Military applications for P2P (split from SpaceX)

[SOXBLOX]

Am I the first to post this?

USAF wants more funding for Starship p2p. They hope to be able to land a C-17's cargo in an austere location within an hour of the launch order. In addition, they've apparently frequently discussed stationing cargo in orbit, ready to drop at any time. Is that even possible with methalox, 'cause my intuition is saying no? Also includes references to air-dropping. Maybe an orbital drop pod type thing is being investigated?

The use cases for Starship in general which they list are reinforcing overseas facilities quickly, and ... that's basically it. Personally, I don't see much benefit to any of this, although the drop pod sounds cool.

[Beccab]

19 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Am I the first to post this?

USAF wants more funding for Starship p2p. They hope to be able to land a C-17's cargo in an austere location within an hour of the launch order. In addition, they've apparently frequently discussed stationing cargo in orbit, ready to drop at any time. Is that even possible with methalox, 'cause my intuition is saying no? Also includes references to air-dropping. Maybe an orbital drop pod type thing is being investigated?

The use cases for Starship in general which they list are reinforcing overseas facilities quickly, and ... that's basically it. Personally, I don't see much benefit to any of this, although the drop pod sounds cool.

Already posted two days ago

Edit: not exactly that, directly the USAF document for the allocation of money to the starship p2p demonstration

Edited June 1, 2021 by Beccab

[mikegarrison]

10 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Already posted two days ago

Edit: not exactly that, directly the USAF document for the allocation of money to the starship p2p demonstration

The military has been studying this stuff for over 60 years. They haven't done any of it yet.

http://www.astronautix.com/i/ithacus.html

Edited June 1, 2021 by mikegarrison

[Beccab]

9 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

The military has been studying this stuff for over 60 years. They haven't done any of it yet.

http://www.astronautix.com/i/ithacus.html

Well, one thing is building an absurdly big rocket from basically scratch with the capacity of transporting 1200 people, another is using an existing rocket and capsule to do the same

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

12 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

The military has been studying this stuff for over 60 years. They haven't done any of it yet.

http://www.astronautix.com/i/ithacus.html

The only way I would want to deploy in that would be if I could jump out @ 15,000 feet.

I'd even accept a SSTrooper egg-pod deployment scheme...after the reentry plasma and the craft is traveling less than 400mph 

Edited June 1, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[CatastrophicFailure]

52 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The only way I would want to deploy in that would be if I could jump out @ 15,000 feet.

I'd even accept a SSTrooper egg-pod deployment scheme...after the reentry plasma and the craft is traveling less than 400mph 

Starships are ungainly and vulnerable... but also cheap (see: @tater's tank cost analysis)

Blow the chomper payload door(s?) as soon as SS is subsonic, payload lands in separate, pressurized, guided containers, Starship crashes... potentially right into a nearby soft target, or not. "Payload" doesn't even have to be troops here to be effective, get the troops in some other way, use SS to land armor, supplies, etc. If you consider SS "expendable" in this way, there's plenty of options for actually getting material on the ground without all the SS-specific hoopla.

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:

Am I the first to post this?

USAF wants more funding for Starship p2p. They hope to be able to land a C-17's cargo in an austere location within an hour of the launch order. In addition, they've apparently frequently discussed stationing cargo in orbit, ready to drop at any time. Is that even possible with methalox, 'cause my intuition is saying no? Also includes references to air-dropping. Maybe an orbital drop pod type thing is being investigated?

The use cases for Starship in general which they list are reinforcing overseas facilities quickly, and ... that's basically it. Personally, I don't see much benefit to any of this, although the drop pod sounds cool.

It is more useful than you think. Given the speed/intensity at which a modern great power war would be fought, more "stuff" (whether that be air-to-air missiles or spare parts or whatever) as quick as possible is something very much needed. Especially when a C-17 would take hours to reach its destination, Starship P2P would be an immense help.

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Starships are ungainly and vulnerable... but also cheap (see: @tater's tank cost analysis)

Blow the chomper payload door(s?) as soon as SS is subsonic, payload lands in separate, pressurized, guided containers, Starship crashes... potentially right into a nearby soft target, or not. "Payload" doesn't even have to be troops here to be effective, get the troops in some other way, use SS to land armor, supplies, etc. If you consider SS "expendable" in this way, there's plenty of options for actually getting material on the ground without all the SS-specific hoopla.

I don't think it is planned to be used for combat transport. If it is landing in the front lines it would make it vulnerable to enemy ABM systems.

[SpaceFace545]

2 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Starships are ungainly and vulnerabl

I think a simple SAM could end a military starship’s endeavor very quickly. Gosh, guns would even be effective against it. Wouldn’t have self healing fuel tanks and it’s basically a giant flying bomb. 

[tater]

The AF spend was what, $50M?

When it gets a "B" after it they are interested, that's "write us a powerpoint" money.

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

I think a simple SAM could end a military starship’s endeavor very quickly. Gosh, guns would even be effective against it. Wouldn’t have self healing fuel tanks and it’s basically a giant flying bomb. 

The use case would presumably be rapid deployment to some remote location, they'd not be dropping into a combat zone. They could move operators into the area, make sure the site has no one around, then 30 minutes later they have a few Companies of men there.

Not saying it makes a lot of sense, but that's the idea at least (was for the Phil Bono version of the same from the 1960s.

[SunlitZelkova]

It is interesting as the Air Force interest is kind of like NASA interest. It points toward Starship being a viable system, against what detractors say about it. Especially if they want to spend money on it at this stage in development.

On the other hand, Starship would need to become really reliable for this to become a thing for a military operation. Starship may be cheap, but in all likelihood the cargo it will carry will not be (in fact the cargo will probably be more expensive by many times than the Starship itself).

[SpaceFace545]

23 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It is interesting as the Air Force interest is kind of like NASA interest. It points toward Starship being a viable system, against what detractors say about it. Especially if they want to spend money on it at this stage in development.

On the other hand, Starship would need to become really reliable for this to become a thing for a military operation. Starship may be cheap, but in all likelihood the cargo it will carry will not be (in fact the cargo will probably be more expensive by many times than the Starship itself).

I think the latter half of this is a good point. Rockets can be reliable for sure but we likely won’t get to airliner reliability within any of our lifetimes. Even 99% reliability wouldn’t cut it as like you said it’s moving some very expensive stuff. 
 

The Army and Air Force both have a very robust and efficient transport system. Half of their jobs is just moving things and logistics is their game.  Something like this just doesn’t seem necessary. If a group of soldiers need ammo: just send a helicopter, if they need a Humvee: just send a helicopter, if they need artillery: just send a helicopter. All the things infantry needs is only a few hours away by helicopter and those bases are stocked with that equipment. There isn’t a need to just launch a freaking rocket half way around the world to deliver an artillery gun.

 

This whole Air Force intrigue just sounds like their interest for Rods from God. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think the latter half of this is a good point. Rockets can be reliable for sure but we likely won’t get to airliner reliability within any of our lifetimes. Even 99% reliability wouldn’t cut it as like you said it’s moving some very expensive stuff. 
 

The Army and Air Force both have a very robust and efficient transport system. Half of their jobs is just moving things and logistics is their game.  Something like this just doesn’t seem necessary. If a group of soldiers need ammo: just send a helicopter, if they need a Humvee: just send a helicopter, if they need artillery: just send a helicopter. All the things infantry needs is only a few hours away by helicopter and those bases are stocked with that equipment. There isn’t a need to just launch a freaking rocket half way around the world to deliver an artillery gun.

 

This whole Air Force intrigue just sounds like their interest for Rods from God. 

The feature you are forgetting is 'Strategic Surprise'. 

(The difference between 'Strategic' and 'Tactical' surprise is easy: Tactical is when you try sneaking into the house late at night, only to discover your girlfriend is waiting up asking, 'Where have you been all night?' - Strategic is where she gets Maury Povitch to film you secretly for three days and confronts you on national television.

Until recently, the US possessed Strategic Surprise via the USNavy / Marine Corps and the fact that very few adversaries had access to the level of info available to us.  We could lurk over the horizon and show up at the place and time of our choosing.  The Navy is now vulnerable to commercial, on-demand satellite observation (which was formerly reserved only for top tier nation-state players in the game).  Further, drone tech alone has advanced to the point where cheap off-the-shelf solutions can be effective against slow moving craft.

So what this boondoggle feature could achieve is the AF being able to offer the Army a way to show up in an unexpected place with sufficient numbers to do something significant.  Or freak out potential adversaries and cause them to spend money on countering a capability we'd never actually use.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The use case would presumably be rapid deployment to some remote location, they'd not be dropping into a combat zone. They could move operators into the area, make sure the site has no one around, then 30 minutes later they have a few Companies of men there.

Maybe emergency supplies or rescuing a downed airman?

[SpaceFace545]

9 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

offer the Army a way to show up in an unexpected place

Isn’t that the Marine Corps’ job?

9 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Maybe emergency supplies or rescuing a downed airman?

Helicopter.  The US has hundreds of military bases all over the globe.

[tater]

Cargo could have more utility.

A Chinook can carry 10.8 t of cargo, slowly, and at risk. The transit from a safe border to the desired LZ might be extremely dangerous on both ingress and egress. If a cargo P2P could do 150t, that saves a RT for 14-15 aircrews.

So you have operators deep inside someplace sketchy, and you want to land supplies—maybe they are arming local forces, for example. They uplink the landing coords, perhaps even find the exact flat spot, and drop a beacon, or they could cover something radar reflective under some dirt to mask it. Call in the supplies, and 30 minutes later a rocket lands.

Edited June 2, 2021 by tater

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

46 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Maybe emergency supplies or rescuing a downed airman?

Much too much effort for either - unless you need to emergency supply a Regiment.  OTOH  -- rapid response to a disaster zone?  Yeah - that wins brownie points all around.

Helicopters are great - when you have absolute air superiority and the opponent is not being supplied with manpad SAMs from the RU or CN.

25 minutes ago, tater said:

Cargo could have more utility.

A Chinook can carry 10.8 t of cargo, slowly, and at risk. The transit from a safe border to the desired LZ might be extremely dangerous on both ingress and egress. If a cargo P2P could do 150t, that saves a RT for 14-15 aircrews.

So you have operators deep inside someplace sketchy, and you want to land supplies—maybe they are arming local forces, for example. They uplink the landing coords, perhaps even find the exact flat spot, and drop a beacon, or they could cover something radar reflective under some dirt to mask it. Call in the supplies, and 30 minutes later a rocket lands.

The amount of gear carried by SS is too great for tactical resupply.  Our current lift capacity is sufficient to effectively 'bomb' our friendlies with fly-by supplies; no need for SS for that.

[SpaceFace545]

And what do you do with an empty starship afterwards. Just leave the multi million dollar piece of equipment there or somehow ship it back over most likely uneven terrain under suboptimal circumstances.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

Other issue with P2P supply transport is how to refuel it…

[zolotiyeruki]

If raptor is only $250k apiece and all the tanks and plumbing are only a few tens of thousands, an emergency supply drop might well be a lot cheaper than one might expect. It makes SS almost disposable.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, zolotiyeruki said:

If raptor is only $250k apiece and all the tanks and plumbing are only a few tens of thousands, an emergency supply drop might well be a lot cheaper than one might expect. It makes SS almost disposable.

And - SX pays some former hard-ahem- tailed fellows with specialized training to fly into the danger zone, pack up the engines and ship out.  You make part of the 'commercial contract' to support Military and Humanitarian missions 'assistance with retrieval and extraction of assets and personnel'.  Easy peasy.

Edited June 2, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Dfthu]

3 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

And what do you do with an empty starship afterwards. Just leave the multi million dollar piece of equipment there or somehow ship it back over most likely uneven terrain under suboptimal circumstances.

Unless they only launch it between very large military bases. It takes around 14 hours to fly from New York to Dubai (just some random example) If the US builds a launch and landing site in the middle east they could use that as a huge cargo hub and use fleets of helicopters to deliver the rest of the way. Still saving many hours in the process

[SpaceFace545]

43 minutes ago, Dfthu said:

huge cargo hub and use fleets of helicopters to deliver the rest of the way. Still saving many hours in the process

Thats pretty much what the US military does, and they just fly cargo flights at nearly the same pace as an airline. There is no supply gap that needs to be filled with a rocket.

[Dfthu]

7 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Thats pretty much what the US military does, and they just fly cargo flights at nearly the same pace as an airline. There is no supply gap that needs to be filled with a rocket.

All it would do is just get it there faster

[SpaceFace545]

1 minute ago, Dfthu said:

All it would do is just get it there faster

But it wouldn’t make much of a difference, “tactical supply drops” are economically and practically infeasible and we have massive cargo planes that can economically transport much more.

[tater]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The amount of gear carried by SS is too great for tactical resupply.  Our current lift capacity is sufficient to effectively 'bomb' our friendlies with fly-by supplies; no need for SS for that.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not saying it makes sense.

150t as supply for a local army that was raised could be a thing, I suppose. But the DoD is also often about capabilities that they won't necessarily ever use.

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But it wouldn’t make much of a difference, “tactical supply drops” are economically and practically infeasible and we have massive cargo planes that can economically transport much more.

Yeah, it's like 5 C-17 flights? 6?