You don’t just load 200 tons of stuff anywhere on the rocket, and then just unload that stuff because you want to. How are you winching a 70ton abrams 300 feet up in the air? And then down to the ground in the middle of bumfu*k nowhere?
Rockets are not logistical super weapons, on earth. Unloadin…
You don’t just load 200 tons of stuff anywhere on the rocket, and then just unload that stuff because you want to. How are you winching a 70ton abrams 300 feet up in the air? And then down to the ground in the middle of bumfu*k nowhere?
Rockets are not logistical super weapons, on earth. Unloading is a cinch in space, but on earth? Not even close to being practical.
Beyond that, rockets are optimized for certain conditions, namely space. Would have to rework substantial portions of the rocket if you are not going into space. And if you do that, you start losing your cost advantage.
Now if Starship landed like an airplane, that would be a whole different ballgame.
Well I guess you should explain that to NASA, since they're so stupid they signed a contract with SpaceX for it to do exactly those kinds of things with Starship on the Moon.
I know that you understand the difference between gravity on the Moon and Earth makes the comparison a bit off. Getting things out of the rocket on the Moon are what, 6 times easier than on Earth? And is Nasa loading M1A1 Abrams with the moon as the destination?
It does not. Whatever SpaceX builds for the Pentagon will be purpose-built. Don't make the mistake of thinking Japan is going to use biplanes to attack Pearl Harbor.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking Elon Musk is stupid. Boeing and Lockheed were laughing at the mere idea of reusable rockets just a decade ago. I suspect they count as "experts".
So, if I understand you correctly, you are not talking about the current existing SpaceX vehicles and their most immediate successors, you are positing potential application of the technology being advanced by Musk, purpose built for military application. Otherwise, I think my comments hold regarding both the logistics of unloading on the Moon versus Earth, and the problem of the current vehicles not being designed for landing with a full payload but rather designed as one-way transports to low-Earth orbit.
I’m sorry, but have you ever seen a rocket?
You don’t just load 200 tons of stuff anywhere on the rocket, and then just unload that stuff because you want to. How are you winching a 70ton abrams 300 feet up in the air? And then down to the ground in the middle of bumfu*k nowhere?
Rockets are not logistical super weapons, on earth. Unloading is a cinch in space, but on earth? Not even close to being practical.
Beyond that, rockets are optimized for certain conditions, namely space. Would have to rework substantial portions of the rocket if you are not going into space. And if you do that, you start losing your cost advantage.
Now if Starship landed like an airplane, that would be a whole different ballgame.
Well I guess you should explain that to NASA, since they're so stupid they signed a contract with SpaceX for it to do exactly those kinds of things with Starship on the Moon.
Silly NASA.
I know that you understand the difference between gravity on the Moon and Earth makes the comparison a bit off. Getting things out of the rocket on the Moon are what, 6 times easier than on Earth? And is Nasa loading M1A1 Abrams with the moon as the destination?
It does not. Whatever SpaceX builds for the Pentagon will be purpose-built. Don't make the mistake of thinking Japan is going to use biplanes to attack Pearl Harbor.
Also, don't make the mistake of thinking Elon Musk is stupid. Boeing and Lockheed were laughing at the mere idea of reusable rockets just a decade ago. I suspect they count as "experts".
So, if I understand you correctly, you are not talking about the current existing SpaceX vehicles and their most immediate successors, you are positing potential application of the technology being advanced by Musk, purpose built for military application. Otherwise, I think my comments hold regarding both the logistics of unloading on the Moon versus Earth, and the problem of the current vehicles not being designed for landing with a full payload but rather designed as one-way transports to low-Earth orbit.
What Mark said… and do you think NASA is planning on moving 70ton tanks on the moon?
And… I’m sure they’re planning on a (semi-)permanent base on the moon, with the right infrastructure… it won’t be ad-hoc
See my reply to Mark.