“#SpaceX would modify, reuse, or demolish the existing #SLC37* infrastructure to support #Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations” https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/proposed-action/
* 🗺️ https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=SLC-37&layer=Esri+Satellite
Besides the request for up to 25 launches per year from #Starbase, #SpaceX is also planning for up to 44 Starship launches per year from #LC39A at the Kennedy Space Center as well as up to 76 launches per year from #SLC37B. This will total up to 145 launches of #Starship per year https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/07/booster-12-static-fires-pad-a-b-tower-stacking/
Starbase’s second launch tower 🗺️ https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=Starbase+Integration+Tower+B&layer=OpenStreetMap
🇺🇸 ➡️ 🇦🇺 ⏱️ "the delivery time for rocket 🚀 based cargo 📦 around the planet - taking advantage of orbital velocity of 27,350 kph and a hypersonic reentry through Earth's atmosphere - would be a fraction of the roughly 12 to 24 hours typically needed for traditional aircraft ✈️ " https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacex-talks-land-recover-starship-rocket-off-australias-coast-2024-07-29/
@spaceflight and only look exactly like a preemptive nuclear strike. Which would prompt a nuclear response.
@falken did you answer to the wrong post, or what's the relation to the above ?
@spaceflight right post. Orbital (even sub-) cargo delivery would be indistinguishable from a ICBM or theatre-local equivalent.
Remember when the US wanted a "anywhere in 2 hours" troup transport a decade or so ago? Same issue.
@spaceflight you trust north Korea to check their email for published delivery schedules before shooting down an unknown ballistic missile? What about the south?
@spaceflight no, but let's not annoy the Russians either, k?
:-)
@falken the current leader, by delivering things faster
@falken do you think conventional transport ✈️ would be better in north Korean airspace ? 🤔 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63637625
https://safeairspace.net/north-korea