Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> first contracts by SpaceX were part of Prompt Global Strike (DARPA Falcon Project)

You’re skipping the $400mm NASA COTS contract that came a year earlier.

DARPA bought the first two launches for hypersonic delivery system research, but it was primarily aimed at prompt global strike. As in what it says on the tin. Interception was tertiary at best, to the point that it’s mostly unmentioned [1][2].

Starlink is not rooted in SDI.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Prompt_Strike

View on HN

>> You’re skipping the $400mm NASA COTS contract that came a year earlier.

You have it backwards, the DARPA Falcon project was awarded in 2003 (before Falcon rocket was even named!) COTS was 2005, and in no small part due to Griffin as mentioned.

> the DARPA Falcon project was awarded in 2003

You’re right. I ignored those because at $500k they’re immaterial, particularly against the $100mm it took to develop Falcon 1, but they did precede even Falcon 1 being named.

Against that I put literally every engineer at SpaceX in 2003 giving zero shits about that grant other than as a funding and legitimacy source. Because it wasn’t a strategic guide. And it was for building a missile, not an interceptor.

I've noticed Mike Griffin's goals have been pretty consistent since he led the SDI (and conceived COTS). Follow the man's actions not what's written on the tin. SpaceX's development has wed closely to the SDI requirements. Even Starship seems optimized for mass to LEO rather than Mars.

> SpaceX's development has wed closely to the SDI requirements

Any launch vehicle would. I have no doubt Griffin may retain his SDI roots. That doesn’t mean they transferred to SpaceX, much less Starlink.

The most we can say is SpaceX’s founders and allies were influenced by SDI. And that influence peaked in the 2000s, when SpaceX was dependent on grants versus launch contracts.

> Starship seems optimized for mass to LEO rather than Mars

That’s where the money is.

Given Starship’s flexibility, concluding much about a secret purpose is untenable. (I agree it would seem to need sizing up for Mars. But if in-orbit propellant transfer really nails, LEO and Mars are practically neighbours. (9.4 km/s to LEO, another 3 to 4 to Mars. More to the Moon.)

All those Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin.

> Mars Colony leaders were SDI people. Take a look at the latest stuff written by Zubrin

Who is related to Starlink in what respect?

The link between Starlink and SDI is about as close as it is to anything space related the U.S. government has done. It’s equally correct to say Starlink has its roots in space planes. Like, sure, I can draw tenuous links between the two. But that’s like saying Juicero was a military project because Silicon Valley was seeded by the DoD.

> Any launch vehicle would

Not even remotely true. You can broadly classify SDI proposals into two categories; ones that require scientific breakthroughs, and ones that are really big engineering projects. The problem with scientific breakthroughs is you can't reasonably predict when and how they're going to happen, so these aren't serious proposals.

The other sort, the large engineering problems, require tens of thousands of satellites (e.g. interceptors). An oldspace style rocket with a few launches a year will never move the needle on such a project, it needs a rocket like Falcon 9 or Starship. Michael Griffin's background is in this category of SDI proposal, there can be no doubt that he knew how many satellites it will take and that doing so without cheap reusable rockets would never work.

Sorry, I should have said any launch vehicle development would. Every launch vehicle developed since 2003, including Atlas, technically advances SDI’s agenda. SpaceX does it best because they’ve done launch best. But it’s ahistoric to link the cause of that effect to SDI.

Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda because building a plausible SDI project with such rockets isn't possible.

> Rockets like Vulcan do not materially advance an SDI agenda

Rockets like Vulcan are similarly capable for SDI purposes as the Falcon 1 was.

I'm open to being corrected by anyone else who was involved with SpaceX in its early days. But the SDI connection to Falcon reusable, much less Starlink, is an expert exercise in retconning.

Falcon 1 doesn't move the needle on SDI either, except insofar as it was intended as a developmental stepping stone towards a reusable rocket (which it was publicly claimed to be.) Vulcan isn't, SLS isn't... Blue Origin's work is.

Now, you said that even Atlas rockets developed after 2003 are technically advancing an SDI agenda. I don't know which Atlas rocket you're talking about (Atlas V Heavy development?), but it definitely isn't true. There was never any pretext of the Atlas rocket family being a step towards reusability, and therefore it has nothing to do with any serious SDI proposal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com