Starship as a FOB system

[Josh_TN]

A little off topic, but I thought it not worth opening a separate thread: how possible would it be for the U.S. to use Starship as a FOB system? My assumption is that this would require 1) refueling in space for a severe altitude/inclination change burn and 2) expending the Starship, since it would not deorbit into a friendly landing zone. Given those limitations, would it be possible to deploy a SWERVE type hypersonic glider from such? Would it require a more robust re-entry vehicle? Would a fueled starship have sufficient delta V for such a maneuver?

ETA: another complication would be deployment and proper orientation of the RVs, which might require an intermediate warhead bus(s) similar to an ICBM.

The goal would be a deterrence patrol in high LEO to low MEO capable of orbit changes to defend itself and delivering a large conventional kinetic strike on short notice.

 

[Josh_TN]

Thanks Mods, I had meant to post in the Chinese FOB thread but must have miss clicked.

 

[Dilandu]

A little off topic, but I thought it not worth opening a separate thread: how possible would it be for the U.S. to use Starship as a FOB system? My assumption is that this would require 1) refueling in space for a severe altitude/inclination change burn and 2) expending the Starship, since it would not deorbit into a friendly landing zone. Given those limitations, would it be possible to deploy a SWERVE type hypersonic glider from such? Would it require a more robust re-entry vehicle? Would a fueled starship have sufficient delta V for such a maneuver?

Well, why would you need to de-orbit it? The full payoad of Starship in expendable version (no wings, thermal protection, ect.) is about 250 metric tons. Assuming that we could achieve 5 megatons per ton, we could get 1.25 gigatons per one Starship. No need to actually drop it - just explode it in low orbit and let X-rays form a "nuclear pancake" (flat fireball) out of upper atmosphere. The thermal emission of such plasma cloud would ignite everything flammable for hundreds of kilometers. As Teller envisioned with his GNOMON and SUNDIAL devices.

 

[Josh_TN]

I was envisioning a conventional hypersonic payload. My use of the word deterrence was probably confusing; i consider space based nuclear weapons a non starter for practical, political, and treaty reasons.

 

[Dilandu]

I was envisioning a conventional hypersonic payload.

Not very practical; kinetic would be better. 250 tons of tungsten poles would give you a nuclear-level of destruction.

 

[Byeman]

Non starter. It will have limited operation life (days). The Starship as it is now, is just a launch vehicle. It has no insulation for keeping propellants stored or generating power. Its mission duration is on the order of hours. The lander version will have crew accommodations and life support added with solar arrays or fuel cells using the propellants for power. Radiators will be needed and separate insulated prop tanks for landing. The tanker version will have no room for a payload and just all tank (it is a short duration mission). There is no version of the Starship with a large unused payload capability, long mission duration and large delta V. Even used as a spacecraft bus, it isn't going to have all three.

 

[Josh_TN]

Not very practical; kinetic would be better. 250 tons of tungsten poles would give you a nuclear-level of destruction.

The advantage of a hypersonic payload is that it could strike across a large target footprint, potentially from multiple directions, and enable re-entry from a standoff distance short of the target nation. The latter would minimize the starship’s exposure to ground to orbit weapons. It would be an easy, obvious target for a peer competitor - another reason I consider it best practice to just expend the delivery vehicle.

 

[Josh_TN]

Non starter. It will have limited operation life (days). The Starship as it is now, is just a launch vehicle. It has no insulation for keeping propellants stored or generating power. Its mission duration is on the order of hours. The lander version will have crew accommodations and life support added with solar arrays or fuel cells using the propellants for power. Radiators will be needed and separate insulated prop tanks for landing. The tanker version will have no room for a payload and just all tank (it is a short duration mission). There is no version of the Starship with a large unused payload capability, long mission duration and large delta V. Even used as a spacecraft bus, it isn't going to have all three.

I suspected there was a problem with the idea, thankyou.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The advantage of a hypersonic payload is that it could strike across a large target footprint, potentially from multiple directions, and enable re-entry from a standoff distance short of the target nation. The latter would minimize the starship’s exposure to ground to orbit weapons. It would be an easy, obvious target for a peer competitor - another reason I consider it best practice to just expend the delivery vehicle.

Even kinetics will reenter pretty far from the target nation.

But yes, hypersonic gliders or MARVs are pretty well required these days.