Comment by jandrese
2 days ago
Oh man, Elon is going to propose a Falcon-9 based ICBM isn't he? Might as well go full Bond villain at this point.
2 days ago
Oh man, Elon is going to propose a Falcon-9 based ICBM isn't he? Might as well go full Bond villain at this point.
ICBMs have usually been solid fuelled as they can be stored ready to launch.
Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.
US-based ICBMs, yes. Russia and China have actively fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs.
The USA also fielded liquid-fueled ICBMs, but I believe they have all been decommissioned in favor of solid-fueled missiles, which are more reliable and easier to store.
There's lots of bad ideas currently becoming government policy, and that's not even a unique flaw of the USA or Trump or Musk.
So, just because idea of using Falcon 9s as a delivery solution for a strategic nuclear deterrent may be as bad as ordering your chief designer to throw a big steel ball at the window of the new model of car you're currently in the middle of announcing even despite the guy's obvious reticence, doesn't mean it won't happen.
This is a stretch.
Someone makes an uneducated point but it must be defended because Musk bad...
Do you think you're making a good point here?
1 reply →
No one is seriously going to propose a liquid fueled rocket for the nuclear deterrence mission. It simply doesn't work.
However, there are potential military applications for a vehicle like Falcon 9. For example, imagine being able to insert a Special Operations team almost anywhere in the world on a few hours notice. In a potential near-peer conflict there will also be a need to quickly launch replacement military satellites to make up attrition losses.