SpaceX's Starship: America's Secret Weapon(austinvernon.site)
austinvernon.site
SpaceX's Starship: America's Secret Weapon
https://austinvernon.site/blog/starshipsuperweapon.html
36 comments
What a depressing, war-mongering article, that takes space exploration and gingerly looks at how it can be weaponized instead.
Space exploration has always been and will always be linked to weapons. The whole thing was an offshoot of the ICBM program; without weapons there is no space exploration, and that continues to this day; DoD is SpaceX's biggest customer.
Don't give it any heed. This is the same guy who wrote that e-bikes could be made cheaper by replacing the cog-and-chain drivetrain (which is extremely efficient) with a motor-generator combination (which is more expensive, heavier, and far less efficient.)
He seems to love writing /r/iamverysmart garbage, pathologically unaware of how little he knows about the things he writes about.
He seems to love writing /r/iamverysmart garbage, pathologically unaware of how little he knows about the things he writes about.
People who 'know what they are talking about' are quite often so buried in details they lose sight of possible futures. On the other hand idealists often simplify to the point of nonsense. The truth is usually somewhere in between. For example, in the case of his bicycle post, efficiency is almost irrelevant except for sports cyclists - the increasing number of people using electric-assisted bikes could well do without a chain and it's limitations, maintenance, etc. They want to get from A-B, while doing some exercise (but not too much).
> He seems to love writing /r/iamverysmart garbage, pathologically unaware of how little he knows about the things he writes about.
Isn't that all modern journalism has become, pay lip service to your fan base, do the occasional controversial thing to garner more eye balls, sell their data for targeted ads marketing: rinse and repeat?
Personally speaking, as a space nerd, I'd love to tell you how the aerospace Industry isn't sewn at he hip to the weapons contractor industry, bu tth etruth all of aerospace has a deep MIC link.
Just look at the backers of ULA and you will see who and how these things were optimized. I'm wondering if the reason SLS never took off was because they needed to iterative design to accommodate a weapons grade payload given who is behind them.
With that said, I think we will hear this type of rhetoric will ramp up even more as China enters the space race as it takes over Russia since they seem intent on becoming the World's most sanctioned country in the World and will simply have no one to work with.
Which is a shame because their are so many Cosomonauts who deserve to remain on the mission manifest and continue their work, but sadly dictatorships posion everything they touch and we cannot have security breaches with something so vital to the betterment of Humanity.
Isn't that all modern journalism has become, pay lip service to your fan base, do the occasional controversial thing to garner more eye balls, sell their data for targeted ads marketing: rinse and repeat?
Personally speaking, as a space nerd, I'd love to tell you how the aerospace Industry isn't sewn at he hip to the weapons contractor industry, bu tth etruth all of aerospace has a deep MIC link.
Just look at the backers of ULA and you will see who and how these things were optimized. I'm wondering if the reason SLS never took off was because they needed to iterative design to accommodate a weapons grade payload given who is behind them.
With that said, I think we will hear this type of rhetoric will ramp up even more as China enters the space race as it takes over Russia since they seem intent on becoming the World's most sanctioned country in the World and will simply have no one to work with.
Which is a shame because their are so many Cosomonauts who deserve to remain on the mission manifest and continue their work, but sadly dictatorships posion everything they touch and we cannot have security breaches with something so vital to the betterment of Humanity.
Space was weaponized from the start. The impure usurpers are the ones who look at how to scienceize space weapons.
hemreldop(1)
What would be more depressing is if western governments have not already given this some thought, and years later China achieves all this through theft of our IP. Somehow I don't think the Chinese (nor the Russians for that matter) have the same moral qualms.
Realpolitik: speak softly and carry a big stick.
Realpolitik: speak softly and carry a big stick.
Not sure we can talk about the west's morals or soft-spokenness with a straight face any more.
More like carry a big stick and wave it around wildly while yelling loudly, threatening and bashing people, giving sticks to our enemies' enemies and encouraging them to bash one another and hoping they don't use them on us or our friends later. Also make money selling lots of (slightly smaller) sticks to other people to bash one another with, stirring everyone up with beatings and fear of beatings to help our sales.
But yeah it would be be better for the west if we stay as far ahead of the likes of China and Russia as possible. If nothing else than because we don't want to be on the receiving end of what we've done to others. And when I say "we've done" I don't mean the common person, I'm talking about the warmongering ruling class who privatize the profits from their wars and meddling and socialize the costs and blame for it.
More like carry a big stick and wave it around wildly while yelling loudly, threatening and bashing people, giving sticks to our enemies' enemies and encouraging them to bash one another and hoping they don't use them on us or our friends later. Also make money selling lots of (slightly smaller) sticks to other people to bash one another with, stirring everyone up with beatings and fear of beatings to help our sales.
But yeah it would be be better for the west if we stay as far ahead of the likes of China and Russia as possible. If nothing else than because we don't want to be on the receiving end of what we've done to others. And when I say "we've done" I don't mean the common person, I'm talking about the warmongering ruling class who privatize the profits from their wars and meddling and socialize the costs and blame for it.
I estimated that the scrap value of a Starship used to deliver combat freight, once the engines have been unshipped and sent home, is something around $60,000.
Maybe more if the thrust puck is titanium. (Is it? It should be.) [Edit: I am wrong! Titanium scrap value is less than stainless steel.]
No, there is no possibility of re-launching it. Picture used-up Starships littering a combat theatre after an assault.
Maybe more if the thrust puck is titanium. (Is it? It should be.) [Edit: I am wrong! Titanium scrap value is less than stainless steel.]
No, there is no possibility of re-launching it. Picture used-up Starships littering a combat theatre after an assault.
For cargo point-to-point on Earth I could totally see a single use cargo pod on top of the booster instead of a starship. Very interesting to think about the logistics of whether they'll be able to refurbish and refuel starships in remote areas to launch and return home.
> The range of weapons is constantly increasing. If an anti-ship missile with a 200-mile range is good, one with a 2000-mile range is better.
Sorry, just no. Unless it also flies 10 times as fast it is an inferior weapon. Because if it is has a longer flight time then current missles it be shot down, the fact that it flies over more radared areas (because it flies further) doesn't help.
Sorry, just no. Unless it also flies 10 times as fast it is an inferior weapon. Because if it is has a longer flight time then current missles it be shot down, the fact that it flies over more radared areas (because it flies further) doesn't help.
If it works, starship could indeed be revolutionary, but China is not Russia. I expect a working, and perhaps even cheaper, Chinese starship clone, in short order.
America and the west's real secret weapon is the thing that produced starship. Free and open societies which foster enthusiastic innovation.
America and the west's real secret weapon is the thing that produced starship. Free and open societies which foster enthusiastic innovation.
That must be why "free and open societies" are under attack.
My fear here is:
US government tells Elon to do this.
Elon says no, I won’t build actual weapons.
US government nationalises SpaceX.
Now SpaceX is as effective as the US government (ie not at all) and can no longer produce anything useful.
China wins. The end.
US government tells Elon to do this.
Elon says no, I won’t build actual weapons.
US government nationalises SpaceX.
Now SpaceX is as effective as the US government (ie not at all) and can no longer produce anything useful.
China wins. The end.
How common do you think it is for the us to nationalize any company or industry much less a potential defense contractor?
There is simply no need to.
There is simply no need to.
Reads to me like Musk and the US government are already working together.
> Elon says no, I won’t build actual weapons.
a) Mr Musk is unlikely to say no.
b) SpaceX won't be building "actual weapons" just ... ah, "payload delivery systems for the military"
a) Mr Musk is unlikely to say no.
b) SpaceX won't be building "actual weapons" just ... ah, "payload delivery systems for the military"
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department."
says Wernher von BraunReference is to Tom Lehrer, making fun of Von Braun's founding and running the Nazi's missile program, before emigrating to the U.S. and helping run _their_ missile program.
OT: He ends with "[I can launch in] German and English, and am learning Chinese.. " - even 75 years ago it was understood by many that the upcoming superpower is China and not Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro
OT: He ends with "[I can launch in] German and English, and am learning Chinese.. " - even 75 years ago it was understood by many that the upcoming superpower is China and not Russia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro
"Don't say that he's hypocritical, Say rather that he's apolitical."
I'm sure that this applies to Mr Musk as well.
Specifically Mr Musk has met on good terms with the administrations of both of last 2 US presidents. He's not taking sides or avoiding anyone on some principle.
That's why I think he would not say no to a big US government (military) contract.
I'm sure that this applies to Mr Musk as well.
Specifically Mr Musk has met on good terms with the administrations of both of last 2 US presidents. He's not taking sides or avoiding anyone on some principle.
That's why I think he would not say no to a big US government (military) contract.
for the lucky 10000 today: https://youtu.be/QEJ9HrZq7Ro
Musk is a republican, he sent spacex dishes to Ukraine, no way he is going to say no.
Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians?
> Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians?
I think what was said was used to denote that he will comply with State mandates in regards to what the DoD may need; moreover SpaceX and Tesla are big proponents of hiring Veterans and have several in key positions.
It's sad reality, but people need to realize that aerospsace has and will likely remain an appendage of the military; it's an incredibly patriotic, borderline nationalistic, Industry: ITAR compliance of any and all workers in aerospace being critical for weeding out possible threats to the Industry is one critical reason why it's there.
With that said, Musk is doing business with the CCP in China. I'm wondering that if in time it will be a bigger threat that they demand they breach his security in order to retain his company and not be nationalized.
My opinion: The US DoD can just use continue to use Raytheon or Boeing to make all the murder-devices they need, there is really no need to have SpaceX involved at this point.
I think what was said was used to denote that he will comply with State mandates in regards to what the DoD may need; moreover SpaceX and Tesla are big proponents of hiring Veterans and have several in key positions.
It's sad reality, but people need to realize that aerospsace has and will likely remain an appendage of the military; it's an incredibly patriotic, borderline nationalistic, Industry: ITAR compliance of any and all workers in aerospace being critical for weeding out possible threats to the Industry is one critical reason why it's there.
With that said, Musk is doing business with the CCP in China. I'm wondering that if in time it will be a bigger threat that they demand they breach his security in order to retain his company and not be nationalized.
My opinion: The US DoD can just use continue to use Raytheon or Boeing to make all the murder-devices they need, there is really no need to have SpaceX involved at this point.
You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance.
> You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance.
Then why don't you clarify things?
Then why don't you clarify things?
> Musk is a republican
Mr Musk is a multi-billionaire. In the US system that class does not pledge allegiance to a political party, rather the other way around.
Russian Oligarchs are "made" by the ruling party, and owe their wealth entirely to that. The US system is, however, more flexible in which way the loyalty flows.
Mr Musk is a multi-billionaire. In the US system that class does not pledge allegiance to a political party, rather the other way around.
Russian Oligarchs are "made" by the ruling party, and owe their wealth entirely to that. The US system is, however, more flexible in which way the loyalty flows.
Wouldn't that make Musk the oligarch and the Russian counterpart more like a vassal?
"Russian Oligarchs" is the common usage, and definitions are descriptive as much as they are prescriptive.
For "Oligarch" outside of the compound "Russian Oligarch" - you tell me who matches, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say above.
For "Oligarch" outside of the compound "Russian Oligarch" - you tell me who matches, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say above.
That would be someone in a position of power in an oligarchy. If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs.
> If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs
Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs
This _describes_ how the term is used.
As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want.
This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares.
Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition.
You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic.
1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...
Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs
This _describes_ how the term is used.
As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want.
This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares.
Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition.
You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic.
1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...