3 ms·

> SpaceX has projected that it will launch 148 rockets in 2024, which would be once every two and a half days And that’s before Starship comes into play. If su

> SpaceX has projected that it will launch 148 rockets in 2024, which would be once every two and a half days And that’s before Starship comes into play. If successful, they want to be able to fly them much more frequently than Falcon 9s. They’re not really at risk of having nothing to do with a rocket

hollerith 3y ago
OK. But then you have to unload whatever payload was scheduled to launch next and load the drones, which again probably takes more than 30 min all by itself even after we modify the system to make unloading and loading payloads as fast as possible. (For one thing, I bet the way they do it now, SpaceX loads the payload and only then fuels the rocket, and if they were to reverse the order, They would need to make modifications that are expensive in engineering time to prevent the jostling of loading the payload from causing leaks or explosions of the fuel.) What matters for a weapon is the delay between the decision to use the weapon and when the weapon arrives at the target; it would be a mistake to look just at flight time. For an ICBM or a sub-launched ballistic missile, the delay really is about 40 min all in. Liquid-fueled rocket engines are not used by the US military and haven't been used since about 1970 and that is unlikely to change in my estimation because of this new capability that SpaceX has developed of rockets that can land gently enough that a payload of drones survives the landing. I don't want to guess as to the feasibility of developing a solid-fuel rocket that can land gently. (Also I think 30 min is unrealistic: a SpaceX rocket would need about an hour IMO to travel to some destination on the other side of Earth from where it launched: an ICBM can do it in about 40 min only because it is still going at about 8 times the speed of sound when it hits.) If anyone actually in the industry contradicts anything I wrote here, they are probably right and I'm probably wrong.

hollerith 3y ago

OK. But then you have to unload whatever payload was scheduled to launch next and load the drones, which again probably takes more than 30 min all by itself even after we modify the system to make unloading and loading payloads as fast as possible. (For one thing, I bet the way they do it now, SpaceX loads the payload and only then fuels the rocket, and if they were to reverse the order, They would need to make modifications that are expensive in engineering time to prevent the jostling of loading the payload from causing leaks or explosions of the fuel.) What matters for a weapon is the delay between the decision to use the weapon and when the weapon arrives at the target; it would be a mistake to look just at flight time. For an ICBM or a sub-launched ballistic missile, the delay really is about 40 min all in. Liquid-fueled rocket engines are not used by the US military and haven't been used since about 1970 and that is unlikely to change in my estimation because of this new capability that SpaceX has developed of rockets that can land gently enough that a payload of drones survives the landing. I don't want to guess as to the feasibility of developing a solid-fuel rocket that can land gently. (Also I think 30 min is unrealistic: a SpaceX rocket would need about an hour IMO to travel to some destination on the other side of Earth from where it launched: an ICBM can do it in about 40 min only because it is still going at about 8 times the speed of sound when it hits.) If anyone actually in the industry contradicts anything I wrote here, they are probably right and I'm probably wrong.