5 ms·

SpaceX launches out of Brownsville.

• hef19898 3y ago
  Just because SpaceX has rockets that go to space doesn't mean those rockets are ICBMs.
  • khuey 3y ago
    Any rocket that can put a payload in orbit is an ICBM capable of launching at least that payload at another continent.
    • hef19898 3y ago
      If a continent is your target, sure...
      • thereisnospork 3y ago
        I mean spaceX can drop a booster on a 20m wide barge without much fuss...
        • hef19898 3y ago
          Land, not drop... And the boister is not coming in hot from a ballistic trajectory...
          • amarant 3y ago
            Dropping seems a lot easier than landing though. And I imagine if your payload is a nuke, missing your target by even a hundred meters doesn't matter much.. Convincing SpaceX to go along with it on the other hand, I think is going to be really hard.
            • hef19898 3y ago
              Yes, of course, guidance systems for ICBMs and with multiple warheads are easy, I forgot.
              • thereisnospork 3y ago
                Um yes they are, that's the point. It might have been hard 40 years ago, but it's not today. SpaceX could build a rocket to park a nuke on your front lawn[0], wherever that is, inside about 30 minutes, without breaking a sweat. [0]Read: at an optimal altitude and velocity for air detonation.
              • kragen 3y ago
                guidance systems for icbms are literally the exact same guidance systems used for launching satellites into orbit. that's what the 'b' stands for: 'ballistic' means that the reentry vehicles go where i, the launch vehicle, throw them (βαλλω) rather than guiding themselves to the target with onboard thrusters or airfoils or something. the only difference is that you fall short of orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile in the 01950s, guidance systems for orbital launch were a very significant engineering challenge. a rocket is almost an inverted pendulum in the sense that it's a long, stiff thing being pushed up from below; even going to space instead of arcing back into the turf near the launch site requires active negative-feedback control. even the smallest programmable computers were too big and heavy to put into space, so they had to use circuits wired up specifically for the guidance and control task. inertial measurement units were artisanally-produced gimbal-mounted things the size of a small child, there was no gps, and cybernetics was in its infancy. my grandfather built guidance systems for icbms at the time, and it was very difficult indeed now, every twenty-dollar cellphone contains the necessary ingredients, although some of them are artificially crippled by export restrictions, and control theory is a standard course in any undergraduate engineering curriculum, using the inverted pendulum as a homework exercise. and if you're going to spend a few thousand bucks, and aren't north korea trying to circumvent other countries' export restrictions, you can easily get lower-noise imus than the ones that go into cellphones so yeah, it's easy, even if it wasn't a problem spacex had already solved
        • dboreham 3y ago
          The people who know how to do that are in California not Texas.
    • saagarjha 3y ago
      In one piece?
  • thsksbd 3y ago
    It does though. Any rocket that can go into leo can fall within a mile without trouble. And that's with 1950s guidance technology. Add modern controls and a SpaceX can crash into a site with 100 m no problem