A far, far slower ICBM with questionable reentry characteristics that can loft 250 tons into LEO.
Personally I think it'd be cool as fuck to put it in a 500x500km holding orbit and kick MIRV RVs with deorbit motors out the side. You'd probably run out of volume before mass became an issue. Basically a space-based SLBM.
You could also refuel it in orbit and continually change inclination to fuck with killer/spy satellites.
>Why even bother with recovery
Actually you could use this mode as defcon -1 - e.g. when you detect enemy launch but might want to cancel, because not sure it's missile, test or rogue unit. Fire the starship, try to call Kremlin, if they answer and it's all cool you just land it back.
Just like scrambling bombers only better. Because you cant really call back silo ICBMS.
>USSS Vengeance becomes a reality >it's got 150 nuclear bombs and sits in space >it has a crew of 10 >it moves around constantly >it can completely remove a 200 mile by 200 mile area on a single pass >it comes back in like an hour and 45 minutes >you have to develop an interceptor missile capable of dealing with a Starship burning at full thrust 850 km above the ground in order to kill it
dont think big satellites with multiple missiles each - think starlink like constellations of one use warheads with limited in orbit manoeuvrability and single use deorbit burn...
ground based lasers are already taking out satellites. If weaponised satellites become an arms race, expect them to be hard countered by the easier to build, maintain, and operate anti-satellite weapons on the ground.
1 month ago
Anonymous
ground based lasers in their megawatts are not easy to build and operate (yet)
and dont confuse soft satelites with warheads designed to survive reentry where main enemy is heat - same as with laser weapons
1 month ago
Anonymous
Starship, appropriately modified, would have an insane laser resistance too. It'll have a lot of thermal mass available and could probably be modified to run fuel or water through its earth-facing side and then eject it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
there would suddenly be a very very very large incentive to develop those things, even moreso then there already exists the want to shoot down things like ICBMs.
>biggest launch vehicle ever built offering capabilities never existed >lets put it on B-29 WW2 style bombing run duty
How can someone be that retarded and still type? Do you duct-tape bullets to RPG warhead for bigger effect too?
Literally the fuckin space shuttle literally makes it "possible". The fact that space exploration has remained relatively peaceful is a good thing. We need extraterrestrial colonization as a whole biosphere. Not just "countries".
I don't know see how having weapons in space makes them more effective rather than less. This spacecraft would be very useful for quick resupply to allied ground units though. Which is clearly what the MIC thinks too with how much interest they have shown in that so far
It's been a viable option back in 1960s, the arms control treaties banning nukes in space were put in place because such weapons are so volatile and escalatory and invite attacks on space infrastructure.
Wouldn't that just be an ICBM?
I believe the thinking is that it would be a really good ICBM because you could put, like, a whole bunch of warheads on it.
Well then the answer is no, because it was already a viable option.
As a side note, a spaceship would be much better at intercepting an ICBM than a ground based ABM system.
A far, far slower ICBM with questionable reentry characteristics that can loft 250 tons into LEO.
Personally I think it'd be cool as fuck to put it in a 500x500km holding orbit and kick MIRV RVs with deorbit motors out the side. You'd probably run out of volume before mass became an issue. Basically a space-based SLBM.
You could also refuel it in orbit and continually change inclination to fuck with killer/spy satellites.
An ICBM that sends a bunch of guided bomblets onto targets from orbit, with the actual rocket being discarded at sea to be recovered.
Why even bother with recovery? You'll be dead before the munitions impact anyways.
>Why even bother with recovery
Actually you could use this mode as defcon -1 - e.g. when you detect enemy launch but might want to cancel, because not sure it's missile, test or rogue unit. Fire the starship, try to call Kremlin, if they answer and it's all cool you just land it back.
Just like scrambling bombers only better. Because you cant really call back silo ICBMS.
starship has enough energy to put those warheads into orbit - where they can deorbit themselves where needed...
>picrel except instead of 30 minutes its a week because that's better somehow
Look up fractional orbital bombardment(FOBS)
It was so piss scary that both sides decided not to do it
>USSS Vengeance becomes a reality
>it's got 150 nuclear bombs and sits in space
>it has a crew of 10
>it moves around constantly
>it can completely remove a 200 mile by 200 mile area on a single pass
>it comes back in like an hour and 45 minutes
>you have to develop an interceptor missile capable of dealing with a Starship burning at full thrust 850 km above the ground in order to kill it
dont think big satellites with multiple missiles each - think starlink like constellations of one use warheads with limited in orbit manoeuvrability and single use deorbit burn...
Why would anyone let their adversaries dangle a network of handguns on strings above their heads?
>let
Because they can't stop them
Good luck trying to blow up thousands of sats
Starship could launch 50-100 at a time too
ground based lasers are already taking out satellites. If weaponised satellites become an arms race, expect them to be hard countered by the easier to build, maintain, and operate anti-satellite weapons on the ground.
ground based lasers in their megawatts are not easy to build and operate (yet)
and dont confuse soft satelites with warheads designed to survive reentry where main enemy is heat - same as with laser weapons
Starship, appropriately modified, would have an insane laser resistance too. It'll have a lot of thermal mass available and could probably be modified to run fuel or water through its earth-facing side and then eject it.
there would suddenly be a very very very large incentive to develop those things, even moreso then there already exists the want to shoot down things like ICBMs.
>still no nuclear powered cruise missiles
Just use starship to build a space station that has nukes on board
Then send up hundreds of nukes in small sats that can deorbit when ordered too
The easier option would be to build a mass-driver on the Moon and launch rocks at the Earth
>biggest launch vehicle ever built offering capabilities never existed
>lets put it on B-29 WW2 style bombing run duty
How can someone be that retarded and still type? Do you duct-tape bullets to RPG warhead for bigger effect too?
I would think something like rods from god using the Starship to get them into orbit would be more useful than just replacing ICBMs
Literally the fuckin space shuttle literally makes it "possible". The fact that space exploration has remained relatively peaceful is a good thing. We need extraterrestrial colonization as a whole biosphere. Not just "countries".
I don't know see how having weapons in space makes them more effective rather than less. This spacecraft would be very useful for quick resupply to allied ground units though. Which is clearly what the MIC thinks too with how much interest they have shown in that so far
It's been a viable option back in 1960s, the arms control treaties banning nukes in space were put in place because such weapons are so volatile and escalatory and invite attacks on space infrastructure.