SpaceX reusable rockets are better than hypersonic missiles and planes

All major militaries and nations are scrambling to develop hypersonic missiles, drones and aircraft.

All major countries are working on hypersonic missiles

The US, Russia, China are spending billions to develop and deploy hypersonic missiles. Japan, India, Australia and Europe also are working on such systems.

Putin has again stated that Russia will have more new hypersonic missiles deployed.

Why do hypersonic missiles matter? They are mach 5+ but they are slower than ICBMs. ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) have been going at Mach 25-30 since the late 1950s.

Hypersonic missiles can fly in different flight profiles. They do not go in a big predictable arcs but can fly low and flat and move around. The world does not have good and proven ICBM defenses. The hypersonic missiles will be tougher to stop.

China and Russia are deploying a few hypersonic missiles now. They sit on regular rockets and then get up to mach 5+ with a regular rocket and then detach and change their flight. An all-in-one single non-rocket hypersonic system would need three engines. They need a turbine engine to get up to about mach 3 and then a ramjet to get from mach 3-5 and then a scramjet to go mach 5+.

Japan has targeted development by 2026 and 2028 for new hypersonic missiles.

The US Air Force previously had the following timetable for hypersonic weapons. They wanted hypersonic planes in 2040+.

SpaceX and reusable rocket race

SpaceX reusable rockets are superior to most of the hypersonic planes that are targeted for 2040-2050.

SpaceX already has reused first stages. SpaceX rockets go up to mach 30.

Reusable rockets are much, much faster.

SpaceX hypersonic reusable rocket capabilities will give the US hypersonic plane capabilities 20 years earlier with faster speeds.

Blue Origin in the USA, China, Japan and Europe are working on reusable rockets.

Faster and longer ranges

Blue Origin and China have sub-orbital versions of reusable rockets. Those suborbital systems would repeatedly fly to around mach 10 to 15. Even suborbital systems are faster than most of the hypersonic planes targeted for 2040 and are faster than the current missiles deployed from military jets in Russia.

The hypersonic missiles that currently exist have ranges of 1000 miles or less and even after adding the range of military jet, the range is only 4000 miles or less.

Reusable rockets can go orbital and go anywhere on Earth.

SpaceX is working on a system to recover the faring (nose cones) and for the current second stage. SpaceX is developing a fully reusable SpaceX BFR and BFS system for first test flights in 2019 and orbital flights around 2021 and commercial completion around 2023.

Controlling flight paths

SpaceX has titanium hypersonic grid fins. They alter the flight of the rocket. Other control surfaces are possible for adjusting rocket flight.

SpaceX has retrorockets for landing reusable rockets. Again the flight paths can be massively changed. SpaceX has shown that they can relight their rockets for multiple burns that are more dependent upon the amount of fuel.

The massive payload capacity means that additional weight could be used to shield a military version of a reusable rocket.

SpaceX has talked about flying anywhere on Earth like New York to Singapore for hypersonic passenger flights. They have talked about flying, landing and reflying ten times per day with a SpaceX BFR before 2030. They have talked about reflying a Falcon 9 within 48 hours in 2019. They have talked about getting this down to 24 hours by just moving and refueling a landed Falcon 9.

In theory, a more capable droneship (motorized barge) could meet up with a tanker drone ship for refueling and a Falcon 9 could relaunch at sea by transferring to and at sea launch platform. There was a Sea Launch company.

Hypersonic deployment of many hypersonic missile tips would be like the multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) used in ballistic missiles since the 1960s.

Reusable rockets can do or easily enable everything desired of hypersonic drones and hypersonic planes. Fly at hypersonic speed and return for reuse. By having the drone get to hypersonic speed it would not need turbine or ramjet engines. A simpler hypersonic only engine and a controlled landing and recovery method would be required.

Hypersonic planes could be deployed by taking the boost and glide systems under development now where hypersonic wing surfaces enable the flatter flight profile.

Reusable rocket engines could be throttled for different speeds. More fuel could be used for suborbital movement and flight changes instead of going to orbit. Not having maximum payload would save fuel for dodging movement or less predictable paths.

Reusable rockets would be the flexible deployment platform for simpler hypersonic drones and missiles.

Complete space dominance for the USA

The USA has been gifted with complete space dominance via Spacex fully reusable rockets. The US already has superior space capabilities versus other countries. The developer of the likely second place solution is Blue Origin.

In Elon Musk’s video announcement of the Spacex BFR he indicated that it would be lower cost to launch than the Spacex Falcon 1. A graphic showed the Spacex BFR at lower cost than the Falcon 1.

In 2005 Falcon 1 was advertised as costing $5.9 million ($7.3 million when adjusted for inflation in 2015). In 2006 until 2007 the quoted price of the rocket when operational was $6.7 million. In late 2009 SpaceX announced new prices for the Falcon 1 and 1e at $7 million and $8.5 million respectively, with small discounts available for multi-launch contracts.

This would mean at $7 million the Spacex BFR launch 100 tons would have less than a $100 per pound launch cost.

By 2025, there could be a fleet of 100 BFR. Each could be flying 10-50 times per year if there the market for launches can be grown with $60-300 per pound launch costs.

The USA could triple that production and buy a separate fleet of 200 Spacex BFR. If each cost $200 million, then it would cost $40 billion. This would be less than the planned spend for the Space Launch System which would have one or two flights per year. The USA could fly each 50 times and get 10,000 launches per year. For $7 million each flight that would be $70 billion per year to operate at maximum capacity.

The US already spends $40 billion on spy satellites and military space program. Fully leveraging Spacex BFR fleet would mean the trivial deployment of Project Thor plus the ability to have a space corp of a hundred thousand or more people permanently station in various orbits, the moon, cislunar and other locations.

Anti-hypersonic sensors and interceptors

Undersecretary Griffin said the only real way to reliably track hypersonic weapons is from space, beyond the horizon limits of terrestrial radars. Hypersonics are about a factor of 10 dimmer than strategic ballistic missiles so they cannot be monitored from a high orbit.

Experimental aircraft with the prototype low Earth orbit (LEO) Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS) satellites show hypersonic tracking is possible and is not a technology challenge. There is a policy-decision-making challenge to decide about a LEO space layer sensor layer.

The US Missile Defense Agency and Defense Department have started designing space-based missile interceptors and space sensor that will be used for missile defenses and hypersonic defense.

The US military (Undersecretary Michael Griffin) has talked about spending $20 billion for a network of a thousand hypersonic missile interceptors. $20 billion is just the low ball bait. Even if an initial system went up for that price or less, they will rapidly increase the scope and scale.

DARPA is developing the basic technology for a lot more small space satellites.

DARPA Blackjack low-earth orbit satellite network

Mr. Paul “Rusty” Thomas, Program Manager, DARPA Tactical Technology Office presented at the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group Telecon. He described the “DARPA Blackjack Demo Program – Pivot to LEO & Tactical Space Architecture”. This would be 90+ low-earth orbit spy satellites. DARPA plans a 20 satellite demo and then full deployment could start in 2022.

Many low-earth orbit spy satellites would be tougher for Russia and China to take out. A constellation of low-earth orbit spy satellites could be less expensive and more powerful than a single larger geosynchronous satellite.

Beyond missile interceptors to rods from god

Kinetic orbital strike (rods from god) is the hypothetical act of attacking a planetary surface with an inert projectile, where the destructive force comes from the kinetic energy of the projectile impacting at very high velocities.

Project Thor is an idea for a weapons system that launches telephone pole-sized kinetic projectiles made from tungsten from Earth’s orbit to damage targets on the ground. Jerry Pournelle originated the concept while working in operations research at Boeing in the 1950s before becoming a science-fiction writer.

The system most often described is “an orbiting tungsten telephone pole with small fins and a computer in the back for guidance”. The system described in the 2003 United States Air Force report was that of 20-foot-long (6.1 m), 1-foot-diameter (0.30 m) tungsten rods, that are satellite-controlled, and have global strike capability, with impact speeds of Mach 10.

The time between deorbit and impact would only be a few minutes, and depending on the orbits and positions in the orbits, the system would have a worldwide range. There would be no need to deploy missiles, aircraft or other vehicles. Although the SALT II (1979) prohibited the deployment of orbital weapons of mass destruction, it did not prohibit the deployment of conventional weapons. The system is not prohibited by either the Outer Space Treaty or the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The idea is that the weapon would naturally contain a large kinetic energy, because it moves at orbital velocities, at least 8 kilometers per second. As the rod would approach Earth it would necessarily lose most of the velocity, but the remaining energy would cause considerable damage. Some systems are quoted as having the yield of a small tactical nuclear bomb. These designs are envisioned as a bunker buster. As the name suggests, the ‘bunker buster’ is powerful enough to destroy a nuclear bunker. With 6–8 satellites on a given orbit, a target could be hit within 12–15 minutes from any given time, less than half the time taken by an ICBM and without the launch warning. Such a system could also be equipped with sensors to detect incoming anti-ballistic missile-type threats and relatively light protective measures to use against them.

In the case of the system mentioned in the 2003 Air Force report above, a 6.1 m × 0.3 m tungsten cylinder impacting at Mach 10 has a kinetic energy equivalent to approximately 11.5 tons of TNT (or 7.2 tons of dynamite).

The US Space fleet could clean up the 500,000 pieces of space debris (20,000 pieces larger than a softball) and could hold the space debris in a space station warehouse. The junk would then also be able to formed into junk rods. A thousand smaller rods could be produced without having to fly specifically dedicated tungsten rods.

This would be a very credible anti-missile system and a deterrent to any trivial nuclear missile capability from Iran and North Korea.

It would also mean that Russia and China’s nuclear ICBMs would be less valuable militarily. Russia and China would have to depend upon nuclear armed submarines and submarine drones. Plus they would have to develop comparable reusable rocket capability.

Russia would still be able to use underwater nuclear weapons to create tsunami attacks. Also, near shore submarine launched attacks would be pretty quick and tough to defend even for Project Thor.

The only reasons not to upgrade to this kind of space capability are

1. Corruption where they choose to have a weaker capability so they can continue to pay Lockheed and established contractors
2. Utter incompetence and inability to break out of old thinking
3. Wanting to not go to the next levels and stick with existing “unsolvable problems”

230 thoughts on “SpaceX reusable rockets are better than hypersonic missiles and planes”

  1. I just hope we figure out a better way to launch before we have to hear the words “People of merica… sorry to say but we have literally destroyed the earths atmosphere launching rockets. Srry bout that. goodnight.” on the tv

  2. The problem is each of these rods would weigh in at 9 tons each and be 20 ft long. So at 50 each that’s a lot of launches. doable but launches

  3. just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal.” 1) It is already feasible. 2) Who is ‘they’? 3) No amount of you not liking this reality and wishing it will go away will make it go away. “Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice” So? What does that have to do with this? THOR rods are not nuclear weapons. “It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race” Who says? To to the victor goes the spoils. “It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…” More wishful thinking on your part.

  4. just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal. Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice, It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race, It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…

  5. Yes. Forget those MIRV platforms. Use reusable launch abilities to put into orbit ‘ortillary’ THOR platforms. Say, 50 rods each? Put a thousand of those into LOE and let them sit there, pointing down. We could take out all of our enemies ground-based missiles in a first strike within 10 or so minutes, with plenty rods left over to take out dams, power plants, bridges, military bases, etc. All 100% internationally legal, too. #MAGA #AmericaFirst

  6. Sure put weapons in space. A simple laser can destroy such platforms. Satellites are sitting ducks with no real protection. Nice of these leaders to show to the world what kind of psychopaths they really are. They want to waste trillions just so they might have a advantage in war for a short while even though Russia and China would never allow these platforms to be in place or at least they would have platforms of their own that could wipe out their enemies at least as fast. These tungsten rods are meant as an offensive weapon activated before enemy does anything. They claim how enemy has no time to react but are they that stupid to think that the enemy (Russia China) couldn’t just make a defensive system to deter such platforms with a more advanced early warning system. Sure spend more on military and useless weapons. If used it would mean the end humanity since Russia at least has a dead man’s switch which would assure the destruction of their enemy. These people”” would rather kill the planet than live in peace. They are afraid”” psychopathic immoral creatures that have no brain capacity understand that they are causing harm to everyone even themselves. Their quest for their own well-being has caused them to suffer more out of their own ignorance and at the same time cause billions to suffer. How much further are they going to go”” in order to keep power?”””

  7. I just hope we figure out a better way to launch before we have to hear the words People of merica… sorry to say but we have literally destroyed the earths atmosphere launching rockets. Srry bout that. goodnight.”” on the tv”””

  8. The problem is each of these rods would weigh in at 9 tons each and be 20 ft long.So at 50 each that’s a lot of launches. doable but launches

  9. just stop… By the time this is feasible” they would just make the illegal.””1) It is already feasible.2) Who is ‘they’? 3) No amount of you not liking this reality and wishing it will go away will make it go away.””””Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice””””So? What does that have to do with this? THOR rods are not nuclear weapons.””””It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race””””Who says? To to the victor goes the spoils. “”””It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…””””More wishful thinking on your part.”””

  10. just stop… By the time this is feasible they would just make the illegal. Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…

  11. Yes. Forget those MIRV platforms. Use reusable launch abilities to put into orbit ‘ortillary’ THOR platforms. Say 50 rods each? Put a thousand of those into LOE and let them sit there pointing down.We could take out all of our enemies ground-based missiles in a first strike within 10 or so minutes with plenty rods left over to take out dams power plants bridges military bases etc. All 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} internationally legal too. #MAGA #AmericaFirst

  12. Sure put weapons in space. A simple laser can destroy such platforms. Satellites are sitting ducks with no real protection. Nice of these leaders to show to the world what kind of psychopaths they really are. They want to waste trillions just so they might have a advantage in war for a short while, even though Russia and China would never allow these platforms to be in place or at least they would have platforms of their own that could wipe out their enemies at least as fast. These tungsten rods are meant as an offensive weapon activated before enemy does anything. They claim how enemy has no time to react, but are they that stupid to think that the enemy (Russia, China) couldn’t just make a defensive system to deter such platforms with a more advanced early warning system. Sure spend more on military and useless weapons. If used, it would mean the end humanity since Russia at least has a dead man’s switch which would assure the destruction of their enemy. These “people” would rather kill the planet than live in peace. They are afraid, psychopathic, immoral creatures that have no brain capacity understand that they are causing harm to everyone, even themselves. Their quest for their own well-being has caused them to suffer more out of their own ignorance, and at the same time, cause billions to suffer. How much further are they going to go, in order to keep power?

  13. 2) Who is ‘they’? ” It’ll be made illegal when President Ocasio-Cortez packs the court with nine judges. (this is a joke and not to be taken too seriously)

  14. As the saying goes, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the ground for those who don’t. Yeah, it would be much better if everybody laid down their arms, but the good people have to be the last to do it.

  15. This is complately separate weapon system from hypersonic missiles, its like comparing regular artillery with ICBM’s. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. Rocket based on BFR system/or whatever is not like that at all. However this idea has obvious merit and I can guarantee you that Pentagon already has report on that written since years if not decades. Its truism: all space techhnologies are dueal use.

  16. 2) Who is ‘they’? “”It’ll be made illegal when President Ocasio-Cortez packs the court with nine judges.(this is a joke and not to be taken too seriously)”””

  17. As the saying goes those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the ground for those who don’t. Yeah it would be much better if everybody laid down their arms but the good people have to be the last to do it.

  18. This is complately separate weapon system from hypersonic missiles its like comparing regular artillery with ICBM’s. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast and can maneuvre that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. Rocket based on BFR system/or whatever is not like that at all. However this idea has obvious merit and I can guarantee you that Pentagon already has report on that written since years if not decades. Its truism: all space techhnologies are dueal use.

  19. Why solid titanium? Using a ceramic shell filled with depleted uranium makes more sense to me. With that kind of density it’s going to hit a lot faster and do much more damage.

  20. Claim Sorb – Suborbital transport dominates Category: Science & Technology:Space bid 10, ask 25, last 20 Owner: 45, Baldrson Judge: 74, niobium created: 1995/09/10 due date: 2021/01/01 The Claim Suborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation by the year 2020. “Suborbital” means any high-mach, non-orbital flight where the majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass. “High-mach” means the majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater. “Non-orbital” means the total flight path distance is less than the circumference of the earth. “Locally available” excludes gasses that have been stored within the vehicle for more than 3 minutes. The metric for comparison will include passenger, luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys.

  21. 1) Using Valcan321’s numbers (which I think are pretty similar to those throw around here by others), each rod would release the equivalent of 10 kT blast yield on target. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy. 2) Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes, “exclusively”. Moreover, the “establishment of military installations….testing of any type of weapon…and military maneuvers are forbidden.” While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.

  22. Why solid titanium? Using a ceramic shell filled with depleted uranium makes more sense to me. With that kind of density it’s going to hit a lot faster and do much more damage.

  23. Claim Sorb – Suborbital transport dominatesCategory: Science & Technology:Space bid 10 ask 25 last 20Owner: 45 BaldrsonJudge: 74 niobiumcreated: 1995/09/10due date: 2021/01/01The ClaimSuborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation by the year 2020. Suborbital”” means any high-mach”””” non-orbital flight where the majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass. “”””High-mach”””” means the majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater. “”””Non-orbital”””” means the total flight path distance is less than the circumference of the earth. “”””Locally available”””” excludes gasses that have been stored within the vehicle for more than 3 minutes. The metric for comparison will include passenger”””” luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys.”””

  24. 1) Using Valcan321’s numbers (which I think are pretty similar to those throw around here by others) each rod would release the equivalent of 10 kT blast yield on target. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s energy is energy. 2) Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes exclusively””. Moreover”””” the “”””establishment of military installations….testing of any type of weapon…and military maneuvers are forbidden.”””” While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies”””” it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.”””

  25. They can’t be in a reflective cloud 24/7. The instant they try to deploy a system like that would be like declaring war. If I was in charge, I would just shoot the rocket carrying the system before it can deploy it. Also, there are other measures that can be used to counter a rod, a simple nudge will offset it’s trajectory and miss it’s target. Hypersonic missiles are already a thing and by the time they would deploy space based systems, Russia and China could just deploy a hypersonic defence system.

  26. They can’t be in a reflective cloud 24/7. The instant they try to deploy a system like that would be like declaring war. If I was in charge I would just shoot the rocket carrying the system before it can deploy it. Also there are other measures that can be used to counter a rod a simple nudge will offset it’s trajectory and miss it’s target. Hypersonic missiles are already a thing and by the time they would deploy space based systems Russia and China could just deploy a hypersonic defence system.

  27. Also, spraying uranium all over the target area will confuse the issue as to whether you are actually using a conventional or radiological weapon. Given that one of the big advantages of the rod idea is that it should be plausibly claimed as a conventional, nonWMD, adding Uranium to the mix just ruins that.

  28. Also spraying uranium all over the target area will confuse the issue as to whether you are actually using a conventional or radiological weapon. Given that one of the big advantages of the rod idea is that it should be plausibly claimed as a conventional nonWMD adding Uranium to the mix just ruins that.

  29. Hitting a satellite’s actually pretty hard you don’t REALLY know where it is at any given point not with pinpoint accuracy. This is why we have orbital determination algorithms. Lasers from the ground are incredibly inefficient atmospheric diffraction is a huge problem.

  30. Hitting a satellite’s actually pretty hard, you don’t REALLY know where it is at any given point, not with pinpoint accuracy. This is why we have orbital determination algorithms. Lasers from the ground are incredibly inefficient, atmospheric diffraction is a huge problem.

  31. This is what Brian does once in a while, he tries to synthesize together the last 8 or 10 NBF posts that are loosely related to a topic. That’s why we’re seeing, in the INF thread, this total nonsense about the US Army developing a 1000 mile range uber cannon when damn near everyone is sure that was a typo. All of the sudden one goofball powerpoint file legitimizes “the US Army is working on 1000 mile uber cannon”.

  32. Laser defense is a lot harder than kinetic kill vehicle defense, and the learning curve starts all over again. Why switch to directed energy when kinetic kill vehicles are just now finally working reliably in tests?

  33. This is what Brian does once in a while he tries to synthesize together the last 8 or 10 NBF posts that are loosely related to a topic. That’s why we’re seeing in the INF thread this total nonsense about the US Army developing a 1000 mile range uber cannon when damn near everyone is sure that was a typo. All of the sudden one goofball powerpoint file legitimizes the US Army is working on 1000 mile uber cannon””.”””

  34. Laser defense is a lot harder than kinetic kill vehicle defense and the learning curve starts all over again. Why switch to directed energy when kinetic kill vehicles are just now finally working reliably in tests?

  35. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. ” Yes, the Rods from God can be described that way as well.

  36. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in no affordable way to loft such a large payload) 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (like the nukes we already have). We don’t really need the rods either, North Korea shows that, currently, the only use for nukes (or any tactical weapon) is preventing someone from attacking you, as it can just threaten to nuke the US and we can’t do much about that… also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  37. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (nukes). also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  38. That’s rich given how I did and you didn’t. KEWs are perfectly legal as long as they do not have nuclear biological or chemical payloads.

  39. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast and can maneuvre” that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. “”Yes”””” the Rods from God can be described that way as well.”””

  40. My bad I kinda wrote this quick but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in no affordable way to loft such a large payload)2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (like the nukes we already have). We don’t really need the rods either North Korea shows that currently the only use for nukes (or any tactical weapon) is preventing someone from attacking you as it can just threaten to nuke the US and we can’t do much about that…also what do you mean by spoils”” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone”” so if we can keep it open and not a warground”” that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.”””

  41. My bad I kinda wrote this quick but here is some clarification:1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal.3) I dont really care about it I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (nukes).also what do you mean by spoils”” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other)space is not owned by anyone”” so if we can keep it open and not a warground”” that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.”””

  42. It seems you know much less about space law and policy (or just international law in general) than you let on, as per my reply to your comment below.

  43. My friend, you’d save yourself from looking silly if you just read the document. This is the umpteenth time you could have done so. “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes” “So what?” So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what. “Stop posting your bullsh!t.” The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is certainly not “bullsh!t” and most certainly would be invoked under interpretation of the OST or associated treaties should disagreement arise in said interpretation (e.g., “is Earth orbit covered under Article IV?”) “So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.” A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.

  44. space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground” Hahahahahahahah. You live in this interesting Make Believe World, it seems. Ever hear of the Kellogg–Briand Pact? Similar wishful thinking that didn’t do jack shyte.

  45. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy. So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal. “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes” So what? It’s perfectly legal. And you keep trying to pronounce that putting KEWs in space isn’t but have still failed to do so. “While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.” Not it isn’t. What is international law is what is agreed to by treaty. And the Vienna Convention doesn’t cover space activities. Stop posting your bullsh!t.

  46. That’s rich given how I did and you didn’t. KEWs are perfectly legal as long as they do not have nuclear, biological or chemical payloads.

  47. It seems you know much less about space law and policy (or just international law in general) than you let on as per my reply to your comment below.

  48. My friend you’d save yourself from looking silly if you just read the document. This is the umpteenth time you could have done so.Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes”” “”””So what?””””So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole”””” is what. “”””Stop posting your bullsh!t.””””The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is certainly not “”””bullsh!t”””” and most certainly would be invoked under interpretation of the OST or associated treaties should disagreement arise in said interpretation (e.g.”””” “”””is Earth orbit covered under Article IV?””””) “”””So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”””” “”””hence”””” energy is energy.”””””””

  49. space is not owned by anyone” so if we can keep it open and not a warground””Hahahahahahahah. You live in this interesting Make Believe World”””” it seems.Ever hear of the Kellogg–Briand Pact? Similar wishful thinking that didn’t do jack shyte.”””””””

  50. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s” energy is energy.So what?That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.””Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes””””So what? It’s perfectly legal. And you keep trying to pronounce that putting KEWs in space isn’t but have still failed to do so.””””While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies”””” it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.””””Not it isn’t. What is international law is what is agreed to by treaty. And the Vienna Convention doesn’t cover space activities. Stop posting your bullsh!t.”””

  51. ? I don’t really want to argue about this anymore, but suffice to say, as it is currently not a warground, then it should be relatively easy to keep it that way, just don’t send weopons up there… This is all totally ignoring the fact that spacex would NEVER launch weapons of mass destruction, I know the would definitely launch something “in the defense of the country” but that would be a defensive item, such as lasers or satellite kill vehicles. Its not that I disagree with America spending money in defense of itself (nukes), I just don’t see any reason to spend more money on something we already have… (the ability to instantly wipe out our enemies)

  52. ? I don’t really want to argue about this anymore but suffice to say as it is currently not a warground then it should be relatively easy to keep it that way just don’t send weopons up there… This is all totally ignoring the fact that spacex would NEVER launch weapons of mass destruction I know the would definitely launch something in the defense of the country”” but that would be a defensive item”” such as lasers or satellite kill vehicles.Its not that I disagree with America spending money in defense of itself (nukes)”” I just don’t see any reason to spend more money on something we already have… (the ability to instantly wipe out our enemies)”””

  53. So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.” No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” Which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US. And you claim I make myself look silly? You’re still way ahead of line from me on that front. “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.” BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.

  54. No, I know about space law. You seem to think that ‘custom’ has anything to do with it. Either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.

  55. So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole” is what.””No”””” it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “”””The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties””””Which is no binding on the US”””” as it was never ratified by the US.And you claim I make myself look silly? You’re still way ahead of line from me on that front.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”””” “”””hence”””” energy is energy.””””BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.”””

  56. No I know about space law.You seem to think that ‘custom’ has anything to do with it.Either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words BS.

  57. Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster: ” I did. I disproved your BS. Repeatedly. Everything you’ve thrown out and then countered with was BS, as I pointed out. “Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. ” No. Calling you out on your BS is not strawmanning. See, you are engaging in the same behavior as before: You don’t like reality when it is pointed out to you so you dream up more BS to ‘counter’ that. That is why you have not disproven ANY of the facts I pointed out that tore through your BS. KEWs are NOT WMDs. Treaties that we are not party to are not international law that applies to us, either. In both cases, you don’t like those hard realities and came up with BS to justify it. I pointed out that those realities still exist no matter how much you don’t like it. You don’t like THAT so now resort to all kinds of BS that is even less grounded in reality than the BS you were hyping before. It’s all there. For everyone to read. “Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. ” No it is not. There is no ‘custom’ except for a bunch of people who invented it up. Nobody — nation states or individuals — are bound by any agreement they are not party to. Period. This is a basic fact of ANY law. “This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”.” 1) Who cares what the sellouts at State say and 2) that does not change the fact that while they ‘view’ it as customary international law does not mean the US is bound by it. Our constitution is quite clear on what a binding Treaty is and what isn’t and no State Dept hack can override it, hence why they wrote that with the word ‘view’.

  58. No, I know about space law.” Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster: “So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.” “No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. ” Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, ‘hence, energy is energy.'” “BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.” Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. Finally, you’ve proved my previous suspicions of your blowing smoke. You first claim “[the Vienna Convention] which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US”, and then claim “either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.” Customary international law is one of the primary forms of law on the international stage outside of treaties. If you truly knew space law, then you’d know this as the OST was special in that it was preemptive instead of reactive as is usually the case with law making, meaning that custom law governs a lot of the temporal gaps. Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. This means that, outside of reading OST Article IV through the lens of VC Part III Section III of which China, Russia and other major space launch nations are signed to, it would be custom (almost 50 years now) to do so. This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”. It’s ok to be wrong, no one judges for that. But they will if you don’t learn from it.

  59. Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “”nu uh”””” and entirely of bluster: “”””I did. I disproved your BS. Repeatedly. Everything you’ve thrown out and then countered with was BS”””” as I pointed out.””””Why do you think this”””” instead of strawmanning your way out. “”””No. Calling you out on your BS is not strawmanning.See”” you are engaging in the same behavior as before: You don’t like reality when it is pointed out to you so you dream up more BS to ‘counter’ that.That is why you have not disproven ANY of the facts I pointed out that tore through your BS.KEWs are NOT WMDs. Treaties that we are not party to are not international law that applies to us either. In both cases”” you don’t like those hard realities and came up with BS to justify it. I pointed out that those realities still exist no matter how much you don’t like it. You don’t like THAT so now resort to all kinds of BS that is even less grounded in reality than the BS you were hyping before.It’s all there. For everyone to read.””””Furthermore”” while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention”” it is still bound by custom. “”””No it is not. There is no ‘custom’ except for a bunch of people who invented it up.Nobody — nation states or individuals — are bound by any agreement they are not party to. Period. This is a basic fact of ANY law.””””This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US”” i.e.”” “”””we have not ratified”””” but we view it as customary international law””””.””””1) Who cares what the sellouts at State say and 2) that does not change the fact that while they ‘view’ it as customary international law does not mean the US is bound by it. Our constitution is quite clear on what a binding Treaty is and what isn’t and no State Dept hack can override it”””” hence why they wrote that with the word ‘view’.”””

  60. No” I know about space law.””Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “”””nu uh”””” and entirely of bluster:””””So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole”””” is what.”””” “”””No”””” it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “”””Why do you think this”””” instead of strawmanning your way out.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”” ‘hence”” energy is energy.'”””” “”””BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.””””Why do you think this”” instead of strawmanning your way out.Finally”” you’ve proved my previous suspicions of your blowing smoke. You first claim “”””[the Vienna Convention] which is no binding on the US”””” as it was never ratified by the US”””””””” and then claim “”””either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words”””” BS.””””Customary international law is one of the primary forms of law on the international stage outside of treaties. If you truly knew space law”” then you’d know this as the OST was special in that it was preemptive instead of reactive as is usually the case with law making meaning that custom law governs a lot of the temporal gaps. Furthermore while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention it is still bound by custom. This means that outside of reading OST Article IV through the lens of VC Part III Section III of which China Russia and other major space launch nations are signed to it would be custom (almost 50 years now) to do so. This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US i.e.”” “”””we have not ratified”””” but we view it as customary international law””””. It’s ok to be wrong”””” no one judges for that. But they will if yo”

  61. reusable rockets better than hypersonic missiles” is a stupid claim. Not so much false as meaningless, depending on a very “apples and oranges” comparison. “My new i-phone is better than a racehorse”. Hypersonic missiles are not meant to be inter-continental city busters. They’re primarily anti-ship weapons. They can take out aircraft carriers at 1000 miles, nullifying the utility of carrier groups for force projection. Strategically, they’re mainly defensive, small and cheap enough that a nation can afford to keep a few dozen in readiness to deter attack from carrier groups. No one is going to keep a few dozen BFRs standing by to attack enemy forces in the event of a naval attack. One could make the headline a little less stupid by rephrasing it as “a space-based defense system supplied by BFR-class reusable rockets is better than a land-based system employing hypersonic missiles.” It’s a dubious proposition, IMO, but it’s at least arguable. Satellite-based “defense” systems have a strategic weakness, in that systems in low orbit are highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons, while systems in high orbit are no good for fast response. They’re potentially good as first strike offensive systems, but only usable against nations that have no survivable retaliatory capability. The latter doesn’t include Russia or China.

  62. At this point, I do not want to waste any more of my time discussing such a random topic, I like logic, but have homework to do bye 🙂

  63. reusable rockets better than hypersonic missiles”” is a stupid claim. Not so much false as meaningless”””” depending on a very “”””apples and oranges”””” comparison. “”””My new i-phone is better than a racehorse””””.Hypersonic missiles are not meant to be inter-continental city busters. They’re primarily anti-ship weapons. They can take out aircraft carriers at 1000 miles”” nullifying the utility of carrier groups for force projection. Strategically they’re mainly defensive”” small and cheap enough that a nation can afford to keep a few dozen in readiness to deter attack from carrier groups. No one is going to keep a few dozen BFRs standing by to attack enemy forces in the event of a naval attack.One could make the headline a little less stupid by rephrasing it as “”””a space-based defense system supplied by BFR-class reusable rockets is better than a land-based system employing hypersonic missiles.”””” It’s a dubious proposition”” IMO”” but it’s at least arguable.Satellite-based “”””defense”””” systems have a strategic weakness”” in that systems in low orbit are highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons while systems in high orbit are no good for fast response. They’re potentially good as first strike offensive systems”” but only usable against nations that have no survivable retaliatory capability. The latter doesn’t include Russia or China.”””

  64. At this point I do not want to waste any more of my time discussing such a random topic I like logic but have homework to do bye 🙂

  65. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you. After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares”. I tried to help you see the error in your ways, and for you to grow and learn from this, but it seems we’ve reached the point where “you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it.” Good luck to you and all your goals, sincerely. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.

  66. It seems that anything outside your bubble is BS”” to you. After all that”””” you still can’t answer my questions and end with “”””nu uh…who cares””””. I tried to help you see the error in your ways”” and for you to grow and learn from this”” but it seems we’ve reached the point where “”””you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it.”””” Good luck to you and all your goals”””” sincerely. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.”””

  67. Currently, all current “hypersonic” weapons require a rocket. The “holy grail” is a air-breathing single stage hypersonic engine. Only one right now I know of being developed that could work is the SABRE. That is the “holy grail” of atmospheric to orbital back to atmospheric hypersonic engines. The US has toyed with the boost gliders (ballistic) and scramjets (atmospheric). Both those eithet can only hold a speed for a short period (scramjets) or try to limit velocity loss and add trajectory control (glide vehicles). Neither does much in terms of producing additional sustained thrust and adding range beyond the rockets that boost them and do most of the work.

  68. Currently all current hypersonic”” weapons require a rocket. The “”””holy grail”””” is a air-breathing single stage hypersonic engine. Only one right now I know of being developed that could work is the SABRE. That is the “”””holy grail”””” of atmospheric to orbital back to atmospheric hypersonic engines. The US has toyed with the boost gliders (ballistic) and scramjets (atmospheric). Both those eithet can only hold a speed for a short period (scramjets) or try to limit velocity loss and add trajectory control (glide vehicles). Neither does much in terms of producing additional sustained thrust and adding range beyond the rockets that boost them and do most of the work.”””

  69. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you.” No. Just your BS is BS. “After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares” Because I already did in a prior post, which you either didn’t read or realized I nailed your äss to the wall with inconvenient facts and so could not mention it. Either way, didn’t stop you from falsely claiming that I did not address it. “I tried to help you see the error in your ways No, you fûcked up and continue to do so. “Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.” No. We won’t. Not after you proven yourself full of shyte and incapable of admitting it.

  70. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “”BS”””” to you.””””No. Just your BS is BS.””””After all that”””” you still can’t answer my questions and end with “”””nu uh…who cares””””Because I already did in a prior post”” which you either didn’t read or realized I nailed your äss to the wall with inconvenient facts and so could not mention it. Either way”” didn’t stop you from falsely claiming that I did not address it.””””I tried to help you see the error in your waysNo”””” you fûcked up and continue to do so.””””Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.””””No. We won’t. Not after you proven yourself full of shyte and incapable of admitting it.”””””””

  71. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you.” No. Just your BS is BS. “After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares” Because I already did in a prior post, which you either didn’t read or realized I nailed your äss to the wall with inconvenient facts and so could not mention it. Either way, didn’t stop you from falsely claiming that I did not address it. “I tried to help you see the error in your ways No, you fûcked up and continue to do so. “Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.” No. We won’t. Not after you proven yourself full of shyte and incapable of admitting it.

  72. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “”BS”””” to you.””””No. Just your BS is BS.””””After all that”””” you still can’t answer my questions and end with “”””nu uh…who cares””””Because I already did in a prior post”” which you either didn’t read or realized I nailed your äss to the wall with inconvenient facts and so could not mention it. Either way”” didn’t stop you from falsely claiming that I did not address it.””””I tried to help you see the error in your waysNo”””” you fûcked up and continue to do so.””””Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.””””No. We won’t. Not after you proven yourself full of shyte and incapable of admitting it.”””””””

  73. Currently, all current “hypersonic” weapons require a rocket. The “holy grail” is a air-breathing single stage hypersonic engine. Only one right now I know of being developed that could work is the SABRE. That is the “holy grail” of atmospheric to orbital back to atmospheric hypersonic engines. The US has toyed with the boost gliders (ballistic) and scramjets (atmospheric). Both those eithet can only hold a speed for a short period (scramjets) or try to limit velocity loss and add trajectory control (glide vehicles). Neither does much in terms of producing additional sustained thrust and adding range beyond the rockets that boost them and do most of the work.

  74. Currently all current hypersonic”” weapons require a rocket. The “”””holy grail”””” is a air-breathing single stage hypersonic engine. Only one right now I know of being developed that could work is the SABRE. That is the “”””holy grail”””” of atmospheric to orbital back to atmospheric hypersonic engines. The US has toyed with the boost gliders (ballistic) and scramjets (atmospheric). Both those eithet can only hold a speed for a short period (scramjets) or try to limit velocity loss and add trajectory control (glide vehicles). Neither does much in terms of producing additional sustained thrust and adding range beyond the rockets that boost them and do most of the work.”””

  75. “It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you.”

    No. Just your BS is BS.

    “After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares”

    Because I already did in a prior post, which you either didn’t read or realized I nailed your äss to the wall with inconvenient facts and so could not mention it. Either way, didn’t stop you from falsely claiming that I did not address it.

    “I tried to help you see the error in your ways

    No, you fûcked up and continue to do so.

    “Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.”

    No. We won’t. Not after you proven yourself full of shyte and incapable of admitting it.

  76. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you. After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares”. I tried to help you see the error in your ways, and for you to grow and learn from this, but it seems we’ve reached the point where “you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it.” Good luck to you and all your goals, sincerely. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.

  77. It seems that anything outside your bubble is BS”” to you. After all that”””” you still can’t answer my questions and end with “”””nu uh…who cares””””. I tried to help you see the error in your ways”” and for you to grow and learn from this”” but it seems we’ve reached the point where “”””you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it.”””” Good luck to you and all your goals”””” sincerely. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.”””

  78. reusable rockets better than hypersonic missiles” is a stupid claim. Not so much false as meaningless, depending on a very “apples and oranges” comparison. “My new i-phone is better than a racehorse”. Hypersonic missiles are not meant to be inter-continental city busters. They’re primarily anti-ship weapons. They can take out aircraft carriers at 1000 miles, nullifying the utility of carrier groups for force projection. Strategically, they’re mainly defensive, small and cheap enough that a nation can afford to keep a few dozen in readiness to deter attack from carrier groups. No one is going to keep a few dozen BFRs standing by to attack enemy forces in the event of a naval attack. One could make the headline a little less stupid by rephrasing it as “a space-based defense system supplied by BFR-class reusable rockets is better than a land-based system employing hypersonic missiles.” It’s a dubious proposition, IMO, but it’s at least arguable. Satellite-based “defense” systems have a strategic weakness, in that systems in low orbit are highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons, while systems in high orbit are no good for fast response. They’re potentially good as first strike offensive systems, but only usable against nations that have no survivable retaliatory capability. The latter doesn’t include Russia or China.

  79. reusable rockets better than hypersonic missiles”” is a stupid claim. Not so much false as meaningless”””” depending on a very “”””apples and oranges”””” comparison. “”””My new i-phone is better than a racehorse””””.Hypersonic missiles are not meant to be inter-continental city busters. They’re primarily anti-ship weapons. They can take out aircraft carriers at 1000 miles”” nullifying the utility of carrier groups for force projection. Strategically they’re mainly defensive”” small and cheap enough that a nation can afford to keep a few dozen in readiness to deter attack from carrier groups. No one is going to keep a few dozen BFRs standing by to attack enemy forces in the event of a naval attack.One could make the headline a little less stupid by rephrasing it as “”””a space-based defense system supplied by BFR-class reusable rockets is better than a land-based system employing hypersonic missiles.”””” It’s a dubious proposition”” IMO”” but it’s at least arguable.Satellite-based “”””defense”””” systems have a strategic weakness”” in that systems in low orbit are highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons while systems in high orbit are no good for fast response. They’re potentially good as first strike offensive systems”” but only usable against nations that have no survivable retaliatory capability. The latter doesn’t include Russia or China.”””

  80. At this point, I do not want to waste any more of my time discussing such a random topic, I like logic, but have homework to do bye 🙂

  81. At this point I do not want to waste any more of my time discussing such a random topic I like logic but have homework to do bye 🙂

  82. Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster: ” I did. I disproved your BS. Repeatedly. Everything you’ve thrown out and then countered with was BS, as I pointed out. “Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. ” No. Calling you out on your BS is not strawmanning. See, you are engaging in the same behavior as before: You don’t like reality when it is pointed out to you so you dream up more BS to ‘counter’ that. That is why you have not disproven ANY of the facts I pointed out that tore through your BS. KEWs are NOT WMDs. Treaties that we are not party to are not international law that applies to us, either. In both cases, you don’t like those hard realities and came up with BS to justify it. I pointed out that those realities still exist no matter how much you don’t like it. You don’t like THAT so now resort to all kinds of BS that is even less grounded in reality than the BS you were hyping before. It’s all there. For everyone to read. “Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. ” No it is not. There is no ‘custom’ except for a bunch of people who invented it up. Nobody — nation states or individuals — are bound by any agreement they are not party to. Period. This is a basic fact of ANY law. “This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”.” 1) Who cares what the sellouts at State say and 2) that does not change the fact that while they ‘view’ it as customary international law does not mean the US is bound by it. Our constitution is quite clear on what a binding Treaty is and what isn’t and no State Dept hack can override it, hence why they wrote that with the word ‘view’.

  83. Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “”nu uh”””” and entirely of bluster: “”””I did. I disproved your BS. Repeatedly. Everything you’ve thrown out and then countered with was BS”””” as I pointed out.””””Why do you think this”””” instead of strawmanning your way out. “”””No. Calling you out on your BS is not strawmanning.See”” you are engaging in the same behavior as before: You don’t like reality when it is pointed out to you so you dream up more BS to ‘counter’ that.That is why you have not disproven ANY of the facts I pointed out that tore through your BS.KEWs are NOT WMDs. Treaties that we are not party to are not international law that applies to us either. In both cases”” you don’t like those hard realities and came up with BS to justify it. I pointed out that those realities still exist no matter how much you don’t like it. You don’t like THAT so now resort to all kinds of BS that is even less grounded in reality than the BS you were hyping before.It’s all there. For everyone to read.””””Furthermore”” while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention”” it is still bound by custom. “”””No it is not. There is no ‘custom’ except for a bunch of people who invented it up.Nobody — nation states or individuals — are bound by any agreement they are not party to. Period. This is a basic fact of ANY law.””””This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US”” i.e.”” “”””we have not ratified”””” but we view it as customary international law””””.””””1) Who cares what the sellouts at State say and 2) that does not change the fact that while they ‘view’ it as customary international law does not mean the US is bound by it. Our constitution is quite clear on what a binding Treaty is and what isn’t and no State Dept hack can override it”””” hence why they wrote that with the word ‘view’.”””

  84. No, I know about space law.” Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster: “So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.” “No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. ” Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, ‘hence, energy is energy.'” “BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.” Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. Finally, you’ve proved my previous suspicions of your blowing smoke. You first claim “[the Vienna Convention] which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US”, and then claim “either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.” Customary international law is one of the primary forms of law on the international stage outside of treaties. If you truly knew space law, then you’d know this as the OST was special in that it was preemptive instead of reactive as is usually the case with law making, meaning that custom law governs a lot of the temporal gaps. Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. This means that, outside of reading OST Article IV through the lens of VC Part III Section III of which China, Russia and other major space launch nations are signed to, it would be custom (almost 50 years now) to do so. This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”. It’s ok to be wrong, no one judges for that. But they will if you don’t learn from it.

  85. No” I know about space law.””Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “”””nu uh”””” and entirely of bluster:””””So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole”””” is what.”””” “”””No”””” it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “”””Why do you think this”””” instead of strawmanning your way out.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”” ‘hence”” energy is energy.'”””” “”””BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.””””Why do you think this”” instead of strawmanning your way out.Finally”” you’ve proved my previous suspicions of your blowing smoke. You first claim “”””[the Vienna Convention] which is no binding on the US”””” as it was never ratified by the US”””””””” and then claim “”””either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words”””” BS.””””Customary international law is one of the primary forms of law on the international stage outside of treaties. If you truly knew space law”” then you’d know this as the OST was special in that it was preemptive instead of reactive as is usually the case with law making meaning that custom law governs a lot of the temporal gaps. Furthermore while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention it is still bound by custom. This means that outside of reading OST Article IV through the lens of VC Part III Section III of which China Russia and other major space launch nations are signed to it would be custom (almost 50 years now) to do so. This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US i.e.”” “”””we have not ratified”””” but we view it as customary international law””””. It’s ok to be wrong”””” no one judges for that. But they will if yo”

  86. Currently, all current “hypersonic” weapons require a rocket. The “holy grail” is a air-breathing single stage hypersonic engine. Only one right now I know of being developed that could work is the SABRE. That is the “holy grail” of atmospheric to orbital back to atmospheric hypersonic engines. The US has toyed with the boost gliders (ballistic) and scramjets (atmospheric). Both those eithet can only hold a speed for a short period (scramjets) or try to limit velocity loss and add trajectory control (glide vehicles). Neither does much in terms of producing additional sustained thrust and adding range beyond the rockets that boost them and do most of the work.

  87. So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.” No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties” Which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US. And you claim I make myself look silly? You’re still way ahead of line from me on that front. “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.” BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.

  88. So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole” is what.””No”””” it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. “”””The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties””””Which is no binding on the US”””” as it was never ratified by the US.And you claim I make myself look silly? You’re still way ahead of line from me on that front.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”””” “”””hence”””” energy is energy.””””BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.”””

  89. No, I know about space law. You seem to think that ‘custom’ has anything to do with it. Either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.

  90. No I know about space law.You seem to think that ‘custom’ has anything to do with it.Either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words BS.

  91. It seems that anything outside your bubble is “BS” to you. After all that, you still can’t answer my questions and end with “nu uh…who cares”. I tried to help you see the error in your ways, and for you to grow and learn from this, but it seems we’ve reached the point where “you can’t help someone who doesn’t want it.”

    Good luck to you and all your goals, sincerely. Hopefully we can have a more fruitful discussion in the future.

  92. “reusable rockets better than hypersonic missiles” is a stupid claim. Not so much false as meaningless, depending on a very “apples and oranges” comparison. “My new i-phone is better than a racehorse”.

    Hypersonic missiles are not meant to be inter-continental city busters. They’re primarily anti-ship weapons. They can take out aircraft carriers at 1000 miles, nullifying the utility of carrier groups for force projection. Strategically, they’re mainly defensive, small and cheap enough that a nation can afford to keep a few dozen in readiness to deter attack from carrier groups. No one is going to keep a few dozen BFRs standing by to attack enemy forces in the event of a naval attack.

    One could make the headline a little less stupid by rephrasing it as “a space-based defense system supplied by BFR-class reusable rockets is better than a land-based system employing hypersonic missiles.” It’s a dubious proposition, IMO, but it’s at least arguable.

    Satellite-based “defense” systems have a strategic weakness, in that systems in low orbit are highly vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons, while systems in high orbit are no good for fast response. They’re potentially good as first strike offensive systems, but only usable against nations that have no survivable retaliatory capability. The latter doesn’t include Russia or China.

  93. “Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster: ”

    I did. I disproved your BS. Repeatedly. Everything you’ve thrown out and then countered with was BS, as I pointed out.

    “Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out. ”

    No. Calling you out on your BS is not strawmanning.

    See, you are engaging in the same behavior as before: You don’t like reality when it is pointed out to you so you dream up more BS to ‘counter’ that.

    That is why you have not disproven ANY of the facts I pointed out that tore through your BS.

    KEWs are NOT WMDs. Treaties that we are not party to are not international law that applies to us, either. In both cases, you don’t like those hard realities and came up with BS to justify it. I pointed out that those realities still exist no matter how much you don’t like it. You don’t like THAT so now resort to all kinds of BS that is even less grounded in reality than the BS you were hyping before.

    It’s all there. For everyone to read.

    “Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. ”

    No it is not. There is no ‘custom’ except for a bunch of people who invented it up.

    Nobody — nation states or individuals — are bound by any agreement they are not party to. Period. This is a basic fact of ANY law.

    “This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”.”

    1) Who cares what the sellouts at State say and 2) that does not change the fact that while they ‘view’ it as customary international law does not mean the US is bound by it. Our constitution is quite clear on what a binding Treaty is and what isn’t and no State Dept hack can override it, hence why they wrote that with the word ‘view’.

  94. “No, I know about space law.”

    Then work with me here: give me some facts or information to back up your claims instead of retorts consisting largely of “nu uh” and entirely of bluster:

    “So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.”
    “No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is. ”

    Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out.

    “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, ‘hence, energy is energy.'”
    “BS. You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.”

    Why do you think this, instead of strawmanning your way out.

    Finally, you’ve proved my previous suspicions of your blowing smoke. You first claim “[the Vienna Convention] which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US”, and then claim “either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.”

    Customary international law is one of the primary forms of law on the international stage outside of treaties. If you truly knew space law, then you’d know this as the OST was special in that it was preemptive instead of reactive as is usually the case with law making, meaning that custom law governs a lot of the temporal gaps.

    Furthermore, while the US has not ratified the Vienna Convention, it is still bound by custom. This means that, outside of reading OST Article IV through the lens of VC Part III Section III of which China, Russia and other major space launch nations are signed to, it would be custom (almost 50 years now) to do so. This is even the official stance of the State Department of the US, i.e., “we have not ratified, but we view it as customary international law”.

    It’s ok to be wrong, no one judges for that. But they will if you don’t learn from it.

  95. “So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.”

    No, it does not. It goes against your imagination of what it is.

    “The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”

    Which is no binding on the US, as it was never ratified by the US.

    And you claim I make myself look silly? You’re still way ahead of line from me on that front.

    “A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.”

    BS.

    You like to imagine things up and claim that they are standing facts of the issue. You repeatedly do this.

  96. No, I know about space law.

    You seem to think that ‘custom’ has anything to do with it.

    Either a nation is part of a treaty or not. Period. ‘custom’ is what people who don’t like nations don’t join treaties try to justify imposing the treaties on said non-participants. In other words, BS.

  97. ? I don’t really want to argue about this anymore, but suffice to say, as it is currently not a warground, then it should be relatively easy to keep it that way, just don’t send weopons up there… This is all totally ignoring the fact that spacex would NEVER launch weapons of mass destruction, I know the would definitely launch something “in the defense of the country” but that would be a defensive item, such as lasers or satellite kill vehicles. Its not that I disagree with America spending money in defense of itself (nukes), I just don’t see any reason to spend more money on something we already have… (the ability to instantly wipe out our enemies)

  98. ? I don’t really want to argue about this anymore but suffice to say as it is currently not a warground then it should be relatively easy to keep it that way just don’t send weopons up there… This is all totally ignoring the fact that spacex would NEVER launch weapons of mass destruction I know the would definitely launch something in the defense of the country”” but that would be a defensive item”” such as lasers or satellite kill vehicles.Its not that I disagree with America spending money in defense of itself (nukes)”” I just don’t see any reason to spend more money on something we already have… (the ability to instantly wipe out our enemies)”””

  99. It seems you know much less about space law and policy (or just international law in general) than you let on, as per my reply to your comment below.

  100. It seems you know much less about space law and policy (or just international law in general) than you let on as per my reply to your comment below.

  101. My friend, you’d save yourself from looking silly if you just read the document. This is the umpteenth time you could have done so. “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes” “So what?” So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what. “Stop posting your bullsh!t.” The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is certainly not “bullsh!t” and most certainly would be invoked under interpretation of the OST or associated treaties should disagreement arise in said interpretation (e.g., “is Earth orbit covered under Article IV?”) “So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.” A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.

  102. My friend you’d save yourself from looking silly if you just read the document. This is the umpteenth time you could have done so.Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes”” “”””So what?””””So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole”””” is what. “”””Stop posting your bullsh!t.””””The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is certainly not “”””bullsh!t”””” and most certainly would be invoked under interpretation of the OST or associated treaties should disagreement arise in said interpretation (e.g.”””” “”””is Earth orbit covered under Article IV?””””) “”””So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.””””A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence”””” “”””hence”””” energy is energy.”””””””

  103. space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground” Hahahahahahahah. You live in this interesting Make Believe World, it seems. Ever hear of the Kellogg–Briand Pact? Similar wishful thinking that didn’t do jack shyte.

  104. space is not owned by anyone” so if we can keep it open and not a warground””Hahahahahahahah. You live in this interesting Make Believe World”””” it seems.Ever hear of the Kellogg–Briand Pact? Similar wishful thinking that didn’t do jack shyte.”””””””

  105. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy. So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal. “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes” So what? It’s perfectly legal. And you keep trying to pronounce that putting KEWs in space isn’t but have still failed to do so. “While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.” Not it isn’t. What is international law is what is agreed to by treaty. And the Vienna Convention doesn’t cover space activities. Stop posting your bullsh!t.

  106. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s” energy is energy.So what?That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.””Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes””””So what? It’s perfectly legal. And you keep trying to pronounce that putting KEWs in space isn’t but have still failed to do so.””””While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies”””” it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.””””Not it isn’t. What is international law is what is agreed to by treaty. And the Vienna Convention doesn’t cover space activities. Stop posting your bullsh!t.”””

  107. That’s rich given how I did and you didn’t. KEWs are perfectly legal as long as they do not have nuclear, biological or chemical payloads.

  108. That’s rich given how I did and you didn’t. KEWs are perfectly legal as long as they do not have nuclear biological or chemical payloads.

  109. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. ” Yes, the Rods from God can be described that way as well.

  110. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast and can maneuvre” that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. “”Yes”””” the Rods from God can be described that way as well.”””

  111. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in no affordable way to loft such a large payload) 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (like the nukes we already have). We don’t really need the rods either, North Korea shows that, currently, the only use for nukes (or any tactical weapon) is preventing someone from attacking you, as it can just threaten to nuke the US and we can’t do much about that… also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  112. My bad I kinda wrote this quick but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in no affordable way to loft such a large payload)2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (like the nukes we already have). We don’t really need the rods either North Korea shows that currently the only use for nukes (or any tactical weapon) is preventing someone from attacking you as it can just threaten to nuke the US and we can’t do much about that…also what do you mean by spoils”” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone”” so if we can keep it open and not a warground”” that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.”””

  113. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification: 1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal. 3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (nukes). also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other) space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  114. My bad I kinda wrote this quick but here is some clarification:1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in 2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal.3) I dont really care about it I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (nukes).also what do you mean by spoils”” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other)space is not owned by anyone”” so if we can keep it open and not a warground”” that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.”””

  115. Hitting a satellite’s actually pretty hard, you don’t REALLY know where it is at any given point, not with pinpoint accuracy. This is why we have orbital determination algorithms. Lasers from the ground are incredibly inefficient, atmospheric diffraction is a huge problem.

  116. Hitting a satellite’s actually pretty hard you don’t REALLY know where it is at any given point not with pinpoint accuracy. This is why we have orbital determination algorithms. Lasers from the ground are incredibly inefficient atmospheric diffraction is a huge problem.

  117. This is what Brian does once in a while, he tries to synthesize together the last 8 or 10 NBF posts that are loosely related to a topic. That’s why we’re seeing, in the INF thread, this total nonsense about the US Army developing a 1000 mile range uber cannon when damn near everyone is sure that was a typo. All of the sudden one goofball powerpoint file legitimizes “the US Army is working on 1000 mile uber cannon”.

  118. This is what Brian does once in a while he tries to synthesize together the last 8 or 10 NBF posts that are loosely related to a topic. That’s why we’re seeing in the INF thread this total nonsense about the US Army developing a 1000 mile range uber cannon when damn near everyone is sure that was a typo. All of the sudden one goofball powerpoint file legitimizes the US Army is working on 1000 mile uber cannon””.”””

  119. Laser defense is a lot harder than kinetic kill vehicle defense, and the learning curve starts all over again. Why switch to directed energy when kinetic kill vehicles are just now finally working reliably in tests?

  120. Laser defense is a lot harder than kinetic kill vehicle defense and the learning curve starts all over again. Why switch to directed energy when kinetic kill vehicles are just now finally working reliably in tests?

  121. ? I don’t really want to argue about this anymore, but suffice to say, as it is currently not a warground, then it should be relatively easy to keep it that way, just don’t send weopons up there…

    This is all totally ignoring the fact that spacex would NEVER launch weapons of mass destruction, I know the would definitely launch something “in the defense of the country” but that would be a defensive item, such as lasers or satellite kill vehicles.

    Its not that I disagree with America spending money in defense of itself (nukes), I just don’t see any reason to spend more money on something we already have… (the ability to instantly wipe out our enemies)

  122. My friend, you’d save yourself from looking silly if you just read the document. This is the umpteenth time you could have done so.

    “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes”
    “So what?”

    So it goes against Article IV and the OST as a whole, is what.

    “Stop posting your bullsh!t.”

    The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is certainly not “bullsh!t” and most certainly would be invoked under interpretation of the OST or associated treaties should disagreement arise in said interpretation (e.g., “is Earth orbit covered under Article IV?”)

    “So what? That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.”

    A weapon does not necessitate itself being unconventional to be branded as a WMD. Hence, “hence, energy is energy.”

  123. “space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground”

    Hahahahahahahah. You live in this interesting Make Believe World, it seems.

    Ever hear of the Kellogg–Briand Pact? Similar wishful thinking that didn’t do jack shyte.

  124. “Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy.

    So what?

    That’s still non-nuclear. Thus perfectly legal.
    “Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes”

    So what? It’s perfectly legal. And you keep trying to pronounce that putting KEWs in space isn’t but have still failed to do so.

    “While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.”

    Not it isn’t. What is international law is what is agreed to by treaty. And the Vienna Convention doesn’t cover space activities. Stop posting your bullsh!t.

  125. “Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. ”

    Yes, the Rods from God can be described that way as well.

  126. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification:

    1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in no affordable way to loft such a large payload)
    2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal.
    3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (like the nukes we already have). We don’t really need the rods either, North Korea shows that, currently, the only use for nukes (or any tactical weapon) is preventing someone from attacking you, as it can just threaten to nuke the US and we can’t do much about that…

    also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other)

    space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  127. My bad, I kinda wrote this quick, but here is some clarification:

    1) BFR doesn’t exist yet (as in
    2) EU/whoever has agreed to the document/treaty that weapons in space is illegal.
    3) I dont really care about it, I think the US has much better options for leveling cities than flying a bunch of giant metal rods to space (nukes).
    also, what do you mean by “spoils” what would you get out of an arms race (ex: cold war just led to both parties having the same relative power compared to each other)

    space is not owned by anyone, so if we can keep it open and not a warground, that would be great for those of us who want to explore it.

  128. Hitting a satellite’s actually pretty hard, you don’t REALLY know where it is at any given point, not with pinpoint accuracy. This is why we have orbital determination algorithms.

    Lasers from the ground are incredibly inefficient, atmospheric diffraction is a huge problem.

  129. This is what Brian does once in a while, he tries to synthesize together the last 8 or 10 NBF posts that are loosely related to a topic. That’s why we’re seeing, in the INF thread, this total nonsense about the US Army developing a 1000 mile range uber cannon when damn near everyone is sure that was a typo. All of the sudden one goofball powerpoint file legitimizes “the US Army is working on 1000 mile uber cannon”.

  130. Laser defense is a lot harder than kinetic kill vehicle defense, and the learning curve starts all over again. Why switch to directed energy when kinetic kill vehicles are just now finally working reliably in tests?

  131. Also, spraying uranium all over the target area will confuse the issue as to whether you are actually using a conventional or radiological weapon. Given that one of the big advantages of the rod idea is that it should be plausibly claimed as a conventional, nonWMD, adding Uranium to the mix just ruins that.

  132. Also spraying uranium all over the target area will confuse the issue as to whether you are actually using a conventional or radiological weapon. Given that one of the big advantages of the rod idea is that it should be plausibly claimed as a conventional nonWMD adding Uranium to the mix just ruins that.

  133. They can’t be in a reflective cloud 24/7. The instant they try to deploy a system like that would be like declaring war. If I was in charge, I would just shoot the rocket carrying the system before it can deploy it. Also, there are other measures that can be used to counter a rod, a simple nudge will offset it’s trajectory and miss it’s target. Hypersonic missiles are already a thing and by the time they would deploy space based systems, Russia and China could just deploy a hypersonic defence system.

  134. They can’t be in a reflective cloud 24/7. The instant they try to deploy a system like that would be like declaring war. If I was in charge I would just shoot the rocket carrying the system before it can deploy it. Also there are other measures that can be used to counter a rod a simple nudge will offset it’s trajectory and miss it’s target. Hypersonic missiles are already a thing and by the time they would deploy space based systems Russia and China could just deploy a hypersonic defence system.

  135. Also, spraying uranium all over the target area will confuse the issue as to whether you are actually using a conventional or radiological weapon. Given that one of the big advantages of the rod idea is that it should be plausibly claimed as a conventional, nonWMD, adding Uranium to the mix just ruins that.

  136. They can’t be in a reflective cloud 24/7. The instant they try to deploy a system like that would be like declaring war. If I was in charge, I would just shoot the rocket carrying the system before it can deploy it. Also, there are other measures that can be used to counter a rod, a simple nudge will offset it’s trajectory and miss it’s target. Hypersonic missiles are already a thing and by the time they would deploy space based systems, Russia and China could just deploy a hypersonic defence system.

  137. Why solid titanium? Using a ceramic shell filled with depleted uranium makes more sense to me. With that kind of density it’s going to hit a lot faster and do much more damage.

  138. Why solid titanium? Using a ceramic shell filled with depleted uranium makes more sense to me. With that kind of density it’s going to hit a lot faster and do much more damage.

  139. Claim Sorb – Suborbital transport dominates Category: Science & Technology:Space bid 10, ask 25, last 20 Owner: 45, Baldrson Judge: 74, niobium created: 1995/09/10 due date: 2021/01/01 The Claim Suborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation by the year 2020. “Suborbital” means any high-mach, non-orbital flight where the majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass. “High-mach” means the majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater. “Non-orbital” means the total flight path distance is less than the circumference of the earth. “Locally available” excludes gasses that have been stored within the vehicle for more than 3 minutes. The metric for comparison will include passenger, luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys.

  140. Claim Sorb – Suborbital transport dominatesCategory: Science & Technology:Space bid 10 ask 25 last 20Owner: 45 BaldrsonJudge: 74 niobiumcreated: 1995/09/10due date: 2021/01/01The ClaimSuborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation by the year 2020. Suborbital”” means any high-mach”””” non-orbital flight where the majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass. “”””High-mach”””” means the majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater. “”””Non-orbital”””” means the total flight path distance is less than the circumference of the earth. “”””Locally available”””” excludes gasses that have been stored within the vehicle for more than 3 minutes. The metric for comparison will include passenger”””” luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys.”””

  141. 1) Using Valcan321’s numbers (which I think are pretty similar to those throw around here by others), each rod would release the equivalent of 10 kT blast yield on target. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy. 2) Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes, “exclusively”. Moreover, the “establishment of military installations….testing of any type of weapon…and military maneuvers are forbidden.” While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.

  142. 1) Using Valcan321’s numbers (which I think are pretty similar to those throw around here by others) each rod would release the equivalent of 10 kT blast yield on target. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s energy is energy. 2) Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes exclusively””. Moreover”””” the “”””establishment of military installations….testing of any type of weapon…and military maneuvers are forbidden.”””” While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies”””” it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.”””

  143. It would appear you haven’t either. There’s nothing about prohibiting non-WMD kinetic weapons in it.

  144. It would appear you haven’t either. There’s nothing about prohibiting non-WMD kinetic weapons in it.

  145. 2) Who is ‘they’? ” It’ll be made illegal when President Ocasio-Cortez packs the court with nine judges. (this is a joke and not to be taken too seriously)

  146. 2) Who is ‘they’? “”It’ll be made illegal when President Ocasio-Cortez packs the court with nine judges.(this is a joke and not to be taken too seriously)”””

  147. As the saying goes, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the ground for those who don’t. Yeah, it would be much better if everybody laid down their arms, but the good people have to be the last to do it.

  148. As the saying goes those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the ground for those who don’t. Yeah it would be much better if everybody laid down their arms but the good people have to be the last to do it.

  149. This is complately separate weapon system from hypersonic missiles, its like comparing regular artillery with ICBM’s. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. Rocket based on BFR system/or whatever is not like that at all. However this idea has obvious merit and I can guarantee you that Pentagon already has report on that written since years if not decades. Its truism: all space techhnologies are dueal use.

  150. This is complately separate weapon system from hypersonic missiles its like comparing regular artillery with ICBM’s. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast and can maneuvre that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. Rocket based on BFR system/or whatever is not like that at all. However this idea has obvious merit and I can guarantee you that Pentagon already has report on that written since years if not decades. Its truism: all space techhnologies are dueal use.

  151. Why solid titanium? Using a ceramic shell filled with depleted uranium makes more sense to me. With that kind of density it’s going to hit a lot faster and do much more damage.

  152. Claim Sorb – Suborbital transport dominates
    Category: Science & Technology:Space bid 10, ask 25, last 20
    Owner: 45, Baldrson
    Judge: 74, niobium
    created: 1995/09/10
    due date: 2021/01/01
    The Claim
    Suborbital transportation will exceed high-mach air transportation by the year 2020. “Suborbital” means any high-mach, non-orbital flight where the majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass. “High-mach” means the majority of the distance is covered at a speed of mach 2.5 or greater. “Non-orbital” means the total flight path distance is less than the circumference of the earth. “Locally available” excludes gasses that have been stored within the vehicle for more than 3 minutes. The metric for comparison will include passenger, luggage and cargo ton-miles over the entirety of the year 2020 as published in standard industry surveys.

  153. 1) Using Valcan321’s numbers (which I think are pretty similar to those throw around here by others), each rod would release the equivalent of 10 kT blast yield on target. Tungsten isn’t typically a WMD material, but when you accelerate it to ~3000 m/s, energy is energy.

    2) Putting weapons in space does not jive for promoting peaceful purposes, “exclusively”. Moreover, the “establishment of military installations….testing of any type of weapon…and military maneuvers are forbidden.” While this is stated explicitly for other celestial bodies, it is generally applied to Earth orbit as well via the Vienna Convention and customary international law.

  154. “2) Who is ‘they’? ”

    It’ll be made illegal when President Ocasio-Cortez packs the court with nine judges.

    (this is a joke and not to be taken too seriously)

  155. As the saying goes, those who beat their swords into plowshares end up tilling the ground for those who don’t. Yeah, it would be much better if everybody laid down their arms, but the good people have to be the last to do it.

  156. Sure put weapons in space. A simple laser can destroy such platforms. Satellites are sitting ducks with no real protection. Nice of these leaders to show to the world what kind of psychopaths they really are. They want to waste trillions just so they might have a advantage in war for a short while, even though Russia and China would never allow these platforms to be in place or at least they would have platforms of their own that could wipe out their enemies at least as fast. These tungsten rods are meant as an offensive weapon activated before enemy does anything. They claim how enemy has no time to react, but are they that stupid to think that the enemy (Russia, China) couldn’t just make a defensive system to deter such platforms with a more advanced early warning system. Sure spend more on military and useless weapons. If used, it would mean the end humanity since Russia at least has a dead man’s switch which would assure the destruction of their enemy. These “people” would rather kill the planet than live in peace. They are afraid, psychopathic, immoral creatures that have no brain capacity understand that they are causing harm to everyone, even themselves. Their quest for their own well-being has caused them to suffer more out of their own ignorance, and at the same time, cause billions to suffer. How much further are they going to go, in order to keep power?

  157. Sure put weapons in space. A simple laser can destroy such platforms. Satellites are sitting ducks with no real protection. Nice of these leaders to show to the world what kind of psychopaths they really are. They want to waste trillions just so they might have a advantage in war for a short while even though Russia and China would never allow these platforms to be in place or at least they would have platforms of their own that could wipe out their enemies at least as fast. These tungsten rods are meant as an offensive weapon activated before enemy does anything. They claim how enemy has no time to react but are they that stupid to think that the enemy (Russia China) couldn’t just make a defensive system to deter such platforms with a more advanced early warning system. Sure spend more on military and useless weapons. If used it would mean the end humanity since Russia at least has a dead man’s switch which would assure the destruction of their enemy. These people”” would rather kill the planet than live in peace. They are afraid”” psychopathic immoral creatures that have no brain capacity understand that they are causing harm to everyone even themselves. Their quest for their own well-being has caused them to suffer more out of their own ignorance and at the same time cause billions to suffer. How much further are they going to go”” in order to keep power?”””

  158. This is complately separate weapon system from hypersonic missiles, its like comparing regular artillery with ICBM’s. Entire point of hypersonic missiles is to have somethign that goes so fast, and can maneuvre, that you cannot react to it and shoot it down. Rocket based on BFR system/or whatever is not like that at all. However this idea has obvious merit and I can guarantee you that Pentagon already has report on that written since years if not decades. Its truism: all space techhnologies are dueal use.

  159. I just hope we figure out a better way to launch before we have to hear the words “People of merica… sorry to say but we have literally destroyed the earths atmosphere launching rockets. Srry bout that. goodnight.” on the tv

  160. I just hope we figure out a better way to launch before we have to hear the words People of merica… sorry to say but we have literally destroyed the earths atmosphere launching rockets. Srry bout that. goodnight.”” on the tv”””

  161. The problem is each of these rods would weigh in at 9 tons each and be 20 ft long. So at 50 each that’s a lot of launches. doable but launches

  162. The problem is each of these rods would weigh in at 9 tons each and be 20 ft long.So at 50 each that’s a lot of launches. doable but launches

  163. just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal.” 1) It is already feasible. 2) Who is ‘they’? 3) No amount of you not liking this reality and wishing it will go away will make it go away. “Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice” So? What does that have to do with this? THOR rods are not nuclear weapons. “It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race” Who says? To to the victor goes the spoils. “It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…” More wishful thinking on your part.

  164. just stop… By the time this is feasible” they would just make the illegal.””1) It is already feasible.2) Who is ‘they’? 3) No amount of you not liking this reality and wishing it will go away will make it go away.””””Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice””””So? What does that have to do with this? THOR rods are not nuclear weapons.””””It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race””””Who says? To to the victor goes the spoils. “”””It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…””””More wishful thinking on your part.”””

  165. just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal. Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice, It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race, It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…

  166. just stop… By the time this is feasible they would just make the illegal. Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…

  167. Yes. Forget those MIRV platforms. Use reusable launch abilities to put into orbit ‘ortillary’ THOR platforms. Say, 50 rods each? Put a thousand of those into LOE and let them sit there, pointing down. We could take out all of our enemies ground-based missiles in a first strike within 10 or so minutes, with plenty rods left over to take out dams, power plants, bridges, military bases, etc. All 100% internationally legal, too. #MAGA #AmericaFirst

  168. Yes. Forget those MIRV platforms. Use reusable launch abilities to put into orbit ‘ortillary’ THOR platforms. Say 50 rods each? Put a thousand of those into LOE and let them sit there pointing down.We could take out all of our enemies ground-based missiles in a first strike within 10 or so minutes with plenty rods left over to take out dams power plants bridges military bases etc. All 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} internationally legal too. #MAGA #AmericaFirst

  169. Sure put weapons in space. A simple laser can destroy such platforms. Satellites are sitting ducks with no real protection. Nice of these leaders to show to the world what kind of psychopaths they really are. They want to waste trillions just so they might have a advantage in war for a short while, even though Russia and China would never allow these platforms to be in place or at least they would have platforms of their own that could wipe out their enemies at least as fast. These tungsten rods are meant as an offensive weapon activated before enemy does anything. They claim how enemy has no time to react, but are they that stupid to think that the enemy (Russia, China) couldn’t just make a defensive system to deter such platforms with a more advanced early warning system. Sure spend more on military and useless weapons. If used, it would mean the end humanity since Russia at least has a dead man’s switch which would assure the destruction of their enemy. These “people” would rather kill the planet than live in peace. They are afraid, psychopathic, immoral creatures that have no brain capacity understand that they are causing harm to everyone, even themselves. Their quest for their own well-being has caused them to suffer more out of their own ignorance, and at the same time, cause billions to suffer. How much further are they going to go, in order to keep power?

  170. I just hope we figure out a better way to launch before we have to hear the words “People of merica… sorry to say but we have literally destroyed the earths atmosphere launching rockets. Srry bout that. goodnight.” on the tv

  171. “just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal.”

    1) It is already feasible.
    2) Who is ‘they’?
    3) No amount of you not liking this reality and wishing it will go away will make it go away.

    “Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice”

    So? What does that have to do with this? THOR rods are not nuclear weapons.

    “It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race”

    Who says? To to the victor goes the spoils.

    “It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…”

    More wishful thinking on your part.

  172. just stop… By the time this is feasible, they would just make the illegal. Let me remind you that we have spent trillions of dollars developing nuclear weapons and have only used them twice, It would be wasteful for America to start another arms race, It would be better If we kept weapons out of space…

  173. Yes. Forget those MIRV platforms. Use reusable launch abilities to put into orbit ‘ortillary’ THOR platforms. Say, 50 rods each? Put a thousand of those into LOE and let them sit there, pointing down.

    We could take out all of our enemies ground-based missiles in a first strike within 10 or so minutes, with plenty rods left over to take out dams, power plants, bridges, military bases, etc.

    All 100% internationally legal, too.

    #MAGA #AmericaFirst

Comments are closed.