Ars technica:
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-starting-to-get-really-interested-in-starship/

US Air Force has budgeted some $47.9 million on testing out large
reusable rockets (euphemism for Starship) as cargo transport to deliver
goods anywhere on Earth very quickly.

cue my previous question about Suborbital flights. Can Starship do
suborbital with significant cargo in it? (and when it has delivered
military cargo at a war zone, how would it fly back to the USA?

And if the Air Force uses it to carry stuff from USA to say Germany
where it is then staged to delination on normal cargo planes, will
Germany easily give green light for Starship landings and takeoffs ?

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 8:28:50 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
> Ars technica:
> > https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-starting-to-get-really-interested-in-starship/
>
> US Air Force has budgeted some $47.9 million on testing out large
> reusable rockets (euphemism for Starship) as cargo transport to deliver
> goods anywhere on Earth very quickly.
>
> cue my previous question about Suborbital flights. Can Starship do
> suborbital with significant cargo in it? (and when it has delivered
> military cargo at a war zone, how would it fly back to the USA?
>
> And if the Air Force uses it to carry stuff from USA to say Germany
> where it is then staged to delination on normal cargo planes, will
> Germany easily give green light for Starship landings and takeoffs ?

Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate
logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where
on the earth.

The delivery vehicle drops nukes by parachute. And then does something
like targets for a command center and glides to impact. Using a load
of maybe 200 pounds of HE.

The ablative skin of the vehicle is non-reusable.

Or the 200 pounds of HE can shred the vehicle sending a rain
of metal to the ground..

Landing is an expensive affair as is reusable vehicles.

There is a development program with the goal of high
rates of re-fueling. Implying a capacity to re-fuel and launch
the thing back home. Some kind of x-body lifting body.
Landing on a runway. But the first stage booster
is hard to but out near the battle field. But this is an orbital
craft.

A United airlines SST is to be made?? Could this be
military/civilian dual use. It just needs to go slowly
enough to drop troops? Then land at a normal airfield
for re-fueling and return to another use.

Sub-orbital is the fasted version of vehicle. A robot
space craft? Human use is expensive.

On 2021-06-04 14:58, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

> Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate
> logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where
> on the earth.

Current starships may appear to be glorified grain silos built at low
cost in one aftermoon, but the finished product is likely going to be
fairly costly and more complex inside and not sure it would be afforable
as a disposable vehicle to launch a bomb and then targhet another site
to be a bomb.

One possibility could be the military buying "almost expired" Starships
with one or two flights left in them to be used as disposable bomb droppers.

Remains to be seen how many times a starship would be re-usable. 10? 100?

Would refurbishing one end up costlier than hjust building a new one?

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-06-04 14:58, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
>
> > Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate
> > logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where
> > on the earth.
> Current starships may appear to be glorified grain silos built at low
> cost in one aftermoon, but the finished product is likely going to be
> fairly costly and more complex inside and not sure it would be afforable
> as a disposable vehicle to launch a bomb and then targhet another site
> to be a bomb.
>
> One possibility could be the military buying "almost expired" Starships
> with one or two flights left in them to be used as disposable bomb droppers.
>
> Remains to be seen how many times a starship would be re-usable. 10? 100?
>
> Would refurbishing one end up costlier than hjust building a new one?

Starships are just ICBMs. Battle front theory includes the need for precision
impact, but man placed nukes are another part of theory.

I vote for a new dual use SST. The swing wing B-1 bomber allows
slow speeds. I don't know if swing wing's are still in the works.
The old F-104 had none, it has a wing area to weight ratio on the low end.
I send a note to an open request for aircraft issues in general.
I recommended the use of auto-extending wing leading edge stall
slats on a revived F-104.

These slats can maybe allow a non swing wing SST. I am not sure if the
an auto-slat can be easily added to a variable angle leading edge. The
slat could be termed a reduction in leading edge air separation.

Scott Manley's take on Military using Starship for transport.

https://youtu.be/xOKm-qKACv8

On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> On Friday, June 4, 2021 at 3:06:56 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
> > On 2021-06-04 14:58, Douglas Eagleson wrote:
> >
> > > Delivery of a few battlefield nukes, say 100tons can eliminate
> > > logistical delay. An evolving conflict can quickly occur any where
> > > on the earth.
> > Current starships may appear to be glorified grain silos built at low
> > cost in one aftermoon, but the finished product is likely going to be
> > fairly costly and more complex inside and not sure it would be afforable
> > as a disposable vehicle to launch a bomb and then targhet another site
> > to be a bomb.
> >
> > One possibility could be the military buying "almost expired" Starships
> > with one or two flights left in them to be used as disposable bomb droppers.
> >
> > Remains to be seen how many times a starship would be re-usable. 10? 100?
> >
> > Would refurbishing one end up costlier than hjust building a new one?
> Starships are just ICBMs. Battle front theory includes the need for precision
> impact, but man placed nukes are another part of theory.
>
> I vote for a new dual use SST. The swing wing B-1 bomber allows
> slow speeds. I don't know if swing wing's are still in the works.
> The old F-104 had none, it has a wing area to weight ratio on the low end.
> I send a note to an open request for aircraft issues in general.
> I recommended the use of auto-extending wing leading edge stall
> slats on a revived F-104.
>
> These slats can maybe allow a non swing wing SST. I am not sure if the
> an auto-slat can be easily added to a variable angle leading edge. The
> slat could be termed a reduction in leading edge air separation.
i looked at the Boom sst ordered by united airlines. I could not see any
leading edge flaps> not sure of correct term.

Meaning leading edge stall slats would be most advantages. forward visibility
uses cameras on landing?