Comments
JaxJaxon t1_j9v645x wrote
What is the point to this? Will the worlds defensive capabilities be solely controlled by independent contractors? Will the threats to expand on its use also be manufactured by independent contractors? One contractor saying they will expand on its missile capabilities. while another will say we need more defensive space platforms?
shrekster82 t1_j9xfcwp wrote
they already are - Boeing Lockheed etc...
DonQuixBalls t1_j9xccm1 wrote
Don't contractors make all military gear?
JaxJaxon t1_ja0lll1 wrote
Yes for the most part they do. But each countries military have places that these things made for them are tested and here is where the problem of the money comes in. Approve our Plane, Tank, weapon and we will slip you some Cash, stock, perk. First the contracts are looked over and then a company or two are awarded the contract. Mabie they are looked over and Mabie not. I haven't had any contacts in that area for over 40 years. Then a prototype or two are made and tested. For Tanks and cannons it is at Aberdine Proving ground for missiles it is at Vandenberg space flight center. Hey Give this one a good review and we will compensate you. How else do the Government employees make enough money to have three houses some in other countries and a fat bank balance in several different Banks. Oh I am a simple Full bird col. that makes 200k a year but have three houses worth over 100 mil. Or the congress man that makes 15ok a year but is worth 500mil. And its not just in the U.S,A. that this is going on.
Anandamine t1_j9v8xmg wrote
It does raise quite a lot of questions. I believe Washington and SpaceX would have to announce every launch and keep our nuclear rivals abreast of whenever they launch… these things are basically ICBMs without the payload, but I’d bet everyone else will be suspicious of every one of them.
Definitely an escalation in the weaponization of space.
Otherwise I see why they’re drooling over this capability. Imagine deploying orbital troops or vehicles to anywhere in the world in 30 minutes.
Ghoullum t1_j9xnaeq wrote
I didn't think of that! What are yoyr thoughts on counter measures? Will there be permits to fly over you?
Anandamine t1_j9xnszy wrote
I would guess that anti-sat missiles and anti-air missiles once it gets close enough could work. Not an expert though. Don’t think you can regulate space - there’s satellites from all sorts of countries always flying over, I don’t think this would be any different. There’s also been plenty of missile tests done by various countries, they just let each other know what’s up.
Kaz_55 t1_j9wdqm4 wrote
>Greg Spanjers, program manager for rocket cargo at AFRL, said the military envisions a future when it could be cheaper to send cargo via rocket than by transport aircraft. In a national security or humanitarian crisis, a launch vehicle would fly from Cape Canaveral, for example, and either land on an austere field to deliver cargo or airdrop it.
Seriously, why is this still being pushed? This simply makes no sense from any realistic perspective. Common Sense Skeptic made a quick teardown/debunking explaining this:
But honestly this should be self-evident. It's simply impractical and a waste of money and resources.
AutoModerator t1_j9uzj4p wrote
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
FuturologyBot t1_j9v4ag3 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the article
>Greg Spanjers, program manager for rocket cargo at AFRL, said the military envisions a future when it could be cheaper to send cargo via rocket than by transport aircraft. In a national security or humanitarian crisis, a launch vehicle would fly from Cape Canaveral, for example, and either land on an austere field to deliver cargo or airdrop it.
>
>For the rocket cargo program to be viable, Spanjers said, DoD expects to use launch providers that fly frequently so they can offer competitive pricing. “To make this a success, we need a very high launch rate, and we need to have systems that reenter and that can bring a high down mass,” he added.
Also from the article
>If rocket cargo moves forward and the technology matures, the Space Force would take the lead in managing the program and procuring services, he said. “We’re already starting to actively plan for a program standup in the 2026 timeframe.”
Lastly from the article
>Horne said the military is “going to need that infrastructure on orbit, not just for cargo, storage and movement, but for a lot of other applications. We’re gonna need gas tanks in the future. We may even have places where we are manufacturing things,” he added. “We’re going to find military-unique ways to use that from a national security perspective.”
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11azkir/the_future_of_starship_includes_national_security/j9uzsq2/
Ididntbreakanyrules t1_j9vzgym wrote
"Rods from God" kinetic orbital bombardment.. soo many launches for Starlink could definitely sneak a few tungston telephone poles up there.
[deleted] t1_j9wq6gj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9x5jrb wrote
[removed]
linderlouwho t1_j9xfft1 wrote
Space X was always about being a military operation.
oswaldo2017 t1_j9ygn49 wrote
I have news for you: EVERY aerospace company is a military company... Obviously to a greater or lesser extent depending on the company. It's basically impossible to find one without a DOD contract
F4Z3_G04T t1_j9yldng wrote
It's always been about going to Mars. Going to Mars and putting military things in space are a lot like eachother, so might as well make some cash on the side
BeowulfsGhost t1_j9v80i8 wrote
I wonder how it will do when being shot at? My guess is not well.
Old_Substance_7389 t1_j9y7vle wrote
This is ridiculous. Starship is too complex and expensive a system to ever do what is contemplated, if it ever even works, which I doubt (see Soviet N1 history). Sad we have a media that consists of clickbait shills.
F4Z3_G04T t1_j9ylkfh wrote
Next month is an orbital flight test, so then we'll see
stewartm0205 t1_j9ypkl9 wrote
Jet cargo planes are more complex. As long as you are building a lot of them, Starship could be cheaper.
maudefi t1_j9v406o wrote
Or we could stop lining Elon Musk's pockets with taxpayer's money...
Carbidereaper t1_j9v7rod wrote
Or what ? give it to Northrop Grumman Lockheed Martin ULA blue origin . The military is gonna military with your taxpayer dollars weather you like it or not
maudefi t1_ja3vw5n wrote
We all know it's wrong, we all know things need to change but we don't care to put the effort in so it's cool. Ffs selfishness, greed, and apathy is why we're in this position in the first place.
Organize, strike, demand change for and in ourselves and our systems of government.
Gari_305 OP t1_j9uzsq2 wrote
From the article
>Greg Spanjers, program manager for rocket cargo at AFRL, said the military envisions a future when it could be cheaper to send cargo via rocket than by transport aircraft. In a national security or humanitarian crisis, a launch vehicle would fly from Cape Canaveral, for example, and either land on an austere field to deliver cargo or airdrop it.
>
>For the rocket cargo program to be viable, Spanjers said, DoD expects to use launch providers that fly frequently so they can offer competitive pricing. “To make this a success, we need a very high launch rate, and we need to have systems that reenter and that can bring a high down mass,” he added.
Also from the article
>If rocket cargo moves forward and the technology matures, the Space Force would take the lead in managing the program and procuring services, he said. “We’re already starting to actively plan for a program standup in the 2026 timeframe.”
Lastly from the article
>Horne said the military is “going to need that infrastructure on orbit, not just for cargo, storage and movement, but for a lot of other applications. We’re gonna need gas tanks in the future. We may even have places where we are manufacturing things,” he added. “We’re going to find military-unique ways to use that from a national security perspective.”