US military eyes SpaceX Starship for 'sensitive and potentially dangerous missions': report

a large silver rocket on a launch pad fires its engines, creating a massive plume of fire and smoke
The Starship upper-stage prototype Ship 28 conducts a six-engine static fire test on Dec. 20, 2023. (Image credit: SpaceX)

The U.S. military is considering commandeering SpaceX's reusable Starship rocket for dangerous or sensitive missions.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has reached out to SpaceX to inquire about using Starship on its own, flying the massive rocket as a "government-owned, government-operated" asset on "sensitive and potentially dangerous missions," according to a recent report in Aviation Week

Currently, the DOD contracts SpaceX as a launch services provider; in this new proposed arrangement the Pentagon would actually take control of the vehicle on its own.

Related: Space is now 'most essential' domain for US military, Pentagon says

Aviation Week cites comments made on Tuesday (Jan. 30) by Gary Henry, a Senior Advisor for National Security Space Solutions at SpaceX, during the 2024 Space Mobility Conference held in Orlando, Florida.

"We have had conversations … and it really came down to specific missions, where it's a very specific and sometimes elevated risk or maybe a dangerous use case for the DOD where they’re asking themselves: 'Do we need to own it as a particular asset … SpaceX, can you accommodate that?'" Henry said at the conference.

"We've been exploring all kinds of options to kind of deal with those questions," Henry added.

Starship launches on its second flight test on Nov. 18, 2023. (Image credit: SpaceX)

The DOD has been considering using Starship for years. As early as 2020, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) was discussing using the giant reusable rocket — which is not yet operational — for transporting cargo or even personnel rapidly around the world.

"Think about moving the equivalent of a C-17 payload anywhere on the globe in less than an hour. Think about that speed associated with the movement of transportation of cargo and people," former commander of USTRANSCOM Gen. Stephen Lyons said in Oct. 2020. "There is a lot of potential here, and I'm really excited about the team that's working with SpaceX on an opportunity, even perhaps, as early as '21, to be conducting a proof of principle."

Col. Eric Felt, director of space architecture for the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration, added that "there might be some use cases where there needs to be a government-owned, government-operated [vehicle], and that transfer can happen on the fly," Aviation Week reports.

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk has even hinted at using Starship to send 1,000 human passengers on point-to-point flights around the world at hypersonic speeds held in place by amusement-park-like restraints. "Would feel similar to Space Mountain in a lot of ways, but you'd exit on another continent," Musk wrote on X in 2019.

Aside from potential U.S. military applications and its traditional usage as a commercial launch vehicle, Starship is being tapped for NASA's Artemis program. The agency plans to use Starship as a moon lander to ferry human crews to and from the lunar surface, beginning with the Artemis 3 mission no earlier than 2026.

A lot of development and testing has to go right before that can happen, though. SpaceX will first have to conduct a successful demonstration in which Starship will be used as an orbital refueling platform to top off a human lander after it uses most of its fuel after it leaves Earth and heads to the moon.

Starship is SpaceX's next-generation launch vehicle that the company hopes will help humanity build settlements on the moon and Mars. The massive rocket has flown on two test flights to date; one in April 2023 and again in November 2023. A third test flight could come as soon as February 2024, pending regulatory approval from the U.S. government.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Brett Tingley
Managing Editor, Space.com

Brett is curious about emerging aerospace technologies, alternative launch concepts, military space developments and uncrewed aircraft systems. Brett's work has appeared on Scientific American, The War Zone, Popular Science, the History Channel, Science Discovery and more. Brett has English degrees from Clemson University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In his free time, Brett enjoys skywatching throughout the dark skies of the Appalachian mountains.

  • fj.torres
    A first step.
    If STARSHIP even approaches the cost and turn around times Musk dreams of, the Space Force will end up buying a handful of full stacks to run their operations. In times past, USAF Space Command tried to get its own independent space station and shuttle but the numbers never made sense. Soon they may.

    The key point to remember is that while Musk is aiming for Mars (eventually) the first production version of Starship will operate primarily in cis Lunar space. And that is USSF's domain. After all, somebody has to be the law above 100. 😁
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    To twin it for two uses, public (private commercial) and governmental-military would be financially okay to both entities. To simply take it over, take total control of it, would be disastrous in every possible way there is to both!

    The U. S. government, and Space Force, need to study and think in terms of the history of sea power! What made lasting sea powers! They may think Alfred Thayer Mahan's essays in his 'The Influence of Sea Power Upon History' are obsolete and not applicable, but they would be dead wrong! Quite possibly disastrously so! The "strategic view" in it is very applicable to space! Easily, and necessarily, transferrable from sea and sea power to space and space power!

    Mahan emphasized the strategic -- and strategic financial -- basis and importance of the numbers in private sector sea power (thus space power), including "far flung" homeland's colonies and bases, throughout history, upon the reach (any magnitude at all) of governmental-military sea power (again, space power . . . there being no real strategic difference) and homeland defense!
    Reply
  • fj.torres
    Atlan0001 said:
    To twin it for two uses, public (private commercial) and governmental-military would be financially okay to both entities. To simply take it over, take total control of it, would be disastrous in every possible way there is to both!

    The U. S. government, and Space Force, need to study and think in terms of the history of sea power! What made lasting sea powers! They may think Alfred Thayer Mahan's essays in his 'The Influence of Sea Power Upon History' are obsolete and not applicable, but they would be dead wrong! Quite possibly disastrously so! The "strategic view" in it is very applicable to space! Easily, and necessarily, transferrable from sea and sea power to space and space power!

    Mahan emphasized the strategic -- and strategic financial -- basis and importance of the numbers in private sector sea power (thus space power), including "far flung" homeland's colonies and bases, throughout history, upon the reach (any magnitude at all) of governmental-military sea power (again, space power . . . there being no real strategic difference) and homeland defense!
    The plan announced is for a *temporary* takeover for the duration of a single mission, presumanly for operational security (mission tracking and control), legal issues, and precisely to keep at bay charges of SPACEX itself being militarized.

    Unsaid but implied, USSF would gain institutional experience in operating Starship that would come in handy if/when they acquire their own vehicles. Thus, it would be a tentative first step towards independent space access.
    Reply
  • Aspire58
    Dumbest idea ever. A big old ginormous Starship that someone with even a shoulder fired missile or a $100 drone could and would easily shoot down while it slowly lands? Make it make sense. May as well paint a target on it while you're at it. People are so anxious to turn anything into a weapon and/or make a buck, they are not even thinking these stupid ideas through.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    From what I've seen I think not. It appears much quicker than a aircraft drop. No time to get a bearing to. And a lot less noise duration than aircraft. The first few missions will be completely surprising. After that diversions and decoys will do. By that time we will have materials to shield any size and shape from EM detection. And maybe even materials that can dispose of heat much more quickly. Or maybe hide it.

    For quick injection it can't be beat.
    Reply
  • Stateoftheartist
    Classical motion NO.
    A military halo drop, is out the back of a military jet doing 500mph in the middle of the night at 40,000 feet. It may be a shipping container with a bobcat and a hilux ute, with a special forces dude in a 4 point race harness, sitting in the ute, who's gotta bury the container by dawn. Or just a guy in an oxygen mask and superhero suit in a 500mlh straight down dive with a toolkit to fix a busted tank, about to be melted slag, that has valuable Intel personal on board and will not make it if he doesn't fix it in ten minutes.
    Either way the parachutes are rigged to auto deploy ( if you are lucky) about 200feet before the payload augers into the dirt.
    Just One sniper round, with a tungsten or du, armour piercing penetrator, or high explosive round, hitting any part of a landing spracex scarships fuel tank or rocket turbo pump plumbing, will turn it into one of those spectacular fireballs we are familiar with.
    Great for false flag operations where you pretend its delivering relief supplies for civilian victims, and destroy a medium sized town and blame it on the locals yes.
    Great for delivering nukes that are too heavy for existing missiles yes.
    No other possible benefits exist.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    I would have thought that the fly over time plus the drop time(total detection time) would be much greater than the landing time of a starship. Assuming it lands like the boosters. It's a quick landing.

    But I am certainly no expert on the rocket or military drills and procedures.
    Reply
  • Stateoftheartist
    Classical Motion said:
    I would have thought that the fly over time plus the drop time(total detection time) would be much greater than the landing time of a starship. Assuming it lands like the boosters. It's a quick landing.

    But I am certainly no expert on the rocket or military drills and procedures.
    Yeah, well. Though not a military special forces engineer myself, I am a world champion high performance engineer, and have many friends who are, or were. What I just described are just two of the missions that a very good friend of mine had to accomplish, and did, during the Soviet, Afghanistan war. The fixing the tanks Jimmy under heavy machine gun fire, was considered about a 2% chance of him succeeding. He had ten minutes notice before the plane took off, and 20min after that, he was sprinting, dodging bullets, to dive into the tank and up to his armpits in mud in the engine bay get that supercharged 2 stroke GM diesel fixed and started. There are very few scenarios where you need to get something "anywhere in the world in less than an hour". And A starship is no hypersonic low Altitude steerable glide missile like everyone but the yanks have today.
    And that's the only thing that can get past any NATO, and has a small chance of getting past Brix block air defence systems that exist at this time.
    They may want to use them to deploy robot hunter killers, on the moon to destroy any non US unmanned bases that China, Russia, India, Iran, North Korea, New Zealand, and a handful of others now have the capacity to put up there. But the USA does not.
    That is all, I'm going to say on this matter.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    Well alrighty then. That's quite a story. I had no idea the military had such procedures or need, for repairing tanks during battle. Do all go thru that kind of training? That's real road service.

    Lot's of change since I was in.
    Reply