would a starship-based gunship or dragon-based gunship work?
Fragile and expensive... but I guess every space boat would be like that so I guess it gets a pass.
>>64671708with current launch prices yes but with rapid cheap reusability it would not be more expensive than a bunch of jet fighters/bombers
No.
No, especially not dragon since there's no mass budget for any gunship-y thing on there.There'd also not be a point of making it returnable, just keep it in space, why bring the whole thing back instead of resupplying and maintaining in space
>>64671817i mean like reuse the first stage while the whole second stage is the gunship with refuelling.and dragon is big enough to support something like an m2 gun mounted coaxially. not exactly a superweapon but i bet it would work
>>64671844If you just want weapons capability, a satellite strapped with missiles is gonna be way more useful than a repurposed crew capsule. If you're going for the unmanned cargo variant, again, a purpose built satellite is gonna be way better suited for the task when you shed the mass of the hatches and the return capsule. Starship is built for re-entry and re-use, that's a lot of mass going into not-gunship-y things. What the fuck is a space gunship gonna need fins for? This is like taking a DUKW and asking if it'd make a good battleship.
>>64671878first stage is built for rocket reuse but the second one has many variants planned like tanker,reusable satellite launcher,lunar lander,mars lander.... they could have a millitary orbital station variant with guns,missiles,lasers on it for testing.kind of like a bigger version of what the x37 does (except i think x37 mainly tests antennas and if it tests weapons its all secret)
>>64671938All of those starship variants are still predicated on re-usability. That's the whole schtick behind starship anon. It's intended to go up and come back down, ferrying cargo or crew. Stop being retarded, why build from starship when you can start with a clean slate purpose built orbit-only design you launch via Falcon heavy if you're so spacex inclined. X-37 is also built to go up and come down. There is no point for a space warship to be able to come back down. Like I said, it's the equivalent of building an amphibious destroyer, there's literally no point to the amphibious capability.
Prefer to see it being used by a more effective military.
>>64672044china not a more effective military though, i get that you're very passive-aggressive from years of bullying and don't spout your delusions out in a direct way anymore but c'mon, this is just pathetic chinkshill.
>>64672016because its a simple to build variation of the standard 'orbital bus' starship (that will probably just ferry starlinks all day). just replace the payload bay with radar,lidar,weapons,solar arrays,a battery bank,a pressurized section,refueling modules.later you can use more complex constructions but something you can build and test on the ground in one piece and then just launch to orbit will probably be the best plan for initial armed millitary spacecraft
>>64670128No, fighting in space would be done with missiles, and you only need one to win. It's like being underwater, but much worse.
