5 ms·

How is a starship in anyway like an ICBM? ICBMs are weapons, and are dangerous because you target them at specific targets and they explode. How is starship c

How is a starship in anyway like an ICBM? ICBMs are weapons, and are dangerous because you target them at specific targets and they explode. How is starship coming down significantly more dangerous than a plane? If they can demonstrate similar levels or reliability (a huge ask), then I don't see a problem.

lazide 2y ago
ICBM’s take a payload (warhead) and deliver it from the launch point to somewhere on the earth very far away (on another continent). If you don’t see how earth to earth starship use couldn’t be construed as a type of ICBM, I suspect you’re thinking branding means a lot more than capability.
- samatman 2y ago
  Two paratroopers and some electronics can turn a passenger jet into a bomb carrying many kilotons of conventional explosive. Trucks have blown up buildings. Anything is a weapon if you arm it. Conversely...
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > Two paratroopers and some electronics can turn a passenger jet into a bomb carrying many kilotons of conventional explosive. A fully fueled 747 only carries about 190 tons of fuel and 140 tons of cargo. How do electronics turn that into kilotons of explosives?
    - samatman 2y ago
      Centitons of explosive then. Much like a Starship.
      - mulmen 2y ago
        I don’t think jet fuel is as explosive as TNT so these two paratroopers would have to fill the cargo hold with tens of tons of explosives.
        lazide 2y ago
        Jet fuel has significantly more total energy per unit of mass than TNT. 46 MJ/kg for Kerosene [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion], and 14.5 MJ/KG for TNT [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT]. Kerosene can be used to make a thermobaric bomb in the right conditions. It’s just just trickier to actually do than detonating TNT. Notably, TNT can certainly help accomplish making a thermobaric bomb. Either way, the cargo capacity by weight for a 747 is still the same.
        mulmen 2y ago
        More energy =/= more explosive. Are the fuel tanks of a 747 conducive to creating a thermobaric bomb? By two paratroopers?
        lazide 2y ago
        With some TNT or cutting charges and an electronic device (timer/detonator)? I didn’t propose the initial idea, but it actually could probably work if the plane was flying [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218023002961 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001021802...], and [https://tetrazolelover.at.ua/WpnryInTheWoods/Zhang2015_Article_Large-scaleSprayDetonationAndR-1.pdf https://tetrazolelover.at.ua/WpnryInTheWoods/Zhang2015_Artic...]. You’d want to run some significant calculations first to get the airspeed/timing just right, but yeah. It would be one hell of a show. Like a tactical nuke, probably. Edit: did the math because I was curious. A fully fueled 747 contains approximately 9 trillion joules of energy worth of fuel (not counting any payload, or the energy in its aluminum fuselage - which would be significant). A ton of TNT equivalent is 4.181 gigajoules. So the fuel load of a 747, if properly detonated, would be “equivalent” to a 2KT nuclear bomb. A 747 has a maximum payload capacity of an additional 100-120 tons.
- mulmen 2y ago
  The B-2 famously bombed Afghanistan from Missouri. That doesn’t make the 747 a weapon.
  - lazide 2y ago
    If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally. Same as trucks/cars and carbombs. For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      > If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally. Yet we still have airplanes, boats, cars, sports equipment, lawn tools, and kitchen utensils. Nothing about Starship makes it more likely to be weaponized than anything else we already account for in our daily lives. > For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed. Is “potential weapon” really the way countries view vehicles crossing borders? I have never gotten that impression. Border crossings maintain some healthy skepticism but not because a Camry is similar to an M1 Abrams if you squint really hard.
      - lazide 2y ago
        I’m honestly not sure what relation your comment has to what I wrote or this part of the thread. ICBMs and M1 Abrams also exist? They also are used carefully and heavily regulated. Heavy aircraft are also heavily regulated, and their presence near occupied areas is heavily controlled - including with fighter jets and AA installations on standby in many areas. Car bombs are a huge issue in many parts of the world, and approaching some facilities in a car in those places without going through exactly the right procedures will get you shot before you can get too close. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built, rather that if you expect it to be able to be allowed to go anywhere and do anything without significant security measures and/or even bans, that isn’t how this works. Because it wouldn’t be hard for it to be defacto a ICBM, just like it wasn’t hard to turn those planes on 9/11 into massive cruise missiles. You can’t really turn a car into an ICBM the same way, correct?

lazide 2y ago

ICBM’s take a payload (warhead) and deliver it from the launch point to somewhere on the earth very far away (on another continent). If you don’t see how earth to earth starship use couldn’t be construed as a type of ICBM, I suspect you’re thinking branding means a lot more than capability.

samatman 2y ago
Two paratroopers and some electronics can turn a passenger jet into a bomb carrying many kilotons of conventional explosive. Trucks have blown up buildings. Anything is a weapon if you arm it. Conversely...
- mulmen 2y ago
  > Two paratroopers and some electronics can turn a passenger jet into a bomb carrying many kilotons of conventional explosive. A fully fueled 747 only carries about 190 tons of fuel and 140 tons of cargo. How do electronics turn that into kilotons of explosives?
  - samatman 2y ago
    Centitons of explosive then. Much like a Starship.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      I don’t think jet fuel is as explosive as TNT so these two paratroopers would have to fill the cargo hold with tens of tons of explosives.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Jet fuel has significantly more total energy per unit of mass than TNT. 46 MJ/kg for Kerosene [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion], and 14.5 MJ/KG for TNT [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT]. Kerosene can be used to make a thermobaric bomb in the right conditions. It’s just just trickier to actually do than detonating TNT. Notably, TNT can certainly help accomplish making a thermobaric bomb. Either way, the cargo capacity by weight for a 747 is still the same.
        mulmen 2y ago
        More energy =/= more explosive. Are the fuel tanks of a 747 conducive to creating a thermobaric bomb? By two paratroopers?
        lazide 2y ago
        With some TNT or cutting charges and an electronic device (timer/detonator)? I didn’t propose the initial idea, but it actually could probably work if the plane was flying [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010218023002961 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001021802...], and [https://tetrazolelover.at.ua/WpnryInTheWoods/Zhang2015_Article_Large-scaleSprayDetonationAndR-1.pdf https://tetrazolelover.at.ua/WpnryInTheWoods/Zhang2015_Artic...]. You’d want to run some significant calculations first to get the airspeed/timing just right, but yeah. It would be one hell of a show. Like a tactical nuke, probably. Edit: did the math because I was curious. A fully fueled 747 contains approximately 9 trillion joules of energy worth of fuel (not counting any payload, or the energy in its aluminum fuselage - which would be significant). A ton of TNT equivalent is 4.181 gigajoules. So the fuel load of a 747, if properly detonated, would be “equivalent” to a 2KT nuclear bomb. A 747 has a maximum payload capacity of an additional 100-120 tons.
mulmen 2y ago
The B-2 famously bombed Afghanistan from Missouri. That doesn’t make the 747 a weapon.
- lazide 2y ago
  If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally. Same as trucks/cars and carbombs. For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    > If you don’t think a 747 should be considered a potential weapon, then…. 9/11. Literally. Yet we still have airplanes, boats, cars, sports equipment, lawn tools, and kitchen utensils. Nothing about Starship makes it more likely to be weaponized than anything else we already account for in our daily lives. > For the same reason, anything like we’re discussing will also be considered a potential weapon by any country paying attention at all. And counter measures and restrictions will be installed. Is “potential weapon” really the way countries view vehicles crossing borders? I have never gotten that impression. Border crossings maintain some healthy skepticism but not because a Camry is similar to an M1 Abrams if you squint really hard.
    - lazide 2y ago
      I’m honestly not sure what relation your comment has to what I wrote or this part of the thread. ICBMs and M1 Abrams also exist? They also are used carefully and heavily regulated. Heavy aircraft are also heavily regulated, and their presence near occupied areas is heavily controlled - including with fighter jets and AA installations on standby in many areas. Car bombs are a huge issue in many parts of the world, and approaching some facilities in a car in those places without going through exactly the right procedures will get you shot before you can get too close. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built, rather that if you expect it to be able to be allowed to go anywhere and do anything without significant security measures and/or even bans, that isn’t how this works. Because it wouldn’t be hard for it to be defacto a ICBM, just like it wasn’t hard to turn those planes on 9/11 into massive cruise missiles. You can’t really turn a car into an ICBM the same way, correct?