Military applications for P2P (split from SpaceX)

[tater]

Another possibility for these sorts of missions is to use a reusable booster (because it's cheap), and make a minimalistic stage 2 that gets expended (minimal because the trajectory crosses the dirt). The payload is then just a reentry vehicle, perhaps with grid fins/etc to steer it to a more precise landing location before deploying chutes? Alternately something with propulsive landing, but designed to be disposable.

 

[DDE]

Just now, tater said:

Another possibility for these sorts of missions is to use a reusable booster (because it's cheap), and make a minimalistic stage 2 that gets expended (minimal because the trajectory crosses the dirt). The payload is then just a reentry vehicle, perhaps with grid fins/etc to steer it to a more precise landing location before deploying chutes? Alternately something with propulsive landing, but designed to be disposable.

That's pretty much what I've arrived to when thinking about any sort of a contested region - we're back to drop pods, then.

[tater]

34 minutes ago, DDE said:

That's pretty much what I've arrived to when thinking about any sort of a contested region - we're back to drop pods, then.

Just have to let everyone in the region know it's a "missile of love" if it's humanitarian, lol.

[kerbiloid]

On 6/4/2021 at 10:54 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

You probably think this is a Boeng. 

<picture>

It is not. 

It is a Quantas

Still not. It's a Qantas, have a look.

[YNM]

52 minutes ago, tater said:

The payload is then just a reentry vehicle,

50 minutes ago, DDE said:

we're back to drop pods, then.

Although considering "novel trajectories" may as well be suborbital bombardment.

[DDE]

31 minutes ago, tater said:

Just have to let everyone in the region know it's a "missile of love" if it's humanitarian, lol.

A missile of love. Full of dropbears.

[kerbiloid]

A distractive rocket full of dollars spread above a place somewhere around.

[tater]

27 minutes ago, DDE said:

A missile of love. Full of dropbears.

Send New Shepard, then there will be no confusing what sort of missile it is

 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

Although considering "novel trajectories" may as well be suborbital bombardment.

You could easy do orbital bombardment with an standard starship. 
Including stuff like an extra orbit and plane change for time on target say you launch one, then another 50 minutes later. 
However this is not designed to fight Russia or China as they don't want to fight each other or the US. 
All talk about this is fear mongering, request for more military funding and trying to prevent other side from doing stuff by claiming it will destabilize the balance. 
For US and Russia both sides has lots of subs with ICBM so an first strike is physical impossible. 
China has an much smaller nuclear strike capability, sensible counting on that you don't need to kill all the enemies just make an all out war an political suicide by killing plenty of cities. 
yes it makes them more vulnerable to advance ABM systems  but that is another issue. 

However I think US orbital strikes are more against Iran and North Korea both having lots of deep underground structures who would still be vulnerable to an 100 ton perpetrator at orbital velocity. 
Iran, Russian will protest because they loose an market, NK China will probably invade from the north. Let them take it, it remove the morons and take the cost integrating them who China can easy handle and for the people it will be an major benefit as the Chinese way better than the NK leadership. 

[YNM]

18 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

You could easy do orbital bombardment with an standard starship. 
Including stuff like an extra orbit and plane change for time on target say you launch one, then another 50 minutes later. 
However this is not designed to fight Russia or China as they don't want to fight each other or the US. 
All talk about this is fear mongering, request for more military funding and trying to prevent other side from doing stuff by claiming it will destabilize the balance. 

Well, they already believed that more than 45 years ago anyway...

22 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

However I think US orbital strikes are more against Iran and North Korea both having lots of deep underground structures who would still be vulnerable to an 100 ton perpetrator at orbital velocity. 

Maybe one of the more common adversary have that too.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

The risk of doing something unusual from space for a tactical advantage over a low tier enemy is making nervous those high tier adversaries watching for unusual activity from space. 

All we need is someone to misinterpret something to have a major Charlie Foxtrot. 

So until and unless it becomes necessary - we have plenty of conventional stuff that does not make folks with big red buttons anxious 

[SpaceFace545]

I still don’t see the need for this, if it’s primary purpose seems to be disaster relief then why can’t a plane just do it. For one it’s gonna be way more expensive to move marginally less, the whole 10$ a kg is utter nonsense, you know it and I know it. Secondly a plane doesn’t take much longer, sure a rocket takes an hour but a jet only takes about 14 hours to go anywhere reasonable. (And that’s from the US, not counting the numerous other Air Force bases most likely closer to the disaster location). I really see no purpose for this at all. Starship also won’t allow for bulk payloads, it really isn’t that big, it could carry a lot but it can’t carry big stuff.

[Beccab]

46 minutes ago, SpaceFace545 said:

you know it and I know it

If you know it, that's great the forum has someone so competent in the field that they can say without a minimal doubt that spacex is wrong, but I sure do not know it

[DDE]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

For US and Russia both sides has lots of subs with ICBM so an first strike is physical impossible. 

Impossible, perhaps. But doesn't mean it's not being pursued. Here's a recent and enlightening thread on the topic - can't cherrypick one tweet, should be read in its entirety:

Spoiler

 

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, SpaceFace545 said:

I still don’t see the need for this, if it’s primary purpose seems to be disaster relief then why can’t a plane just do it. For one it’s gonna be way more expensive to move marginally less, the whole 10$ a kg is utter nonsense, you know it and I know it. Secondly a plane doesn’t take much longer, sure a rocket takes an hour but a jet only takes about 14 hours to go anywhere reasonable. (And that’s from the US, not counting the numerous other Air Force bases most likely closer to the disaster location). I really see no purpose for this at all. Starship also won’t allow for bulk payloads, it really isn’t that big, it could carry a lot but it can’t carry big stuff.

Massive public relations.

Let's say the US Gov't decides against helping out someplace that needs it, like say, Puerto Rico after a storm.  Elon can toss them a rocket full of food, water and meds, and he's a hero.

Let's say the US Gov't decides to do something, but someone else won't let us: say, a massive volcano erupts in the middle of N'Djamena but the good people of Nigeria and Cameroon express displeasure at US planes flying overhead... USAF drops a rocket into Chad airspace, from space, lands humanitarian aid and 'donates' the steel & rocket engines.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Let's say the US Gov't decides against helping out someplace that needs it, like say, Puerto Rico after a storm.  Elon can toss them a rocket full of food, water and meds, and he's a hero.

He should send several times more by planes.

Edited June 7, 2021 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

He should send several times more by planes.

Planes are boring.

 

They work much better (as has been said) - but they lack the 'wow' factor.

[kerbiloid]

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

USAF drops a rocket into Chad airspace, from space, lands humanitarian

And after the humanitarian breaks a corridor in air defence, send planes with food?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

And after the humanitarian breaks a corridor in air defence, send planes with food?

A true humanitarian would negotiate a compromise, don't you think?

[kerbiloid]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

A true humanitarian would negotiate a compromise, don't you think?

What's wrong with breaking a corridor by negotiating and bringing a bag of dollars?

[Beccab]

Scott Manley' new video on the topic

[kerbiloid]

That's wise. 
Why show off with jetpacks, when you can put the troops in the medicars.

[Beccab]

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's wise. 
Why show off with jetpacks, when you can put the troops in the medicars.

Tbh that poster does scream "those medicars could be Humvees if you need"

[DDE]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Let's say the US Gov't decides against helping out someplace that needs it, like say, Puerto Rico after a storm.  Elon can toss them a rocket full of food, water and meds, and he's a hero.

Elon really doesn't have a good track record of disaster response.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2019/10/09/elon-musk-brands-himself-an-idiot-in-thai-cave-rescue-defamation-lawsuit/

[kerbiloid]

28 minutes ago, DDE said:

Elon really doesn't have a good track record of disaster response.

It's just because he didn't have a rocket.

Spoiler

For non-Russian users: it's an allusion to the popular cartoon.

"You see, why I was so angry? Just because I didn't have a bicycle."

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by kerbiloid