Starship makes possible a world where the U.S. can deploy an entire armored division anywhere on Earth in under an hour, and supply it entirely from home. "Hegemony" doesn't begin to cover it.
Can they really do that? Did they really get to the Moon? I somehow doubt all of that stuff. But the military use makes complete sense to me, it’s the only thing which makes sense particularly as Musk is a total creation of the state.
He would not exist in his present form without state funding of his projects. He follows the public private partnership model. This is the preferred model of the WEF. Also, he cannot possibly be managing all the companies he is involved in. He is integrated into the government machinery e.g. Surveillance, military, space, bio-military etc. This is actually techno fascism. You cannot be in government and also in industry. There has to be a separation in a democratic state.
2. If private companies cannot provide services to the government, then the government would have to provide all of those services itself, thus destroying the private sector.
Perhaps I did not explain myself very well here. Yes, of course private companies can provide services to government but, if we talking about in a democracy, then only on an open and transparent basis (usually involving a bidding system) so that the public knows what is going on. But that has not been happening these days. What I am referring to is the 3P model of Public, Private, Partnerships where state and government work hand in hand on a secretive basis. (Example, the secret deals which Ursula von der Leyen made with Pfizer using EU taxpayer money which have never been revealed). I do think that Musk has built his brand very much on this style of doing business which is ultimately a technocratic fascist model. SpaceX does receive a very large amount of government funding. Yes, that is known about but it begs the question, is EM just ‘government’ packaged for public consumption in a ‘private’ wrapper. Well now he now sits in government! I am trying to figure out where all of this ends up because, according to Patrick Wood, the Transformation of society to a technocratic system of social control will see government disappear and we will only be left with the technocrats calling the shots, i.e. people like Elon Musk. So this seems to be a danger for (a free and democratic) society.
Here is a good profile of Elon’s background and interests which confirms my worst fears about his orientation and motives. He is certainly a perfect partner for the establishment of a US Technate.
Wouldn't a rocket travel a path several hundred (or perhaps several thousand) miles above the Earth before re-entering? If so, wouldn't these rockets be much more vulnerable to air defenses than an aircraft? They would be detectable by air defense radars at those altitudes, while aircraft typically would not. What do you think?
“What I’m describing to you is a recipe for a new American Century. And this is just one relatively minor application of what’s to come.”
A new century of warfare! So much to look forward to! [Sarcasm]
Is this the future we want?
I like your work, Rod, but this piece deviates from your normal good style. What you present in this piece is more science fantasy than science. Of course, it’s just one engineer’s opinion.
I can’t figure Musk out. He is supposed to be an engineer, but all I can see is a marketing guy. He hires engineers who make the cool things and then he markets them toward absurdity. Manned missions to Mars would be pointless death sentences. Colonizing Mars will never happen. It would make more sense to colonize the bottom of the oceans and that makes no sense at all. But this marketing is likely a cover for the real story. Musk is in deep with the DoD. Maybe unintentionally, but you hit the target on that one. Neither SpaceX or StarLink have a rational business model without the DoD.
How do the 70-ton M1A2 Abrams tanks get unloaded from the payload bay which is 300 feet off of the ground? Can a 360-foot tall rocket successfully land and stay upright on battlefield terrain?
How does SpaceX intend to do almost identical tasks on the Moon and Mars? And why is NASA paying them for that, selecting them in a competition over craft much lower to the ground, if this is all so stupid?
And similarly: you’re claiming that though not a single cargo ship, C-5, or C-17 was even attacked in 2002-2003, had we deployed the 3rd ID to Saudi by Starship the Iraqi Air Force would somehow have become invincible.
In the Iraq war, the US staged forces outside of Iraq in Kuwait. C5s landing in Kuwait were over the horizon and not detectable by Iraqi radar. A starship would be vulnerable when landing or taking off. A 300-ton fireball slowly rising or descending would be detectable for thousands of miles and could more easily be intercepted.
I’m presenting a contrary point of view. Nothing more.
So you think I'm suggesting we fly these things into airspace we don't control?
Could you point me to the part of the essay where I said anything like that?
But considering that the Israeli's just took out all of Iran's air defenses without losing a single plane, perhaps you're overestimating the value of Russian technology just a bit.
When they land, presumably in or near a combat zone, how will they unload all of these vertical containers full of tanks and bombs? Before being launched into combat, will they sit around, pre loaded and prefueled so they can be deployed anywhere on earth in less than an hour? How will they refuel them in the field for the return flight? How much will it cost to maintain such a force for potentially years?
On the other hand, that puppy could carry a hell of a lot of tungsten “Rods From God.”
2. Refueling: depends on whether you deploy to some place with prepositioned supplies or not. If not, you will note that I suggested a fleet larger than needed to deploy the division. The rest is not just backup: it's to carry fuel.
3. I am counting point-to-point travel time, not loading and unloading time. Lots of unanswered questions on that right now, but all solvable. And remember, Elon is working toward one-hour turnaround from landing to re-launch.
4. Equipment to offload should be similar to what's already planned for the Moon and Mars. Again, if additional equipment is required, increase the number of Starships in the fleet and take it along.
Another commenter said something about deployment into contested airspace. I don't really see that as likely, just as our deployments to Saudi in 1991 and 2003 were to locations near the (still potential) battlespace but not inside it. We had air supremacy and not a single C-17 or C-5 was lost. Had the 4th ID been able to deploying into northern Iraq from Turkey, we'd have had even better air cover there.
But could you deploy into contested airspace? I wouldn't rule it out. I think it very much depends on how the U.S. equivalent of Iron Beam develops.
What are the requirements for a landing site? Other than that, I do trust Musk to think far enough outside of the box to cover all of the eventualities.
Honestly hadn't considered this in any context other than possibilities for space exploration, beyond Earth settlements, and mining of asteroids, etc, but this article is large B Brilliant in exposition. Even as the tech exists at this moment, we're looking at a whole new ballgame, but clearly the tech will advance and provide even larger margins of support in deployment, while continuing the expansion of our influence into space.
Talk about a head jump in possibilities... the rest of the question breaks down into logistics, as it always does (loading, unloading, landing towers, etc). Really well done, mate.
You send extra Starships along that are just refuelers, so they just carry extra fuel for themselves as well as transfer pumps and hoses to refuel other Starships.
Granted the "anywhere" in the world part would be more difficult, they have landed on barges so they can handle flat-but-not-totally-level but rougher terrain might take some modifications and heavier landing gear. On the other hand, even being limited to large air fields it would still be a game changer, it doesn't have to be able to handle contested landings.
The other area this is going to dominate is high end business travel, reviving super-sonic aircraft is a waste of time now. With a passenger Starship you can be in New York, have a meeting in London in the morning, lunch in Dubai, afternoon meeting in Tokyo and be back home for dinner.
They're intended to land on the Moon and Mars. Can they today? No. Can they in two more years? Easily.
If they can handle those places, they can handle a field in Ukraine, or a desert in Saudi.
In any case, you're exactly right about refueling. And once you establish the bridgehead, you use your fleet of Starships to establish and maintain an enormous supply dump and other infrastructure, all maintained in real time from home.
Starship is designed for heavy lift to orbit and beyond. You don't need anything that big and powerful to carry out military operations on earth. You just need suborbital planes or rockets, and those are already in development. They can also be equipped for vertical takeoff and landing. But in general your point that you can move move a division by stratospheric or suborbital means is certainly a good one.
How is Starship not a perfectly capable suborbital system? Have you seen SpaceX's own videos depicting its use for civilian passenger and cargo service between a variety of city pairs?
In any case, I'm not speculating. The Pentagon is already working on this with SpaceX, albeit not to this scale as yet. Look it up.
Yes, Starship could make a huge difference in logistics. It would need an extensive support base. Catch towers. Cranes for unloading cargo. Tractors for shifting cargo around. Rocket propellant for sending Starship back for another flight. (One way Starships are possible, but that ruins the cost advantage.)
So this wouldn't let us "paradrop" a division. We'd still need a nearby ally or someplace the Marines could secure while the base is being built.
No, a fleet of Starships can take everything they need with them, which is precisely what NASA is paying SpaceX to do on the Moon, and precisely what Elon is planning for himself on Mars.
Umm, it was more than just 3rd ID that destroyed the Iraq Army. It was the 3rd ID, 1st UK AD, 101st AAD, 2/82nd IBCT (ABN), 172nd IBCT (ABN) and a USMC (equivilant to) Mech Inf Div. Your point about revolution in logistics / airhead stands, but to repeat the invasion of Iraq you will need, at least 5 times the tonnage stated above.
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.
While I love all of this, and am a Starship Trooper fan to boot, I have one question. This statement: "1. A U.S. armored division requires approximately 155,000 tons of transport capacity for full deployment, well within the 200,000 ton payload for our fleet of Starships."
I wonder if the cubic meters of space required are optimized in the Starship vs say a C-5 Galaxy, which after all was built with the intention of moving things like tanks. How quickly can a Starship be loaded and unloaded as compared with the Galaxy, and also, what kind of restraints would be required vs the Galaxy to keep the load from shifting?
I love that we are talking about Starships and Galaxies here, but, I think we are further off from realizing any of this than the article suggests.
I will add that I think that as a resupply platform, as currently designed, I don't believe it can land with a full payload. It's currently more of a one way delivery platform to space. Not to other points on Earth. It is not designed to come in that hot.
Starship would have to be redesigned anyway for independent operations without a tower, so might as well reinforce the structure to handle landing with full payload.
And since the entire point of Starship is regular independent operations without a tower on multiple moons and planets, designing something the Pentagon wants isn't going to be outside their current thinking.
You just build them to the needed spec. What dimensions do you need? SpaceX builds it.
I know that sounds crazy when compared to the Saturn V (although the modification for Skylab was pretty cool) or SLS. But this is not those, and Starfactory is designed to make these by the thousands.
In any case, don't forget that these things are designed to carry everything needed to establish bases and entire colonies on the Moon and Mars. Elon has already planned for much if not most of what you address.
As an aside, Heinlein's stories usually had some rich entrepreneur leading the way into space, not a government. He seemed to feel Governments would be too inefficient. Go figure. 😀
The shape makes things more difficult for vehicles. Diameter is only 9m (less than M1 and M109 w/ barrel), so vehicle modifications are necessary. That's not even considering limitations on the cargo door and cargo-handling equipment. Even if there was 2x mass capability, there'd be no way to fit more than one vehicle (and even that would require modifications).
If this were to become reality, we wouldn't actually send a full armored division. It'd look more like an Airborne division with light tanks and SPH (e.g., M8 and Rascal).
You're too pessimistic. Block 2 will have payload to LEO of 200 tons, dry mass of 300 tons, and wet mass of 5,000 tons. Suborbital launch doesn't require full delta-v, so payload delivered should be 3+ times greater. That's over 500 tons assuming no return capability.
Usually, these would deploy to prepared landing zones that could easily pre-position fuel (both diesel and LNG), since fuel is a fungible commodity. However, should that not be possible (unavailable or destroyed), a "lilypad" approach could be used. Deliver cargo at the target with just enough remaining fuel to transit to a relatively nearby, but safer, prepositioned base. For example, land in Taiwan, then reposition to Japan or Guam before return to CONUS.
As mentioned in the comments, Starship would need to be modified to land independently without infrastructure. That is a challenge, since even Mars has only a fraction of Earth's gravity. Onloading/offloading cargo may not be a solved problem, but it's far from unsolvable, since Starship has enough payload capacity to include payload handling systems. Also, to put it in context, Starship is only 170ft tall, not 300+. This is well within operating parameters of modern container handling gantry cranes.
Another option, straight from scifi, is an independent re-entry vehicle meant for one-time use. This would effectively be a third disposable stage meant only to deliver cargo to the surface. Payload would obviously be negative impacted, but Starship wouldn't actually have to land and relaunch. Instead, payload is dropped off close to closer to theater while Starship continues on to a safe launch zone with fuel.
I agree with all of that. I think the solution (assuming no pre-positioned supplies) is to send a significant number of Starships whose only purpose is to carry fuel.
This would make the lilypad approach quite workable until sufficient supplies and infrastructure are built up at the landing site.
One question that comes to my mind is “How does Starship survive enemy anti aircraft weapons?” Surely, our enemies will quickly figure out how to take these Starships out of the air before they even land?!?!
Depends on where you land. When we deployed the 3rd ID to Saudi in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, we didn't lose a single transport, because we completely controled the relevant airspace. That put us immediately adjacent to the (not yet active) battlespace. No reason a fleet of Starships couldn't do the same thing, six months faster.
Or put that another way: imagine Operation Reforger (the planned deployment of U.S. forces across the Atlantic in contested waters in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. With Starship, all those enemy subs don't get a shot at us, and we set down well behind the front lines. Two weeks becomes two days or less, and the Soviets don't stand a chance.
But longer term, I think our experiments with directed energy weapons (what Dr. Evil would call "frickin' laser beams") potentially change all of this. Starships equipped with what is in effect Israel's "Iron Beam", or sort of a speed-of-light AEGIS system, would be awfully hard to shoot down.
That's a 20-years-from-now kind of thing at best, as much due to power supply as anything else. But none of this is happening next week.
The S-400, with a nominal range of 400km, would effectively limit just how close to the theater a Starship could land. A Starship coming in from (almost) LEO is going to light up everything on the way in, a nice fat target for ABM.
That's bad for a Taiwan scenario, since China can cover the entire island with ABM defense batteries on the mainland. I suppose we could saturate everything with rods from God beforehand, and launch lots of chaff and decoys as Starships come in to land. Active defenses, both kinetic and directed energy, are probably the ticket for contested airspace like Taiwan.
This is what I thought when I first saw this SpaceEx Starship. It’s a piece of military dominance machinery pure and simple. Mars my arse!
Mars too. But not Mars only.
Can they really do that? Did they really get to the Moon? I somehow doubt all of that stuff. But the military use makes complete sense to me, it’s the only thing which makes sense particularly as Musk is a total creation of the state.
How is Elon a creation of the state? If he is, why would he be aligned with Trump and MAGA?
He would not exist in his present form without state funding of his projects. He follows the public private partnership model. This is the preferred model of the WEF. Also, he cannot possibly be managing all the companies he is involved in. He is integrated into the government machinery e.g. Surveillance, military, space, bio-military etc. This is actually techno fascism. You cannot be in government and also in industry. There has to be a separation in a democratic state.
1. That's absurdly wrong.
2. If private companies cannot provide services to the government, then the government would have to provide all of those services itself, thus destroying the private sector.
So you seem to be advocating Communism.
Perhaps I did not explain myself very well here. Yes, of course private companies can provide services to government but, if we talking about in a democracy, then only on an open and transparent basis (usually involving a bidding system) so that the public knows what is going on. But that has not been happening these days. What I am referring to is the 3P model of Public, Private, Partnerships where state and government work hand in hand on a secretive basis. (Example, the secret deals which Ursula von der Leyen made with Pfizer using EU taxpayer money which have never been revealed). I do think that Musk has built his brand very much on this style of doing business which is ultimately a technocratic fascist model. SpaceX does receive a very large amount of government funding. Yes, that is known about but it begs the question, is EM just ‘government’ packaged for public consumption in a ‘private’ wrapper. Well now he now sits in government! I am trying to figure out where all of this ends up because, according to Patrick Wood, the Transformation of society to a technocratic system of social control will see government disappear and we will only be left with the technocrats calling the shots, i.e. people like Elon Musk. So this seems to be a danger for (a free and democratic) society.
Here is a good profile of Elon’s background and interests which confirms my worst fears about his orientation and motives. He is certainly a perfect partner for the establishment of a US Technate.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2025/03/investigative-series/the-dark-maga-gov-corp-technate-part-1/
Starships are subject to air defense countermeasures. You are not landing them through contested airspace.
So are C-17s. And no, I don’t imagine the military would suddenly become stupid.
Wouldn't a rocket travel a path several hundred (or perhaps several thousand) miles above the Earth before re-entering? If so, wouldn't these rockets be much more vulnerable to air defenses than an aircraft? They would be detectable by air defense radars at those altitudes, while aircraft typically would not. What do you think?
“What I’m describing to you is a recipe for a new American Century. And this is just one relatively minor application of what’s to come.”
A new century of warfare! So much to look forward to! [Sarcasm]
Is this the future we want?
I like your work, Rod, but this piece deviates from your normal good style. What you present in this piece is more science fantasy than science. Of course, it’s just one engineer’s opinion.
I can’t figure Musk out. He is supposed to be an engineer, but all I can see is a marketing guy. He hires engineers who make the cool things and then he markets them toward absurdity. Manned missions to Mars would be pointless death sentences. Colonizing Mars will never happen. It would make more sense to colonize the bottom of the oceans and that makes no sense at all. But this marketing is likely a cover for the real story. Musk is in deep with the DoD. Maybe unintentionally, but you hit the target on that one. Neither SpaceX or StarLink have a rational business model without the DoD.
I’m confident you’d have said the same thing to Billy Mitchell and Heinz Guderian.
How do the 70-ton M1A2 Abrams tanks get unloaded from the payload bay which is 300 feet off of the ground? Can a 360-foot tall rocket successfully land and stay upright on battlefield terrain?
How does SpaceX intend to do almost identical tasks on the Moon and Mars? And why is NASA paying them for that, selecting them in a competition over craft much lower to the ground, if this is all so stupid?
You don’t seem to know much about this.
And similarly: you’re claiming that though not a single cargo ship, C-5, or C-17 was even attacked in 2002-2003, had we deployed the 3rd ID to Saudi by Starship the Iraqi Air Force would somehow have become invincible.
You’re just arguing to argue.
In the Iraq war, the US staged forces outside of Iraq in Kuwait. C5s landing in Kuwait were over the horizon and not detectable by Iraqi radar. A starship would be vulnerable when landing or taking off. A 300-ton fireball slowly rising or descending would be detectable for thousands of miles and could more easily be intercepted.
I’m presenting a contrary point of view. Nothing more.
So you think I'm suggesting we fly these things into airspace we don't control?
Could you point me to the part of the essay where I said anything like that?
But considering that the Israeli's just took out all of Iran's air defenses without losing a single plane, perhaps you're overestimating the value of Russian technology just a bit.
Rods from God…finally!
Seriously.
When they land, presumably in or near a combat zone, how will they unload all of these vertical containers full of tanks and bombs? Before being launched into combat, will they sit around, pre loaded and prefueled so they can be deployed anywhere on earth in less than an hour? How will they refuel them in the field for the return flight? How much will it cost to maintain such a force for potentially years?
On the other hand, that puppy could carry a hell of a lot of tungsten “Rods From God.”
1. Yes on Rods From God.
2. Refueling: depends on whether you deploy to some place with prepositioned supplies or not. If not, you will note that I suggested a fleet larger than needed to deploy the division. The rest is not just backup: it's to carry fuel.
3. I am counting point-to-point travel time, not loading and unloading time. Lots of unanswered questions on that right now, but all solvable. And remember, Elon is working toward one-hour turnaround from landing to re-launch.
4. Equipment to offload should be similar to what's already planned for the Moon and Mars. Again, if additional equipment is required, increase the number of Starships in the fleet and take it along.
Another commenter said something about deployment into contested airspace. I don't really see that as likely, just as our deployments to Saudi in 1991 and 2003 were to locations near the (still potential) battlespace but not inside it. We had air supremacy and not a single C-17 or C-5 was lost. Had the 4th ID been able to deploying into northern Iraq from Turkey, we'd have had even better air cover there.
But could you deploy into contested airspace? I wouldn't rule it out. I think it very much depends on how the U.S. equivalent of Iron Beam develops.
The only other issue I can think of is what
What are the requirements for a landing site? Other than that, I do trust Musk to think far enough outside of the box to cover all of the eventualities.
Honestly hadn't considered this in any context other than possibilities for space exploration, beyond Earth settlements, and mining of asteroids, etc, but this article is large B Brilliant in exposition. Even as the tech exists at this moment, we're looking at a whole new ballgame, but clearly the tech will advance and provide even larger margins of support in deployment, while continuing the expansion of our influence into space.
Talk about a head jump in possibilities... the rest of the question breaks down into logistics, as it always does (loading, unloading, landing towers, etc). Really well done, mate.
Thank you. Much appreciated!
Logistical question. How do you return the used Starship home if it lands in a remote location?
You send extra Starships along that are just refuelers, so they just carry extra fuel for themselves as well as transfer pumps and hoses to refuel other Starships.
Granted the "anywhere" in the world part would be more difficult, they have landed on barges so they can handle flat-but-not-totally-level but rougher terrain might take some modifications and heavier landing gear. On the other hand, even being limited to large air fields it would still be a game changer, it doesn't have to be able to handle contested landings.
The other area this is going to dominate is high end business travel, reviving super-sonic aircraft is a waste of time now. With a passenger Starship you can be in New York, have a meeting in London in the morning, lunch in Dubai, afternoon meeting in Tokyo and be back home for dinner.
They're intended to land on the Moon and Mars. Can they today? No. Can they in two more years? Easily.
If they can handle those places, they can handle a field in Ukraine, or a desert in Saudi.
In any case, you're exactly right about refueling. And once you establish the bridgehead, you use your fleet of Starships to establish and maintain an enormous supply dump and other infrastructure, all maintained in real time from home.
Starship is designed for heavy lift to orbit and beyond. You don't need anything that big and powerful to carry out military operations on earth. You just need suborbital planes or rockets, and those are already in development. They can also be equipped for vertical takeoff and landing. But in general your point that you can move move a division by stratospheric or suborbital means is certainly a good one.
How is Starship not a perfectly capable suborbital system? Have you seen SpaceX's own videos depicting its use for civilian passenger and cargo service between a variety of city pairs?
In any case, I'm not speculating. The Pentagon is already working on this with SpaceX, albeit not to this scale as yet. Look it up.
Well I haven't seen the starship videos so I can't comment, but it seems like overkill to me.
Yes, Starship could make a huge difference in logistics. It would need an extensive support base. Catch towers. Cranes for unloading cargo. Tractors for shifting cargo around. Rocket propellant for sending Starship back for another flight. (One way Starships are possible, but that ruins the cost advantage.)
So this wouldn't let us "paradrop" a division. We'd still need a nearby ally or someplace the Marines could secure while the base is being built.
No, a fleet of Starships can take everything they need with them, which is precisely what NASA is paying SpaceX to do on the Moon, and precisely what Elon is planning for himself on Mars.
Except the fuel to launch back home
Umm, it was more than just 3rd ID that destroyed the Iraq Army. It was the 3rd ID, 1st UK AD, 101st AAD, 2/82nd IBCT (ABN), 172nd IBCT (ABN) and a USMC (equivilant to) Mech Inf Div. Your point about revolution in logistics / airhead stands, but to repeat the invasion of Iraq you will need, at least 5 times the tonnage stated above.
They all better hurry. Our maritime capabilities are dwindling.
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.
While I love all of this, and am a Starship Trooper fan to boot, I have one question. This statement: "1. A U.S. armored division requires approximately 155,000 tons of transport capacity for full deployment, well within the 200,000 ton payload for our fleet of Starships."
I wonder if the cubic meters of space required are optimized in the Starship vs say a C-5 Galaxy, which after all was built with the intention of moving things like tanks. How quickly can a Starship be loaded and unloaded as compared with the Galaxy, and also, what kind of restraints would be required vs the Galaxy to keep the load from shifting?
I love that we are talking about Starships and Galaxies here, but, I think we are further off from realizing any of this than the article suggests.
I will add that I think that as a resupply platform, as currently designed, I don't believe it can land with a full payload. It's currently more of a one way delivery platform to space. Not to other points on Earth. It is not designed to come in that hot.
Starship would have to be redesigned anyway for independent operations without a tower, so might as well reinforce the structure to handle landing with full payload.
And since the entire point of Starship is regular independent operations without a tower on multiple moons and planets, designing something the Pentagon wants isn't going to be outside their current thinking.
You just build them to the needed spec. What dimensions do you need? SpaceX builds it.
I know that sounds crazy when compared to the Saturn V (although the modification for Skylab was pretty cool) or SLS. But this is not those, and Starfactory is designed to make these by the thousands.
In any case, don't forget that these things are designed to carry everything needed to establish bases and entire colonies on the Moon and Mars. Elon has already planned for much if not most of what you address.
Starship Troopers here we come.
As an aside, Heinlein's stories usually had some rich entrepreneur leading the way into space, not a government. He seemed to feel Governments would be too inefficient. Go figure. 😀
Elon seems to have taken Heinlein's short stories (compiled in "The Man Who Sold the Moon") as a business plan.
The shape makes things more difficult for vehicles. Diameter is only 9m (less than M1 and M109 w/ barrel), so vehicle modifications are necessary. That's not even considering limitations on the cargo door and cargo-handling equipment. Even if there was 2x mass capability, there'd be no way to fit more than one vehicle (and even that would require modifications).
If this were to become reality, we wouldn't actually send a full armored division. It'd look more like an Airborne division with light tanks and SPH (e.g., M8 and Rascal).
Perhaps. And also, in 1925, the idea of an airliner, or an intercontinental bomber, was considered absurd for almost identical reasons.
And yet 20 years later....
You're too pessimistic. Block 2 will have payload to LEO of 200 tons, dry mass of 300 tons, and wet mass of 5,000 tons. Suborbital launch doesn't require full delta-v, so payload delivered should be 3+ times greater. That's over 500 tons assuming no return capability.
Usually, these would deploy to prepared landing zones that could easily pre-position fuel (both diesel and LNG), since fuel is a fungible commodity. However, should that not be possible (unavailable or destroyed), a "lilypad" approach could be used. Deliver cargo at the target with just enough remaining fuel to transit to a relatively nearby, but safer, prepositioned base. For example, land in Taiwan, then reposition to Japan or Guam before return to CONUS.
As mentioned in the comments, Starship would need to be modified to land independently without infrastructure. That is a challenge, since even Mars has only a fraction of Earth's gravity. Onloading/offloading cargo may not be a solved problem, but it's far from unsolvable, since Starship has enough payload capacity to include payload handling systems. Also, to put it in context, Starship is only 170ft tall, not 300+. This is well within operating parameters of modern container handling gantry cranes.
Another option, straight from scifi, is an independent re-entry vehicle meant for one-time use. This would effectively be a third disposable stage meant only to deliver cargo to the surface. Payload would obviously be negative impacted, but Starship wouldn't actually have to land and relaunch. Instead, payload is dropped off close to closer to theater while Starship continues on to a safe launch zone with fuel.
You just seriously earned a follow!
I agree with all of that. I think the solution (assuming no pre-positioned supplies) is to send a significant number of Starships whose only purpose is to carry fuel.
This would make the lilypad approach quite workable until sufficient supplies and infrastructure are built up at the landing site.
One question that comes to my mind is “How does Starship survive enemy anti aircraft weapons?” Surely, our enemies will quickly figure out how to take these Starships out of the air before they even land?!?!
Depends on where you land. When we deployed the 3rd ID to Saudi in preparation for the invasion of Iraq, we didn't lose a single transport, because we completely controled the relevant airspace. That put us immediately adjacent to the (not yet active) battlespace. No reason a fleet of Starships couldn't do the same thing, six months faster.
Or put that another way: imagine Operation Reforger (the planned deployment of U.S. forces across the Atlantic in contested waters in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. With Starship, all those enemy subs don't get a shot at us, and we set down well behind the front lines. Two weeks becomes two days or less, and the Soviets don't stand a chance.
But longer term, I think our experiments with directed energy weapons (what Dr. Evil would call "frickin' laser beams") potentially change all of this. Starships equipped with what is in effect Israel's "Iron Beam", or sort of a speed-of-light AEGIS system, would be awfully hard to shoot down.
That's a 20-years-from-now kind of thing at best, as much due to power supply as anything else. But none of this is happening next week.
The S-400, with a nominal range of 400km, would effectively limit just how close to the theater a Starship could land. A Starship coming in from (almost) LEO is going to light up everything on the way in, a nice fat target for ABM.
That's bad for a Taiwan scenario, since China can cover the entire island with ABM defense batteries on the mainland. I suppose we could saturate everything with rods from God beforehand, and launch lots of chaff and decoys as Starships come in to land. Active defenses, both kinetic and directed energy, are probably the ticket for contested airspace like Taiwan.