Global Prompt Strike using a Reusable LV.

Forest Green

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Joined
11 June 2019
Messages
9,421
Reaction score
17,158
Just been thinking. A Dark Eagle/CPS costs ~$40m and a Falcon 9 launch costs $15m* and has an RTLS (Return to Launch SIte) payload of 12,000kg. Theoretically you could load say two dozen C-HGBs on a Falcon 9 (maybe more given sub-orbital trajectory) and hit 24 targets anywhere on the planet in ~20-25 minutes at a cost of ~$1-2m per target. (Guessing cost a little here because I'm not sure how much a C-HGB on its own costs but presumably much less than an AUR(All-Up Round).) The LV would then return to the launch site. You could do the same with any reusable launcher, current or future reusable LV (Falcon 9, Sharship, Terran R, Nova... etc.).

*https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does...on-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/
According to Elon Musk, the marginal cost for a reused Falcon 9 launch is only about $15 million. He explained that the majority of this amount was represented by the $10 million it costs to manufacture a new upper stage.
 
Last edited:
Just been thinking. A Dark Eagle/CPS costs ~$40m and a Falcon 9 launch costs $62m and has an RTLS (Return to Launch SIte) payload of 12,000kg. Theoretically you could load say two dozen C-HGBs on a Falcon 9 (maybe more given sub-orbital trajectory) and hit 24 targets anywhere on the planet in ~20-25 minutes at a cost of ~$3-4m per target. (Guessing cost a little here because I'm not sure how much a C-HGB on its own costs but presumably much less than an AUR(All-Up Round).) The LV would then return to the launch site. You could do the same with any reusable launcher, current or future reusable LV (Falcon 9, Sharship, Terran R, Nova... etc.).
a. A reusable launch vehicle adds nothing to the capability. An expendable can provide the same capability
b. Falcon 9 is only partially reusable
c. Are the warheads capable of surviving near orbital velocities.
d. Vandenberg or Florida launch sites are not capability of overpass on the first orbitl
e. Can't hit 24 targets "anywhere" in the world in 20-25 minutes. They would have to be within X miles of ground track
 
a. A reusable launch vehicle adds nothing to the capability. An expendable can provide the same capability
It adds not having to be deployed within range of target(s), or retaliation against ship/ground assets. Reduced cost per target.
b. Falcon 9 is only partially reusable
The cost (minus profit) per reusable launch is $15m either way.
c. Are the warheads capable of surviving near orbital velocities.
It was originally tested on a STARS III (Polaris A3), which has a range of 4600km with a payload of 1,350lbs, with LRHW delivering it 3,700km (guessed based on flight restrictions during testing). To get 4600km, you need to be around Mach 18, so not too far off as tested.
d. Vandenberg or Florida launch sites are not capability of overpass on the first orbit
Falcon 9 has performed as large number of RTLSs, so wherever they're doing it from.
1721573145067.png
e. Can't hit 24 targets "anywhere" in the world in 20-25 minutes. They would have to be within X miles of ground track
Yes, there is a footprint for a single LV, as with an MIRV'd ICBM/SLBM. Still allows for a large selection of targets to be hit in releavnt theatre (idea of footprint scale). These are for non-manoeuvrable RVs.

1721573751652.png
1721573818274.png
 
Just been thinking. A Dark Eagle/CPS costs ~$40m and a Falcon 9 launch costs $15m* and has an RTLS (Return to Launch SIte) payload of 12,000kg. Theoretically you could load say two dozen C-HGBs on a Falcon 9 (maybe more given sub-orbital trajectory) and hit 24 targets anywhere on the planet in ~20-25 minutes at a cost of ~$1-2m per target. (Guessing cost a little here because I'm not sure how much a C-HGB on its own costs but presumably much less than an AUR(All-Up Round).) The LV would then return to the launch site. You could do the same with any reusable launcher, current or future reusable LV (Falcon 9, Sharship, Terran R, Nova... etc.).

*https://www.elonx.net/how-much-does...on-musk-explains-why-reusability-is-worth-it/
The problem is storing those missiles in an ready state.
 
Yep, and LOX is a bitch to keep in short term alert. There are good reason why Atlas, Titan I, R-7, Thor (and a few others) had short careers as ballistic missiles.
 
1. It adds not having to be deployed within range of target(s), or retaliation against ship/ground assets. Reduced cost per target.

2. The cost (minus profit) per reusable launch is $15m either way.

3.It was originally tested on a STARS III (Polaris A3), which has a range of 4600km with a payload of 1,350lbs, with LRHW delivering it 3,700km (guessed based on flight restrictions during testing). To get 4600km, you need to be around Mach 18, so not too far off as tested.

4. Falcon 9 has performed as large number of RTLSs, so wherever they're doing it from.

5. Yes, there is a footprint for a single LV, as with an MIRV'd ICBM/SLBM. Still allows for a large selection of targets to be hit in releavnt theatre (idea of footprint scale). These are for non-manoeuvrable RVs.
1. Not an an advantage over expendable launchers
2. Wrong, It is more, Also not relevant in this case. That is for a scheduled launch. Not a launch with a call up time
3. Doesn't mean that the TPS is qualified for the higher speeds.
4. RTLS has no bearing on the matter. It is the launch trajectory that determines launch location and that is the Cape and Vandenberg.
5. Because of the limited azimuths from the launch sites. There are areas in world that can be reached on the first orbital pass.
 
Musk also proposed a space based missile defense, basically like Starlink (in terms of number deployed per launch), putting hundreds and hundreds of “Brilliant Pebbles” type systems into orbit with global coverage.

It was in a discussion with the Space Force commander IIRC.

As far theoretical CPGS systems I favor the proposed all solid Antares, 25k payload.
 
As far theoretical CPGS systems I favor the proposed all solid Antares, 25k payload.
Problem with Anatares though is that you lose the entire LV every time. That costs more money, ~$85m thereof. There's no reason it wouldn't work though and if you can fire 10 C-HGBs for the 2x the cost of LRHWs, it's still cost-saving. Never heard of a solid Antares though?
The problem is storing those missiles in an ready state.
I appreciate that's it's not a quick turn around time but probably beats sailing ships to the theatre (based on Victus Nox times), and doesn't risk the ships. And in a live war you could operate a rolling system with prepping rockets.
1. Not an an advantage over expendable launchers
2. Wrong, It is more, Also not relevant in this case. That is for a scheduled launch. Not a launch with a call up time
3. Doesn't mean that the TPS is qualified for the higher speeds.
4. RTLS has no bearing on the matter. It is the launch trajectory that determines launch location and that is the Cape and Vandenberg.
5. Because of the limited azimuths from the launch sites. There are areas in world that can be reached on the first orbital pass.
1. Except all the ones I mentioned, like cost, not having to sail vessels there.
2. Not according to the link I gave in 1st post, the rest is profit.
3. True but it doesn't mean it isn't either and modifications could be made with shielding if necessary.
4. RTLS means it returns to the launch site. I'm not following your logic here.
1721586425748.png
5. You would launch on a sub-orbital trajectory determined by the target area.
 
Last edited:
Problem with Anatares though is that you lose the entire LV every time. That costs more money, ~$85m thereof. There's no reason it wouldn't work though and if you can fire 10 C-HGBs for the 2x the cost of LRHWs, it's still cost-saving. Never heard of a solid Antares though?

I appreciate that's it's not a quick turn around time but probably beats sailing ships to the theatre (based on Victus Nox times), and doesn't risk the ships. And in a live war you could operate a rolling system with prepping rockets.

1. Except all the ones I mentioned, like cost, not having to sail vessels there.
2. Not according to the link I gave in 1st post, the rest is profit.
3. True but it doesn't mean it isn't either and modifications could be made with shielding if necessary.
4. RTLS means it returns to the launch site. I'm not following your logic here.
View attachment 735108
5. You would launch on a sub-orbital trajectory determined by the target area.
1. There is no solid Antares. Just just Minuteman or its replacement or Trident. Hence, You don't have to have ships in the area.
2. Costs is higher than the link states and will be more for this application. Hence, no advantage.
3. Interferes with space launches.
4. The same ascent trajectory safety and launch azimuth restrictions exist regardless of reuse/RTLS or expendable. Still can't fly a Falcon 9 over populated land. The F9 can go more south from the Cape than is shown here.
5. See #4. Suborbital in only that engine shutdown is before orbit is achieved. There is no depressed trajectory.

6. Targeting. Going to have a the possible trajectories formulated and analysis and approved and sitting on the shelf? This is going to break the concept.
The guidance load is a done about 1/2 hour before launch and can't be changed once launched. The vehicle is completely autonomous.
 

Attachments

  • main-qimg-5f4500c1c83734fe5c36254a5174bf13-lq.jpeg
    main-qimg-5f4500c1c83734fe5c36254a5174bf13-lq.jpeg
    30.3 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
I am lead to believe that in a prompt global strike scenario reusability is not really a primary criterion taken into consideration.
 
Responsiveness and heavy payload
No. Antares is a launch vehicle and not a weapon system. It would not be responsive
Heavy payload? Based on what? Also, what need? Use Minutemen or GBSD?
 
Can do everything a smaller ICBM can do but better. More payload, more range, more options. The only down side (depending) is cost.
Not true. It would not be responsive. Don't need more range. Existing vehicles can hit anywhere in the world. More payload, use Peacekeepers.
 
Who in the military and not a keyboard banger is asking for more range and more payload for an ICBM?

And who is advocating launching conventional (meaning non nuclear) warheads from CONUS?
 
Not true. It would not be responsive. Don't need more range. Existing vehicles can hit anywhere in the world. More payload, use Peacekeepers.
Peacekeeper is parked right there next to Solid Antares.
 
Who in the military and not a keyboard banger is asking for more range and more payload for an ICBM?
There's a reason Sentinel is as low-budget as it is. It's the only way the USAF could get it. If they'd have asked for what they'd really like they would have been laughed at. Hell, if they'd just asked for what China is building they'd have been laughed at.
 
There's a reason Sentinel is as low-budget as it is. It's the only way the USAF could get it. If they'd have asked for what they'd really like they would have been laughed at. Hell, if they'd just asked for what China is building they'd have been laughed at.
Sentinel has increased throw weight from the Minuteman III.
 
No. Antares is a launch vehicle and not a weapon system. It would not be responsive
Heavy payload? Based on what? Also, what need? Use Minutemen or GBSD?
The Antares “launch vehicle” has a LO/Kerosene first stage and a solid second stage. The proposed all solid would replace the liquid first stage and could be purpose built for the PGS mission, hence responsive.

The all solid was proposed to be able to place 8k-10k/kg into low earth orbit I was extrapolating the 25k/lbs ballistic ICBM trajectory payload based on the Peacekeeper/Minotaur LEO/ICBM difference and how that would translate to Antares (I take full responsibility if my numbers are off)

Coastal launch from CONUS was proposed in a NSF study in 2004 I believe. With the starting launch point very different than from the ICBM fields. The higher range ask was also in an LBSD study proposing 26k km for a new ICBM to reach certain countries on South Pole flight paths that didn’t overfly Russia.
 
No. Antares is a launch vehicle and not a weapon system. It would not be responsive
Heavy payload? Based on what? Also, what need? Use Minutemen or GBSD?
I was suggesting conventional purposes only, hence why cost reduction per target hit is important. If I can fire several dozen C-HGBs at several dozen targets (like say a navy), that would sure beat firing several dozen LRHWs instead. For nuclear stuff, cost is not an issue because there's going to be a sh*t ton of it anyway if firing ever happened.

Basing? Any coastal base. Fort Greely. Missiles could be kept defuelling until needed, possibly with launch silos.
 
Last edited:
1. The Antares “launch vehicle” has a LO/Kerosene first stage and a solid second stage. The proposed all solid would replace the liquid first stage and could be purpose built for the PGS mission, hence responsive.

2. The all solid was proposed to be able to place 8k-10k/kg into low earth orbit I was extrapolating the 25k/lbs ballistic ICBM trajectory payload based on the Peacekeeper/Minotaur LEO/ICBM difference and how that would translate to Antares (I take full responsibility if my numbers are off)

3. Coastal launch from CONUS was proposed in a NSF study in 2004 I believe. With the starting launch point very different than from the ICBM fields. The higher range ask was also in an LBSD study proposing 26k km for a new ICBM to reach certain countries on South Pole flight paths that didn’t overfly Russia.
1. All solid does not equate to responsive. There is no silo, pad or site that exists would keep such a vehicle in a state of readiness. Also, one vehicle/one pad means it is not responsive to any target. All possible trajectories (within range safety limits) would have to be designed and analyzed. Then there is still the matter of time to schedule the launch so that air and sea space can be cleared.

2. the size of the motor to replace the Antares liquid stage would be the largest motor short of the Titan and Shuttle/SLS motors. It would be about 6 times larger than the largest monolithic motor (GEM 63XL used but Vulcan). It would have to be segmented like the other large motors (Titan/Shuttle/SLS) with the associated costs.

3. Limits the vehicle only to Vandenberg.
 
I was suggesting conventional purposes only, hence why cost reduction per target hit is important. If I can fire several dozen C-HGBs at several dozen targets (like say a navy), that would sure beat firing several dozen LRHWs instead. For nuclear stuff, cost is not an issue because there's going to be a sh*t ton of it anyway if firing ever happened.

Basing? Any coastal base. Fort Geely. Missiles could be kept defuelling until needed, possibly with launch silos.
There are few with the necessary acreage. Also, Greely is not coastal and would have a stage disposal issue and the Russian issue.
 
The military is not going to drop stages on the US mainland (including Alaska) or other countries for any short of a nuclear war.
 
There are few with the necessary acreage. Also, Greely is not coastal and would have a stage disposal issue and the Russian issue.
You could tell Russia via diplomatic channels where the weapons are heading country-wise, and only fire one at a time.
The military is not going to drop stages on the US mainland (including Alaska) or other countries for any short of a nuclear war.
Hence RTLS.
 
You could tell Russia via diplomatic channels where the weapons are heading country-wise, and only fire one at a time.

Hence RTLS.
Still doesn't solve the overflight issue and hence still limited to coastal launch sites. Falcon 9 and Starship will only launch from Vandenberg, TX and FL.
 
Where did you hear that? And WHAT did you hear?
Without revealing any sources, it is intuitive. Even it is the same outer mold line of the MMIII, it will have more performance due to use of advanced composites.
 
1. All solid does not equate to responsive. There is no silo, pad or site that exists would keep such a vehicle in a state of readiness. Also, one vehicle/one pad means it is not responsive to any target. All possible trajectories (within range safety limits) would have to be designed and analyzed. Then there is still the matter of time to schedule the launch so that air and sea space can be cleared.

2. the size of the motor to replace the Antares liquid stage would be the largest motor short of the Titan and Shuttle/SLS motors. It would be about 6 times larger than the largest monolithic motor (GEM 63XL used but Vulcan). It would have to be segmented like the other large motors (Titan/Shuttle/SLS) with the associated costs.

3. Limits the vehicle only to Vandenberg.
And? It’s theoretical thread are these impossible issues to overcome?

FYI ATK proposed the all solid Antares not me (yes launch vehicle not for PGS) so I assume they could build the first stage.

So build new silos (like NBMD just bigger) new first stage new everything.

Im under no illusions this will ever happen but not like it’s impossible.
 
Im under no illusions this will ever happen but not like it’s impossible.
Impossible or improbable makes no difference, the outcome is the same. I deal with the possible.
 
Still doesn't solve the overflight issue and hence still limited to coastal launch sites. Falcon 9 and Starship will only launch from Vandenberg, TX and FL.
I guess if you had some on Ascension Island and some on BIOT/Diego Garcia that would solve many issues.
 
I guess if you had some on Ascension Island and some on BIOT/Diego Garcia that would solve many issues.
Then why bother with RTLS. And logistics costs would be high. An all solid vehicle would be better for those sites.
 
A lot of the problems are invented ones. Not imaginary but artificially manufactured by various rules. They're not actual technical problems.
Same type of rules as staying off the sidewalks while driving.
 
So would warp drive, but I didn't think this was science fiction.
Come on now, a SSTO Spaceplane is hardly warp drive level. It's basically doable, it's just that nobody has poured the cash into it yet. A warp drive requires negative mass, which hasn't even been discovered yet, to even hold together even the faintest dream of it ever being a reality.
Same type of rules as staying off the sidewalks while driving.
People often drive on the sidewalk slightly before parking (definitely in the UK) or if letting a large vehicle down a narrow street, or going into a driveway. If you RTLS over land, you only hit someone if you mess up very badly and sometimes not even then - see recent Chinese episode of uninentional TO+RTLS gone wrong.
 
Sentinel has increased throw weight from the Minuteman III.
It may be able to support somewhat heavier RVs, but it's still going to max out at 3 (assuming a MM3 OML as concepts have used).

So I think Sentinel is going to be longer ranged due to lighter stages.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom