3 ms·

Oh man, Elon is going to propose a Falcon-9 based ICBM isn't he? Might as well go full Bond villain at this point.

fooker 2y ago
ICBMs have usually been solid fuelled as they can be stored ready to launch. Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.
- ben_w 2y ago
  There's lots of bad ideas currently becoming government policy, and that's not even a unique flaw of the USA or Trump or Musk. So, just because idea of using Falcon 9s as a delivery solution for a strategic nuclear deterrent may be as bad as ordering your chief designer to throw a big steel ball at the window of the new model of car you're currently in the middle of announcing even despite the guy's obvious reticence, doesn't mean it won't happen.
  - b59831 2y ago
    This is a stretch. Someone makes an uneducated point but it must be defended because Musk bad... Do you think you're making a good point here?
    - kelnos 2y ago
      I don't think it's a stretch at all. GP is pointing out a specific instance that illustrates that Musk doesn't truly understand the capabilities of the things he builds. He talks a good game, but he's not actually a rocket scientist/engineer. But he'll push for whatever he wants to push for, and people like Trump will eat it up and let him do what he wants. If Musk wants to push for "Falcon 9-based liquid-fueled ICBMs", he'll do so, even if he actually does know they're not the best/right tech for the job. And someone like Trump will listen to him. It's also a bit in bad faith of you to play the "you only disagree because Musk bad" card, when GP explicitly acknowledges that these sorts of bad government decisions are not unique to the US/Trump/Musk.
- Arubis 2y ago
  US-based ICBMs, yes. Russia and China have actively fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs.
  - nickff 2y ago
    The USA also fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs, but I believe they have all been decommissioned in favor of solid-fueled missiles, which are more reliable and easier to store.
nradov 2y ago
No one is seriously going to propose a liquid fueled rocket for the nuclear deterrence mission. It simply doesn't work. However, there are potential military applications for a vehicle like Falcon 9. For example, imagine being able to insert a Special Operations team almost anywhere in the world on a few hours notice. In a potential near-peer conflict there will also be a need to quickly launch replacement military satellites to make up attrition losses.

ICBMs have usually been solid fuelled as they can be stored ready to launch. Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.

ben_w 2y ago
There's lots of bad ideas currently becoming government policy, and that's not even a unique flaw of the USA or Trump or Musk. So, just because idea of using Falcon 9s as a delivery solution for a strategic nuclear deterrent may be as bad as ordering your chief designer to throw a big steel ball at the window of the new model of car you're currently in the middle of announcing even despite the guy's obvious reticence, doesn't mean it won't happen.
- b59831 2y ago
  This is a stretch. Someone makes an uneducated point but it must be defended because Musk bad... Do you think you're making a good point here?
  - kelnos 2y ago
    I don't think it's a stretch at all. GP is pointing out a specific instance that illustrates that Musk doesn't truly understand the capabilities of the things he builds. He talks a good game, but he's not actually a rocket scientist/engineer. But he'll push for whatever he wants to push for, and people like Trump will eat it up and let him do what he wants. If Musk wants to push for "Falcon 9-based liquid-fueled ICBMs", he'll do so, even if he actually does know they're not the best/right tech for the job. And someone like Trump will listen to him. It's also a bit in bad faith of you to play the "you only disagree because Musk bad" card, when GP explicitly acknowledges that these sorts of bad government decisions are not unique to the US/Trump/Musk.
Arubis 2y ago
US-based ICBMs, yes. Russia and China have actively fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs.
- nickff 2y ago
  The USA also fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs, but I believe they have all been decommissioned in favor of solid-fueled missiles, which are more reliable and easier to store.

nradov 2y ago

No one is seriously going to propose a liquid fueled rocket for the nuclear deterrence mission. It simply doesn't work. However, there are potential military applications for a vehicle like Falcon 9. For example, imagine being able to insert a Special Operations team almost anywhere in the world on a few hours notice. In a potential near-peer conflict there will also be a need to quickly launch replacement military satellites to make up attrition losses.