3 ms·
Can Starship be used as ICBM?
by f6v 3y ago
Can 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.
- dgrin91 3y agoYes. Early NASA rocket stuff really was partially just a thin veil on top of military ICBM development. Basically all countries follow the same pattern (this is why the US gets so worked up about North Korean satellites - if they can put a satellite into space they can also put a nuke in your face). Starship is poorly optimized for ICBMs though. Its WAY too big and probably way slower than ICBMs as well.
- narrator 3y agoICBMs sit in silos for decades and are expected to launch on mere minutes of notice. The requirements for starship are somewhat different.
- jltsiren 3y agoNot really. The Starship is not designed to stand on the launchpad indefinitely, ready to be launched in a few minutes. That makes it mostly useless as an ICBM, because you can't launch it before enemy missiles hit it.
- AstralStorm 3y agoIt is however designed to be rapidly fueled and quick to prepare to launch, allegedly. Very wasteful to use this even as an ICBM bomber though. What it would be good at is delivering a lot of missiles to wipe every satellite in the sky.
- james_pm 3y agoSo far it's proven to be effective at scattering pieces of stainless steel over the ocean.
- pjscott 3y agoI remember when people were saying that about the Falcon 9, which now handles a majority of the world’s space launches. SpaceX has some good, proven engineers; belittling their work because they’re using an aggressive testing schedule (involving, yes, the occasional dramatic explosion) is both unkind and unlikely to age well as commentary.
- Laremere 3y agoThe first thing you need is a trajectory which is close to orbital for worldwide reach, so check. The second thing you need is protection of the warhead on reentry. Kinda not check, the reentry profile of slowing down as it does makes it an easier target for counter measures. It could release a payload which is capable of reentry on its own, but Starship offers little advantage here. Third thing you need in a "practical" sense is rapid launching. If you're using it for a mutually assured destruction counter attack, it needs to be launched within minutes, as you only have 40 minutes from enemy launch before their nukes start hitting your launch sites, including any time for command staff to give the signal. A lot less with a submarine attack. Strong not check. Starship is huge so it has a long fueling time. Additionally it has a limited time that it can be fueled and be launch ready. You could maybe use it as a first strike, but you'd have to get a large number of them all fueling at the exact same time without anyone being curious why. Really, orbit to payload rockets and ICBM share a lot, but the specific design constraints mean there's important differences. It's payload capacity means it could possibly launch a large number of space based weapons, which is pretty scary. However there's little reason to use it as an ICBM specifically.