-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
NASA selects SpaceX Starship system to land on moon - Discussion of Preparations
- Thread starter Cosmacelf
- Start date
On the surface of the graphic, at least with an apples-to-apples launchers comparison, the number of launches is objectively a legitimate technical point. The obvious [near dead] elephant in the room of course, is that while no sensible person would bet against either of them getting to space, one doesn't exactly need an advanced degree in Tarot to see the futures of the SLS program and the Starship program.
The other surface level intent of the graphic is maybe not so legitimate, as 32 feet is--I'm going to assume intuitively for most human beings--closer to 128 feet than it is, say, 3 feet when it comes to an ingress/egress method/solution...
What's confusing for me is their intended audience. Like, they already have funding. They already have the Apollo 2.0 "Spread the
Its possible it is just a classic backfired shot at the "other team", but BO couldn't be THAT stupid, could they? SpaceX intern rejects could easily tear apart the 'dig', and trying to change the minds of spaceX superfans is...well...you make your own politics analogy there.
Similarly it doesn't seem like the space industry or space weenies really gives a *sugar* either. Its not like some down-page graphic on a random website is going to materially inform anyone of anything or change anyone's minds. There are some with strong opinions, and the rest just want to see any kind of progress toward space exploration.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Jeff gets a consolation prize for his being more anatomically correct, however.
Nikxice
Active Member
Nice move Jeff. You're really a spoiled........Hmm..
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22786234/1148068754.jpg)
Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin sues NASA, escalating its fight for a Moon lander contract
The suit presages more delays for NASA’s Moon program.www.theverge.com
GAO report details rejection of HLS protests
The GAO offered more details about its decision to reject protests filed by two companies of NASA’s lunar lander award to SpaceX.
spacenews.com
So.... with the recent info about needing 8-16 launches in order to refuel Starship in orbit sufficiently to get to the Moon, I ask: why?
Atlas V was smaller & far less powerful (<1/2 the thrust), yet launched to the moon,
Is it because Starship is so massive as compared to the earlier Landers?
Atlas V was smaller & far less powerful (<1/2 the thrust), yet launched to the moon,
Is it because Starship is so massive as compared to the earlier Landers?
Yes, higher mass and all the mass (minus booster) goes to the surface and back (minus any payload left behind).
Atlas was three stages to translunar injection. Ascent stage was separate, on return, from descent stage which was separate from the command and service modules. Only 1 of 7 pieces needed to go from lunar surface to lunar orbit.
Starship/ Super Heavy is two stage with one piece going all the way there and part of the way back.
Here is the thing: If we want to replicate Apollo program, send a single rocket straight shot to moon, land a washing machine and get back with 100Kgs of moon rock - yes we can do that. But what is the point?
This iteration of moon program should be revolutionary, not evolutionary.
- We should be able to land huge payloads and bring back a lot of stuff (if needed).
- The technology and engineering should be much less expensive (1/100th) on a per-pound basis to Moon surface .
- Technology should demonstrate the ability to send multiple missions in a year to build a moon base
- And most importantly, this should be a template for sending people to Mars.
otherwise, replicating Apollo program will not grab people's attention or interest and the program will peter.
Last edited:
dazedNconfuzed
Member
Exactly. BO's infographic insult offers to send a few cubic meters of people & gear & rocks to the Moon and back, all costs sunk.
Yes, SX's plan is depicted as having a whole lot more mass & complexity to pull off - but brings back mostly reusable equipment and enough tons of rock to pay for the mission (and then more than some).
[bangs on calculator]
How many people would buy 1 oz of genuine Moon rock for $1000?
10 tons of that is $320,000,000.
Yes, SX's plan is depicted as having a whole lot more mass & complexity to pull off - but brings back mostly reusable equipment and enough tons of rock to pay for the mission (and then more than some).
[bangs on calculator]
How many people would buy 1 oz of genuine Moon rock for $1000?
10 tons of that is $320,000,000.
Hmm...
arstechnica.com
Blue Origin hires advisory firm linked to messy JEDI contract process
Pallas Advisors was co-founded by two former advisors to Jim Mattis.
arstechnica.com
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin's Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court. After the details broke in new...
www.teslarati.com
And Jeff Bezos loses his NASA lawsuit over SpaceX $2.9 billion lunar lander contract
Who'd had thunk ?
And Elon being Elon
Bezos' Blue Origin loses NASA lawsuit over SpaceX $2.9 billion lunar lander contract
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin in the company's lawsuit against NASA.
www.cnbc.com
Bezos' Blue Origin loses NASA lawsuit over SpaceX $2.9 billion lunar lander contract
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin in the company's lawsuit against NASA.
Who'd had thunk ?
And Elon being Elon
SpaceX landing on the moon soon, accidentally.
www.bbc.com
Elon Musk SpaceX rocket on collision course with moon
Astronomers say that a rocket in space since 2015 is hurtling towards the Moon where it will explode.
www.bbc.com
Similar threads
