Remix.run Logo
koakuma-chan 11 hours ago

Why does a ground based interceptor cost $75M? High idiot index?

hedora 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

$1M, but we can only make 600 / year, globally.

koakuma-chan 10 hours ago | parent [-]

From the article,

"Each GBI costs approximately $75 million, and as of 2024, 44 are deployed across Alaska and California [3]."

hedora 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm quoting the missile cost. I think they're quoting the launchers + a few missiles.

(Also, lower bounding the cost improves the argument that they're too expensive to be practical.)

O3marchnative 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Author here. The $75M is specifically for Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs). This is the U.S.'s ICBM mid-course interceptor. There are other interceptor types in the current U.S. arsenal:

Patriot PAC-3 (~$4M): Nations burnt through 600-800 in the first few days of Operation Epic Fury. There are reports that they're being used for drone defense.

SM-3 (~$10-30M): Ship-launched

SM-6 (~$4-5M): Ship-launched

THAAD (~$12-15M): Terminal phase, high altitude

GBI (~$75M): intended for interception of ICBMs (reported as the hardest type of missile to intercept)

Each type of interceptor is optimal for certain type of threats, which is yet another constraint on the optimization problem.

mrguyorama 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In what world would a specialized, niche, high precision, high readiness rocket meant to loft a very advanced interceptor munition into an extremely high velocity interception ever be cheap?

These things are closing at like mach 20. Physics says that's hard to do. That means it's expensive.

For reference, $75 million is in the realm of a Falcon 9 launch, which is a very cost optimized platform that doesn't have to place a very very precision instrument payload in a very very specific point in space to prepare it for a high energy, extremely difficult interception.

koakuma-chan 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Does it being very high precision or whatever mean that it must cost $75M per unit? Is it made of gold?

echoangle 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The cost primarily comes from the work needed to be done to make sure it works, not the raw materials. But there probably are some pretty expensive materials in it too.

mrguyorama 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Inertial_Reference_Sp...

This is what we had to build in the 60s to allow a missile to know where it physically existed precisely enough to allow it to 50% of the time hit within a circle of ~50 meters.

When you get to certain points in physics, certain energy regimes, you no longer are building machines or tools or something mass market. You are building artisan scientific instruments, and then sometimes gluing explosives to them.

Even modern laser ring gyros do not even share a dinner table with the precision and accuracy of the above singular component of the Peacekeeper ICBMs, and that was a long time ago.

"Tech" and some of the developments of the past few decades have really confused people. The miniaturization of the transistor, and building billions of transistors on a small slice of silicon is an aberration, an anomaly. Most things don't get "Better and better and cheaper and cheaper" like that because shit just doesn't scale infinitely and in general materials science isn't that precise.

For these ground based midcourse interceptors, they have to precisely loft the interceptor package at an incoming projectile. They have to shoot a bullet with a bullet, except the target bullet might even be moving around a bit, and your ability to precisely quantify the exact parameters of it's position and velocity is already limited. Is your position and velocity measurement an inch off? Two inches? Is that too much?

How well have you quantified the thrust of your rocket engine? THIS specific rocket engine, not a random one from the batch. Will you be off in a direction by a few meters per second? That might be enough to scuttle your interception.

IIRC this is the interception payload, a kinetic kill vehicle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM

Then, are any of those nozzles slightly less smooth than they should be? That's a miss. Did propellant slosh in an unexpected way? That's a miss, Chicago is now a smoldering crater. Incoming round bounce your rader signal in just a slightly different way than you had the data to know about? Miss, San Fransisco now has significantly cheaper real estate. Chaotic properties of hot expanding gas slightly different than your simulation in the unluckiest way? Miss.

You have to exhaustively inspect, reinspect, quality control, test, simulate, retest, catalogue, document, every single component. You have to be able to predict, almost perfectly, how every single component will act and perform in a situation you will never get a test for.

High energy physics is always going to be hard, never cheap, because high concentrations of energy are literally what the universe itself is trying to reduce. The rules of reality itself are against you.

A creator on youtube named Alexander the Ok has done wonderful videos on a lot of the technology that goes into these systems, especially older, less classified systems.