Paranoid uses for starship

[tomf]

Imagine you are a paranoid general in a rival power to the US. What scenarios enabled by the planned starship system are you going to be presenting to leadership in order to justify increased spending on your project? It has to be plausible enough that you can convince the leadership that something needs to be done to counter the threat.

In another thread the general consensus was that p2p was going to be niche at best so probably not worth worrying about.

1. ASAT missiles. With rapid launch cadence they can replace satellites that are shot down and with a huge mass budget the next one will be armoured!

2. First strike weapon. With in orbit refueling it might be common to have two large spacecraft rendezvousing over your territory. Except these aren't regular starships, these are disguised warhead busses about to rain 500 tonnes of warheads down on us with almost no warning!

P.s. I'm not interested in whether you think starship will work as advertised, this is about reasonably slightly plausible military uses assuming it does.

[Beccab]

5 minutes ago, tomf said:

Imagine you are a paranoid general in a rival power to the US. What scenarios enabled by the planned starship system are you going to be presenting to leadership in order to justify increased spending on your project? It has to be plausible enough that you can convince the leadership that something needs to be done to counter the threat.

 

[kerbiloid]

KSP + Tundra + BDArmory

[SOXBLOX]

3 hours ago, tomf said:

Imagine you are a paranoid general in a rival power to the US.

Hey, let's not give them any ideas!

Maybe...Starship's true purpose is to deploy an ABM system, like Bright Pebbles? And Pebbles requires lots of small, redundant satellites....covering the globe...hey, wait-a-minute! 

[kerbiloid]

The obvious purpose of Starship is to make others start making their own Starships and spend money on bird instead of useful purposes.

[Rakaydos]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The obvious purpose of Starship is to make others start making their own Starships and spend money on bird instead of useful purposes.

But SURELY Russia wouldnt fall for that AGAIN, after Buran...

[kerbiloid]

10 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

But SURELY Russia wouldnt fall for that AGAIN, after Buran...

Buran had its purposes, and it was actually good for them, unlike the hypothetical Starship.

It has nothing common with forced money spending.

[Rakaydos]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Buran had its purposes, and it was actually good for them, unlike the hypothetical Starship.

It has nothing common with forced money spending.

Really? If it had actual purpose, what was it used for? and when?

Edited September 1, 2021 by Rakaydos

[kerbiloid]

21 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Really? If it had actual purpose, what was it used for? and when?

At the very least, its purpose was to teach SpaceX how a proper reusable spacecraft should look like.

N1 was for their first stage.

[Beccab]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

At the very least, its purpose was to teach SpaceX how a proper reusable spacecraft should look like.

Lol, this argument again

[Rakaydos]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

At the very least, its purpose was to teach SpaceX how a proper reusable spacecraft should look like.

N1 was for their first stage.

Sounds like a waste of rubles to me...

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Lol, this argument again

Being repeated twice, it still hasn't gotten less significant.

5 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Sounds like a waste of rubles to me...

Why? N1 gave NK-33 which allow Antares to fly in XXI.

[Beccab]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Being repeated twice, it still hasn't gotten less significant.

It sure hasn't, especially if you ignore every reply

[Rakaydos]

 

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The obvious purpose of Starship is to make others start making their own Starships and spend money on bird instead of useful purposes.

1 hour ago, Rakaydos said:

But SURELY Russia wouldnt fall for that AGAIN, after Buran...

 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Beccab said:

It sure hasn't, especially if you ignore every reply

I know it had. And of course I'm not going to support the flood, especially since the second part of the phrase, which is obviously provocative and false.

Btw, Buran has flown at least once.

Starship still never.

[adsii1970]

Folks, please stay on topic with what the OP claims the focus of the thread should be - a hypothetical situation where you are a rival nation to the U.S. and you have some sort of space program - and how, as the person in charge of that space program convince your national leaders to spend more money on your project? The exact words from the OP are: It has to be plausible enough that you can convince the leadership that something needs to be done to counter the threat. And so... keep on topic.

 

[Codraroll]

If you want to be properly paranoid, asteroid redirection is always a fun one to go for. Of course, this would require a very specialized upper stage, but you could plausibly convince a politician that the US were building that in secret. The idea of a hostile nation acquiring the ability to nudge rocks strategically, and preventing others from doing the same, ought to wet the pants of some politicians out there.

On a slightly more sober level, there's also the threat of point-to-point applications. Rapidly transporting missile launchers to forward bases, for instance. Of course, you could do that with transport aircraft already, it would probably be cheaper and easier too, but it's a scary story to tell politicians nonetheless.

And of course, telling it straight and true could work well too. "If this thing works as advertised, our launch technology will be entirely obsolete by comparison. There's no way we can compete in terms of sending tonnage to orbit quickly and cheaply". An expendable rocket sending 25 tons to orbit at a cost of $100 million per launch, at a cadence of about 1 per year, has absolutely nothing to do in a market where a competitor can send 150 tons at a time for $2 million on a reusable rocket every day. In terms of building space power projection capability, Starship is insanely far ahead of everything else on the drawing board, anywhere. Not sure what projects you could get funding for to prevent that, short of actual warfare, though.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I remember beating this horse a few weeks ago 

[Vanamonde]

Reminder: the subject of real world politics invariably gets nasty and therefore has been ruled off limits for this forum. 

Some content removed. 

[kerbiloid]

The topic itself is formulated ambiguously.

Does the "starship" mean exactly Starship (the wannabe-reusable upper stage) or the SuperHeavy as well?

Starship (in the narrow sense): even if it ever flies and lands, is just a vulnerable, slow, and large target. Too negligible for a developed opponent, too expensive for colonial wars.

SuperHeavy: cryogenic and large.
So as ICBM it's a return to the 1960s early ICBM which have been replaced exactly because they were cryo.
Its reliability (with 30 engines) is unknown but doubtful. Its fueling would be just a signal to the opponent that he is under attack. It isn't storable when fueled.
So, as an ICBM it's nothing.

If it ever flies, it could mass deliver sats or turn the Moon into minefield.
But this would just cause a mass-and-dirty response countermeasures.

So, the most real dangers from it are adding several thousands more craters on the Moon and making the opponent to spend money on a same thing.

Edited September 2, 2021 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, Codraroll said:

If you want to be properly paranoid, asteroid redirection is always a fun one to go for. Of course, this would require a very specialized upper stage, but you could plausibly convince a politician that the US were building that in secret. The idea of a hostile nation acquiring the ability to nudge rocks strategically, and preventing others from doing the same, ought to wet the pants of some politicians out there.

On a slightly more sober level, there's also the threat of point-to-point applications. Rapidly transporting missile launchers to forward bases, for instance. Of course, you could do that with transport aircraft already, it would probably be cheaper and easier too, but it's a scary story to tell politicians nonetheless.

And of course, telling it straight and true could work well too. "If this thing works as advertised, our launch technology will be entirely obsolete by comparison. There's no way we can compete in terms of sending tonnage to orbit quickly and cheaply". An expendable rocket sending 25 tons to orbit at a cost of $100 million per launch, at a cadence of about 1 per year, has absolutely nothing to do in a market where a competitor can send 150 tons at a time for $2 million on a reusable rocket every day. In terms of building space power projection capability, Starship is insanely far ahead of everything else on the drawing board, anywhere. Not sure what projects you could get funding for to prevent that, short of actual warfare, though.

Yes this is an pretty old idea and an very paranoid one. However I see it as very unpractical. First it would be very public and visible, yes you claim its an mining operation but you could not hide that the asteroid is on collision course with earth. 

Military I could easy see starship as an bomber for an rod from god style weapon who should work very well against fortified targets. 

And as you say you have the benefit of being able to cheaply put heavy payloads into orbit. 

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

cheaply put heavy payloads into orbit. 

The superheavy orbital thing is immediately hit by a small a-sat missile.

Suggestions? Decisions?

(Yes, it's known who has hit and the hitman says he will do this again next time.)

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

The superheavy orbital thing is immediately hit by a small a-sat missile.

Suggestions? Decisions?

(Yes, it's known who has hit and the hitman says he will do this again next time.)

Space APS?

23 hours ago, tomf said:

1. ASAT missiles. With rapid launch cadence they can replace satellites that are shot down and with a huge mass budget the next one will be armoured!

2. First strike weapon. With in orbit refueling it might be common to have two large spacecraft rendezvousing over your territory. Except these aren't regular starships, these are disguised warhead busses about to rain 500 tonnes of warheads down on us with almost no warning!

1. This is a bad idea. It will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves. Better to just accept sats getting destroyed. Also armoring of a satellite does not matter because the impact will likely destabilize the satellite anyways.

2. This won't work. The re-entering Starship will be detected by radars, even mobile ones like the AN/TPY-2 (THAAD), AN/MPQ-63 (Patriot), and presumably the S-400 and S-500, will be able to provide early warning. Again, this will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves.

And if SpaceX launch facilities get attacked, a Mars City can be kissed good bye. SpaceX development facilities would become key targets too.

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Space APS?

There were a lot of war conflicts and incidents, but nobody wants to bring a war to the homeland.

[GuessingEveryDay]

2 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

1. This is a bad idea. It will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves. Better to just accept sats getting destroyed. Also armoring of a satellite does not matter because the impact will likely destabilize the satellite anyways.

2. This won't work. The re-entering Starship will be detected by radars, even mobile ones like the AN/TPY-2 (THAAD), AN/MPQ-63 (Patriot), and presumably the S-400 and S-500, will be able to provide early warning. Again, this will just invite attack on SpaceX launch facilities themselves.

And if SpaceX launch facilities get attacked, a Mars City can be kissed good bye. SpaceX development facilities would become key targets too.

SpaceX is also an American meaning they may follow American laws while in International waters, so if they get attacked, wouldn't that be an act of war?