Global Prompt Strike using a Reusable LV.

[Forest Green]

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.

 

[Byeman]

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

 

[Forest Green]

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.

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.

 

[kqcke for you]

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.

 

[Archibald]

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.

 

[Byeman]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[Forest Green]

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.

5. You would launch on a sub-orbital trajectory determined by the target area.

 

[Byeman]

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.

 

[publiusr]

Maybe old Minutemen can be repurposed for this.

Put them in this thing

Mobile offshore base - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[bobbymike]

1. There is no solid Antares.

Yes hence the “Theoretical” thread placement

 

[martinbayer]

I am lead to believe that in a prompt global strike scenario reusability is not really a primary criterion taken into consideration.