Weaponizing Starship

Come on, the black suits and their government eggheads must be thinking of all the ways to weaponize it. Has anyone theorized the possible (offensive) military applications of Starship? What could they do with it? Surely the insane payload capability would have some uses (they mentioned a potential of 300metric tons to orbit in fully expendable configuration). I'm thinking that just as a kinetic weapon it would be completely unstoppable. What are you going to do, fire puny AA rockets at 300 tons of steel and concrete coming down at you?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They need to get the motherfricker working first.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If judged against any other rocket in the world, it does its job.
      Even if used as an expendable rocket, it mogs every other launch vehicle in history

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not, it doesn't. That motherfricker started spinning due to leaks while in orbit. It literally doesn't fricking work.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          it deployed the test payload successfully. the spin was during the reentry test

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it deployed the test payload successfully. the spin was during the reentry test

            It did not deploy any payload at all. It was supposed to just open its bay door which it did, then it failed to close the bay door properly. The entire vehicle failed to reach orbit by 2300 km/h and fell back into the atmosphere three minutes too early to land (crash) into the water at the designated point in the Indian ocean. Some Black person in Apefreka got surprised by tons of stainless steel metal scrap falling from the sky and praised the gods for making him rich. It wasn't the gods, it was Elon Muskrat.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Absolutely nothing after "The entire vehicle failed to reach orbit" is true, except for the deliberate undershoot of orbital velocity to ensure that the ship would undergo a controlled reentry if they were to fail or be otherwise unable to perform a deorbit burn.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Absolutely nothing after "The entire vehicle failed to reach orbit" is true, except for the deliberate undershoot of orbital velocity to ensure that the ship would undergo a controlled reentry if they were to fail or be otherwise unable to perform a deorbit burn.

                They undershot orbital velocity so much that they missed their splashdown point by thousands of kilometers. And the vehicle was also in an uncontrollable rotation when it hit the upper layer of atmosphere leading to its quick disintegration.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The splashdown point was on target and went long, not short due to them not lighting the engine for the deorbit burn due to the aforementioned uncontrolled roll.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The splashdown point was on target and went long, not short due to them not lighting the engine for the deorbit burn due to the aforementioned uncontrolled roll.

                They hit the atmosphere three minutes too early at a speed of ~7200 meters per second meaning that they were 1300 kilometers too short *if* the atmosphere descent had gone as planned. Instead the craft broke up in descent and scattered its wreckage over Africa since the wreckage isn't aerodynamic.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They were over the Indian Ocean and had long crossed over Africa. They'd have to fall short by over 5,000 Miles for that to happen.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They were over the Indian Ocean and had long crossed over Africa. They'd have to fall short by over 5,000 Miles for that to happen.

                The Starship was in an uncontrollable spin when it hit the atmosphere and it broke up almost instantly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Breakup happened somewhere in the ballpark of 70km, where aeroloads are greatest during reentry.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Breakup happened somewhere in the ballpark of 70km, where aeroloads are greatest during reentry.

                If you dont enter the atmosphere in a controlled manner nose first and instead enter sideways because you have no control you will loose speed too fast and enter lower, denser atmosphere at a too high velocity and break into pieces.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                kino

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There was clear imagery of Madagascar in the background well before re-entry began. Africa was long past.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oaf.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Unlike every other rocket in use today it has zero legacy hardware reuse. Everything about it is new and therefore needs to be developed and validated. Look up any other rocket in use today and you will see a lineage of development and iteration. They are rockets or theseus and build on decades of work. SpaceX has already made F9 the most reliable rocket in use so there's no doubt they can make a good reliable launcher. The question is how long will it take to mature something this ambitious.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It can already hit the orbit. Just a matter of time until it has the reliability of Falcon 9.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The anti American contingent is unaware by every other rocket ever launched metric, the starship is a fully capable rocket that cost 1.5 million total to make and a month to build with thrust 12 times greater than the Saturn 5.
        They have no idea it's functional. The next launch will carry a dummy load of 300,000 lbs. Then after that they are putting up 500 star links at a time. If they get it to the falcon level it's 500,000 per launch.

        They don't even know a single falcon 9 can outlaunch the entire world for 8 million per cost launch or 15 times cheaper. Every 2 weeks you'd just fire it up. 26 launches, 60 k to Leo. 1.5 million pounds a year off a single falcon.
        Indians are the worst.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          When they will hit the mass-production phase it'll be ogre for the competition. The core design is ridiculously simple too, just a bunch of sheet metal, filled with liquid methane and liquid oxygen. The engine and production technology is where the genius lies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick! You actually know what's going on. Yeah when elon took over the raptor 2 production he took off a bunch the redundant parts and it streamlined the speeds. It being full flow methlonox but with a high chamber pressure means it gets power but the machine can be used over and over again and made cheaply. Him going to cold formed steel, phase 0 and that raptor 2 is just a work of art. I mean the actual manufacturing side. That's the hard part. Anyone can eventually make these engines besides full flow but to make them at that cost and speed is crazy. Elons true "genius" is he can build production lines better than anyone. And if he can build the lines he knows what he actually can build.
            The next launch is 5 weeks and raptor 3 should be coming out by the end of the year. That will probably be the "finished engine" for 4 years after. 2 is good but 3 if it does what he claims takes the ship from 250-300k lbs to Leo to 450-500k

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Picrelated gave me a stiffy, it's beautiful. And on a related note, will those engines find some military use anywhere else other than Starship?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >will those engines find some military use anywhere else other than Starship?

                For ICBMs they would need something that is always ready to launch.
                And that is not the case with the methane gas.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Imagine if he applied a fraction of that genius to his shoddy consumer vehicles. I wonder how many orders are still coming in for Cybertrucks after that billionaire drowned.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >When they will hit the mass-production phase
            That's the neat part, they already have

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not yeat, 1 engine per day is not nearly enough.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Not yeat, 1 engine per day is not nearly enough.
                >t old space be like

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Be still my beating heart.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I wish I was this delusional.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's this I smell, smells like bitter cope

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yea, just like Mars by 2021 right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the other guy puts out numbers on what has happened for years, and what's happening right now
                >"BUT ELON'S PR TALK"
                Holy cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Calling yourself other guy
                lol

                Yea, Musk is totally going to be cranking out Memeships by the hundreds at the price of the fricking materials to launch uhhhhhhhhhhh Starlink 2 lmao. Maybe they'll get a decent subscriber base this time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ah, you're just being a massive homosexual, lol. Go be a homosexual somewhere else, homosexual

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >decent subscriber base
                yep, it's elon derangement syndrome.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kek you can just sense from 2 short posts when someone is bitter as frick

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >2 million subscribers across 70 countries is totally a good number guys

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i mean he did add 400k subs in the first quarter.
                Starlink costs $120/month and Launch costs are claimed as $62mil per launch (that's the public cost to purchase a Falcon 9 launch).
                At $120/month an increase of 400k subs works out to 48mil extra per month (or enough for 2 extra launches), total sub count is 2.6mil up from 2.2mil in December which works out to 312mil per month in revenue or almost enough for 5 launches at the market price.
                So ignoring the upfront cost to get the reciever (which they apparently make a profit off now instead of losing them money) and assuming everyone is paying for the cheapest program (or at least the average is $120/month since i've got no idea what the cost in overseas stuff is) SpaceX makes enough money to launch 14~ rockets with more sats per quarter,

                Wait..... i think the 65mil per Falcon 9 cost is for a new one, reused ones are like 15mil. if the 15mil number is true then the increase in sub numbers this year is likely only slightly less than the amount they'd need to add to cover the cost of all new launches (There have 22 new Starlink launches this year so a cost of around $330mil at the $15mil launch total or about double the revenue they've added in the same period).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                don't bother, when you show these people reality, they start calling you a bootlicker.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They've said they're earning a small profit right now, but probably not nearly enough to fund Memeship development.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                $120 a month? That's only half again as much as I'm paying for cable Internet. If they can lower the price I might look into it. Not sure where I could put the antenna as I live in an apartment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Launch costs are claimed as $62mil per launch (that's the public cost to purchase a Falcon 9 launch).

                You are confusing the price of a ride on an F9 with the cost of launching one.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > with thrust 12 times greater than the Saturn 5

          lol wut

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            might have been a typo, it is a little over double after all (16.7mil lbf vs 7.7mil lbf

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              i did some quick maffs and if they hit the target thrust level with raptor 3, starship will produce about x2.63 as much thrust as a saturn V

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They gave an updated total today kek
                It's now up to 10,000tf which is about 22mil lbf so it's now up to x2.83 of Saturn 5s max thrust (roughly)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >x2.83 of Saturn 5s
                Wtf, WTF... And this will not be the final number

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no it is not, that's just what they can do now, assuming 306 tons of force per Raptor engine (33 engines at 306 tons for 10098 tons or 22,262,279 lbf) they are aiming for 330 tons of force per engine (10,890 tons of force for 24,008,340lbf) If they get to 330 tons of force per engine that'd be x3.1 the saturn 5, this is the version that puts 200 tons in orbit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Holy shit
                You gotta keep in mind that starship launches can already be *felt* not just heard all the way in brownsville.
                Thats gonna be crazy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the starship is a fully capable rocket
          that has yet to work?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the starship is a fully capable rocket
          Except it's not though, not yet. Payload doors didn't work last time, which is sorta a requirement for putting payloads into orbit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The amount of goalpost-shifting the SpaceX-critics have displayed since the very first Falcon 1 is truly spectacular. Actually calling them critics is giving too much credit, they're just intentional doomspouting.

            It kind of makes sense when you consider most of them are morons or thirdies (same difference) and therefore have no comprehension of how modern industrial methods or iterative improvement works, they just assume the world operates on sheer luck and the will of the gods.
            Launch #1-13 failed? IT'S ALL OGRE HAHA IT WILL NEVER WORK.
            Launch #14-#184 succeeded? PURE LUCK GIVE UP ALREADY

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Shut the frick up. It's not a fully functional rocket yet. If they had tried to send a payload up on the last launch it would've been a total loss. That's all I said.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >yes, the top athlete is 25 miles into the marathon, with a lead of 20 miles to the next contestants, BUT THERE'S STILL A CHANCE HE WILL LOSE, HERE'S HOW

                That's how dumb that argument sounds. It's intentionally contrarian.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                There are guys with Elon Derangement Syndrome, there are the contrarians, the tardies and thirdies, and then there are guys like russians and chinks and other guys who are jealous and afraid lol.
                Falcon changed the game completely. Starship will do so even more. The rest will fight for the leftover scraps. This is the foreseeable future.

                And then there is the weaponization of Starship.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >guys if they tried to put payload on an expendable prototype they would've lost it!
                no fricking shit moron

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is it a fully capable rocket or an expendable prototype?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                are you an EDS homosexual or just trolling?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                At the moment the prototypes are indeed expendable, like every single rocket known to man yes

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Every single rocket known to man
                Besides Falcon 9 and the rocket it copied homework off of

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The flight profile of the DC-X and its own flight program achievements don't really detract from, or even terribly strongly overlap with what Falcon 9 does. It's got far more in common with Blue Origin's work than SpaceX's.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Elons own words to DC-Xs program manager Bill Gaubatz are "Continuing the great work of the DC-X project"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Their similarity begins and ends with being liquid fueled rockets that use liquid oxygen as a propellant and taking off and landing vertically.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah
                Falcon 9 has more in common with Ariane-X (ultra obscure proposal that got shafted)
                ESA could have had Falcon 9 in early 90s if they weren't moronic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yea because we launch those things all the time.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Falcon 9 isn't SSTO, and it isn't even fully reusable (the second stage always gets thrown away). It was a set of studies that SpaceX did to figure out how to recover the second stage that led to them giving up and going all in on a new rocket big enough that they *could* recover the second stage--and while they were at it, they made it even bigger so that it could be used to get to Mars, their long-term goal from the beginning.

                In short, the only thing that Falcon has in common with DC-X is that it lands vertically. So did Roton, and a couple other designs that never got off the drawing board. In fact, landing a rocket on its tail goes back all the way to '30s sci-fi.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In fact, landing a rocket on its tail goes back all the way to '30s sci-fi.
                I used to laugh at those silly vintage sci-fi and cartoon rockets landing like that. Turns out I knew frick all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It makes sense, given the alternative is shuttle design, but it still looks funny and precarious, even after seeing it done so many times.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh wow how many tons of payload did the DC-XA put it into orbit?!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If your understanding of the different ways to propulsively land is "rocket engines go brrrr" then yes Falcon 9 is comperable to DC-X.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you could spend an hour explaining to these morons how incomparable the two are and they'd still feel inclined to keep comparing them.
                you can't reach mental stillbirths.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >modern
              Rather than modern SpaceX is using the OLD methods of development, people are just used to the 'It just works' method that takes billions of dollars and more than a decade for something that'll be used three times

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They're not anti-american lol, most Ukraine war tourists are Redditors who are also obsessed with shitting on Musk.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It can already hit the orbit. Just a matter of time until it has the reliability of Falcon 9.
        get elons wiener out of your mouth and frick off, telsa was a scam for government gibs and so is spacex

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cope and seethe, starship will succeed and you will move the goalpost again just as you did with falcon 9

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >They need to get the motherfricker working first.
      /thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      its coming along pretty nicely. each launch is a major step forward compared to the last
      >inb4 but they exploded!
      that is what iterative prototyping is about

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1000 tons of picrel

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Everyone who has ever used or allowed anyone to use one of these shits should have their arms and legs amputated.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      whoa, based

      Everyone who has ever used or allowed anyone to use one of these shits should have their arms and legs amputated.

      ironically that's what we are trying to accomplish.

      • 2 months ago
        >>455392974

        >ironically that's what we are trying to accomplish

        how do these work? won't they blow up when they hit the ground, or is there some type of delay? how do they normally go off? is it when someone touches it?

        this seems like a dickhead design to blow off the hands and arms of kids

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >this seems like a dickhead design to blow off the hands and arms of kids
          That's the idea, how the be the biggest POS of history. But without nukes.

          >the anon of the MRBM with 1000 tons of PFMs

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is exactly what they were made for.
          Soviets wanted to depopulate the rural regions so they could manage the c**t easier.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >blow off the hands and arms of kids
          yup, they look attractive to kids, they get educated in the war zones that it's not a toy. also farm animals, car tires, etc. not to mention all the soldiers, plenty of videos from ukraine when a squad is on the move and then *pop*, a foot and boot are now a mix of leather strips, skin, bone, and blood. doesn't kill, but you're never dancing again.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The forbidden flippy frog

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >kinetic weapon
    meme weapon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Picrelated from the latest presentation. 200tons of reusable payload planned. Imagine a gigantic suppository of concrete encased in steel let loose from orbit, doesn't even have to be in expendable config.

      https://i.imgur.com/GbtyeyU.jpg

      1000 tons of picrel

      Lmao, you could cover the whole of Moscow with it for the lulz. Like Luftwaffe's Butterfly Bombs in London, only on steroids injected right into the vein behind the nutsack.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Either 50 B53 bombs at 9 megatons each, if any are left, or around 180 B83 bombs at 1 megaton each.
        Of course, they could just develop a 200 ton thermonuclear warhead...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        200t to (LEO presumably) orbit.
        So likely a lot more on a suborbital trajectory since you don't have to go nearly as fast.
        Frickit. Just load the thing full of lazy dogs and let rip over Moscow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The yield-to-weight ratio is the amount of weapon yield compared to the mass of the weapon. The practical maximum yield-to-weight ratio for fusion weapons (thermonuclear weapons) has been estimated to six megatonnes of TNT per tonne of bomb mass
        1.2 Gigaton warhead

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Super heavy icbm with gnomon/sundial tier payload

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Using it for ground attack seems like a waste, when we already have ICBMs that can do that well enough.

    But equip Starship with a laser turret, and you could just fly around disabling every single one of the enemy's satellites until they have no coms or intel gathering abilities.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Some gigantic microwave weapon to avoid Kessler syndrome (Earth's orbit getting polluted with debris that denies future spaceflight)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is the best take.
      They can also be used for civilian applications such as laser acceleration for deep space missions, orbit clearing and beamed power. Orbit clearing is especially important for geostationary orbits which are getting cluttered. Get enough of them in orbit and you can use them to accelerate pop-up launches to a stable orbit speed, significantly reducing delta-v requirements for LEO.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you could theoretically make an fpv drone that takes out sattelites/space station or even ships,
    also imagine if you add a nuke to the fpv starship drone that would be pretty based

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I need it to eject 64 GPS guided cargo pallets as it makes a descent over my forward line of troops, aerial resupplying my entire brigade.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just imagine 20 gigantic Starships plopping down in the rear full of emergency supplies to the front. All they'd need is a concrete pad to land on. Shit, supporting military operations like that would be kino.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just imagine 20 gigantic Starships plopping down in the rear full of emergency supplies to the front. All they'd need is a concrete pad to land on. Shit, supporting military operations like that would be kino.

      The fricking radar cross-section of that thing coming down from low-earth orbit.... kek, air-defence systems could flex their muscles at max range for once (600km for S-500 supposedly).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        stealth coated RCS-reducing geometry starships when?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        stealth coated RCS-reducing geometry starships when?

        Plasma forming around a spacecraft during re-entry could potentially decrease RCS, or even make it invisible to radars (plasma stealth), but I'm a dumbass, and couldn't find much info on it at glance. What little info I could find, suggests that it's a closely guarded military secret, understandably. Some egghead might want to chime in.

        I re-watched the IFT-3. Starship Booster came down from 105km altitude in a little over 2.5 minutes, and did it slowly, reaching a max from 350km/h to 4340km/h (0.5km altitude, when it exploded) during descent with no plasma to be seen, while Starship reached a the orbital speed of 26500km/h before attempting re-entry. We can imagine that re-entry time could be reduced for one way trip, leaving air-defence precious little time to react. Not to mention, you can plot the trajectory as such that you'd come down from the friendly side of the front, not the enemie's side, giving them even less time to react. Shedding all that speed takes time tho.

        >When they will hit the mass-production phase
        That's the neat part, they already have

        They're still prototyping. When they'll pump out a rocket a week, or 2 a day like Musk said (he's known to exaggerate and aim for the stars), then we can agree on mass-production. Their engine production facility at Starbase Texas ("Starfactory") is still under construction atm. Picrelated from last week.

        What if it delivered a 100 ton cluster bomb from orbit?

        ATACMS Block I carries 950 M74 bomblets weighing 0.59kg each. 100 tons would give you a cluster-bomb with 169500 bomblets, 200tons 339000 bomblets, and 300mT payload in fully expendable configuration an insane 508500 bomblets.
        Jesus fricking christ, what kind of a target would you attack with that? Beijing?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Jesus fricking christ, what kind of a target would you attack with that? Beijing?
          if you swapped the bomblets for something heavier and armor piercing you could take out an entire airfield with one missile: all the HAS-es, aircraft, infrastructure and runways

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            M74, which was recently used to fricked up a russian airfield, is supposed to be an anti-personnel&armor-piercing bomblet, but I guess you mean something heftier. You could set an armored Starship on its way, and no conventional AA system could take it down or alter it's trajectory, even it they manage to jam it or its GPS/Starlink connection (unjammable INS guidance would be sufficient anyway for a bomb of this size as it is with M39), it could completely destroy the target area, like a massive oversized Block I ATACMS. You could build ridiculous conventional bombs that way, and nobody could start crying about "muh nukes". I'm telling you all, Starship platform has good potential as a weapon.

            Either 50 B53 bombs at 9 megatons each, if any are left, or around 180 B83 bombs at 1 megaton each.
            Of course, they could just develop a 200 ton thermonuclear warhead...

            >nuclear warheads
            That would mean an all-out nuclear war if you use it against a peer opponent.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I guess you mean something heftier
              Yeah those bomblets are fine against soft targets but HAS, airbase ammo and runways need kinetic energy to punch through them, 10kg APFSDS style dart with explosives would probably be enough if it was designed for 1-2km/s terminal velocity. The payload would be closer to 500-600 tons because it's not an orbital flight. Economics aren't terrible either, if the projected cost of $100-200M per rocket out to be true the cost would be comparable to attacking the airbase with cruise missiles but the success rate and amount of damage would be higher since you can't shoot those submunitions down

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                God I wish I could be a fly on the wall when those DARPA or DoD eggheads brainstorm use-cases for Starship

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Plasma forming around a spacecraft during re-entry could potentially decrease RCS
          I think the signature of the plume of superheated plasma surrounding your craft will negate any RCS savings. Shits big, hot, and bright.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Needs a visual. Can't send an AA at its ass from 600km away via radar tracking.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >while Starship reached a the orbital speed of 26500km/h

          It was 2300 km/h to slow to be in orbit, it was suborbital. And the Starship had no payload so I dont see how this contraption can be considered viable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just imagine 20 gigantic Starships plopping down in the rear full of emergency supplies to the front. All they'd need is a concrete pad to land on. Shit, supporting military operations like that would be kino.

      >I will finish what you started.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What if it delivered a 100 ton cluster bomb from orbit?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are militarized by putting satelites into space that allow recon which cannot be countered, blown up, or shot down. All the things some think drones are great for while being much more vulnerable.

    A string of satelites with a telescope powerful enough to see your face constantly passing over and able to be used to call artillery, or guided explosive payloads down on anything they do not like.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how do you weaponize Starship
    That's the cool part. You don't have to.

    It's a dump truck. Starship can put a aircraft carrier worth of mass into orbit in a year at the launch rates they want.
    A whole carrier into space a year. Every year. From now until the sun explodes.
    Those are fricking clown shoes numbers, but also now entirely achievable.
    Just getting it's cargo into space is all the weapon it needs to be.

    Your whole question is stuck in a previous paradigm. You're thinking of space as a short cut when it has now become a battlefield.
    And the US is the only one invited.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So what you're saying is...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How high up does a hypothetical flying battleship/carrier need to be before it's immune to 99% of SAM/A2A missiles simply because they can't reach it?
        >Captcha- NAT0 V
        What did they mean by this?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The answer isn't how high, but how much time you have between launch detection and impact since objects in space have infinite range until a gravity well captures them. Since laser systems are much less constrained in space, I'd imagine defense would be much better compared to the current systems we got in place.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Pretty much any missile that is incapable of exoatmospheric interception is useless against something in orbit.

          For America that would limit you to SM-3 and GBI.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The anti American contingent is unaware by every other rocket ever launched metric, the starship is a fully capable rocket that cost 1.5 million total to make and a month to build with thrust 12 times greater than the Saturn 5.
      They have no idea it's functional. The next launch will carry a dummy load of 300,000 lbs. Then after that they are putting up 500 star links at a time. If they get it to the falcon level it's 500,000 per launch.

      They don't even know a single falcon 9 can outlaunch the entire world for 8 million per cost launch or 15 times cheaper. Every 2 weeks you'd just fire it up. 26 launches, 60 k to Leo. 1.5 million pounds a year off a single falcon.
      Indians are the worst.

      >starship factory will be coming on line in a few months
      >ultimately targeting “multiple ships a day” in production numbers
      https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1776676390735163511
      We are going to see Willow Run tier production numbers of complex space craft in our lifetime

      >true space age shit we've been blue balled on for going on two generations

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Old tech is of little interest.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        aaaahhh sweet schizposting

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1P8Hx0mKRdPF8kvv_aHRpXG_Kc77jjgA9

          Dig around.

          https://i.imgur.com/FblNhPa.jpg

          Come on, the black suits and their government eggheads must be thinking of all the ways to weaponize it. Has anyone theorized the possible (offensive) military applications of Starship? What could they do with it? Surely the insane payload capability would have some uses (they mentioned a potential of 300metric tons to orbit in fully expendable configuration). I'm thinking that just as a kinetic weapon it would be completely unstoppable. What are you going to do, fire puny AA rockets at 300 tons of steel and concrete coming down at you?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This guy gets it.

      Starship, once it gets going, is a paradigm shift.
      Like going from sailing ships to steam. Like going from ships to airliners.
      Like going from a bunch of nerds with modems and beige boxes sittign in their room to everyone having a mobile phone in their pocket and a gaming PC with RGB lighting all over it in their living room..

      The consevating number for Starship is 100 tons to LEO per month per launch site. This is what they could do with what they have today, after they fix the glitches.
      Once they start re-using boosters, the number of launches goes up and the cost goes down. Once they star re-using ships, things get fricking weird.

      Right now they can do pad cycle times of a week for Falcon 9. This took them a decade of process optimization.
      If we take this as a ballpark estimate to where we might end up, we could look at 50 Starship launches per year, per launch pad. In a few years these Starships should achieve 120 or so tons to LEO. Elon claimed 150, but to be frank I see voluime limitations coming in long before we hit thiese mass limits.

      This is just by back of teh napkin calculations. I'm sure there are a bunch of think tanks that are looking at this in way more depths because with this kind of lift capability teh sky is the limit.
      Even the very basic idea of just taking a Starship, bolting a 9m mirror into the cargo bay and having the best recon sat ever should make some people in various 3 letter agencies rock hard.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        With the new Raptor 3 in development, they're planning to stretch both booster and ship (again), for 200 tons to LEO. And Elon is talking about flying each booster something absurd like 10 times a day during the launch window to Mars. He wants to build up to eventually send a thousand ships every 26 months. It's mind-boggling.

        Also, Max Space, featuring a guy who worked on the Bigelow modules and a guy who made 3D printers for ISS, is claiming to have a new design that could fit inside a Falcon 9 fairing but expand to more internal volume than the entire ISS, and which supposedly could scale up even farther. They've done a lot of pressure/vacuum/etc. tests to failure, and claim the results are really good. And Varda apparently had good results with their zero-g pharmaceutical microfactory, which with Starship's ability to cheaply lift *and* return mass, means we should see some interesting new chemicals in small batches in a few years.

        And all of that is before you even touch the military applications of being able to launch dozens or hundreds of satellites at a go, potentially on a few days' notice if the birds are stored in a warehouse by a launch site. Or the ability to launch massive payloads with up to 8m diameter, which should make NRO happy.

        All of which means that there should be a fairly big market of existing and new customers for Starship to support, in addition to maintaining megaconstellations like Starlink. It also opens the door for orbital ABM systems.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, some of Elon's ideas are a bit optimistic.
          6 hourse? OK, maybe someday in 2036.

          Right now they can do a pad turnaround for F9 in a week.
          If they can do that with Starship, and they really set up two towers in Florida, we're looking at 4 Starships per week.
          Which means, conservatively, 400 tons to LEO per week. If it's Starship V2 with 9 Raptor 3s, it might be more per launch.

          And all these new commercial stations are still thinking in old space lift terms.
          They should be thinking about spin sections for long-term operations. Same for flying to Mars.
          With these transit times, it's pretty much spin gravity or die of esteoporosis and heart failure on arrival.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >long term
            Honestly I like the idea from Red Mars where you basically have a bunch of robots making a space elevator from the top down. At the very least bolas are doable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Falcon 9 is aluminum and carbon composite which don't mix well with heat or fatigue, and so require a lot of NDT
            F9 uses kerosene which cokes up the engines and requires cleaning/refurb after each flight
            F9 also (sometimes) requires a shitload of seaborne operation for drone ship recovery
            Those are the threeain impediments to reducing the flight turnaround time of F9 any further

            Starship's design is intended to fix all of these issues and purely min-max rapid reuse; they will probably manage <24h booster reuse within the next 2 years and there will be enough starship upper stages in circulation that tile inspection and replacement delays won't matter

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not to mention the F9 landing legs get fricked after each landing. If (big if, I can't see it happening) they manage to catch the Starship booster with the launch tower while landing that'll speed shit up even more

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The legs are being reused at this point, evidenced by the visible wear and tear building up on them.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, I know all that. And I am relatively certain that Starship will achieve rapid re-flight capability within 10 years or so.
              It will be interesting to see how they handle fuel and LOX supply. Once you get to under 72 hours of turnaround time moving in this amount of cryogenics becomes a problem.
              Water for cooling, too.

              Not to mention the F9 landing legs get fricked after each landing. If (big if, I can't see it happening) they manage to catch the Starship booster with the launch tower while landing that'll speed shit up even more

              The legs are being reused at this point, evidenced by the visible wear and tear building up on them.

              F9 boosters spend a pretty long time being barged back from sea landing, then getting trucked to the refurb facility.
              The landing legs use some type of metal honeycomb as shock absorbers, that part is one-use by definition. Replacing that is obviously part of the usual refurb process.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Considering the methane released from the thawing permafrost, SpaceX would be doing the world a favor. Lobbyists, take note.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Using trucks to move in the propellants might stop being viable if they go to higher launch cadences.
                Also, we can't collect all that methane from teh permafrost, sadly. Same for the methane hydrates on the ocean floor. That'd be really neat.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >trucks
                Ships are perfect for this job.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Soo you want too put an LNG tanker near a rocket launch?
                >17 moonths of FAA and various other agency delays
                >Corps of Engineers shits a brick because that requires a new place foor those ships to dock
                >Fish and Wildlife, EPA etc. proobably send their death squads and/or lawyers anyway

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >so what you're saying is
                My brother in Christ - what are tank farms? Or do you seriously imagine they fill up those rockets with trucks now, one by one, going up to the rocket, a guy with a hard-hat hooking up his pipes and letting it flow? Then after a week of fueling they attempt to launch

                Kek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Right now they pretty much do the truck-by-truck approach to fill their tank farm.
                Which is fine if you launch once per month, but if you plan on launching once per day you should pprobably invest in a methane pipeline.
                And a LOX plant. And probably some way to actually supply water to keep your launch pad from melting.
                I'm sure they can get it done, but they willl have to fight several bureacracies on the way.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Texas has a bunch of LNG pipelines. This should be a solvable problem.

                I didn't know that, thanks for the new info.
                But they de-moount the landing legs before road transpoort to refurb anyway, so I guess it pprobably doesn't impact turnaround time very much?

                The early-model legs were removed. They switched to a newer design a few years ago that allowed them to retract the legs without dismounting them, so this issue has been resolved.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i'll correct you on that, the aluminum crush cores may or may not be used depending on how hard the landing is, these days they don't always need to be replaced since they're landing much softer most of the time.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't know that, thanks for the new info.
                But they de-moount the landing legs before road transpoort to refurb anyway, so I guess it pprobably doesn't impact turnaround time very much?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I’m pretty sure they keep everything on the booster until it gets to the refurb site, even if the crush cores have been used.
                Don’t quote me on that though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The legs get folded up at the Port Canaveral docks and then brought to their refurbishment and storage facility for the rest of the post-flight work. They don't need to be removed unless something breaks during the landing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >bolting a 9m mirror into the cargo bay and having the best recon sat ever
        Now we're fricking talking!

        The issue with rods from god is that you can't "just drop it". De-orbiting something takes just as much energy as it took to get into that orbit.
        It's a dumb idea.

        So the Apollo moon module took just as much effort to come back as it was for Saturn V to put it on the moon? A StarLink satellite de-orbiting itself takes how much energy? Scary, SCARY I say!

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The glorified grain silo can barely make it off the ground as is. Putting nails around a pack of firecrackers would be a more effective weapon.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >starship factory will be coming on line in a few months
    >ultimately targeting “multiple ships a day” in production numbers
    https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1776676390735163511
    We are going to see Willow Run tier production numbers of complex space craft in our lifetime

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, now hear me out...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      At the end of the day, its still gonna smack into an apartment block in Belgorod

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How are we gonna get it back?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tungsten balls

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I looked up the dimensions of the payload fairing and turns out, you could use Starship to deliver a pair of M1A2 SEPv3 tanks anywhere on Earth in 90 minutes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, I can only get so hard.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    None other than deploying satellites. You can't launch this against an enemy without triggering every single early warning system on the planet and guaranteeing a nuclear response.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >and guaranteeing a nuclear response.
      From who

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Launch on warning policy was abandoned in the 80s, all the nuclear powers have survivable C3 and will not treat a single missile launch as a disarming first strike

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nuclear cluster munitions.

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once Starlink has saturated orbit, what is the next high mass burgeoning market to justify increased space launches?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Science, missions to mine rare elements, shit like that I hope. There's always money in warfare and raw materials.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Larger anything you'd put to space really. NASA engineers must be having the boner of a lifetime designing larger space telescopes, space stations (ISS's replacement) and souped up glowie satellites with the increased payload and mothballed projects cancelled by budget constraints may get a second wind if launch costs go down enough.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >NASA engineers must be having the boner of a lifetime designing larger space telescopes,
        They aren't. Luvior is being designed to be lifted by either SLS or Starship since they have a similar fairing size.
        >space stations
        NASA have no plans for future LEO stations and Gateway will be built with heavy lifters/SLS. They're hedging their bets on a commercial station, probably.
        >souped up glowie satellites
        Glowie satellites are only getting smaller with the final Kennan already being lifted.
        >launch costs
        Launch costs have always been a minor factor when it comes to project feasibility since the project itself is so much more. Compare how much Curiosity and Perseverance cost verses the 2 Atlas Vs that lifted them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, but do you know why those payloads are so expensive?
          Because they are built to very extreme weight and reliability standards. When you have a bus that can lob mass into orbit at a ridiculous price, you can just slack off on the optimization and even built multiple to take advantage of economies of scale if you like.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >NASA has no plans for a commercial LEO station
          Commercial LEO Destinations program, dumbfrick

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          payloads are crazy expensive since once they are up there and something breaks you cant easily or never fix it. Like james webb telescope in addition to its high end lenses and sensors

          if you can spam crap cheaply to leo you can construct whatever you want there in whatever configuration you want to be sent wherever you want

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hubble got repaired and upgraded multiple times, because Space Shuttle provided access to it. It will be a miracle if Webb ever gets a repair job should it need one, because it sits at L2, which is far as frick, it took around 40 days to get there IIRC. Obviously you're not repairing shit on Mars, or pulling a rover out of a sand dune, so that has to be done right the first time. If they wish to use Starship HLS on the Moon (and maybe, perhaps, one day, Mars) then why not - Webb could also be accessed for repairs theoretically, load some frickers on human rated Starship it and send it on its way towards L2, but it would be a 3 month long round trip. Well worth it instead of spending 20 years building another ridiculously expensive instrument. I can imagine that Starship can easily be used to repair stuff, haul shit up to, and back from near Earth orbit.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The most common use case for starship will be redeploying atmospheric entry platforms to space to get stuff from space, down to earth.
      Because in the long term we’re going to be consuming more from space than what we put out into it.
      >Asteroid mining gets going in full.
      >Basically you now have unlimited rare metals.
      >Need a kind of atmospheric-entry platform to get it all down to earth safely.
      >the rare metals land in like the Gulf of Mexico or something
      >take off the re-entry device, put it in a starship, then load the next batch of metals for delivery.

      >Infact you could manufacture with those metals in space then just deliver the finished product to earth.
      >????
      >Profit
      >????
      >Wtf the spacenoids have declared independence.
      >Now they’re dropping tungsten cluster bombs on us from outer space.
      >mfw

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you could manufacture with those metals in space then just deliver the finished product to earth.
        The issue is refining them into usable purities. Zero-G smelting is an entirely unexplored science. You'd need centrifuges to make it work, and boy oh boy does making multiple tons of molten metal spinning at high RPMs sound like fun to make safe while still maintaining an economic edge over Earth based manufacture.

        Hubble got repaired and upgraded multiple times, because Space Shuttle provided access to it. It will be a miracle if Webb ever gets a repair job should it need one, because it sits at L2, which is far as frick, it took around 40 days to get there IIRC. Obviously you're not repairing shit on Mars, or pulling a rover out of a sand dune, so that has to be done right the first time. If they wish to use Starship HLS on the Moon (and maybe, perhaps, one day, Mars) then why not - Webb could also be accessed for repairs theoretically, load some frickers on human rated Starship it and send it on its way towards L2, but it would be a 3 month long round trip. Well worth it instead of spending 20 years building another ridiculously expensive instrument. I can imagine that Starship can easily be used to repair stuff, haul shit up to, and back from near Earth orbit.

        This is why Mars is so important. It's cheap fuel wise to get on and off, it's right next door to the asteroid belt, you don't need to reinvent the wheel to get industry started, and it's geologically dead so you can just dump waste products into a crater and pave it over later with no ecological consequence.
        If you want self sufficiency in space, Mars colonization needs to come first.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          the thing is. in the long term, space based manufacture could achieve resource extraction and economies of scale that earth could only dream of, without any of the beurocratic red tape that comes with it.
          there's so much free real-estate in space and so many free resources that it becomes hard to compete with on earth.
          imagine on earth you have a smeltery that takes up a few hectares, and then in space you have this miles long monstrocity that pumps out purified metals at a rate you can't even imagine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"Born too late to conquer the world, born too early to conquer the space" meme is real
            feelsbadman.jpg
            Can never live on the frontier.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Biefeld fricking Brown. Get real guys.

          Starship and SpaceX in general is an economic weapon in itself. The competition is light-years behind and when they get their Starship armada going back and forth between space and earth they can do whatever the frick they want.
          Put insane satellites with god knows what capabilities in orbit? Easy
          Go to the Moon or other moons? Pft
          Put millions or tens of millions of tons in to space? Done
          Mine a passing asteroid consisting of ultra-rare minerals? Others can just watch and screech
          Do cutting edge science? You bet

          https://i.imgur.com/3gYDAJt.jpg

          Stop being fricking moronic, space rockets are just big ICBMs with more fuel to get to orbit.
          You're like all these morons acting like people making suicide drones bigger and strapping jet engines to them is some kind of space age innovation; Black person you literally just reinvented the cruise missile.

          le based.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Mars is cheap and easy to eacape
          It's not.
          It's easier than Earth, but if we wanted a shit dust filled no atmosphere planet we'd just use the moon, or space habitats.
          Mars is a waste of time imo.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The moon is bereft of important elements like carbon and has almost no hydrogen to work with. It mostly consists of lighter weight crustal non-volatiles that aren't easy to disperse with the solar wind.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Wtf the spacenoids have declared independence.
        Not on my watch.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Almost everybody is sleeping on the planetheaps of raw materials that can be found in the asteroid belt. The first one to build a mining operation and supply chain there will be the ruler of all humanity.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Almost everybody is sleeping on the planetheaps of raw materials that can be found in the asteroid belt. The first one to build a mining operation and supply chain there will be the ruler of all humanity.

        This is more dumb shit, even nuclear propulsion systems are not good enough to mine the asteroid belt. You would need a space warping UFO engine to make it economically viable.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You need a space magic engine to make mining common/abundant Earth elements profitable. Platinum groups and a few other ones that are hard to get a hold of on Earth are the immediate money makers.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well, even without a payload, just making it impact something at several times the speed of sound should frick shit up

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Elongated Muskrat should stick a glide bomb kit on a Tesla then land it in the St. Pidorsberg square from orbit, launched from the Continental US.
    Bonus points if it doesn't even blow anything up and does a perfect landing, as a good reminder that they could be flattened by le evil NAFO at any moment.
    >But blowing up Russians is good
    Yes, but so is flexing on them with science and tech on such a level it might as well be magic to them. If it does blow something up oh well that's fine too.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >saturation of the low orbit with maneuverable devises
    That's how you deny your enemies from space in common and the ballistic nuclear threats in particular. In a couple of years there will remain only 2 kinds of launches above atmosphere:
    1) Conformed by the US
    2) "Accidentally" collided with a starlink/cubesat satellite

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure that nations will just let their sky be clouded with sats denying them access to space. I'm sure they won't develop any countermeasures or sabotage said project along the way. I'm also sure that the rest of the world would appreciate America essentially creating an orbital minefield.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        There wouldn't be much they can do is the problem there, bi-weekly Statlink launches of 300 sats is likely well beyond the production of anti-sat missiles for the rest of the world.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's the equivalent of America seeding all the major waterways with mines that only allow passage to American approved vessels. How well do you think they would take that?

          Deny a major nation access to space and they'd probably Kessler syndrome the globe out of spite.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How well do you think they would take that?
            Who the frick cares? With hostile ballistic launches denied only our opinion matters.
            >Kessler syndrome
            >LOO
            Gonna take only a couple of years. Also we will recover our satellites faster than the others.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Ballistic missiles are hardly the only method of nuclear delivery. What's to stop China from keeping a bunch of nuclear subs with nuclear cruise missiles a couple hundred miles off of every major American city?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever is keeping them from doing that now? Primarily their inability to project much force outside SEA and the frick off huge navy on either side of the US's two oceans?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Whatever is keeping them from doing that now
                Because ICBMs are cheaper and serve the same purpose. Countries aren't going to just take an orbital minefield lying down.
                >Primarily their inability to project much force outside SEA and the frick off huge navy on either side of the US's two oceans?
                Unless you're willing to permanently blockade China's huge coastline in peacetime, China is free to have as many subs as they want in the international waters off America's coast.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nuclear subs
                Neutrino detectors, buys network and underwater hunter-killers.
                >cruise missiles
                1) You can't put multiple warheads onto a single cruise missile, therefore even with 100% efficiency a single submarine can strike less targets
                2) Cruise missiles are easier to intercept. Even Ukraine downs 80% of cruise missiles coming from closer distances and multiple directions with mostly ground-based AA defenses and soviet planes.

                >Whatever is keeping them from doing that now
                Because ICBMs are cheaper and serve the same purpose. Countries aren't going to just take an orbital minefield lying down.
                >Primarily their inability to project much force outside SEA and the frick off huge navy on either side of the US's two oceans?
                Unless you're willing to permanently blockade China's huge coastline in peacetime, China is free to have as many subs as they want in the international waters off America's coast.

                >Countries aren't going to just take an orbital minefield lying down.
                And what can they do? They have to reach orbit to make something about it, they can't use ICBMS and after the first chimpout they will find themselves locked in one room with the most powerful military alliance in history that has full orbital capabilities and was blueballed for 30 years.
                Like ok you used all your nuclear arsenal and a couple of warheads had "luckily" made it to San Francisco and Detroit. Now your nuclear arsenal is empty, your retaliation capabilities are dead and a dream of a china-centered world ends forever. What do you think happens next, as we always trade blood for blood?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can't put multiple warheads onto a single cruise missile
                Wanna bet?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have an air-breathing nuclear jet engine on a pic, a literal vaporwave.

                >Neutrino detectors
                What the frick is with this meme? I've seen it twice recently. Current neutrino detectors are thousands of square feet of water/ice inside mountains/ice sheets. How the frick do you intend to make a neutrino detector small enough to be tactically relevant? If you have some magical material that actually manages to catch neutrinos what's stopping them from using it as reactor shielding?

                We don't have to make them portable and tactically relevant. Triangulating the new reactor (though I bet each reactor has own neutrino signature) in the ocean with precision of +/- 5 miles and passing the rough coordinates to a drone with an active sonar would be enough. The submarines are huge and rare. We can easily afford a 24/7 escort of 10 airborne vehicles per each nuclear sub. Taking a launch depth and opening hatches without confirmation = instant Kursk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The engine was meant to power a cruise missile that (you guessed it) would carry multiple warheads.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a literal vaporwave
                Anon, you're fricking dumb.

                >it was meant
                Considering the size of the engine, the whole cruise missile with multiple warheads will have a size and radio section of a bomber and emission of the elephant leg. So instead of 16 ballistic missiles carrying 3 independent warheads at 40% of trajectory and approaching the target at a hypersonic velocity you get 8 trans-sonic bombers glowing on all gamma-detectors that carry 6 warheads that can be used 1-by-1 and are vulnerable to arms AA fire. That's a huge blow to the efficiency.

                The effective range of a neutrino detector is too low because the low probability of intercept of a neutrino. And they are huge, you would have to convert a supertanker to neutrino detector. I am sure a nuclear sub would be able to avoid your supertanker sized detectors and that they would require huge amounts of escorts to not get sunk by said sub. The number of neutrinos generated also depends almost entirely on reactor output. Now, if you could make a flying neutrino detector, that would be something useful.

                We don't need neutrino-detecting supertankers 100 miles from a target when the capabilities of the stationary "neutrino research facilities" network with cubic kilometers of matter allow tracking all active reactors on Earth simultaneously. Yeah, the precision of +/-5 miles doesn't allow guiding torpedoes at the reactor directly, but we have enough planes to swarm each emitting square 1000 miles from the continent with active sonar buys and then sit on the tail of the vehicle till it chimps out or fricks off.

                Non-NATO members building nuclear subs would better invest that money into tap water infrastructure.

                >how are you going to deploy minesweepers to remove the American sea mines, when only Americans are allowed sea travel?

                >are allowed sea travel
                And have capabilities to enforce it. You can hide a minesweeper in fog, you can get detected and still remove a couple of mines before getting in range of a rocket frigate, but there is no fog in the space and each point of the LEO is within seconds of flight of a Starlink satellite after a small correction burn.

                >1) Conformed by the US
                >2) "Accidentally" collided with a starlink/cubesat satellite

                Filling low earth orbit with wreckage will absolutely not impact US space operations..... yeah right.

                A debris created in LEO will remain in LEO and deorbit by atmospheric drag, the higher orbits will remain unaffected. With BFR/Starship we can restore 300 satellites per launch and easily afford the exchange.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >allow tracking all active reactors on Earth simultaneously
                Daya Bay experiment was detecting only 600 events per day from 17GWth worth of reactors less than 1km away and you want to detect everything on earth, let alone use it for real time tracking? do you know what signal to noise ratio or inverse square law are?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >20 tons of liquid scintillator
                Implessive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ANON WHAT THE FRICK IS A LITERAL VAPORWAVE

                YOU DUMB FRICK

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a literal vaporwave
                Anon, you're fricking dumb.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The effective range of a neutrino detector is too low because the low probability of intercept of a neutrino. And they are huge, you would have to convert a supertanker to neutrino detector. I am sure a nuclear sub would be able to avoid your supertanker sized detectors and that they would require huge amounts of escorts to not get sunk by said sub. The number of neutrinos generated also depends almost entirely on reactor output. Now, if you could make a flying neutrino detector, that would be something useful.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Neutrino detectors
                What the frick is with this meme? I've seen it twice recently. Current neutrino detectors are thousands of square feet of water/ice inside mountains/ice sheets. How the frick do you intend to make a neutrino detector small enough to be tactically relevant? If you have some magical material that actually manages to catch neutrinos what's stopping them from using it as reactor shielding?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Neutrinos a very hard to detect since they hardly interact with matter. Hence why detectors are very massive and sensitive. There is no way of actually shielding the emisions.
                Since there are multiple detectors and they can determine the source direction you can pinpoint earthly sources. As more detectors get built it becomes faster and easier to spot sources.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Since there are multiple detectors and they can determine the source direction you can pinpoint earthly source
                How do you figure that? A neutrino detected coming from below or the side is much more likely to be a cosmological source, the pass right through the earth. The only way you'd be able to confirm something is an eathly source quickly is to pray that a neutrino producing event in the reactor happens to shoot neutrinos in paths that intersect multiple detectors, and then those neutrinos happen to interact with something in multiple detectors. The chances of that are astronomically low.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's why it's taken so long to make maps in the past. There is so much data to filter out from the sun and terrestrial source detections are fairly rare. Once that's done it's simple triangulation.
                With learning agents beng trained on the data and more detectors the process is going to be a lot faster.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cosmological source
                That's our official version for building the detectors 😉
                Still with current sensitivity the earth reactors shine like christmas trees and we even have to deal with the consequences of overexposure from artificial sources.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they can determine the source direction
                How? You can't block or deflect neutrinos. There's no way to construct a directional detector.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What's to stop China from keeping a bunch of nuclear subs with nuclear cruise missiles a couple hundred miles off of every major American city?

                The first Island Chain

                Literally the only reason they're so adamant about subjugating Taiwan

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How are you going to hit satellites when you are not allowed to leave atmosphere?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#History_by_country

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >how are you going to deploy minesweepers to remove the American sea mines, when only Americans are allowed sea travel?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1) Conformed by the US
      >2) "Accidentally" collided with a starlink/cubesat satellite

      Filling low earth orbit with wreckage will absolutely not impact US space operations..... yeah right.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I remember hearing like a year ago that the defense department and CIA contracted spacex for a system to deploy soldiers to any point on the planet within 90 minutes.
    Other than that weaponized space weapons like that space plane already do exist, and a big, unweildy, commercial version isn't relevant, much like a big bus isn't relevant to the development of tanks

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >space plane
      1.it's not a weapon - it's testing various emerging space technologies and it's speculated that it gathers intel,which i'm sure it does
      2.it's tiny, under 9x5m with a 200+ kilogram payload capacity.lol
      3.needs a rocket to get up there(spacex falcon heavy,which will be replaced by starship,kek)
      you're comparing a geek with a computer against a tank here

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Drop a couple on Kiev if those lazy c**ts don’t produce results like they were told to by the next yearly anniversary of Putin’s Big Shart n’ Fart.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ICBM multifractal MIRV'd hypersonic DU sabot algorithmically targeted, entire theater kinetic kill chain

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It could actually do what Sarmat claims but even more. It has a 100+ ton payload capacity. It could launch 80 MIRVs plus chaff and decoys around Antactica to strike all across Russia, China, etc and completely cripple an entire country with one missile launch.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Airburst, 30 km over target, 15 million of them.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stop being fricking moronic, space rockets are just big ICBMs with more fuel to get to orbit.
    You're like all these morons acting like people making suicide drones bigger and strapping jet engines to them is some kind of space age innovation; Black person you literally just reinvented the cruise missile.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >this bigass 9m diameter reusable rocket capable of hauling 200-300 metric tonnes of anything to any point on or above earth is just like a cruise missile
      anon, i...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm impressed you graduated high school with this kind of reading comprehension.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You're getting mocked for being a moron and it goes over your head. Because of course it does, kek.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heavy duty lasers for interplanetary data network and frying objects.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >use starship to lift gigantic solar arrays into space
    >microwave tightbeam wireless energy transfer to fueling points
    >use space-solar to power electric vehicles and other things that use electricity
    >electric tanks are a hell of a lot quieter than tanks fueled by spicy jooce

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Starship and SpaceX in general is an economic weapon in itself. The competition is light-years behind and when they get their Starship armada going back and forth between space and earth they can do whatever the frick they want.
    Put insane satellites with god knows what capabilities in orbit? Easy
    Go to the Moon or other moons? Pft
    Put millions or tens of millions of tons in to space? Done
    Mine a passing asteroid consisting of ultra-rare minerals? Others can just watch and screech
    Do cutting edge science? You bet

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >eggheads
    autist thinks he's a comic book character lol

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >you're not allowed to use the word egghead unless you're from one of my favourite GEEKY comicbooks
      have a nice day Black person.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Funny. OP here - I'm not even murican, comics are not, and have never been a cultural thing over here. The only comics I've ever seen were the Mickey Mouse and Moomin ones in the library when I was around 6. I didn't care one bit for them, I had eyes only for Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia, The World Atlas's and the such - that shit was my bible. Perhaps this explains my hard-on over the current booming space-race.
        >inb4 autistic
        You probably couldn't even read at that age.

        moronic ad hominem.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          then how on god's green earth did you equate using the word egghead to liking comic books?
          are you mentally special or something?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're missing something here. I'm the OP.
            this one is not me

            >eggheads
            autist thinks he's a comic book character lol

            This is me again

            Funny. OP here - I'm not even murican, comics are not, and have never been a cultural thing over here. The only comics I've ever seen were the Mickey Mouse and Moomin ones in the library when I was around 6. I didn't care one bit for them, I had eyes only for Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia, The World Atlas's and the such - that shit was my bible. Perhaps this explains my hard-on over the current booming space-race.
            >inb4 autistic
            You probably couldn't even read at that age.

            moronic ad hominem.

            Are you, perhaps, mentally special?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              why did you reply to me in the first place then, fricking moron?
              i was only replying to the guy replying to the OP.
              what the hell did your parents feed you, fricking mercury?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol... Carry on, homosexual.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >i reply to a guy making fun of the OP for using the word egghead, call him a moron for magically trying to tie that word to comics
                >instead, i get a reply from the OP, telling me he doesn't read comics
                >then says i used a moronic ad hominim, when i never even replied to him before.
                >not anticipating this level of moronation, i assume this must be the guy that originally replied to OP with the egghead comment, masquarading as the OP for some reason.
                >turns out it really was the OP, and he's just a massive fricking moron
                i take back everything i said to defend you, you're a complete failure in life and you probably do goon to moronic AI generated comics every day.
                have a nice day subhuman.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You really do not comprehend things, do you, kek
                >Someone shitposts at me
                >Other guy tells him that he's a moron
                >Move the conversation towards the other guy "yea, funny thing about that shitpost, we don't even do comics, he used a moronic ad hominem
                >Thinks that reply was an "elaborate" scheme by someone masquerading as OP, instead of OP just carrying the conversation
                >Can't recognize writing styles

                And now you're fuming like a little frickwit, missing the whole picture. How do you navigate social situations you autistic frick? Top kek, thanks for the laughs, b***hbreasts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                haha holy shit, you are as mentally ill as they come, completely illiterate and incapable of reading.

                what a massive dissapointment, your mom should've swallowed, in your current from all you can do is whine and complain that you made an oopsy because of your moronic language skills.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You really do not comprehend things, do you, kek
                >Someone shitposts at me
                >Other guy tells him that he's a moron
                >Move the conversation towards the other guy "yea, funny thing about that shitpost, we don't even do comics, he used a moronic ad hominem
                >Thinks that reply was an "elaborate" scheme by someone masquerading as OP, instead of OP just carrying the conversation
                >Can't recognize writing styles

                And now you're fuming like a little frickwit, missing the whole picture. How do you navigate social situations you autistic frick? Top kek, thanks for the laughs, b***hbreasts.

                Now stop shitting up my thread and frick off.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How the frick did you interpolate that you fricking weirdo? OP is talking like he's a fricking video game character in a macho Gameboy advance shooter and I'm doing the service of letting him know he's autistic. Fricking relax, champ.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          oh no worries, my defence was in vain, i apologize and you were completely right, he's fricking autistic as hell.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh defence
            Jesus christ mate, who's the comic-book character here

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >using defence in a normal sentence is now comic-book tier
              i apologize for entertaining either of you now, i understand now that both of you were perfectly special for eachother.
              this is is a stark reminder to me of how autistic this site can be sometimes.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao, I was a 3rd guy. You're so autistic it hurts, you're just blindly stumbling through social situations, aint ya. Put on your special helmet your mom gave you and run along

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >third guy acts moronic
                okay, there are three morons in this thread, that's fine too

                none of you know how to talk like normal people lmao, enjoy projecting your autism onto me because it isn't getting any better for you from there.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everywhere I go it smells like shit
                >must be everyone else

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NO STOP MAKING FUN OF ME
                when someone uses normal words in a normal sentence, and you get angry, there might be something wrong with you instead, anon.
                i hope it gets better.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There's quite literally not enough money to develop something like this

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They already know how to launch shit into space with a heavy payload. Guess you never paid attention to the USAF X37A, X37B, and X37C programs. Or the USSF working on building its own crafts. Wither carry a nuke or using a laser point defense system to destroy ICBMs or damage hostile satellites its been studied, tested, and possibly deployed.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tell me when they've been launching 100-200mT to space at once......for cheap preferably, and don't say saturn 5. And what's the current largest payload fairing diameter..... ariane 5 with 5.4m, internal volume 225m3. How wide is starship again? 9.... It's 9 meters. Payload volume 1000m3. Guess you never paid attention.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You could use it to finally build Brilliant Pebbles

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Come on, the black suits and their government eggheads must be thinking of all the ways to weaponize it.
    anon
    the starship project itself and the character Elon Musk are the weapon

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Call me crazy, but what if they launched military sats with it?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What capabilities could a 200t satellite have?

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why weaponize Starship when we have something far better?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is that the cetacean tube from star trek 4? I knew those dolphins were fricky

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why weaponize Starship when we have something far better?

      1) That thing is 600 meter long and 30 meters wide per USAFs own radars and telescopes.
      2) It is a space lizard moon runner
      3) Pleiadian light corvettes are saucers 1300 meters in diameter and they completely mog this lizard flying pencil in not just size but also offensive and defensive subsystems, and they are light ships.
      4) We only see these lizard ships when they are forced to phase into our dimensional slice when running from Galfed combat space patrols.
      5) That graph is wrong, these balls are not radar domes, they are spherical external cargo containers.
      6) These crafts are mostly spotted in the southwest of USA since the major lizard strongholds are located there, 15-20 km down in the crust, in former lava chambers and tunnels left by the yellowstone hotspot, then turned into pockets of compressed space time. Inside these pockets are millions of lizards and their captured slaves living in an enormous volume artificially expanded at the expense of time dilation.
      7) The only type of weapon that could work against these are nuclear bomb pumped lasers. They carry a compressed space time device inside which would blueshift your gamma ray laser radiation into ultra hard gamma radiation if you manage a hit. The drive field around the craft serves as a shield against any physical impact, even hard cosmic radiation. These things should be able to tank nuclear detonations just outside the drive field with nothing more than some superficial surface ablation.
      8) In the great galactic war the lizards got their asses kicked so hard that out of the original 14 lizard races only 3 survive.
      9) Capital ships in the galactic wars would easily be mistaken for large moons by humans.
      10) Humans can replicate the propulsion technology, as well as the transdimensional shifter, but are unable to do so due to a psychic shield that causes an effect similar to being seriously drunk if you get too close.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >rocket launched MOAB
    I'll take my defense contract now

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Put a nuke on it and send it to Beijing or Moscow

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    MIRV delivery platform. Then in can come back and pick up another load.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I still call bullshit that Rods from God can't work.
    It's just a matter of getting the payload up there. But the payout is nuclear force with zero fallout.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No competent command will ever let you put an uncontrollable weapon into orbit. It has to have some robust, unfallible guidance system.
      Dumb rods were called a ridiculous and juvenile idea 40 years ago, and here I am calling them a ridiculous, juvenile idea today.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just aim better

        The issue with rods from god is that you can't "just drop it". De-orbiting something takes just as much energy as it took to get into that orbit.
        It's a dumb idea.

        If you need to add a booster to it, it's still worth the damage it inflicts.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        JDAM is a thing you know. Just add a set of (grid)fins and you're good to go to set that divine tungsten wiener on it's way towards whatever you wish to see erased. Imagine the bunkerbusting capabilities at those speeds, given that it doesn't disintegrate immediately on contact like a meteorite.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The issue with rods from god is that you can't "just drop it". De-orbiting something takes just as much energy as it took to get into that orbit.
      It's a dumb idea.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not correct.
        The actual problem with Rods from God is that they require a maneuvering capability to hit anything that isn't directly under their current orbital track.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The issue with rods from god is that you can't "just drop it". De-orbiting something takes just as much energy as it took to get into that orbit.
        >It's a dumb idea.

        No the further away you are the less it takes, but the drop time becomes longer and longer, meaning that it is no longer a rapid response weapon. And at low orbit you would only need to brake it into entering the atmosphere.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just put up a Zoom Kill Lense. More or less you launch up a 150 meter diameter magnifying zoom lense and aim it between the sun and earth. The result is there would be a .5/1 meter area that would be heated beyond the suns surface roughly ,300-500 times area near instantly.
    It would be moving in orbit at a weird however off speed so the beam would just streak across the surface so you'd have to fast fire it out have something going around the earth blowing up a. Meter swath at roughly 30000 kph. It's actually really funny and until star ship it just wasn't realistic.
    More or less a giant reverse magnifying glass in space focusing an enormous about of evergy which bounces off the area most of the time

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah I heard they plan on building rockets but instead of putting people in them like they've been doing, they're going to design some sort of explosive payload that sits toward the top of it.

    Pretty nasty stuff if you ask me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yeah I heard they plan on building rockets but instead of putting people in them like they've been doing, they're going to design some sort of explosive payload that sits toward the top of it.
      >Pretty nasty stuff if you ask me.
      delete this.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. get weapons in orbit
    2. drop weapons from orbit anywhere on the planet
    I'm a genius, I know.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    At the efficiency of a modern nuclear warhead, starship could launch a 1 gigaton warhead on an intercontinental flight profile.

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Four words: Re-entry safe Abrams packages.

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    pic rel, but with 240 million tungsten balls instead of measly 160 thousand, fired upon Moscow

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing is sure, it could be used to carpet-bomb shit in never-before seen magnitude

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How many anons are thinking of Starship as something for ballistic delivery rather than orbital delivery is a reminder of how poorly space combat is understood by the layman.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Weaponize it? Toss me up on the ISS with a sniper rifle 50 rounds of ammo and two cases of PBR and I'll solve any problem you have buddy

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So what are the best, the most schizo, and the most moronic ideas in this thread?

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being that high is a significant disadvantage, half the shit you fired wouldn't even survive re-entry.

    There's nothing in space to bombard anyone with that would survive re-entry, and nothing you could put into low orbit you couldn't ICBM.

    Space is for loitering nuclear weapons, but in this day and age you'd be intercepted on re-entry, at best they would airburst a nuke to take you out at high altitude, dusting a random bit of the world with fallout.

    A laser? Nobody is scared. Kinetic penetrator? To hit what? A warship, nuclear power station, three gorges dam?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *