Military applications for P2P (split from SpaceX)

[SpaceFace545]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Well, they should ask SpaceX for stylish lunar biker uniform.

  Hide contents

 

(With the swamp boots for regolith)

I can’t explain how much I hate that the boots on that suit are legit rain boots.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I can’t explain how much I hate that the boots on that suit are legit rain boots.

It's for lunar seas and pools of fallen stars after meteor showers.

[DDE]

20 hours ago, RCgothic said:

I like this carrier idea better than dropping into warzones.

I imagine there'd quickly be a new class of drone support ship if there's any issue landing on a carrier. Sufficiently distant to take the risk from other vessels but still protected within the group.

 

[sevenperforce]

23 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

what are you going to do with the aircraft that the aircraft carrier was designed to move. Aircraft carriers are crowded with planes and helicopters above and below decks. So what, you just halve your plane storage by keeping them below deck and afterwards the starship will take up too much room for the flight deck to even be useful.

The aircraft carrying capacity of a supercarrier is primarily belowdecks in the aircraft hanger. Large carriers have several hangar decks and can hold aircraft in close quarters. So removing aircraft from the flight deck doesn't even come close to halving the number of planes. In reality, you'd barely even notice.

Also remember that the purpose of an aircraft carrier is not to "move" planes, but to operate them. It is a floating airport.

Starship can land on the flight deck and then move via onboard crawler to an area clear of the main angled flight deck.

23 hours ago, RCgothic said:

I like this carrier idea better than dropping into warzones.

I imagine there'd quickly be a new class of drone support ship if there's any issue landing on a carrier. Sufficiently distant to take the risk from other vessels but still protected within the group.

It doesn't even have to be a carrier, per se. Amphibious assault ships like the USS Nassau can support V/STOL landing fighters.

[SpaceFace545]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The aircraft carrying capacity of a supercarrier is primarily belowdecks in the aircraft hanger. Large carriers have several hangar decks and can hold aircraft in close quarters. So removing aircraft from the flight deck doesn't even come close to halving the number of planes. In reality, you'd barely even notice.

Also remember that the purpose of an aircraft carrier is not to "move" planes, but to operate them. It is a floating airport.

Starship can land on the flight deck and then move via onboard crawler to an area clear of the main angled flight deck.

If you have ever been on an aircraft carrier or seen one during operation than you would sure to know that every square inch of a carrier is used at once.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

Just now, SpaceFace545 said:

If you have ever been on an aircraft carrier or seen one during operation than you would sure to know that every square inch of a carrier is used at once.

They could change their space (haha) utilization to fit a starship. 
 

Also, why not just use Starship a a bomb? It clearly has explosive potential. 

[sevenperforce]

20 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Even at 3 per day - SX as a milcontractor can't match one ships worth of cargo - what they can offer is speed. 

Again - not a replacement for capabilities, but perhaps an enhancer

Agreed. It's not gonna be raw tonnage delivery; it's gonna be niche.

Starship can do two things aircraft can't do. First, it can get there a lot faster and doesn't require coordination of refueling assets. Second, it can take larger payloads than an aircraft, though not by any massive factor.

It is admittedly hard to come up with a monolithic payload that the US military would need moved halfway across the world and wouldn't already have local assets for. So the speed is going to be the biggest factor.

Another possibility we haven't discussed as much is whether they would dispense with Starship's re-entry altogether. If what you have can be shielded to survive re-entry, then Starship can boost to a suborbital trajectory, open the chomper and drop it off in empty space, and then boost itself into a full orbit so it returns to the launch site. Then you don't have to worry about landing Starship in a war zone.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

So, the US is really good at logistics.  Even when we goon something up (which I was on the raw end of in Iraq) - recovery from the mistakes and lack is rapid.*   Military need gets fed.

While I've written that, at present the P2P lift capability is largely superfluous at the moment... It might become a critical asset once things are kinetic in a protracted peer /near peer conflict. 

Should an adversary have the ability to interdict and destroy a significant percentage of the commercial surface traffic of the Pacific or Atlantic and force military traffic to use less direct routes - the ability to drop required supplies could be critical. 

Oh - and a point about 'landing on a flattop' - the USMC had to retrofit its fleet due to F-35 exhaust.  As it stands, the USN is not likely to be very excited to have rocket exhaust bathe it's deck.  But a ship that combines some fleet missile defense capability with a landing platform and fuel generation would be cool.  None exist - but it would be cool. 

 

*(By that I mean, weeks not days, btw, accompanied by a lot of heartache and anger)

[DDE]

1 minute ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

But a ship that combines some fleet missile defense capability with a landing platform and fuel generation would be cool.  None exist - but it would be cool. 

Hm, suddenly the San Antonio missile defense conversion looks a lot less silly.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, DDE said:

Hm, suddenly the San Antonio missile defense conversion looks a lot less silly.

Actually - I doubt that P2P ever was a consideration at all.  The fleet anti missile system requirement is driven by the emerging capabilities and aggressive behavior of China and the proliferation of weapons to places like Iran. 

Frankly we need not only more ships like this, but also point defense systems on every ship.

The threat is both real and forcing a reevaluation of tactics and capabilities 

Edited June 3, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

(ninja'd by Pentagon)

Spoiler

Pentagon follows this thread.

https://www.interfax.ru/world/770423

Next year the USAF will is going to test a P2P rocket delivery of cargo and personnel.

The ambitious program Rocket Cargo is devoted to the development of heavy cargo rockets to transfer up to 100 t of cargo.

It will cost 48 mln USD in 2022.

Its abilities will be equal to C-17. (Just a quote).

It will be landing vertically and automatically in the designated area, like the SpaceX 1st stage does.

(Then - common words about investing into commercial applications)

***

Interesting, which KSP version do they use for planning? Cuz now they should use the Runway edition of BDArmory.

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by kerbiloid

[Beccab]

 

22 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Pentagon follows this thread.

https://www.interfax.ru/world/770423

Next year the USAF will is going to test a P2P rocket delivery of cargo and personnel.

The ambitious program Rocket Cargo is devoted to the development of heavy cargo rockets to transfer up to 100 t of cargo.

It will cost 48 mln USD in 2022.

Its abilities will be equal to C-17. (Just a quote).

It will be landing vertically and automatically in the designated area, like the SpaceX 1st stage does.

(Then - common words about investing into commercial applications)

***

Interesting, which KSP version do they use for planning? Cuz now they should use the Runway edition of BDArmory.

That's how this thread started, the USAF asked money to implement Starship as P2P and make at least a test flight to an austere site in 2022

[kerbiloid]

Oops. That was in SpX thread.

[DDE]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Actually - I doubt that P2P ever was a consideration at all. 

Never implied it was. But LPDs were the third biggest flight deck option, and they had the 288 VLS conversion proposal.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The fleet anti missile system requirement is driven by the emerging capabilities and aggressive behavior of China and the proliferation of weapons to places like Iran. 

Frankly we need not only more ships like this, but also point defense systems on every ship.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited June 3, 2021 by DDE

[SOXBLOX]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Another possibility we haven't discussed as much is whether they would dispense with Starship's re-entry altogether. If what you have can be shielded to survive re-entry, then Starship can boost to a suborbital trajectory, open the chomper and drop it off in empty space, and then boost itself into a full orbit so it returns to the launch site. Then you don't have to worry about landing Starship in a war zone.

IDK if you noticed, but I'd mentioned that the budget request included a mention of "air-drop methods". Pretty sure a logistics analysis company is also getting funding, and there are discussions going on about containers and perhaps, containers with heat shields. I guess if we can give ICBMs a decent CEP, Starship can do it, too.

Out of curiosity, which austere site do you all think they'd fly to for the proposed test? Some island in the Atlantic?

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Actually - I doubt that P2P ever was a consideration at all.  The fleet anti missile system requirement is driven by the emerging capabilities and aggressive behavior of China and the proliferation of weapons to places like Iran. 

Frankly we need not only more ships like this, but also point defense systems on every ship.

The threat is both real and forcing a reevaluation of tactics and capabilities 

I guess that's the reason one defense company proposed bolting ESSM launchers to cargo ships...

Also saw a neat feature a week ago on Raytheon's progress with its laser program. The fiber optic type seems to have solved scalability issues; they're wrapping up their R&D on a 20 kW class system for anti-drone and shifting to one that can do full C-RAM. They said it would work fine in a maritime environment...

Also, exactly how much reinforcing would it take to get a flight deck of any type to handle an SS? I have no idea how strong they are; I just know that some can't handle a V-22. I presume rocket exhaust would be worse.

Edited June 3, 2021 by SOXBLOX

[DDE]

2 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Also saw a neat feature a week ago on Raytheon's progress with its laser program. The fiber optic type seems to have solved scalability issues; they're wrapping up their R&D on a 20 kW class system for anti-drone and shifting to one that can do full C-RAM. They said it would work fine in a maritime environment...

I'm generally rather skeptical of the effectiveness of laser weapons on present-generation, low-profile, short-masted ships.

Spoiler

Pagoda mast time.

 

[SOXBLOX]

4 minutes ago, DDE said:

I'm generally rather skeptical of the effectiveness of laser weapons on present-generation, low-profile, short-masted ships.

Hmmm... Well, the Zumwalt-class has a pretty high superstructure. Maybe put it up there? Although that pagoda mast does have a look all its own...

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Also, exactly how much reinforcing would it take to get a flight deck of any type to handle an SS

SX is already landing rockets on a barge.  So probably not much.

One problem is all the other stuff the Navy uses up top - catapults, etc.  That stuff is harder to protect.  Thing is, whenever you add a new 'capability' to an existing, purpose-built craft... given that these are engineered with an already long laundry list of requirements - how do you protect the existing capabilities and needs?

 

Frankly - this is a 2035 problem.  

[SpaceFace545]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Starship can do two things aircraft can't do. First, it can get there a lot faster and doesn't require coordination of refueling assets. Second, it can take larger payloads than an aircraft, though not by any massive factor

I think unloading will be the biggest issue and that most military cargos are oversize, Starship is big but its not that big. And the door opens downwards so how is that gonna work.

[Beccab]

32 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Out of curiosity, which austere site do you all think they'd fly to for the proposed test? Some island in the Atlantic?

Very wild guess, but maybe a flight from somewhere in the west coast to Alaska?

[SOXBLOX]

2 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I think unloading will be the biggest issue and that most military cargos are oversize, Starship is big but its not that big. And the door opens downwards so how is that gonna work.

Probably something close to the way they offload cargo from Moonship.

2 hours ago, Beccab said:

Very wild guess, but maybe a flight from somewhere in the west coast to Alaska?

Alaska fits the "austere" part...

[SpaceFace545]

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

Probably something close to the way they offload cargo from Moonship

But those elevators are meant to work in microgravity and likely won’t be able to carry 60 ton tanks.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

25 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

But those elevators are meant to work in microgravity and likely won’t be able to carry 60 ton tanks.

Invert starship while horizontal

open bay 

let tank pallet on rails slide out

parachutes  

[YNM]

28 minutes ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Invert starship while horizontal

You do realize how rockets works right ? If the engines point towards the sky you're not going to have a good day. Unless we have the payload bay opening on the bottom ofc (and at that point we're back to Soviet Union Shuttle Nightmares).

Spoiler

Nightmares of Shuttle Orbital Bombardment (article, another article)

Honestly still thinking that they're just toying around here. Might even get it to be discarded single-use things. Drop out payload at last minute, explosion be darned. Not useful, sure, but why not try ? Same thing with DARPA and the RF "EmDrive", probably a good directed RF emitter or something.

On 6/2/2021 at 8:50 PM, SpaceFace545 said:

China is rapdily growing their navy. Even if they don't have as advanced of technology as the US they are plenty capable of making it up with the shear size of their armed forces.

Take a look at their air force while you're at it.

Edited June 3, 2021 by YNM

[Spaceman.Spiff]

49 minutes ago, YNM said:

You do realize how rockets works right ? If the engines point towards the sky you're not going to have a good day. Unless we have the payload bay opening on the bottom ofc (and at that point we're back to Soviet Union Shuttle Nightmares).

I meant roll 

The proper word eluded me