The US Military Is Paying SpaceX $102 Million For a Custom Starship!

The US Military Is Paying SpaceX $102 Million For a Custom Starship!
Last Video: How SpaceX Reinvented The Launch Pad!
• How SpaceX Reinvented ...
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@mariolis]

If the military ever puts soldiers on a starship they need to be called "Starship Troopers" Just for the memes alone

[@i-love-space390]

The Air Force wanted all this back in the 1950s. It is only the efficiency of SpaceX that has made it affordably possible. But as with all military technology, it will spill out into civilian life very quickly.

[@DocWolph]

So, The US Space Force might actually eventually get its own spacecraft?

[@JonnoPlays]

I thought the same thing. Starship would be a cool look for their first equipment.

[@TheOfficialVexMeow]

us space force has the x37b so they already have their own spacecraft

[@DocWolph]

@@TheOfficialVexMeow It is an "x" plane, eXperimental. The USSF still does not have their own spacecraft. Also the USAF was running the project as well. so the USSF did not even have that all for themselves

[@lordgarion514]

It might be experimental, but it's still a spaceship, not a plane. And it's a functioning spaceship.

[@TheOfficialVexMeow]

@@DocWolph it's not IMAGINARY so yes they have their own spacecraft it's in space for over 700 days at a time sounds pretty operational to me

[@damianousley8833]

Reminds me of the 1970s military cargo/personal single stage sub orbital proposals using rocket ships.

[@calimio6]

Being able to deploy critical cargo anywhere in the world within an hour sounds really good from a military perspective. Battles are won with weaponry but wars are won with logistics

[@wombatillo]

It will be a one way trip unless there is a space port at the other end with a booster and fuel standing by or a sea port where the starship can be loaded onto a ship for the trip back. After a starship lands somewhere alone, it won't be going anywhere on its own again.

[@calimio6]

@@wombatillo I don't think there is a lot of that on mars or the moon. Why would that be a problem here on earth?

[@wombatillo]

@@calimio6 Because the Moon's gravity is so low and there is no atmosphere, Starship can land with quite a bit fuel in its tanks and it doesn't need that much fuel to get back up into lunar orbit. On Mars you can use atmospheric drag for landing breaking and you don't need as much fuel to get back up as on Earth but on Mars you will have to have a fuel factory running for +1 year on-site to produce 1000 tonnes of methane and oxygen and to be able to refuel the proposed Mars Starship. On the moon you'd probably also want to produce oxygen so you only have to take the return methane all the way to the moon. Have you seen an industrial scale methane liquefaction plants or electrolysis plants in the Ethiopian highlands where people are starving in the near-by villages or even at American over-seas military bases? The infrastructure needed to refuel and launch a starship on Earth is huge.

[@calimio6]

@@wombatillo again you are overthinking it. One of the developments of spacex is the production of methane from atmospheric CO2. Second, mars atmosphere does nothing for breaking. The ship has to relay on its own thrust.

[@wombatillo]

@@calimio6 Err... Methane from atmospheric CO2 requires power and lots of it. Megawatts are needed even given a year's time to produce and store it. Storing methane is also not exactly easy for humanitarian missions or random locations without a dedicated liquid gas farm and constant power supply. Besides, you're absolutely completely wrong about the Martian atmosphere. Many American landers so far have aero-braked getting to low Mars orbit and when they go down to the Martian surface they all have ablative shields and parachutes because of the atmosphere. I don't even understand why I'm explaining this.

[@richardvivian3665]

Starship ( if it is successful) will ensure US strategic dominance for another 30 year’s minimum. The ability to put 100’s of tonnes into orbit quickly and cheaply changes everything. I think China will copy this but they are already at least ten years behind and the gap is widening. The first mover advantage will be very difficult for a competitor to overcome.

[@Likeaworm]

I agree! The capability to consistently put 100 tons of cargo in Leo with each launch is mind boggling and allows for rapid innovation of space based systems.

[@oberonpanopticon]

Wait until you see the new design for the long march 9… and the 10 for that matter. Underestimating the Chinese may well be a mistake. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[@Cwg.]

Personally I think space x will do dual launches soon. To do connection mid orbit. This will make it so they can test two starship at same time speeding up data harvesting/ development. Twice as many launchs also means they get permission to launch 2 making the months the fcc not so bad

[@oberonpanopticon]

@@elonmuskceospaceXwow it’s the real elon musk talking like a real human! oh boy! here let me give you my credit card information!

[@MozartificeR]

I think it makes sense to over engineer the heck out of a set of chop sticks, just to have an extravagant backstop. Who knows, it could save some time:)

[@Condor1970]

Scuttlebutt is the Space Force is also interested in the new Raptor engine. It has the ability to propel a "Spaceplane" design with turbine engine for takeoff, Raptor engine to achieve orbit, and allow for placing and recovery of satellites. Such an aircraft would allow for daily use to reach orbit with a modular and rapidly replaceable rocket engine.

[@frankv7068]

Once Starship lands in the middle of no where, just leave the abandoned rocket behind? They’ll probably need to re-invent a couple of aircraft carriers and land it there, then get the equipment to shore with amphibious crafts. Or maybe land in the middle of nowhere and after the operation finalizes, they could air lift it with a cargo helicopter to an aircraft carrier?

[@howilearned2stopworrying508]

or just leave it there to rust like millions of dollars of hardware in Afghanistan. It is just the taxpayer's money, who cares?

[@SebastianWellsTL]

It would be suborbital so I'm not certain it's out of the realm of possibility for it to have enough fuel for a return trip.

[@frankv7068]

@@SebastianWellsTL Yea maybe after a couple of re-fueling in space before landing, then starship could technically do a long hop to a military base, it’s just so many obstacles they need to think through.

[@Based_Is_Best]

@@howilearned2stopworrying508 That was such an avoidable political-civilian-driven train wreck. Thank God the military was able to salvage what they could out of that disaster.

[@rickb.4168]

So the military have to launch missions only when they know the sea is calm. no missions in a rough sea. sounds plausible.

[@pokecole]

another amazing video

[@nathanmoses1953]

I can't wait to see the military grade drone ship that will be catching these boosters at their destination.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

10:12 Damm! Now would be a good time to invest in companies building large-scale 3D printers!

[@mathiaslist6705]

As if mere flight duration might be the issue. The problem with rocket starts is all so well known --- canceled because of weather or even some filling issues on site. They still fail to give you an exact launch date in days but I guess it's wanted for hours or even minutes.

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video...👍

[@normangiven6436]

If it's not space qualified, the welds will explode. Any trapped air in a weld or joint will explode when the pressure drops from 14psi to 0, its more force than you are used too.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Greetings and Best Holiday Wishes from Temple, Texas!

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

@@elonmuskceospaceX If you could READ, you wouldn't need to ask that question, so just fnck off.

[@larryl43]

Thank you

[@davidboyle1902]

So what happens to the delivery truck after it delivers its cargo? How would you get it back to its ‘home base’ seeing as it requires cryogenic propellants to get off the ground? A nutty idea that hopefully goes nowhere.

[@helifanodobezanozi7689]

The rush will be in getting to different locations, not coming back. I could see the military using a combination of ground transportation and sea-lift to get a starship to the closest US base. From there you can fly back. Having the ability to get 150 tons of disaster relief within 1 hour after a tsunami, hurricane or earthquake zone would be a game changer.

[@sammadison1172]

You wouldn't.. and it would still cost less than a toilet flush at a Boeing facility

[@helifanodobezanozi7689]

@@sammadison1172 If it is cheaper to recover and re-use, the military will. Again, Army, Navy and Airforce logistics can put anything (like small bridges and prefab military bases) almost anywhere on the planet. It just currently takes them time.

[@sp66-know-try-think]

Regarding the possible role of Starship. Starship will be very useful for launching/assembling massive stations in Earth orbits, the task of which will be to collect, generate, accumulate energy and use this energy to accelerate-accelerate-launch spaceships/transports into distant orbits of the Earth, to the Moon, into deep space. To maintain the stations’ own orbits, equip them with engines with high specific impulse: ion, electric, plasma, and the like. In this way, it will be possible to avoid the need to launch gigantic volumes of fuel from Earth into space and thereby dramatically reduce the overhead costs of space flights. As a dual-use option for such stations, they are capable of sending “cargo” with good acceleration to specified areas of the Earth to carry out certain missions. Again, the widely advertised beam weapon will receive good technical grounding.

[@emmanuelmahuni8163]

Soundtrack is on point in addition to the intelligent and funny animals 😂

[@cheezedoodle8356]

Lmao thats some top notch engineering there @10:37 *tap *tap *tap

[@arktom7335]

I'm so happy I made productive decisions about my finances that changed my life forever,hoping to retire next year... Investment should always be on any creative man's heart for success in life..

[@georgebasonathan4784]

That's awesome!!! I know nothing about investment and I'm keen on getting started. What are the strategies?

[@lea5898]

As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided by Fergus waylen a widely known crypto consultant, experienced coach with extensive financial market knowledge., his strategy has yielded positive results for many investor's, he offers valuable insights, including entry and exit points.

[@nissan38p69]

It's truly great to see the name Fergus Waylen mentioned here. I have immensely earned working with him and I'm truly happy with my decision to work with him because he has proven to be the most reliable Financial consultant to work with

[@WelseyWalker]

His trading income stream is mind blowing, I also trade with him. I've made $62,000 so far trading with his guidance/advice.,

[@benjaminocampo3359]

I've read articles of highly profiled investors from different countries who mentioned the services of expert Fergus waylen . He seems to work with investor around the world.,

[@BreakingBarriers2DIY]

What about a catch only tower to start? With a test pad below it? Maybe that way they can address risk in catching from the impact (both meanings) point of view if not the probability?

[@DaveIsTheBestMan]

Would be a lot cheaper to repair if catch only

[@NeonVisual]

We're defiantly in a Star Trek universe when there are warships in space.

[@jantjarks7946]

We are just seeing the horizon of the interplanetary age. But we are far far away from any interstellar or even intergalactic travel. It seems we have to enter and experiment in interstellar space around the solar system first in order to find a faster than light travel solution? As such, nope. Not even close to Star Trek universe. Especially considering the fact that humanity still didn't manage to unify behind a single government abusing its power at the cost of the people so far. Not to mention a reasonable government which would actually propel our societies and cultures into a better age. You can bet on it that multi billion dollar space ships won't solve starvation on earth. Even though a single space ship less would easily solve it. Humans never solved power or social issues with technology. Never will. 😉

[@joelstiffler5137]

Remember that the Pentagon had a briefing for Kennedy on the nuclear bomb powered space vehicle and demonstrated a model with naval guns in pod on the sides. Kennedy pulled the plug on the program immediately and started negotiating the space weapons ban treaty.

[@joelstiffler5137]

Just the latest version of an idea that goes back to the mid 1950s. I remember that they looked at using Redstone booster to send individual soldiers.

[@joelstiffler5137]

@@elonmuskceospaceX Southwest Arkansas

[@joelstiffler5137]

@@elonmuskceospaceX a couple of years I guess

[@pahtar7189]

I wonder if they could have the military Starship do reentry, glide to maybe one mile up, drop the cargo out (aircraft or palletized cargo), then restart the sea level Raptors, and land at an airport or other prepared site rather than in a combat zone or emergency site.

[@PowerScissor]

Absolutely. Just send a team over months in advance of the emergency and prep a good landing spot and should work fine. Although I have a feeling this world is more likely to fire weapons from a Starship capable of dropping off a payload mid-flight than helping humanity....based off the history that these thing always end up in the hands of people who should never have access to such things.

[@franciscook5819]

Someone needs to explain how the "military cargo" spaceship works because it seems daft if you look at the logistics. As I see it you launch a fully reusable stack (booster plus starship). The booster can return to base (or wherever). The starship goes on to land near the front edge of a battlefield where it can unload its cargo from a hundred feet up, (assuming it survives shelling, rocket attack, saboteurs etc etc). The load then needs to be shipped to the front line by truck. Starship is then a lost cause. Even assuming that it lands on some kind of hard pad and so can be relaunched, to get it up and away to a "safe" location it will require numerous trucks of super-chilled liquid methane and oxygen, delivered by a large number of tankers. In which case, why not fly the cargo to the nearby "safe" place by aircraft (C17, C5 or whatever) and use trucks to ship the cargo direct to the front line? Thinking the unthinkable, if a starship were loaded with 100 tons of nuclear warheads it could make quite a mess of a target area. I wonder what the real plan is. I'm assuming neither of the above.

[@cacogenicist]

I assume the second stage would be expended. This would be for when you _really_ need to put tonnage in a particular location as fast as possible, and money isn't an issue.

[@andrewnorgrove6487]

it was the 2'nd orbital test flight btw along with many low atmosphere tests

[@FrontGardeninNormandy]

Space X 🇺🇸🚀💪

[@Imagineering100]

Impressive there is a LOTS of money poured into this impressive.

[@user-fw2xd9yc2x]

Rooting for spacex 1st man moon landing mission.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

2:11 You're assuming Starship won't be pressurized? That wouldn't work too good for Colony ships.

[@ectoplacme7715]

wait wait wait, is it true that a rocket launch is less polluting than a plane flight ?

[@damianousley8833]

They are only talking about suborbital missions, which require less fuel and lower suborbital velocities. It's just a big hop around the planet. Starship troopers, here we come.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Yep, an airplane puts out pollution from start-up to shutdown and spreads it over a wide area. A rocket puts out a sh*tload of pollution for 5 or 6 minutes, but nowhere near as much as multiple jet engines running for hours and hours.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

The exhaust from SpaceX Raptors should be only water and carbon-dioxide since the fuel is liquid oxygen and methane, both existing in nature. The molecule, not the liquidity.

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

The old Boeing 707 put out 640 POUNDS of particulate matter from the hydrocarbon fuel every time it took off until reaching cruising altitude. ONE B707.

[@chippysteve4524]

Sounds great.I've heard Buenos Aires is a bit of a dump these days anyway!@@damianousley8833

[@stevenicodemus8635]

Maybe I am missing something but..once you land it somewhere how do you get it out and back to reuse it?..or is it a 1flight expendable.If so damn thats an expensive transport.

[@cacogenicist]

Relativity also abandoned full reusability on Terran R. Its a considerably less ambitious project now (you showed the fully reusable version render). Which I understand, but it was disappointing -- it's basically just a somewhat more modern Falcon 9 now (w/less capacity, IIRC).

[@Klaatu-ij9uz]

We all knew the Military Industrial Complex was always in the background. Sadly, their intrusion will eventually create public discord against SpaceX's future quests just via association. Once your goofy uncle gives you birthday money, you gotta be nice to him from then on.

[@danielhems1457]

Love the content ! Only the 'harry potter' units of measurement on a science orientated channel keeps surprising Good luck !

[@brianbauer7560]

So. Disney is paying Jonny Debt $301 Million to star in Pirates of The Caribbean.

[@YajNaizZenitram]

That one engineer constructing the twin towers 6:27

[@cacogenicist]

It seems to me you could make one hell of a spying platform with a Starship. Pack serious optics and compute on the thing, whatever sort of instruments you need -- then have metric shitload of delta-v (relative to any other satellite platform) for changing orbit -- after orbital refuel

[@DiscusNT]

102 million, that's a steal !

[@Geekofarm]

They need two towers so they can launch a Starship, catch the booster, then catch the Starship.

[@williamstephens9945]

Starship would make one hell of a missile.

[@alfaceuntauriprodigy]

Soon people have personal space crafts. People travel in one hour anywhere they want in planet.

[@midgetydeath]

Yeah, so they can have an excuse whenever an actual US space navy ship is accidentally spotted.

[@jamesdellaneve9005]

I work in traditional aerospace. Elon is running circles around us. Good for him and the kids doing this.

[@bureboburebo4188]

Strange to make a big deal about pressurization. If Starship is ever going to be used for people, they'll obviously need to have a pressurized space for humans on a flight as long as something to Mars. A pressurized cargo area would obviously reduce cargo capacity to a degree, but I'd be stunned if anyone at SpaceX thought that was one of the major challenges to point to point cargo delivery on Earth.

[@rickb.4168]

The Star coffin, is never taking people to Mars. Pressurisation is the least of the worries.

[@darkenergy436]

first rocket made of hamburgers

[@dominicm2175]

Cheaper than any modern day warfare jet

[@oberonpanopticon]

Imagine a Terran R lower stage with a stoke space upper stage. Ultra-futuristic looking (if a bit goofy) rocket.

[@tf2227]

How does the starship get back?

[@tusse67]

I dont see the suborbital version being of any use. Only payload I can think of requiring that delivery speed is nukes and thats already sorted.

[@jantjarks7946]

It's a strategic advantage you obviously haven't thought about. The USA has massive bases with a lot of military equipment around the world. The only missing part is the soldiers. Now think again. 🤔😉

[@tusse67]

@@jantjarks7946 sorry, still dont see it. These things will no be standing by, fully tanked, on the pad. That kind of turnaround time is only avaliable in animations.

[@jantjarks7946]

@@tusse67 The soldiers aren't parked there either, nor the decisions to deploy.

[@tusse67]

@@jantjarks7946 I mean the time to get starship ready to flight is gonna be damn near the time its gonna take deploying them with a plane. As for it being used to deploy special forces… Do they really want to arrive anywhere in the goegraphical vicinity in a big, noisy, shiny rocket?

[@jantjarks7946]

@@tusse67 You can ready a rocket even before any decision to deploy has been made, similar like a full wet dress rehearsal. And Starship will only deploy to other military bases with the necessary infrastructure around the world, not into operations directly anyways. Be aware, moving forces is usually a matter of weeks, if not months, despite strategic airlift. And we are not talking about a single Starship, but dozens of them. The largest transport plane carries less weight than what Starship is supposed to be (220 tons with Raptor 3). This is a completely different way of strategic advantage than what's existing so far.

[@ChipSwitzer-oj6yh]

Serious questions begging to be answered. Is the Starship going to land at the destination or parachute? Parachutes are not very accurate.

[@RyanBlockb5]

What's new with Stoke Space?

[@yolamontalvan9502]

Now I know where China gets the blueprints from.

[@user-hy2hh1dg6w]

You know there's a video on why the military needs their own platform you can look it up on the KZbin it will explain everything so you can understand

[@Tallacus]

lol they have far more advance craft, like the TR3B Black Manta for example that they keep claiming doesn't exist

[@j________k]

One thing about this plan i dont get is sure you can get hardware somewhere quick ballistically but how are they gonna get the ship back? It would be expensive if used disposably.

[@chippysteve4524]

Perhaps deploy cargo via parachutes/glider frame without landing.

[@MattA-fi5qe]

There are many things where time is the concern, not money. It's like paying 20 times the normal cost for overnight early am shipping. Most of the time it's cost prohibitive, but having the option is useful and occasionally used.

[@Vraast12345]

​@@chippysteve4524X B37

[@jantjarks7946]

Landing in a military base on the other side of the world within an hour is a strategic advantage already. Especially if two tanks or even three can be brought in.

[@MattA-fi5qe]

@@jantjarks7946 I get your reasoning but something like tanks are an expensive single asset that can be easily knocked out. Getting them on and off a starship is also a massive logistical challenge. You'd be paying like 100 million dollars for one or two tanks. However a shipload load of ATGM, or MANPADS, or artillery ammo, those could be battlefield changing deliveries and more likely to be something that would be moved. One possible downside, a starship delivery to the front lines could be mis-identified as a ballistic missile launch. I also assume in general, anti ballistic missiles systems could easily intercept a starship landing if it was an actual hot war. Regardless, it's obvious why this technology is alluring to the military.

[@mustang607]

Currently a Starship landing is not good for the health of anyone nearby.

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

I don't think it will work for military as transportation. It's not ideal due to need to refuel and land. The Raptor engines are too powerful and causes damage to place it launches and lands. The starship need reusable landing legs. They haven't focus legs since they switched to landing tower concept.

[@chrisnewsome2589]

If the finished product doesn't look like a Star Destroyer someone better be getting tar and feathered.

[@bureboburebo4188]

Really nice production quality on your videos, but it feels like there are more factual errors than there should be. It would not be accurate to claim Terran 1 is the first rocket with 3D printed parts, which you seemed to suggest. Rocket Lab has been 3D printing most of their engines for years now. But 3D printing much outside of the engine is less common, and so Terran 1 does set the high water mark for how much of a rocket is 3D printed.

[@_photonx6017]

Such a craft, if reusability is a concern, can only fly to and from locations where fueling and launching facilities already exist, presumably dual-purpose airports or dedicated spaceports. It´s not as though it can simply land anywhere in the world like an airplane can, because they can't be refueled as aircraft can. Nor could it carry enough fuel to take off again without refueling (and a cryogenic methane/oxygen depot would be a prime military target in a shooting war). So while there might be use for such a vehicle in the future, I can't see it of being of much used for a very long time.

[@frankv7068]

Maybe land it on a modified aircraft carrier? And use amphibious craft to deliver it to shore.

[@Cpt_Boony_Hat]

I disagree urgent supplies to anywhere with a decently established base in about 90 minutes. Plus looks to be everything we wanted the shuttle to be in the 70s

[@Tonius126]

It's for rapid resupply for assets like already established bases within hours.

[@jantjarks7946]

Last time I requested a 747 to land in my garden they said they can't land everywhere. 🤔😉

[@Ava31415]

Take off, land anywhere .... and refuel to return....?

[@PowerScissor]

Why does it need to withstand a vacuum? Pressurizing cabins, even for cargo, is a very mature technology...and can't be that difficult to accomplish for the short duration of a suborbital hop.

[@unnamedchannel1237]

Considering an F22 raptor is $300m+ each not such a bad price for a space rocket

[@kenrdavis2266]

Is there enough room to move the road? Road is terrible already. If possible ,may be cheaper?

[@criztu]

Gateway to Skynet

[@commissarcarr2463]

Okay so when do we get Space Marines detachment in Space Force? 😮😮

[@wanglydiaplt]

Aluminum rocket nozzle??? How does that not melt??

[@MattA-fi5qe]

Idk exactly what part you're talking about, but many rockets flow cryogenic fuel through the nozzle to keep them cool again extreme temps.

[@panpiper]

Using Starship for 'emergency' cargo is absolutely fracking insane. It is like flying a C-17 cargo plane to the site, and then destroying the plane! Unless you have a launch tower and a booster rocket ready at the landing site, you are NOT getting that Starship back. It is gone. You've expended it. If the US wants a militarized Starship it had better be for some reason 'other' than cargo missions to wherever.

[@MattA-fi5qe]

The unique ability is the sheer amount of cargo and how quickly it can get there. No one else has the capability. Planes can't compete. What if Ukraine is being invaded and they need 1000 javelin launchers ASAP and the closest plane is 12 hours away. Just making up a scenario, but it's easy to see how a military that spends 900 bil a year is spending 100 mil investigating.

[@panpiper]

@@MattA-fi5qe 250 million to deliver just 25 tons of cargo. I cannot imagine any scenario in which the US congress will find that to be money well spent.

[@MattA-fi5qe]

@@panpiper not sure where you are getting 250 million and 25 tons. Pretty sure capacity of starship is 100+ tons and the numbers being thrown around are ~100 million for a ship. The United States military has bases all over the place. They could easily add landing pads for rapid point to point transfers. Refueling them there and the infrastructure required is a different story, but the ships don't land into a trash can. This is an early research investment. You're talking like the ship is in final design stages and the numbers are set in stone. The military invests in future technologies in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars. 100 mil investigating this near future capability is not shocking.

[@unfurling3129]

It can't land just anywhere as a crater will form and how to take off anyway? Needs cryo fuel and Stage Zero

[@MattA-fi5qe]

They already need to solve and are actively working on that problem with HLS for lunar landings.

[@gyszabolcs]

Wow a new government handout for spacex.

[@ryushogun9890]

I wanna see rifles arriving at the ISS

[@marekkoziarczyk8477]

102 million won’t even cover the costs of materials

[@bryanstackpole1951]

With a 200 ton payload they could put rods from god into orbit.

[@mathiaslist6705]

So you soon will get a starship booster with all its good working raptor engines standing around somewhere in the desert as there's no way it might come back.

[@rickb.4168]

it wont be able to land in a desert, it will dig itself a massive crater on landing. it needs to stable landing surface. whereas a galaxy can land pretty much anywhere and leave again.

[@jantjarks7946]

Didn't know a Galaxy can land in my backyard these days. Last time they said no. 🤔😉

[@protonmaster76]

I think it would make sence for the second tower at starbase to be a catch only tower. Especially until they prefect the catch. That way they do not risk all the ground service equipment and OLM while they sort out the kinks. They can then transport any caught booster/ships to the launch tower.

[@bluesteel8376]

I was thinking about this the other day and agree. It is way to risky to attempt their first few catches on a launch pad, as a crash would render it inoperable for quite some time.

[@protonmaster76]

@@bluesteel8376 exactly

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

It's going take a year for another tower. There possibly of another hold could happen.

[@protonmaster76]

@@Wrangler-fp4ei I don't think it will take that long to build an other tower. In the mean time SpaceX still needs to do a "soft landing" in the ocean.

[@eldrago19]

Something similar was proposed in the 60s called the InterContinental Aerospacecraft Range-Unlimited System. The marines declined to ride on something named after someone who famously flew too close to the sun, and asked for the name to be changed to something that wasn't ICARUS.

[@AdelaeR]

I thought you were joking but this is actually true. Those guys from the '60's were something else man haha :)

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

🤣🤣🤣👍

[@Tommork-bq6ms]

New tower? Catch only? Because The first few catches ain't gonna GO that well... So leave "OLM" alone( maybe?)

[@renox9108]

Imagine! SpaceX Starship's cargo bay will customize for installation Nuclear missile warhead and orbit around the world😶

[@rickb.4168]

Would you trust a starship (you now those things that explode in midair) with a payload of nukes?

[@rickb.4168]

ICBM are already capable of flying pretty much anywhere on Earth. Why reinvent the wheel. Oh yeah I forgot, Elon loves taking credit for things that have already been invented.

[@Sourcecodemastergoaheadcheater]

You going to need to configure the software for space x while y'all up there what you think i was doing

[@Ef554rgcc]

Wow! Is SpaceX on the Wish app? Thats cheap!

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

Yeah, big thing about rockets for delivery, no way to get them home. Throw-aways?

[@unnamedchannel1237]

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps deconstructed and hauled home via conventional means

[@mikeruchington4882]

01:29 - "planes are slower and cause MORE pollution than a rocket launch" bro... thinking caps on I beg.

[@howilearned2stopworrying508]

They should call it Space Transport System - STS. WIll one of the flights be dedicated to the people of Afghanistan as well?

[@siloquant]

Freedom protector! Let's goo 🦅🙏🏻🕊🇺🇸🤝

[@LordDustinDeWynd]

I can see it now! Perspex domes spaced around the Ship mid-section with ray gun barrels sticking up, hard-points on fins loaded with bombs & rockets, maybe coupla 40-millimeter gatling cannon sticking out the nose, HUGE bomb-bay holding a caricaturized Little Boy! 😏 🙃 🤣 🤣 🤣

[@MicahJKelly]

Planes absolutely do NOT cause more pollution than a starship or any rocket that could travel equally as far on a full tank. Starship would probably burn the weight of the entire plane in fuel, possible multiple times. Planes cause way more pollution on the whole just because there are thousands of times more planes being flown daily.

[@rickb.4168]

This idea is ridiculous beyond belief.

[@baz_astra]

I don't really buy it. Yes you could shave some hours off the flight, but it'll still take a few days to muster, pack, integrate the pallets and load the starship with the cargo for a one-way trip. It would be an insanely expensive way to get a four-day aid mission down to a three-day aid mission.

[@saladcat8305]

The US is truly the aggresor

[@danwhiffen9235]

102M. So chump change in the Military industrial complex

[@eddard9442]

Avenger here we come

[@waterlife.1905]

That isnt enough money. Try 1.4 billion dollars like the SLS.

[@thomasleeper2202]

That would cost more than that !!!

[@billparker244]

Good. Make the government deal with itself

[@lvlndco]

It is very unlikely that Starship will be weaponized. It will be a transport vehicle.

[@cacogenicist]

Use as a spy platform seems very likely to me.

[@pjhgerlach]

Hahaha, they first have to get the thing into orbit.