel it for a couple of hours on the launch pad. ICBMs are solid fuel because you can leave the rocket fuelled up indefinitely in its silo.
- bombcar 3y agoStick a nuke on a spaceX rocket, done.
- c0pium 3y agoThe hard part on an ICBM is down, not up. Also, liquid fuel is a bad idea for rockets that need to be ready to go at a moment’s notice for decades.
- Jtsummers 3y agoThe replacement system mentioned in the article is already under development and is called Sentinel. Northrop Grumman got the contract 3 years ago. It's not a "from scratch" effort as it's largely based on existing technology. They aren't having to redo all the work from the last 80+ years of rocket and ICBM R&D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel
- mcv 3y agoI have absolutely no idea how complex an ICBM system is, but I would imagine it's a lot easier to make with modern technology than with technology from 60 years ago.