3 ms·
The first stage doesn't really need to land anywhere, it launches from a known location that already has a comparatively enormous infrastructure investment. Th
by starspangled 2y ago
The first stage doesn't really need to land anywhere, it launches from a known location that already has a comparatively enormous infrastructure investment.
The second stage might want to land in other places. Not as a satellite launching bus or fuel truck though, that just wants to go up and down in an uncomplicated and unsurprising way, and that's where the vast majority of their launches will come from.
For inter-planetary missions yes, but they have different second stage designs for those that aren't made for tower landings. If it gets used as a military transport, then similarly it will be a different second stage design.
- echelon 2y agoThe military transport option is going to provide so much capital. It's the C5 Galaxy, but with only a couple of hours needed to deploy into any theater in the world.
- Gravityloss 2y agoThere's some work needed to have the launch flexibility though. Ie lead time to launch, multiple launch locations. In comparison, simplified, if you have a bunch of things you need to send somewhere, you can go to the nearest airstrip and call a bunch of C5:s from somewhere a couple of hours away.
- adastra22 2y agoIf we’re talking about sending equipment / supplies, you can prelaunch into orbit and then re-enter on demand.
- Gravityloss 2y agoThat could actually probably be worse as the orbital path would not likely go near the wanted landing site, potentially in days. And anyway how do you know in advance what you are going to need (if it's not a nuke)? Instead, with a near-future rocket, you could have some sort of assortment of "most likely stuff needed" stored near a launch site and be ready to pack and launch in an hour.
- adastra22 2y agohttps://fastcompanyme.com/technology/this-startup-has-a-plan-to-put-shipping-containers-in-space/ https://fastcompanyme.com/technology/this-startup-has-a-plan...
- baq 2y agoThe starship can use the atmosphere to change its orbit. The capability hasn't been tested but why wouldn't it work if it works on a x-37?
- adastra22 2y agoIt’s called cross-range capability, and yes Shuttle was able to do this (albeit for different reasons).
- bryanlarsen 2y agoStarship has a lot less cross-range capability than X-37.
- Gravityloss 2y agoExactly. Cross-range capability is expensive mass wise. X-37 is very heavy for its payload, as was the Space Shuttle.
- pmontra 2y agoWith maybe totally different requirements on the G forces and vibrations that the equipment and people inside a Starship must withstand compared to flying. Not necessarily all the existing equipment can survive a Starship launch and not necessarily all military personnel can fly in a rocket. Of course they can select the personnel, like they do select paratroopers. Fixing the equipment or developing new one might be costly.
- Workaccount2 2y agoThankfully, military stuff that is field deployed typically already has insane shock and vibration requirements. We build military stuff at our facility and it all has to go through lots of shock, vibration, and temperature testing. The military really wants to be sure things don't fail on the battlefield (which could also be aptly called "the-shock-and-vibration-field")
- qzw 2y agoJust want to add that a lot of military equipment is already designed to be airdropped in addition to any other expected battlefield stresses, so they’re probably some of the best candidates for rocket transport in existence.