The US military is starting to get really interested in Starship:
As part of last week's federal budget rollout, a process during which the White House proposes funding levels for fiscal year 2022, the US Air Force released its "justification book" to compare its current request to past budget data. The 462-page book contains a lot of information about how the Air Force spends its approximately $200 billion budget.
For those tracking the development of SpaceX's ambitious Starship vehicle, there is an interesting tidbit tucked away on page 305, under the heading of "Rocket Cargo" (see .pdf). The Air Force plans to invest $47.9 million into this project in the coming fiscal year, which begins October 1.
"The Department of the Air Force seeks to leverage the current multi-billion dollar commercial investment to develop the largest rockets ever, and with full reusability to develop and test the capability to leverage a commercial rocket to deliver AF cargo anywhere on the Earth in less than one hour, with a 100-ton capacity," the document states.
Starship, more than just an expensive ride. Quick military equipment delivery en route.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01 2021, @10:48PM (3 children)
"Sir! Our sensors have detected a launch on a depressed trajectory toward the conflict zone. Shall we initiate a retaliatory strike now or shall we wait until we can determine whether it reenters as high-g/low delta-v/steep entry or as low-g/high delta-v/flat entry?"
"Wait???!!! Our policy is launch on warning. Fire those missiles!"
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 01 2021, @11:51PM (1 child)
That's probably realistic - if our adversary has the ability to intercept ICBM-like targets. We probably won't send an unannounced Starship to Moscow, or Beijing, or even to London. Maybe Quebec?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03 2021, @12:48PM
It's the US that has the more insane nuke policies which make such stuff riskier.
Compare: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/01/no-one-can-stop-president-trump-from-using-nuclear-weapons-thats-by-design/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/09/what-if-the-president-ordering-a-nuclear-attack-isnt-sane-a-major-lost-his-job-for-asking/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/02/nuclear-weapons-how-cold-war-major-harold-hering-asked-a-forbidden-question-that-cost-him-his-career.html [slate.com]
With: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand#Motivation [wikipedia.org]
https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-dead-hand-system-may-still-be-active-2014-9 [businessinsider.com]
If you have a "dead hand" system that you're reasonably sure will work, you might still head for the bunkers but you won't just launch at anything.
Whereas the USA regularly relies on some half senile guy to make the right decision in 20 minutes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 02 2021, @03:05PM
If you've tracked it long enough to see which side of the planet it will land on then you already know the flight profile.