SpaceX's First Military Contracts: One-Hour Cargo Deliveries By Rocket and Missile-Tracking Satellites (vice.com) 101
"The Pentagon is contracting Elon Musk's SpaceX to develop rockets that can deliver packages anywhere on the planet in under an hour," reports Vice:
One of the things that makes the U.S. military a dominant global fighting force is its ability to move troops, weapons, and supplies quickly to where they're needed. C-17 transport planes soar across the globe delivering troops and weapons where they're needed. But America isn't making any more C-17s, so while demand for logistics in the military is up, the supply of vehicles designed to carry stuff around the planet is down. To fill the logistical gap, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) wants SpaceX to build rockets it can quickly fire around the globe...
The project is in the early stages and there's no telling when, or if, SpaceX will be able to move MRAPs, guns, and MREs from Fort Bragg to Djibouti in 45 minutes.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon also announced a $149 million contract with SpaceX to build four missile-tracking satellites, Vice reported: SpaceX will build and deliver four of its Starlink satellites which the Pentagon said it will fit with special sensors to allow them to track missiles, including nuke-bearing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles....
SpaceX's four tracking satellites are a small part of a larger Pentagon plan to put hundreds of satellites in orbit over the next few years. The next layer of the system is slated for 2024 and will include several hundred more satellites in the transport layer and dozens more in the tracking layer, according to the Pentagon...
This is SpaceX's first military contract.
The project is in the early stages and there's no telling when, or if, SpaceX will be able to move MRAPs, guns, and MREs from Fort Bragg to Djibouti in 45 minutes.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon also announced a $149 million contract with SpaceX to build four missile-tracking satellites, Vice reported: SpaceX will build and deliver four of its Starlink satellites which the Pentagon said it will fit with special sensors to allow them to track missiles, including nuke-bearing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles....
SpaceX's four tracking satellites are a small part of a larger Pentagon plan to put hundreds of satellites in orbit over the next few years. The next layer of the system is slated for 2024 and will include several hundred more satellites in the transport layer and dozens more in the tracking layer, according to the Pentagon...
This is SpaceX's first military contract.
Lunch bag or a nuclear warhead coming in? (Score:5, Insightful)
That sound like a great idea!
Delivering supplies via ICBM! Now, to the enemy, every supply delivery will look like a nuclear strike, with only minutes left for the decision to launch the counter-attack.
Re: (Score:3)
The trajectory would be different from an ICBM.
Besides, I don't think Djibouti will launch much of a counterstrike.
But I am not sure they have thought this through. Instead of transferring MREs to Djibouti with a sub-orbital space plane, it may be more sensible to just rent a warehouse near the wharf in Balbala and pre-stage a few dozen pallets of MREs there. A quick Google search indicates that warehouse space in Djibouti is very reasonably priced.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Djibouti was just an example. What if we're sending supplies to the Middle East? Trigger happy Iran isn't very far from Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, or Qatar where we might be sending stuff. Anyway, we definitely need this capability and it will help fund SpaceX's starship development .. I assume the same rocket engine (Raptor) would be on Starship as this transporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I assume this transporter would *be* a Starship. Musk has already indicated on several occasions that he plans to use the Starship for suborbital passenger flights. Seems to me this is likely the military helping out in funding the development that's already happening, presumably in exchange for SpaceX developing a Starship variant that's more tailored to the military's cargo requirements.
Re: (Score:3)
The US military has supplies in places all over the globe. Please explain why there's this sudden need for one hour delivery when there never has been before...especially when the number of combat troops overseas is down. Also, the article's basic premise that because we're no longer producing more C17s, the need is up and supply down, is patently illogical. There is no increase in need, and no reduction in supply.
Re: (Score:2)
And the idea that you're going to replace the role of one of the largest cargo planes in the world with rocket is a little ridiculous. The number of rockets needed would be staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
The rockets will be highly reusable though. They will have enough fuel to fly there and back.
Re: (Score:2)
And the idea that you're going to replace the role of one of the largest cargo planes in the world with rocket is a little ridiculous. The number of rockets needed would be staggering.
Maximum payload capacity of the C-17 is 170,900 pounds (77,519 kilograms).
Designed payload capacity of the SpaceX Starship rocket is 100,000 kilograms.
You count funny.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no increase in need, and no reduction in supply.
There is always a decrease in supply. Those planes are aging, requiring more and more maintenance, spending longer and longer amounts of time in a hangar out of service. Entropy always wins. Eventually every plane stops flying as metal fatigue takes its toll. The US military is known for rebuilding whole planes and calling it "maintenance" just because of Congressional nonsense with funding, but there are limits to that. Eventually the airframe goes out of service permanently. C-17s are no exception.
Re: Lunch bag or a nuclear warhead coming in? (Score:1)
Well depends. American weapons industry wants to maximize.? their profits. That means they *have* to sell to Djibouti e way.or another some day. :) :D
Just like they sold to Iran, then Iraq, then the Taliban, then the IS. Gotta have a reason to arm your own boys, you know?
If only the stupid Russians and French and German and Brits wouldn't try the same thing all the time!
But hey, we Germans bought a lot of your stuff too. After you sent us the nice refugee streams. Unrelatd useless stuff like drones, but hey
Re: (Score:2)
Djibouti would just be a test, they really intend this for use in places where they otherwise couldn't deliver material. In those places and in times of crisis there is a very real danger of someone getting spooked by what looks like an incoming ICBM.
The other danger is that other countries decide this is a good idea and develop their own systems, and then everyone gets paranoid that one day they might stick a warhead on it or "accidentally" "crash land" on some coincidentally valuable target.
Re: (Score:2)
An ICBM arc gives the reentry vehicle a fucking stupid amount of velocity. I suspect this looks more like an orbital trajectory that de-orbits at the target. That won't be mistaken for a missile. And if someone puts a missile on such a vehicle, they've just started the fucking nukes-in-space-race.
Re: (Score:3)
>The trajectory would be different from an ICBM.
I don't think so. There's exactly one suborbital trajectory from A to B. Prior to reentry, every suborbital flight between those points will look pretty close to identical, though acceleration profiles may be different.
Now, as soon as it hits the atmosphere a cargo flight is going to change trajectory as it aerobrakes to shed speed, but that doesn't begin until the last few minutes of the flight. And of course there's no particular reason you couldn't lo
Re: (Score:2)
>The trajectory would be different from an ICBM.
Wait, no, I think you're right - there's exactly one shortest suborbital *flight time* between A and B, but the flight path can go from a shallow optimal arc, to a much higher arc, which I think takes a lot more fuel, and as long or longer flight time, but can result in a much higher reentry speed, which may be desirable for avoiding missile defenses.
And of course if you're at war with someone they're likely to want to shoot down your rocket regardless of w
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, no, I think you're right - there's exactly one shortest suborbital *flight time* between A and B, but the flight path can go from a shallow optimal arc, to a much higher arc, which I think takes a lot more fuel, and as long or longer flight time, but can result in a much higher reentry speed, which may be desirable for avoiding missile defenses.
Bingo. You got it this time.
And of course if you're at war with someone they're likely to want to shoot down your rocket regardless of whether it's cargo or a warhead, so trying to disguise the one as the other probably isn't worth much - except I suppose for first-strike sneak attacks.
Again, correct.
The Soviets experimented with FOBS in the 60s, which offered the benefits of this hypothetical system used as a nuclear delivery platform.
The ultimate conclusion by the Americans was- sure it's a valid first strike platform, but it sucks at delivery, and submarines are a lot better. So we didn't make one. The Soviets later decommissioned theirs once their submarine force didn't suck.
Re: (Score:2)
There's exactly one suborbital trajectory from A to B.
Not true. There are many trajectories from A to B, depending on both velocity and angle.
ICBMs choose a trajectory to minimize flight time.
This cargo rocket would use a different trajectory to minimize terminal velocity.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "flight time" you mean "time in the atmosphere" then that makes sense. For a suborbital, pseudo-ballistic (since virtually all the acceleration is at the beginning of the flight) trajectory though, the faster you go, the further you go (either horizontally or vertically), and the longer the trip takes. The minimum-energy, minimum reentry-speed trajectory is also the one that takes the shortest time to get from A to B.
Of course I'm assuming ICBMs follow a pseudo-ballistic trajectory. If they instead
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The trajectory would be different from an ICBM.
If that's true (which I doubt, but let's run with it) then it's just as easy to sneak a nuclear warhead in as well. Think about that... the safety of the world depends on it being true.
Re: Lunch bag or a nuclear warhead coming in? (Score:2)
And intercontinental bombers looked exactly like airliners and vice versa. This is nothing new.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course downing an airliner with 300 passengers is nothing compared to accidentally starting a nuclear exchange...
Re: (Score:2)
Airliners file a flight plan in advance, fly only on established and agreed-upon routes, communicate with air traffic controllers, and advertise their identity via transponder; otherwise they cause international incidents and/or get shot down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. This is serious problem, and people who say "it's just like a long distance jet flight" are completely wrong, because with an aircraft you have time to send up your quick-reaction fighters to intercept it. With an incoming ballistic package, you don't have a lot of time to react and your only possible reactions are "do nothing" or "launch retaliatory strike".
Existing ballistic launches, such as missile tests, are carefully announced to other ballistic missile nations and aimed at places well away from
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that they'll work out some deal where one or two launches just trigger monitoring, but not alarm. If you're going to launch a first strike against a nuclear-armed nation, it's going to be with overwhelming force, not a couple of missiles.
Realistically, shipping large amounts of bulk gear will not be economical via rocket, and it will only be used for extremely high value cargo that simply must get there on time (spare parts that are needed RIGHT NOW, vital medical supplies, the best SEAL Team 6-ty
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine that they'll work out some deal where one or two launches just trigger monitoring, but not alarm. If you're going to launch a first strike against a nuclear-armed nation, it's going to be with overwhelming force, not a couple of missiles.
Unless that nation only has a few couples of missiles and warheads themselves, such as North Korea.
Re:Lunch bag or a nuclear warhead coming in? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're going to launch a first strike against a nuclear-armed nation, it's going to be with overwhelming force, not a couple of missiles.
With MIRV even one or two missiles can cripple a country with a surprise attack. With mobile and submarine launchers it could be very difficult to determine who they belong to in those first critical hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're grinding an ax instead of using your brain.
This thing isn't flying on a ballistic trajectory.
The angle and velocity at which a ballistic RV with intercontinental range falls back into the atmosphere are not remotely survivable for anything with any amount of fragility whatsoever.
This means whatever trajectory they end up using will not appear anything like a ballistic missile to adversaries with the radar tracking to even watch for such things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they fucking sucked.
What I said Nobody, I meant today, as the Soviets decommissioned theirs due to sucktitude in the face of conventional delivery methods.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which matters. Why do you think other countries get nervous when North Korea launches a civilian satellite into an orbit that goes nowhere near them? It's because that technology can be used to deliver nuclear warheads too.
Building this stuff, setting up rapid launch capability, testing it all out, that's all stuff that other countries will view as developing the ability to deliver warheads disguised as resupply. They will take it as an escalation.
Imagine if Russia had this technology, how would you
Re: (Score:3)
None of which matters. Why do you think other countries get nervous when North Korea launches a civilian satellite into an orbit that goes nowhere near them? It's because that technology can be used to deliver nuclear warheads too.
Of course. They get nervous because of capability, not because of the actual launch.
I don't think anyone is worried about what *our* capabilities are, as we can deliver ICBMs with no problem.
OP claimed that the risk of this was that it could be mistaken as a ballistic missile. I pointed out how that was untrue. You apparently were unable to understand the discussion taking place so invented your very own.
Building this stuff, setting up rapid launch capability, testing it all out, that's all stuff that other countries will view as developing the ability to deliver warheads disguised as resupply. They will take it as an escalation.
No, they won't.
Because this will be far easier to intercept than a traditional ballistic missile, be
Re: (Score:2)
Suborbital flight for shit-delivery isn't technically complicated. It's fucking expensive.
That and most places that would be the destination for this vehicle have plenty of shit already. They don't need more. The US military wants this vehicle for shovel delivery. :)
Re: (Score:1)
This isn't Musk's idea. It's the Pentagon's.
Musk could say "No. I won't do this, it's a bad idea".
There are also at least two ways that hair-brained ideas like this arise:
1. Some doofus in a military position comes up with the idea and feeds it to some high level commanders who decide to go for it, or
2. Someone in the industrial side of the military-industrial complex comes up with a nutty idea to sell more of their stuff to the Pentagon, feeds the idea to their contacts in the Pentagon, and soon after a request comes back out of the Pentagon saying
Re: (Score:2)
Musk could say "No. I won't do this, it's a bad idea".
Yes, he could. But it's not, so why would he?
Either way, the person I replied to said:
This is a beyond a bad idea. Musk's trying to turn another quick buck and this time he's not just risking individuals with his rickety "Autopilot", but entire nations with his mad rocketry ideas.
Making your reply of:
Musk could say "No. I won't do this, it's a bad idea".
Nonsensical.
There are also at least two ways that hair-brained ideas like this arise:
There's nothing hairbrained about suborbital transport, other than the economic difficulties of it.
Changing the economics of rocket launches is kind of Musk's thing right now, so he's the natural person to get tacked to this idea- which isn't a new idea by any means.
2. Someone in the industrial side of the military-industrial complex comes up with a nutty idea to sell more of their stuff to the Pentagon, feeds the idea to their contacts in the Pentagon, and soon after a request comes back out of the Pentagon saying "We have had this great idea! Please do this for us now!" and the industrial-person goes "Sure, that's a great idea. We'll get right on it!".
Hey- as far as the whole Fuck-The-Military-Industrial-Complex thing goes, I'm with you, brother.
But-
I am asserting that this idea came via the second path and therefore it's Musk's idea to get more money out of the Pentagon and they've gone with it - probably because Musk has a reality distortion field around him of almost Jobsian strength.
No. Musk didn't invent
Re: (Score:2)
Physical packages have been deliverable in under an hour for 70 years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but those packages are not very large, refrigerator-sized at best. Starship could deliver a squad of commandos, all of their gear, and a land vehicle to carry them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Lunch bag or a nuclear warhead coming in? (Score:2)
Globally?
What vehicle exactly travels at 20Mm/h (~12,500mph) for an hour, for a single package?
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Taking delivery isn't a hell of a lot of fun, though.
Re: (Score:3)
The one hour timeframe certainly does sound like a ballistic sub-orbital flight.
But you need a solid-rocket to achieve that, as liquid-fuelled rockets like falcon-9 or starship take hours to prepare for launch.
If they can stretch the requirements to a flight of 2-3 hours (after loading propellant), then a more practical rocket-plane like the X-15 or Hypersoar fits the bill.
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sy... [fas.org]
HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight.
That is from last century, so not a new idea.
I'm sure SpaceX would love to get some military funding
Re: (Score:2)
ICBM RVs have very specific survival requirements. They're built to withstand the 60Gs of acceleration that comes with slamming into the atmosphere from 2000km parabolic arc.
Terminal phase for an ICBM is like a minute. You don't shave off 6-8km/s of velocity
Re: (Score:2)
you aren't shipping anything that you want to survive the trip on a ballistic trajectory at intercontinental distances.
If my memory of high-school physics is correct, a ballistic arc can be lower, and do a shallower reentry, like a space shuttle (which was, after all, mostly ballistic), but that requires a greater launch velocity than a regular ICBM, close to orbital. So skipping off the atmosphere like an X-15 is really the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
If my memory of high-school physics is correct, a ballistic arc can be lower, and do a shallower reentry, like a space shuttle (which was, after all, mostly ballistic), but that requires a greater launch velocity than a regular ICBM, close to orbital. So skipping off the atmosphere like an X-15 is really the way to go.
Yes- these are called depressed trajectories.
They're still massively steeper than your example shuttle orbiter reentry, which has a gamma of around -1 degrees, as opposed to a depressed trajectory ballistic missile with between -5 and -10 degrees.
Orbiters are aerobraking for atmospheric reinsertion- which is our primary problem with trying to make a ballistic missile with *that* flat of a trajectory: It will spend so much time in the atmosphere, that you may as well have made a hypersonic glide vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
But you need a solid-rocket to achieve that, as liquid-fuelled rockets like falcon-9 or starship take hours to prepare for launch.
Falcon 9 specifically takes just 45 minutes to load propellant. Rolling it out from the hangar and erecting it takes maybe 15 minutes, maybe a few more. Mating a payload takes some time, but presumably the US military would pay for dress rehearsals to reduce loading time.
Starship propellant loading times are entirely unknown right now, since the vehicle changes on a daily basis, but Elon Musk has repeatedly stated he wants aircraft-type turnarounds, so presumably they're designing fueling ports and plumbi
nuclear strike 30 min or less (Score:2)
nuclear strike 30 min or less
Re: (Score:2)
that is why we ought to take the men out of the loop
Re: (Score:2)
Are you arguing to take humans out of the nuke loop, or this delivery loop, or both?
I would never support removing humans from the nuke loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn your key, sir!
Re: (Score:3)
ICBMs are much easier. You don't have to land and you don't have to worry about what shape the package is in when it gets there. They come in as fast as possible to prevent interception and the US has been able to nuke anywhere on the planet within minutes since the 1960's.
Safely landing people and cargo is much harder and SpaceX's self landing rockets are a pre-requisite technology. The AIr Force and Marine Corps actually had an idea for what amounted to ODSTs in the late 90's but it never went anywhere. T
um, no (Score:2)
The countries that have ICBMs also have:
[a] systems to detect "enemy" ICBM launches and know where they're likely to launch from
[b] tracking capabilities and an understanding of the ballistics involved
They'll be able to tell the difference between an ICBM headed for Moscow or Beijing (which becomes smaller as it sheds stages and eventually ends up one or more small fast warhead[/s], and a rocket that's descending into some local hotspot fully-intact and prepping for a soft landing. Any supply rocket is goi
Re: (Score:2)
Many ICBM now carry a payload consisitng of a hypersonic glider which tehn in turn delivers the actual warheads.
So the behaviour of an ICBM; is not that simple anymore.
Also, I don't trust the DPRK to reliably distinguish between a US first strike against them vs. a supply delivery during a US exercise right at the border of the DPRK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At the moment, I cannot think of anything edible worth that risk.
Although, I do hear that MREs suck, and anything fresher would be appreciated!
Re: (Score:1)
This is exactly my first thought.
"No no, Viktor, it's not an ICBM at you, it's supplies for troops in Afghanistan. Trust me."
Re: Wonderful (Score:3)
Well, it depends on if the good cop bad cop game continues and we get another even worse nutjob for president after the token dummy Biden prepared people to fall for them yet again. I mean Bush after Clinton, Trump after Obama. I cannot imagine what would happen after Kerry 2.0, err, Bidden ... Though they definitely picked the best choice they had for making everyone they can not vote for them, so if they ae lucky, they can skip the token entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump, to his credit, hasn't started any new wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's hear it for turning over parts of the world to the tender loving mercies of Russia and China.
The Air Force already has this capability (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you don't want to deliver a nuke?
Re: (Score:2)
Missing survivable landing (Score:1)
Minuteman has launch and flight to target, but missing ability for cargo to survive intact.
As with most systems, decades later redesign can lead to easier manufacture, maintenance, and operations.
Inter Continental Box Management (Score:2)
I like it! Has a nice ring to it.
Inter Continental Ballistic Mail (Score:1)
Welcome to Inter Continental Ballistic Mail!
Please verify that your package can with stand 60Gs and that it contains nothing fragile, perishable, liquid, or potentially hazardous.
Delivering packages is harder than boom (Score:3)
Not quite, it's a different problem. When you deliver a boom, you want as high a reentry velocity as possible, this makes it nigh on impossible to intercept (bullet vs bullet problem). In rocketry problems this problem compared to landing intact is relatively easy and was developed relatively early in the spacerace. Your reentry vehicle is covered in ablative material and detonates at a certain distance above ground so it never had to deal with slowing down.
Now let's say you want to deliver something precio
Global dominant fighting force... (Score:4, Interesting)
How did we het to a point where global offensive warfare and spies meddling with literally ALL the countries became something you did not try to hide for its horrible shamefulness, but openly bragged about like it it some heroic feat?
What's next? "I gassed ALL the $scapegoatEnemyFromTheClosetOfDistractionsForFailing! Praise me!"?
How about being so nice, Putin and China and North Korea and the religious terrorists want to be friends stop their shit just to be part of our thing? :) /rant
Yes, that is possible. Even mentally disturbed nutjobs hold a grudge for a reason. They think something is harming them. they might cling to their beliefs when seeing it is not so. But they will not, if it just feels so damn good! Feelings are what's it about. It's how you get everyone and subvert all ideologies. I see that every time an Islamic refugee comes to my country and starts drinking beer and eating pork on a really nice night out..
And every time an American soldier invades my country just to notice people are people and we're actually really nice with pretty girls and shit.
Or I meet an American student on my street that is a really cool person and much better than all the assholes online or in the media.
Just drop the shit they're telling everyone, make your own experiences, and be nice. Life lesson right there.
I'm off for another pork sausage and beer. :)
Re: (Score:2)
"How about being so nice, Putin and China and North Korea and the religious terrorists want to be friends stop their shit just to be part of our thing?"
The 90s called asking for it's foreign policy back.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck explaining that to China, Russia, Iran (Score:2)
Eau de Military Industrial Complex (Score:4, Interesting)
I was sad to learn SpaceX isn't just carrying military satellites anymore, but are starting to build them. SpaceX was a company that stood for exploration, science and ingenuity, but with this new development they are starting to develop a very different smell, a very different... musk.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was sad to learn SpaceX isn't just carrying military satellites anymore, but are starting to build them. SpaceX was a company that stood for exploration, science and ingenuity, but with this new development they are starting to develop a very different smell, a very different... musk.
The really sad thing is that so many Americans no longer trust their government to use its military power appropriately. There was a time when no one would question a company building weapons for the DoD, because the assumption was that the DoD existed to protect the interests of American citizens and that it would do so responsibly and lawfully. Today, at least the more leftist-half of the populace actively thinks that one of the largest parts of their own government is actively evil. Not just occasionally
Re: (Score:2)
Because war usually IS immoral. There are viable alternatives today, but the hawks keep dragging us back to the Cold War every 5 minutes. It's past time that the US evolves.
I have no problem with a defense budget. The problem is that the US Defense budget is dwarfed by it's Offense budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Because war usually IS immoral.
That doesn't actually have anything to do with my point, unless you're arguing that the country shouldn't even have a military, which does not seem to be your position.
I have no problem with a defense budget. The problem is that the US Defense budget is dwarfed by it's Offense budget.
So you have a (legitimate!) beef with the way the country uses its military might (though I'll note that your distinction between defense and offense budgets is spurious; the tools of the military for both defense and offense are the same). Doesn't it seem like this should be an issue that you address through your elected representatives, rat
Re: (Score:1)
Engineering Challenges... (Score:3)
First, it might be worth pointing out that whilst SpaceX have a lot of experience of developing re-usable rockets, their current F9 model - and the Falcon Heavy is essentially three F9s for the purposes of this discussion - typically only landsthe first stage, without the second stage still attached - and certainly without the payload still attached. Given the difficulty of getting in to orbit, it is highly unlikely that the current F9 first stage is structurally strong enough to land with a full-weight payload still attached. So does that mean they are planning on a conventional launch followed by maybe a hypersonic glide of an X37B style upper stage? In which case, how do they get that upper stage home again?
Second, your typical C17 is perfectly capable of lifting a cargo of around 170,900lbs, or around 77,500kg - roughly 85 short tons. Falcon Heavy can lift 141,000lbs - 64,000kg - to Low Earth Orbit. Now, granted LEO != hypersonic delivery somewhere else on the planet... but that's still going to require FH-scale hardware to get anywhere close to the capacity of a single C17.
I'm not familiar with the source for LOx or RP1 at sites such as Canaveral or Vandenberg, but at a guess they have infrastructure to support the loading and topping-off of propellants and oxidants prior to launch. So if there is any intent to fly ballistic returns, then there will also need to be quite a bit of thought put in to how all that infrastructure can be deployed to a forward operational base
What might make sense - I'm certainly not qualified to judge - is the idea that maybe you have a series of pre-built "transit stations" around the world. These would have infrastructure to support a tail-down landing of a beefed-up first stage, but would have re-fueling services built on site. You could position these at strategic locations (somewhere in Europe, Middle East, Guam, Diego Garcia, etc.) and then use your ballistic delivery service to get multiple payloads to those forward staging areas, with on-site infrastructure able to deploy to "last leg" destinations. After all, you probably don't want to be trying to land a ballistic delivery vehicle through contended air space...
It would be interesting to learn who suggested this first - SpaceX or the DoD. Either way, there's a possibility in here that the infrastructure and experience needed to operate this would be similar to the sort of ultra-rapid transit system that Musk has suggested in some of his Starship talks...
Re: (Score:3)
it is highly unlikely that the current F9 first stage is structurally strong enough to land with a full-weight payload still attached
They won't be using F9, which is like an aluminum foil drinking straw in comparison to Starship. F9 is long and thin specifically so that they can ship it from California over highways. Starship is more like a Chunky Soup can.
Returns aren't necessarily a problem. A non-reusable equivalent would still be stuck where you landed it. The biggest problem that I see is potentially leaving half a dozen of the most advanced rocket engines ever (Raptor) in unfriendly territory. But that's hardly a requirement, sinc
Re: (Score:3)
It would be interesting to learn who suggested this first - SpaceX or the DoD.
Vernor Vinge, in Rainbows End [wikipedia.org]. For which he received a Hugo award. And US military wish lists dating back to the early '70s when the space race was still in full swing. It's not a new idea. It's just becoming financially viable for the first time thanks to SpaceX's Starship design.
Free shipping (Score:4, Funny)
Sauce for the goose (Score:2)
Will the USA just wave it through, or will there be an almighty whinge about threats, offensive use and sovereignty / airspace (spacespace?).
Re: (Score:2)
Supply Down? (Score:2)
"But America isn't making any more C-17s, so while demand for logistics in the military is up, the supply of vehicles designed to carry stuff around the planet is down."
USAF currently has 222 C-17s. Add another 52 C-5, and 202 C-130s. What is the basis for the claim that demand is up and supply down? We're not in much of a shooting war anymore. Have we ever had more? Are we about to start another Iraq?
SpaceX is the new FedEx (Score:2)
When it absolutely positively needs to be there in an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Whadabout Amazon Rocket Delivery? (Score:2)
I thought Amazon was already working on Prime 2 Hour Rocket Delivery. Seems like that could be pivoted to US military use pretty easily.
Starship Troopers (Score:2)
You want Starship Troopers? because this is how you get Starship Troopers.
Keeping on schedule (Score:2)
I think the biggest challenge is being able to launch on short notice.
Current rocketry doctrine is to go through a countdown process and if something goes wrong you delay to the next day or next week or next month.
For this application that's not going to work. Maybe they need to have several Starships ready to go at all times? What about weather conditions?
Or they're going to have to make these things super reliable. Which is why I think Elon is into this. This will give them the funding to become super rel