The game-changing military capabilities of SpaceX's STARSHIP
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- In 2021, the Air Force Research Laboratory kicked off its Rocket Cargo Program, which aims to use commercial rocket applications to rapidly deliver military cargo anywhere in the world in under an hour. This concept was considered so potentially significant that the Air Force itself quickly established the Rocket Cargo effort as one of just four Vanguard Programs - the branch's highest priority technological efforts.
And while SpaceX's Starship may not be the only potential platform for the job, it may prove to be exactly what the Air Force and Space Force need to revolutionize military logistics.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollings. .
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/alexhollings52
Citations:
www.space.com/spacex-starship...
www.defenseone.com/technology...
afresearchlab.com/technology/...
www.saffm.hq.af.mil/LinkClick...
www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...
www.cnbc.com/2019/10/02/elon-...
www.businessinsider.com/how-b....
spacenews.com/air-force-rocke...
newsletter.spacedotbiz.com/p/...
spacenews.com/startup-raises-...
phys.org/news/2024-02-militar...
www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article-...
afresearchlab.com/technology/...
spacenews.com/air-force-rocke...
spacenews.com/spacex-wins-102...
newsletter.spacedotbiz.com/p/...
afresearchlab.com/technology/....
www.defensenews.com/air/2021/...
www.afrl.af.mil/News/Article-...
spacenews.com/musk-outlines-p...
www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
nstxl.org/reducing-the-cost-o....
www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106...
www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-91-5...
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA391...
www.sciencetimes.com/articles...
www.spacex.com/vehicles/stars...
www.businessinsider.com/stars...
www.businessinsider.com/elon-...
www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploa...
www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05...
www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesma...
www.popsci.com/military-aviat...
www.usni.org/magazines/procee...
apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/A...
apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/A....
arstechnica.com/space/2024/01...
afresearchlab.com/technology/...
I'm on Elon's side.
“This is Airpower”
No, this is Space power, the ultimate high ground lol
No, “this is …
Aero/Astro Power “
@@baomao7243 It's Over, China, I Have the High Ground
High ground gives you nothin'. It's da russkies who believe that.
@@baomao7243 Astropower actually goes kinda hard as a title.
Got to go through air to get there..
It's amazing that SpaceX was once laughed out of the room at NASA and now has 300 successful Falcon9 launches under its belt and is pushing past landing and reusing Falcon9 rockets more than 20 times each. Simply incredible. No other company or space agency on the planet even gets close to SpaceX capability moving payload to LEO.
space x took most of nasa's best people
Billions of subsedised tax dollars funding these programs for a South African immigrant trust fund baby to play with rockets.
SpaceX was never laughed out of any room, what does that even mean? NASA and SpaceX have been working together for almost 2 decades.
What are you talking about? SpaceX is a glorified NASA errand boy. They outsource rockets to SpaceX because building rockets themselves are too expensive from government bureaucracy. Without NASA SpaceX will have zero money without SpaceX NASA would need to find a new errand boy. Clearly SpaceX needs NASA more than they need SpaceX.
Having missiles fired at you is scary. Having whole-ass Marines fired at you is the stuff of nightmares!!!
What percentage of the load would be crayons?
@@ShootBlueHelmets 0% You want those Marines to be HUNGRY when they hit the ground!
That would not invite a strategic shoot down would it? Nah, CCP is fine with rockets flying toward them! It's fine.
the problem is going to be cost and weather for a long time... This isnt going to be a good investment if your emergency requires good weather in a specific launch and landing window.
"sir, we need re-enforcements!!!!" - "they will be there in 30 minutes.. 2 days after this storm ends"
Sure, China sees a ballistic missile trajectory heading for China... oh, ok its just cargo...
Looks like the Space Force is going to require a new corps tied to it at the hip, almost like the Marines and Navy. Dare I say, they need "Space Marines?"
Time to get working on the CM-20 nerve gas and orbitally deployed nukes.
Don't get ahead of yourself, I haven't created Power Armor or Boltguns yet!
Special astronaut service
@@namename3130That's actually kinda why we have Space Force. We just moved our military space activity from working secretly in the shadows of NASA missions to being a department under the Air Force. Note, the people who went to space working in the shadow of NASA were not called or recognized as astronauts, cause well, they were technically never there.
ODSTs? Helldivers? Mobile Infantry perhaps?
Alex, providing, say, Taiwan with 1.000 tons of Tomahawks within 2 hours makes all the difference
That's like 600 tomahawk
That's one really big rapid dragon.
How do you unload them when they're 100 feet of the ground because the bottom 2/3rd of the rocket ship is fuel tanks? You're as stupid as Alex.
Unload in mid air then divert to Japan to land.
Space released tomahawk 7 hypersonic glide missile using starship 3 military heavy lift space craft. ~2038
"Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle station. Fire at will, commander."
....and Starship blows up.
Donald Chump's successor, Grand Moff Tarkin, lol 😁🤣😂🤣
The problem with landing a Starship on an unprepared location (even a battlefield) is that it becomes stranded there - you're essentially using reusable spacecraft in an expendable mode. Since there's no infrastructure there, you have no way of refueling Starship for it to take off again. It becomes a sitting duck and a giant, highly visible target for a counterattack.
Plus I pretty sure it needs super heavy on earth to launch
@@thatyoutubeguy7583 To carry any useful amount of cargo, it needs the Super Heavy booster. But with a completely empty cargo bay, Starship can launch on its own and just about get itself to orbit, which would normally be pretty useless unless you're just trying to get it to come back to home base.
@@regolith1350 but could there be cases where it launches like now as first stage, then in air launches cargo to land on its own and returns to base?
Nearly as stupid as Regan's Star Wars unless there are unexpected synergies. Isn't starship generally expected to land empty? Where does the extra energy go if it lands with a hundred tons of cargo? Into the soil?
The military won’t be landing it. A maneuverable in orbit 150 ton throw weight vehicle with a Pez style dispenser. People don’t need an imagination to see why the DoD wants Starship. MIRV’s
So we about to get actual helldivers
FOR FREEDOM
PSN account not included.
@@themollerzThe ultimate betrayal.
No, we're about to get Hainlein's MI. Where's Johnny RIco when you need him?
Not after that Sony update
Orbital drop pods are about to be real life! Heck ya. Can you imagine (IRL) making a call for a resupply, then you hear a loud sonic boom as a rocket descends down to your location, then you open the door and a bunch of guns, armor and ammo are inside?! Freaking awesome
"How many drops is this for you, lieutenant?"
"Thirty-eight....simulated."
"How many _combat_ drops?"
"Uhh...two....including this one....."
_shared looks of disgust about the green Lt_
China will rush ahead and do it first and claim they invented the idea.
Atlas mech walks out
Would be worrying about it getting hit or blown up, maybe behind lines atm
Orbital drop pods have been a real thing since 1959 when America's Corona spy satellites dropped capsules with exposed film to be recovered and processed.
The funny thing about calling this science fiction is that in the 1970s I read non-fiction (in the children's section) that forecasted troop carrying intercontinental rockets soon. I really wish I could find that book again. Also the one about future ships that was convinced the 3000 ton SES was going to be built. My local library had some cool stuff back in the day.
Ah Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc. ... they promised us so much! 😄
Finally, a practical launch platform for the Tsar Bomba class of nuclear weapons.
If the government buys a Starship, watch the cost per launch increase by 1000%.
Elon is not like that, if he was spacex would be charging comparable prices to nasa as other launch providers but they dont because their product is cheeper to operate. If he was going to gouge he could easily have done so with falcon nine
Yes launches may be more expensive, depending in what is needed...
A specialized starship icbm with 500 missiles to target and eliminate air defense before using kinetic force of the starship to kaboom, would be more expensive than a ship that lands with supplies. 😊
@@damitcam Elon is like that just look at Tesla.
@@damitcam Whether or not Elon would do something is irrelevant. OP is suggesting the people who would be responsible for inflating the cost of the project would be the government, not some private entity. Gotta get them $90k "gold plated" bushings.
@@ImWoolly but that is not how he operates spacex
You know somewhere someone is going to pitch a design combining Rapid Dragon and Cargo Starship.
I hope they already have.
Nah, no need for the rapid dragon. This thing is already hypersonic as it is. What it needs are hypersonic reentry vehicles (of various sizes).
@@solarissv777 Bro, what is needed is Gundams. The US needs to build Gundams...and control the moon. For reals about the moon. And Gundams.
Starship Troopers: would you like to know more? 😆
Elon hasn’t been acting erratically. He has been very open about what he’s doing.
Agreed and he has also shown that he's an idiot.
The guys a lunatic, a sure liability.
@rodd1000 lunatic maybe lol but certainly without him none of this would even be conceptual let alone possible. You may not like the dude but he's done more for space exploration and advancement for mankind than you or anyone else I know currently alive.
Being erratic and being open are not mutually exclusive. Erratic is not some long lost synonym of secretive.
He is a threat
Strategies wins battles, logistics wins wars.
I like how your comment doesn't tell us anything about whether you think the subject of the video is a good idea or not. Well played, sir.
Logistics is part of strategy. Tactics wind battles. Strategy wins wars. Grand strategy wins Cold wars.
Tactics win battles.
@@persistentwind Execution, Mobilty and communication will win EVERY battle. No offense but Logistics decide the final outcome, every time.
Starships win grants. Maybe you can show your award letters to the opposition.
I think it's important to note that the rockets are only re-usable if the location they're flown to have the resources to refurbish and fuel the rocket, and have a launch pad, for the return trip.
They can be shipped back home for refurbishment.
Starship is designed to not require refurbishment. Land-refuel-relaunch.
@@lorentzinvariant7348Relaunch how exactly without the booster or a launchpad and all the infrastructure for refuelling? Also for now, it’s not even designed to be reusable it barely works in its current design configuration.
@@lorentzinvariant7348 The "landing" part would still require a full Boca-Chica style launch/recovery tower, which is why Ryan was focusing more on dropping cargo pods from orbit. No one is doing rough-field ops with a Starship. Even a Starship designed with landing legs instead of needing Mechazilla to catch it would need a *very* strong landing pad -- not as strong as the Boca Chica OLM, but still much more robust than anything a C-17 needs (although not as large). And moving the Starship afterwards would require being able to fuel it back up again with methalox, which isn't easily available everywhere. I don't think trying to freight it out on road or rail would be practical -- in a pinch, Starship is designed to be cheap enough that it might cost less to simply remove the engines and other $$$ bits to ship home and scrap the hull on site.
Never going to happen.
It does make sense, yes the US military Air Forces and SpaceX, … a perfect relationship 👍🇺🇸
6:07
'30 minutes or less, or it's on us!'
Now that's a slogan 😂😂😂😂
I really appreciate you cited your sources, that gives you way more credibility, especially as your video titles are so crazy that it could easily be clickbait if you didn't make it clear it was true! Love you stuff, subscribed!
I mean Sandboxx news is a very well credited and award winning journalist run news network
@@coreytaylor5386 Not after this!
@@coreytaylor5386 So, no sources, no evidence just "Trust me bro"?
It's a fascinating idea, but loading a Starship will take much more than the +12 hours compared to C-17, at which time the C-17 already arrived. All this for an order of magnitude higher price tag.
This could have been said in the first minute and the video would have ended there.
Credibility? Yeah, nah.
@@jimjones-pz1tt what? all they've said is what the military is already doing and publicly said, not speculating on what could be happening. all this information is months at this point
Starship door gunner is gonna be a thing soon.
"If they run, they are Pleiaidian, If they stand still, they are well discliplined Pleiadian."
Hmm, I wonder what they'll use for that?
How can you shoot elderly and immature Pleiadians?
A.I.
Free Pleiades!
@@CaptApple You don't lead em as much!
Peaceful Skies.
Awesome journalism piece ... Informative and Exciting !!!
Keep up the good work Alex :)
Starship Troopers!
What about a rapid dragon style space dump? 2 hour 300 tomahawk or Jassm-Er dump anywhere in the world would be GAME CHANGER
Or a multitude of hypersonic warheads.
Kinda like MLRV ICBMs? 1 launch but like 24 individual nukes finding their home
I guess you have just invented MIRV
Lame rods from god are much cooler nukes are so yesterday
I was thinking the same thing. Also, how many loitering munitions could be dumped from a high orbit with an extended glide path flight time somewhere “close enough” to enemy territory? It’d be easy to design slightly bigger loitering munitions that go a couple of thousand miles into enemy territory with an extended glide time from that high altitude.
Helldivers, to hellp...Starship. I repeat, Helldivers to Starship!
Starship Troopers
ODST need to be a thing.Otheerwise known as “hell jumpers” it’s obvious it is where Helldivers got their name and the drop pod thing.
May however first need to get clearance from Sony.
When talking about a Starship as a logistic platform, the transport time seems like a big deal... like you said 30 minutes flight time vs 12 hours. But before you get excited about that, consider the times of the ENTIRE logistic chain:
C17:
* 5 hours to get the crew briefed, and the cargo from the warehouse at the air field into the plane (maybe more)
* 12 hours to fly to the target airfield,
* 5 hours unloading cargo
* 24 hours.transferring from airfield to where it is actually needed. The C17 can land basically at any small size airfield so long as it has a paved runway as we saw in Kosovo otherwise 24 hours would be very optimistic. If it could only land at large fields delivery from the airfield to where it was needed might be 48-72 hours. It would be slower, about a week, still if it could only land at specialized facilities such as deep water ports or a starship launch and landing pad with tower, chopsticks, and water-cooled steel-plate deluge flame-diverter.
* Total: 46 hours.
Starship as it currently exists:
* 4 WEEKS to integrate cargo and prep for launch.
* 30 minutes flight time
* 5 hours unloading (very optimistic).
* 1 WEEK.transferring from airfield to where it is actually needed because starship can only land at a specialized pad with tower, chopsticks, and water-cooled steel-plate deluge flame-diverter.
So 5 weeks = 35 days for Starship as opposed to 2 days for C17. And you want to use Starship because it's FASTER?????
Now, obviously the bulk of the slowness of Starship is in launch prep and cargo integration and in the fact that it can only land at highly specialized facilities. These ARE addressable problems:
* The US military has recently funded through DARPA a high responsiveness launch capability that demonstrated the ability to launch a payload with 24 hours warning... But think about that, while WAY faster than 4 weeks, its HALF of the delivery time of the C17, and that represents the very fasted and most responsive space launch has EVER been!
* Similarly, the Starship could be redesigned to land without nearly as much specialized pad infrastructure... and indeed the only time it has successfully landed it was so designed to land on a simple pad with landing legs. But now you are taking away both its cheapness and its cargo capacity: The landing legs are heavy, they have to be able to support it fully loaded after all, and landing on such a pad, it is essentially stranded... unable to refuel or fly without the booster it left behind on ascent. This makes it a disposable single use craft. By comparison the C17 will fly, at a minimum, 10,000 times in its amortization lifetime... making the cost per flight mostly a function of fuel and crew time, not the expense of the airplane itself. You see? Cutting that delay on the receiving end means abandoning re-usability.
--------------
Also, just so you know... Solid fueled rockets have "motors", liquid fueled rockets, like Starship, have "engines". There's no real reason for this beyond tradition, but rocketry nerds will get upset if you use the wrong one.
Former TACP here, C5Ms are the savior of all expeditionary forces. Four apache gunships nose to nose or two Abrams tanks in its belly.
Oh this was the first thing I thought when I saw it. Everything we wanted the Shuttle to be in the 70s and more
“And this is Space Power!!”
Right? Why would he use “Air Power” and Space Force together?
Somewhere out there there is space force specialist is smiling…
I did not realize how small the C-130 was compared to the C-5. That’s wild
The problem with space launch platforms for logistics are 1) extreme expense ($1k+/lb), 2) loading time is non trivial and detracts from your hypersonic time savings, 3) shock and vibration loads for rockets are extremely higher than aircraft, 4) cryogenic oxidizer requires a LOT of infrastructure and preparation, and 5) the launch infrastructure is incredibly complex and expensive compared to ubiquitous international airports and Air Force bases that can be used by large military aircraft.
Watch it mate I said the same thing and got reported...many musk fan boys in here mate!
That was the problem with traditional space launch systems BEFORE starship. The whole point of starship is that it is much cheaper than what you quoted (whatever $/lb means, I’ve never seen such units for space launch), and it does NOT need complex launch system.
@@juzoli the comment is correct, their number reflects SpaceX's savings/innovation. Its Dollars Per Pound to orbit. Its still exorbitantly expensive. HOWEVER, losing a fight can be a lot more expensive so this is like the ultimate trump card in logistics to prevent that, until scotty can beam us where we need to be
@@TyrannicG I could see that.... big cargo planes have same problem. Thinking back operation in Iraq, if they need something extremely fast and it was forgotten or changes needed, this would be it... and military loves heavy cargo so normal small things wont cut it. It could eg land on aircraft carrier far from actual frontlines.
@@juzoliyou literally don't know what you are talking about my guy
Man, that engine shutdown pattern on the first stage is a thing of beauty.
I might go even farther and say that it's entire trip is a thing of beauty
That's all to prevent water hammer from busting the pipes.
I think the 12 man Halo space diver program they suggested would pay for itself pretty quickly with increased recruiting. If 17 year old me saw that I could space dive like in Halo, I would have signed up before the recruiting video ended!
Ditto. Just call me, (Halo's) Master Chief! OooRah! 🇺🇲🦾🇺🇲
😏 Honestly, Love the idea of a rocket thru space becoming an answer to long range Logistical needs... just as long as it's only us, the USA's advantage. But, having a 50, 000 lbs payload capacity, nice.. & isn't it nearly identical to that of our B-1s Bones bomber's load capacity?
I just wonder would you be 22 after required training.... space pilots, astronauts go through rigorous training.
All I'd need is now recruiting space Marines and I'd of signed up before anything else was said lol
The concept of space delivery, where soldiers are dropped from orbit onto a planet's surface, was imagined in the Halo video game series decades ago with the introduction of the ODST (Orbital Drop Shock Troop). It's possible that in the future, assuming we don't destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, we will engage in space battles on other planets using this tactic. It simply makes more sense operationally, as speed is crucial in warfare. A successful military campaign requires speed in delivery, action, response, and production.
See also: "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein.
"C'mon you apes, you wanna live forever!"
Boss episode as always!
Whoa, whoa, whoa. An ethical obligation?!? That's quite a bold assertation.
Helldiver's 2.
Liber-tea delivered successfully 😂😂😂
I'm going to shamelessly say liber-tea forever
Ahhh… I was waiting for someone to pull this reference. 😂
The Starship delivering that new Patriot system being taken out by a SAM or an air-to-air missile while coming in to land is the stuff of nightmares, though.
This reminds me of "ITHACUS", an intercontinental ballistic transport proposed by Douglas Aircraft in 1964. The proposal was to transport a battalion of Marines (the number proposed was 1200 Marines!) anywhere in the world by single-stage-to-orbit rocket.
Refueling in an austere environment is likely a no go. Starship uses cryogenic propellants namely liquid methane and liquid oxygen both of which need to be cooled well below their already cryogenic boiling points before being loaded. To refuel an empty starship (not including the booster) you need 2,650t of liquid oxygen and 750t of liquid methane. The energy required to produce this much propellant and store it is massive and you can get a good idea of the scale required by looking at images of the Boca Chica launch site. Those tanks massive arrays of tanks hold enough for 1 super heavy launch and change. I cannot imagine any scenario where you could get that much propellant and the hardware to process it properly (filtering and cooling) in anything short of a dedicated launch complex
sun shielding solar panels, at the gas station
Those array of tanks required to fill both the massive booster and the ship. The ship itself requires a third of the total propellant.
But indeed, you couldn't just fill it up without the complex ground infrastructure.
Load masters are going to have real fun strapping in say MRAPS and stuff in a Starhip. The acceleration is way more than any transport aircraft, not to mention it's vertical
I don't think the acceleration is a big deal, loading will be though. I think the max G on launch is under 4, not a factor.
Just give em the juice like the expanse. Razorback style
The idea of "strapping in" might seem quaint if a loadmaster comes across this comment in 20 years. "LOL straps...I almost forgot about those..."
You would just need shelves in the starship so the mraps could sit upright and flat. Or, as in the video, have them mounted into pods that fit right into the side of starship.
As Bill Paxton said in the movie Aliens, "Were on an express elevator to hell! Going down. Woohoo!" I can see the US having space marines. They would love it. Go Space X!
Fantastic video
Is the US military also working on powered armour? I mean, if we're looking at space marines and all....
Robert A Heinlein approves.
For the Emperor!
It was really never clear to me why the US segregated "Space Force". I think I get it now.
PS When the title of this video caught my attention, my first reaction was "yikes, there's a click-bait I'll never watch!" Then saw "Sandboxx News"! Straight to "must watch", and glad I did! Wow!
Yes they wanted to keep all the stupid in one place.
TDS and MDS on full display!
Helldivers to hell-pods, Helldivers to hell-pods...
My dad was a SMS at west over when he did time in the reserves. He maintained the nations fleet of C-5 galaxies there. When he went active duty, they sent him to Missouri and he worked on fighters.
Would be interesting to see how they plan to load/unload that thing
or how they deal with the rocket engines shattering near by windows in urban environments
The starship must be able to land with a full load and fuel to land some distance away from the intended destination. Additionally, it is unclear how the rocket's starship component will be retrieved. Specialized workers may need to be sent to transport it onto a ship. Can someone provide information on whether the main booster or Starship successfully landed or reached a full orbit? Also, does this 100 tons of cargo include the fuel
I thought this guy was smart. He's just another TH-cam Ass. the bottom 2/3rd of the rocket is fuel tanks, the cargo is 100 feet above ground. Not only will they unload quickly, but the narrow landing gear and high center of gravity will make it impossible to tip over after setting down on some unimproved field.
It'll be interesting since it is lethal sound pressure around the launch for a ways in any direction (without the water deluge)
The fairings pop off the sides and cargo comes out
One aspect of the use of rockets was not addressed; the time to load the rocket before it’s sent aloft.
I expect there would be loaded rockets ready to go with the high value assets that would merit such a flight. Roll from storage to the pad. Military speed fueling and launch.
But his is a ways down the road to get the reliability to make it a reality.
SpaceX is optimizing it's fuel system to make fueling only take 45 minutes.
For something like disaster response I think that pre-staged cargo modules could be loaded pretty quickly. Something like a Patriot battery would take a lot longer.
Same thing for planes though.
Faster than loading a tocket
-5 points for not saying, “This is SpacePower!” Other than that, spectacular episode!
Wow!
I kept thinking about issues with the return of Starship to base and then 16 min mark came. Well done sir, well done.
Absolutely fascinating! Dropping cargo pods from orbit seems like the better option. Drop pods could land in more areas than Starship. This would be crucial in disaster relief and combat. It would also reduce the risk of Starship being shit diwn by A/A missiles in a near peer fight.
Exactly. Then the starship could land back in the US for reuse. I like that. Also solves the unloading problem.
Despite the starship coming down quite fast, the trajectory is well known, so, that fate is not unlikely.
Also you could drop a Tier-1 military unit anywhere on the planet in less than an hour. Lockheed or Grumman would have to design a stealth composite dropship but it’s feasible.
This is such a cold war fever dream. I love it.
Been waiting for an episode like this. Thanks for covering the situation!
Imagine being a loadmaster for these things. Your mantra would be "Turning Isaac Newton's law of gravity, into more of a suggestion"
I read in Sci-Fi all the time about Marines landing in drop ships in full battle rattle complete with robot drones from a mothership in orbit. I wish I were younger in some ways to be part of that but on the other hand I'm not going to regret leaving this world before all hell breaks loose :)
Well said.
Growing up, I remember these "Usborne books of the future" and the concept of troops being shuttled by huge vertical landing rockets was illustrated.
The sy fi books pre apollo had rockets landing on their fins. I asked why we were not doing that and was told it was impossible by my science teachers. Just as the people at Daimler (I think) said the Tesla Semi could not do 500 miles. Elon attracts the best engineers and scientists and lets them do what they do best.
Now this is powerful. Great job materializing your vision for this video. Thank you. what you do takes lots of effort.
That marine plan is the wildest thing i have ever heard 🤣
Problem with this is the fuel is liquid oxygen and liquid methane and since its super cold, refueling takes hours and short shelf life, when its fueled
Starship loads both in less than 120 min.
Hours to refuel a fully reusable rocket? That doesn't sound that long
How long does it take to load and fuel a C-17 in short notice?
@@jascrandom9855 Can a C-17 fly at mach 25, and arrive at its destination before the C-17 has even reached cruising altitude?
@@harrydent8182 It would be pointless if the loading process takes too long from the order to lift off. That's why I'm asking.
I was six miles away from the first and second Starship integrated flight tests and I can tell you that there is no way any city will allow that vehicle to launch within 20 miles of any densely populated area - it was really. loud.
This is all ridiculous fantasy. It's never gonna happen.
Fun part about open war is that the military get to tell the lover levels of government to go screw themselves. If this thing is launching for actual missions, no one is gonna be able to stop them.
Yeahhh this whole thing seems like a non starter. I’m honestly surprised they’re still allowed to launch starships from there
What about the spotted owls and sweet little froggies?
It’s the largest and most powerful orbital launch vehicle ever built, of course its loud. It can carry more cargo both orbitally and on sub orbital flights.
Alex, thoroughly enjoyed this one. Your enthusiasm is totally captivating. Thanks
One of my favourite channels.
looking forward to the ballistically-launched Burger King franchise
if the enemy sees like 100 rockets launching they might interpret that as being a nuclear strike... using rockets for transport is murky waters, tactically.
So first question that comes to mind; with AD weapons able to take out ballistic missiles, that thing would be a sitting duck in a contested environment during reentry. Humanitarian aid sounds a lot more feasible, but like you said, it still has the logistic issues of refueling and post/pre-launch inspection requirements.
Also, don't forget it could have a payload section designed similar to the Space shuttle. A payload bay far larger, in order to deploy much more capable satellite and anti-ballistic missile defense systems that no previous platform could carry.
Elon's 'erratic behavior'? Oh, c'mon!
turns off starlink causing a cancellation of Ukrainian strike, do you enjoy individuals meddling in geopolitics?
That's not at all what happened.
That's a version propagated by the political left, twisted so grotesquely as to be an outright lie. What he did was: refuse Ukraine's request to turn ON Starlink coverage of a certain area so that they could attack Russian Naval assets. He quite rationally thought that would constitute the kind of assistance to Ukraine that Russia might reasonably consider an act of war. If you only listen to lefty internet, you're gonna end up misinformed the majority of the time.
@@GS-el8ll and how were they using Starlink to begin with?
@@jamescarter8311because the US government paid for it.
@jamescarter8311 presumably with star link base stations or dishes or whatever they call them. Are you trying to imply Ukraine is using ouiji boards to communicate with starlink satellites?
I agree that landing pods would make more sense so that it could reach more places.
Thanks! Your channel has quickly become one of my favs. Great coverage, interesting topics, all around awesome!
Starship goes boom every time. Military applications make sense.
They're called prototypes and Starship essentially made it to orbit on the last launch and could have deployed satellites. Launching satellites is easy, but they're measuring success by bringing the orbiter and first stage back. They'll easily launch another 3-4 this year.
Unless you had a starship on the launch pad, loaded with the desired cargo, and fueled ready for launch in a hot standby posture (which is impractical for long periods of time due to the cryogenics involved).....I think a C17 is going to win that race every time when counted from time of notification for the need for the materiel to the time elapsed until off-loading at the destination. While I'll never say no to more capability..I just think when used in the way the video suggests..it's a neat parlor trick at best. And unless the landing point is also a fully equipped starship launch site...how do you get it back for re-use? On the other hand, rapidly (relatively speaking) deploying hardware to orbit over and over again...yeah...now we're in the wheel house of what this is built for which I think is the actual intent of the military's interest in it.
Well… there would be another potential propulsion system that was explored in the 60s… Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. No need for cryogenics, easily carrying payloads of 100 Million tons into orbit… if one can nail the controlled nuclear explosions needed for the propulsion.
Currently, the SpaceX launchpad at CCSFS regularly launches Falcon 9 rockets every three days or so. Starship targets a higher launch cadence, aiming for multiple launches per day with full reusability. If Space Force purchase their own Starship, they could immediately take over any booster ready for flight that day and start the prop load. As for getting it back, just like a large cargo plane would land on another military base's airfield, they obviously need a launch site at the destination.
That's the key thing here; for this to be feasible, Starship must succeed in achieving its goal of rapid launch cadence. Falcon 9 gives us a glimpse of that. But, only time would tell.
You can fully fuel a Starship and Super Heavy booster, currently and more upgrades and shorter fueling time to follow, in less than 90 minutes.
@@jason_m_schmidt622 On the last test flight they already cut down the propellant loading time to 51 minutes and 10 seconds. Their target is 40 minutes. For context, Falcon 9 is 35 minutes.
@@807800 I stand corrected. Approximately 90 minutes was the prior flight. Thank you 😊
Why the multiple negative comments to Elon lol😂
hes a polarizing, very eccentric figure to say the least. half the people on twitter hate every breath he takes regardless of if its earned or not and the other half worships the very earth he shits on, also regardless of if its earned or not
Well, you're half right. The left hates him and everything he does, and twists everything to make him seem evil and crazy. But, then, they currently do this to all of their enemies. The right likes him, but it's pretty rare to hear them deify him. Now, the red team does deify (and demonize) people, no doubt about it. But currently they're not as bad / extreme / crazy about it as the blue team.
@@coreytaylor5386one, the people on twitter are not a good sample of real people. Twitter represents the extremes. Two, I think you’re being unfair with how people view Elon. One half hates him because he’s not a leftist, and thinks that free speech is important. The other side doesn’t worship him as you say. They just think he’s a net positive and fighting for good.
I don’t see how this is controversial. It’s easy to see who is right and wrong here. The side that hates him for supporting free speech is bad. It’s basically the same as any controversial issue. There’s always a group of mouth-frothing lunatics screaming about some sort of -ism, and then there’s the other side just pointing a finger at the crazy and laughing.
If I’m wrong, I would like to hear what Elon has said that is legitimately worth him being characterized as “polarizing”. I still have yet to see it. Not being a psycho leftist does not make you polarizing.
@@alphazuluz Im not talking about Twitter, in real life if you ask anyone its always one of the extremes. not sure how many IRL interactions youve have with people on the topic but when anyone talks about any kind of tech or futurism hes always brought up one way or the other. when the topic of twitter comes up with elon's 'free speech' its not that the people who hate him hate him for that, but his hypocrisy with how he runs that hell site about free speech.
out side of twitter Ive never met anyone who hates him because of politics. its always either hating him because he promises the moon and fails, barley succeeds but delivers a shitty product or just how much of an asshole he acts while others worship him as if every word he says is law and defend his ideas to the death even if he himself has abandoned them.
I am honestly indifferent about him, but trying to act like there isnt valid criticism as well as valid praise about the man is silly. and acting like no one is allowed to hate him for any reason other than politics is equally silly
@@coreytaylor5386 this is what I’m talking about, though. There’s never any real direct criticism of him. It’s always nebulous stuff. You say he’s hypocritical with how he runs X. How so? Any examples? You say he promised the moon and fails. Examples? Or he succeeds but just barely and with a crap product. Again, examples?
I think your final sentence is telling. You’re justifying people HATING him. Maybe that word has just been watered down, but I feel like someone worthy of hate must have done some really bad stuff. But no one can ever give me concrete examples. It’s always just a general feeling with general, nebulous examples.
When I look at what he’s done, I see the opposite of what you claim. He started Tesla. They DOMINATE the electric car market. They aren’t a crappy product. Not only that, but Tesla MADE the electric car market. It wouldn’t exist without Tesla. So many companies tried and failed, even the big guys like GM and Toyota. Musk and Tesla did it. Look at SpaceX. It’s clearly the leader in space access globally. I just don’t see the failures.
" It'd be a sitting duck for enemy missiles 😂 " Topgun Maverick
Starship Troopers! enough said.
Yes, and instant teleportation could also change warfare forever. At the current time, both are equally functional.
Starship will be launching satellites this year. There's no reason to think it won't.
@jamescarter8311 They haven't even achieved orbit yet.
Wasnt it obvious from the very start that starship would represent an incredible capability for military purposes. I mean you could get a few of those tungsten rods to LEO.
Great article, Alex! Very thought provoking!
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
If this happens it will be painfully hilarious to watch government launches be no less than 10 times the price SpaceX launches. Guaranteed.
While travel time is a short 30min, I suspect the rocket ramp up time (stack assembly, fueling, etc) is longer, due to safety requirements and the sheer mass of the thing. Also, I wonder what the fuel consumption differences are.
This was what I was wondering what it the time to prepare a flight as it maybe longer than losing a C17 and flying it there!
When it is the only solution numbers don't count as much. I expect the USSF would have these things loaded and stacked. Everything but fueled. Fueling speed increases could be investigated.
Loading *
Once it lands, and it doesn't tip over on its narrow landing gear because the bottom 2/3rds is empty rocket fuel tanks, how to you unload 100 tons of cargo that's sitting 100 feet off the ground? Because every war zone and every disaster area has pre-staged specialist unloading equipment! And, what the hell would that unloading equipment even look like????
During the last launch, IFT-3 propellant load time was 40 minutes (~15 minutes more more chilldown of the fuel pipes, so ~60 minutes total), stacking of both stages, if both are nearby (are already stationed near the pad, if not, about an hours for transportation from the build site) could be done in an hour, so probably 2 hours at a minimum, some more at a maximum
This is taking figures from a launch site that is evolving and iterating with the rocket itself, the second pad at Boca Chica/Starbase will probably be able to do things faster, and the third or fourth in Cape Canaveral even faster - like, for instance, every launch the loading of propellant gets faster due to the installation of new propellant pumps, and still a lot of manual work is needed, in the future when all the requirements are known, the rocket development has finished (or is in a more mature state) all these processes could be further reduced. Like construction an integration building that is near the launch pad to make time between cargo load and launch as minimal as possible, or when reliability and confidence in the system is good enough you could make several things at once, right now things are done one at the time and very carefully
Also, fuel consumption is around 5000 (metric) tons for the current version, with a split of ~80/20 ratio of oxidizer (LOX/Liquid Oxygen) to fuel (CH4/Pure methane) - right now it takes about 3-7 days to fill the entire fuel storage site (which, don't quote me on this, is just by memory, can hold enough propellant for ~1.5 launches), but that could be brought down, right now they are using fuel tankers (like, trucks) to fill it up - as you may imagine, is not the most efficient way of delivering **liquid** propellants
Use the Force, air and space. For the greater good. God bless.
Seems to me one of the best informational videos you have done - Good Job
Alex might be getting a Bob Iger FU from Elon soon.
He earned it
Yay, Alex is on! Did the world just brighten? Yes, yes, it did!
I was really waiting for you to say, “and this is space power”
I think shipping via instead of shipping goods across oceans taking weeks would also avoid wars. The world can ship goods in just a couple hours vs days across oceans without worrying about conflict
Too expensive.
The big pitfall with spaceships vs existing cargo craft is the ability to support expeditionary warfare. Starship's _currently demonstrated capabilities_ require complex cryogenic infrastructure and a launch tower with rocket blast absorbers, it's a long way from deploying austere refueling, unloading, loading, and re-launch capabilities that many military cargo planes already have. Landing anywhere but a specially reinforced platform will make Starship dig a hole to China with its engines and fall in. Military planes can parachute drop things into places they can't land, Starship hasn't developed that capability. Using drop pods or hell pods is the most straightforward way to get around these limitations, but that's yet another tech that hasn't been developed yet.
I think the implication is that it either goes from base to prepared landing site, or base and is expended on landing and is un-recoverable.
I agree
Id imagine it would be much more of a one way trip than they want to advertise, especially to congress who is funding the program lol
I think y’all missed one part of the video. The super heavy booster requires a specialized launch site. But starship alone has a 6000 mile range. So, what could happen is this: starship and super heavy booster take off into space, separate, then starship ALONE lands in China in an austere environment, still with fuel onboard, dumps its cargo, then can fly, within the atmosphere, to somewhere like Guam with real infrastructure . At that point, it could be refitted to a super heavy booster, or just refueled to fly back to Texas.
1:05 “Regardless of how you feel about Elon Musk..”
I’m Alex Hollings… And THIS… is SELF-CENSORING
Henry Ford without the antisemitism. Which makes him miles better, but far from flawless.
@@Ilyak1986”without the antisemitism”? You must be talking about a different Elon Musk.
@@MotoNomad350 the guy that have necklace given to him by october the 7th survivor is antisemite? o.O yeahh right buddy.
@@MotoNomad350No. You must be the one talking about a different one
Space launched cargo container seems the most practical. Alex nailed it but seems like a lot of comments before watching to the end.
Thank you. Very insightful. I very much appreciate the DOD quote on importance of fast logistics!
D-Day 2032: Our starship was packed full to the brim. Men, women and everyone in between armed to the teeth and ready for action in less than one hour. We knew our landing zone was hot, that's why we have so many starships landing simultaneously. My only regret is that we would never see our fleet land in all it's glory; the sims just never did it justice with their pixelated renderings. Never enough budget to give us salty space dogs a good show.
I suspect the only group of people who are 'nervous' about Mr. Musk's proported 'difficult personality'. NASA is OK with doing business with Elon; look at what he IS launching for them, and WITH them. Remember that in order to launch 'classified' payloads into orbit and beyond, Mr. Musk would have had to have been vetted as a 'security risk', and then passed, earning what I assume is some version of a 'Top Secret'-and-above' rating. Musk's organizational ability is such that he has personally launched Payal, Tesla, and SpaceX. I won't count 'Starlink', quite honestly, because I don't know which of Musk's companies is Starlink's owner. At a personality level, he's right up there with Howard Hughes. The US Government did business with Hughes, as well, at a time when it was a tad bit harder to spread a 'news' story about something as scandalous as toking on a joint whilst on The Joe Rogan Experience. Or having 37 children. BFD! He's clinically a genius. His eccentricities are not illegal, and obviously do not detract from making sound business decisions, or providing engineering feedback at both SpaceX and Tesla. I just hope Elon has better security than POTUS, because IMNSHO, Elon's the most important person on the planet. Last, please don't do 'Straw Man' stories like this video. As wonderful as it is to review Musk's contribution to crewed spaceflight, I really don't like the manner in which the Media has treated him. Ironically, that dynamic is also Donald Trump got in the White House once, and may, gawd-forbid, do it again.
Elon Musk didn't start Tesla. That was Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. Musk was originally a funder and became chairman of the board of directors. Lately the powers that be are critical of him because he's not pushing their leftist nonsense. He bought Twitter and unleashed Americans ability to speak without censorship.
Yeah, the “problem” that people have with Elon is absurd. I honestly think it’s all just because he’s not a leftist, and therefore the media does all they can to make him look bad. He’s clearly for free speech. He put his money where his mouth is on that front. He is moving the world forward into the future in more ways than maybe anyone in history has ever done. But I agree that I hope he has INSANE security. The one thing the gov hates more than anything else is someone that doesn’t play by their rules.
He is honestly becoming more like Tony Stark every day. Stark was producing weapons for the gov, but was not really loved by them. He was tolerated because he was necessary.
How about a short full episode on how your eyes are doing? It may seem like a minor personal issue to you, but it is a big deal to us your audience.
What an awesome idea.
The first powered flight was John Stringfellow of Chard, England, in 1848. It only lasted a few seconds, was unmanned, and, I believe, steam powered. Wind and rain ruined the trial... Wind and rain in England, who'd have thought it? Lol.
Shut up. The Wright brothers demonstrated the first controlled, sustained, heavier than air powered flight. Any other claims are without basis, documentation or proof.
I always felt that Starship with its 100 tons of cargo and cheap launch cost could make the Rods from God program actually practical.
Supposed 100 tons of cargo. For now it can barely get to space empty.
@@angrydoggy9170 It took 5 launches of the Falcon 9 before they had their first fully successful flight. They have done 3 launches of Starship and they are very close to getting a fully successful flight. So I do not know why you would doubt it.
@@NinetooNine How’s about the fact that Musk likes to make up stories to get more funding without ever delivering on his promises? Not even Falcon 9, his most successful project ever, delivered as promised.
@@NinetooNine Launch 6 WILL be the silver bullet launch of the prototypes, mark my words. 3-4 Will get us close, 5 will be an almost, and 6 will be the chef's kiss. I got money riding on it. What a time to be alive.
@@NinetooNine That is a booster rocket. Also, most of those were getting it to land properly. The rest of how to launch a rocket is well known science and the fact that theyy keep fucking it up shows just how incompetently run that organization is.
First time on this channel. Subscriber for now! 😊
“THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO!” Da dunnnana