4 ms·
Welp, then I am going to say it: it looks underwhelming, both in capability and looks. 6.5t of soft-landed payload to surface of moon and 2.5kW of power via fu
by _Microft 8y ago
Welp, then I am going to say it: it looks underwhelming, both in capability and looks.
6.5t of soft-landed payload to surface of moon and 2.5kW of power via fuel cells if Twitter can be trusted. A grand vision of O'Neill cylinders and whatever in space is nice but how? How? Less gradatim and more ferociter would be nice.
- Stratoscope 8y agoDo looks matter for a lunar lander? Of course it doesn't look as good as the awesome streamlined rocketship concept art I grew up with in the 1950s, I will grant you that.
- stcredzero 8y agoOf course it doesn't look as good as the awesome streamlined rocketship concept art I grew up with in the 1950s, I will grant you that. While SpaceX's concept for Starship does look that awesome. (In the form of animations and concept art, not in the form of steel water tower construction blown over on its side.)
- lutorm 8y agoStarship looks like it does because it has to re-enter Earth's atmosphere. If you don't, aerodynamic shells are just dead weight.
- dwaltrip 8y agoIt looks like a step in the right direction to me. What's your baseline here?
- shanxS 8y agoAt least someone is trying (and given the track record, will probably achieve it, Gradatim Ferociter indeed)
- nickik 8y agoYou are underwhelming by a privately funded moon lander? You realize how absurd this is? NASA has been shit for 40 years in terms of manned flight and that's why this stuff is happening. And its not a budget issue, NASA had and has quite a budget. They could fund way more interesting stuff, but they don't, so this is the best your gone get.