24 ms·

Planning to land in a designated area is easy. Ruling out any deviations is a challenge. SpaceX knows booster landing on earth, but that may not be the the same

by brnt 6y ago

Planning to land in a designated area is easy. Ruling out any deviations is a challenge. SpaceX knows booster landing on earth, but that may not be the the same on the moon. Moreover, it can afford to lose a booster every know and then here, but there it can't. It can be done, but can it be guaranteed?

rbanffy 6y ago
> but that may not be the the same on the moon True. No wind or waves, everything standing perfectly still. I'd say it's much easier.
- detritus 6y ago
  Principal negative as I can imagine it is the constitution of the regolith. I remember reading that one of the concerns about the original lunar programs was how soft and deep the regolith might be at the landing site - if it's loose and silty and 6' deep, then that's going to get tricky. Sure, we have much better radar and composition maps of the lunar surface these days, but it strikes me that it's still not as 100% as landing on a barge's [presumably] metal surface or concrete and Cape Canaveral.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    The tiny landing legs (more like landing pinkies) of Starship concern me a lot, but whatever would be going to land with this approach would have reasonably robust landing legs with feet that can handle soft surface. I'm more worried about sandblasting the surroundings.
    - detritus 6y ago
      Aye, that's it! The huge and wonderful mass of a Starship plonking down three spindle-thin legs onto and into luna incognita. I'm sure smarter people than I have thought about this, but it was a thought that struck me when I saw the mockups in the NASA lunar bid vid a wee while back.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        Well... At least it's more than 3. Still, by then the ship should be somewhat top-heavy and those six landing pinkies do not inspire much trust. OTOH, the people designing this are smarter than we are and much more experienced than me in rocket design, so they may know one or two things I don't.

by brnt 6y ago

rbanffy 6y ago

> but that may not be the the same on the moon True. No wind or waves, everything standing perfectly still. I'd say it's much easier.

detritus 6y ago
Principal negative as I can imagine it is the constitution of the regolith. I remember reading that one of the concerns about the original lunar programs was how soft and deep the regolith might be at the landing site - if it's loose and silty and 6' deep, then that's going to get tricky. Sure, we have much better radar and composition maps of the lunar surface these days, but it strikes me that it's still not as 100% as landing on a barge's [presumably] metal surface or concrete and Cape Canaveral.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  The tiny landing legs (more like landing pinkies) of Starship concern me a lot, but whatever would be going to land with this approach would have reasonably robust landing legs with feet that can handle soft surface. I'm more worried about sandblasting the surroundings.
  - detritus 6y ago
    Aye, that's it! The huge and wonderful mass of a Starship plonking down three spindle-thin legs onto and into luna incognita. I'm sure smarter people than I have thought about this, but it was a thought that struck me when I saw the mockups in the NASA lunar bid vid a wee while back.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      Well... At least it's more than 3. Still, by then the ship should be somewhat top-heavy and those six landing pinkies do not inspire much trust. OTOH, the people designing this are smarter than we are and much more experienced than me in rocket design, so they may know one or two things I don't.