7 ms·
Owning SpaceX's Starship Rockets Could Be in Department of Defense's Future
- 5465675d 3y agoUS government is adamant on making Elon rich and poor at the same time
- delichon 3y agoThere are around 3 million federal employees. The number of different agendas is somewhat higher than that.
- wand3r 3y agoThe government isn't a monolith. The Biden administration seems to have a particular disdain for him but presumably this sentiment isn't shared by all. Also, SpaceX can deliver payloads and operate missions that seemingly no other company can do, and likely at a price point that is untouchable. So it seems likely those in the government that needs these capabilities pay SpaceX and "make him rich" but im not sure what the alternative is? It's not like Boeing/ULA are some poor little company that is being unfairly ignored
- hughesjj 3y agoIf you look around, basically every company Elon took over or started relies heavily on government handouts (or at least did during the primary r&d phase) Those handouts were intentional incentives to invent tech the government saw a need for. Regrettably for the government (and society), the guy who ended up taking advantage of those incentives the most ended up being a complete nitwit. So, we're kind of stuck with him until the government actually grows a pair and gives the SEC actual teeth, but too many nitwits are influential and would also be hurt by an SEC that does more than slap them on the wrist, so it's never going to happen /Rant /personal opionions
- snapplebobapple 3y agoIts more he is the guy who actually did it after taking the money. Look at rural broadband funding for a glaring example of the more common version of this where the government spends tens of billions and gets nothing.
- jdminhbg 3y ago> the guy who ended up taking advantage of those incentives the most ended up being a complete nitwit Wow, what terrible luck for that to keep happening!
- philangist 3y agoThis nitwit brought EVs to the mass market! And build a re-usable spaceflight platform that even the most powerful nation states can't rival! And helped found the world's leading AI lab! I pray to god to be a nitwit like that.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoYeah, complete and absolute moron. His only skill is running successful companies and dominating the competition. Now, if were as smart as someone like me, he would agree with my politics and sensibilities.
- elevatedastalt 3y agoThe government didn't hand over that money for free, they paid it in return of goods / services (such as NASA launches). If you have a company that makes bridges and the government hires you to make a bridge is that also a handout?
- justrealist 3y agoYeah Tesla paid back their loans fully.
- _ea1k 3y agoYou don't understand. The people that SpaceX beat out for launch contracts because they were too expensive were not grifters! Only the company that did better work for less is guilty of being a grifter. /s
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- f6v 3y agoCan Starship be used as ICBM?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoSure, all space vehicles can. It would just an awful lot waste compared to a regular ICBM.
- vardump 3y agoThat'd be pointless. There are way better solutions for ICBMs.
- zachterrell 3y agohttps://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html https://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html
- Dig1t 3y agoOf course, any rocket can be an ICBM if you fill it with explosives. It’s not very useful as an ICBM though, it’s much more useful as a way to transport things over distances faster and more precisely than airplanes.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThe first fully reusable ICBM!
- jakeinspace 3y agoIt flies to the target, gently lands, drops off its warheads on the ground, and launches back to North Dakota before they detonate. The perfect weapon!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- zie 3y agoJust because you can, doesn't mean you should.
- CyanBird 3y agoInteresting future the one mentioned where the US military could use SpaceX starships to do isle hopping on the pacific in not a dissimilar way that they did during wwii If there is any military that could do it it might be the US military I am interested on the logistics of fuel procurement tho, the fact that starship uses liquefied natural gas and oxygen makes for a great mix and rather simple to procure vs other rocket fuels
- librasteve 3y agoReusable Starship claims 100-150 metric tonnes payload to earth orbit. A Boeing 747 is 238 metric tonnes. BUT how much tonnage can the Starship land back on earth in a single "hop"? I guess the ship attitude & atmospheric drag can help to reduce the extra fuel needed to land the payload, but not right at the end...
- drawnwren 3y agoIf they go through with in-orbit refueling, shouldn't it be pretty close to the same in both directions? My, I did physics because it was a degree requirement, layman's understanding is that the work is going to be pretty much the same in both directions.
- treyd 3y agoAtmospheric drag increases superlinearly so it plays a significant role in slowing down the vehicle when you're moving at large fractions of orbital velocity.
- why_at 3y agoI think a key part is they need less fuel since they aren't going all the way to orbit. Getting to orbit is the difficult part and it's why they need the whole gigantic first stage booster. When they first developed the second stage they did some low altitude test flights with just the second stage and it went miles into the air IIRC, albeit with no payload. It's possible that once they deliver the payload, the second stage might have enough fuel to fly back to some drone ship or something.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- why_at 3y agoI don't really understand what the difference is between the government owning Starship vs contracting it. Are they thinking they would operate the thing without any support from SpaceX? Would they have their own team of engineers or whatever dedicated to Starship support? Would these people need to be trained by SpaceX? Once the rocket is launched and full of the US gov's people/satellites/supplies/whatever, what difference does it make who owns it?
- fnordpiglet 3y agoI would assume it’s customization. A purpose modified rocket with classified configurations and continuous launch readiness would be something I imagine implies exclusive ownership vs contracting from a general purpose fleet.
- spacebacon 3y agoI imagine they may be thinking Elon is best kept out of the strategic decision making process such in the case of Star Link geofencing service on the battleground.
- GMoromisato 3y agoI think the issue is who decides on the parameters of the mission. For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. The US then contracted SpaceX to build Starshield, which is the same as Starlink but 100% controlled by the military. The US military will decide what Starshield can be used for. With Starship, I assume the military wants to be able to decide where, when, and with what payload they can launch. If they were only contracting launch services, SpaceX might decline certain missions.
- _ea1k 3y ago> For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. I'm pretty sure the US Government could have decided that for them as well. I haven't seen any evidence that they tried.
- TMWNN 3y agoThis article is more proof that, once it's being mass produced, there will be USSF-manned Starships launching from the USSF Canaveral and Vandenberg bases. This is something that SF leadership isn't talking about, because a) the force is still dealing with all the anti Trump-driven jokes about Buzz Lightyear and space rangers and such from when the service stood up, and b) it's sort of like a military branch in 1900—when engineers around the world were working on heavier-than-air fight and it was expected sooner or later, but the Wright Brothers hadn't succeeded yet—stating that it will be the service that handles flying machines. Further, c) it doesn't want or need people joining right now to fly in space. There currently is no military astronaut corps (as opposed to military personnel temporarily assigned to NASA), but there has been such twice in the past. Had Space Force existed then it would have been the service running the 1960s' Manned Orbiting Laboratory program, and the 1980s' Manned Spaceflight Engineer program. Space Force already has had two NASA astronauts, and a reusable unmanned spacecraft in the X-37B. If the X-37 were manned Space Force would staff it, just as the service currently runs every other aspect of its missions from launch to in-orbit-operation to return. To put another way, the reason USSF doesn't currently send people into space is not because there is some law or latter-day Key West Agreement stating that Space Force can't have its own manned spacecraft; rather, its only reusable spacecraft, X-37, isn't manned. Once it has its own manned spacecraft, USSF will be sending people into space. It's a lack of opportunity, not ability or desire. Starships with SF ground and flight crews will handle scheduled launches of space assets, and perhaps one will be kept on constant alert for an urgent launch. We might even see the equivalent of SSBNs, nuke-carrying Starships doing rotations in cislunar space for second/third strikes.^1 People who miss the days when ICBMs were part of AFSPC may get their wish, sort of. ^1 Yes, I know about the Outer Space Treaty. I expect the US to depart from the treaty.