4 ms·

There could very well be worthwhile things spurred or inspired by things the SLS does. If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3

There could very well be worthwhile things spurred or inspired by things the SLS does. If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3 years, that could inspire a permanent moon presence, and that would be huge for development of future technology.

willglynn 4y ago
> If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3 years Well, Artemis 2 is scheduled for May 2024. It is to take crew on a lunar flyby, i.e. not even entering lunar orbit, which in my view makes it a lot less inspiring than Apollo 8. Artemis 3 is to put people on the moon, but is currently "no earlier than 2025" with many missing pieces in the critical path. The spacesuits themselves are no earlier than April 2025, and while they loosened the Gateway requirement, it still needs a spacecraft to get from Orion to the moon and back. NASA selected Starship. If SpaceX can put Starship on the moon, what are the odds that Artemis 3 will be its first crewed trip? I don't think Artemis 3 has any chance of being the catalyst you describe.
- gtowey 4y ago
  It's just my opinion, but I don't think Starship will ever reach the moon. The leap in difficulty from Falcon to Starship is too big for SpaceX. It's like the promise of fully autonomous Teslas. Musk will never deliver.
  - robin_reala 4y ago
    It’s provably possible to land on the moon using 60s technology. No-one has yet built a self driving car that can cope with all needed situations without endangering the occupants and other road users. I don’t think the two scenarios are really comparable.
    - gtowey 4y ago
      That's kind of my point though. SpaceX isn't claiming that Starship is boring old reliable 60's technology. He's promising a rocket with huge leaps in capability. It's a lot to ask to do all these new things and do it reliably enough for human-rated space travel. I mean, their engines are still melting which means they fundamentally don't have the lift capability they claim. I'm sure they could get them to work if they just ran them cooler, but cooler engines means less thrust and that changes everything about a rocket's capability. And that's what makes it exactly like the self-driving car problem in my mind -- they're stuck at an impasse that might not really have a viable solution all while Musk is saying they'll be delivering any day now. You just can't trust a thing he says about when and how much they'll deliver.
    - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      Their plan of landing a single stage is pure fantasy. The risk of tipping over or damaging the engines with debris makes it unworkable. At best they might be able to pull off a special two stage variant with landing legs but they aren't going to get there in three years.
      - versteegen 4y ago
        The issue with stability is not that it's a single stage, but rather the tall shape of the lunar Starship. A single stage lander/ascender, with all the weight of the engines on the bottom, will be beneficial for stability. The mass of the engines is a significant fraction of the total because there's rather little propellant. (E.g. the Apollo ascent stage had a propellant mass ratio of exactly 1:1 (2,353kg to 4,700kg gross), despite a low ISP of only 311s.) But certainly you're right about the risk of damage on landing.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Good that you know so much more then the people at NASA who investigated the design. The initial design has special high up landing engines btw, this solves the debris issue. And in terms of the stability, Starship has enough mass-fraction to add whatever kind of legs on that thing they want. NASA didn't even list that as a minor issue in the report.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    NASA has selected Starship as the only lander, if SpaceX wont make it to the moon, neither will NASA.
panick21_ 4y ago
SLS wouldn't put people back on the moon. The actual moon lander is Starship. If people land on the moon. Starship will be the impressive inspirational thing, not SLS. And Starship is what you need to have a permanent moon base. Its a simple fact that there is not enough budget for a moon base, as long as NASA is forced into SLS. Do the math and you will see. There is a reason literally everything other then Orion is already taken away from SLS. Both science missions and all other moon missions and landers are no longer going to use SLS. SLS is literally just there to put Orion into moon orbit. That's it. And that could be achieved other ways as well. SLS is just a crouch that NASA is forced to use. And on the pictures on television, when Astronauts get out on to the moon, it will be a large SpaceX rocket.

willglynn 4y ago

> If the SLS indeed manages to put people back on the moon in the next 2-3 years Well, Artemis 2 is scheduled for May 2024. It is to take crew on a lunar flyby, i.e. not even entering lunar orbit, which in my view makes it a lot less inspiring than Apollo 8. Artemis 3 is to put people on the moon, but is currently "no earlier than 2025" with many missing pieces in the critical path. The spacesuits themselves are no earlier than April 2025, and while they loosened the Gateway requirement, it still needs a spacecraft to get from Orion to the moon and back. NASA selected Starship. If SpaceX can put Starship on the moon, what are the odds that Artemis 3 will be its first crewed trip? I don't think Artemis 3 has any chance of being the catalyst you describe.

gtowey 4y ago
It's just my opinion, but I don't think Starship will ever reach the moon. The leap in difficulty from Falcon to Starship is too big for SpaceX. It's like the promise of fully autonomous Teslas. Musk will never deliver.
- robin_reala 4y ago
  It’s provably possible to land on the moon using 60s technology. No-one has yet built a self driving car that can cope with all needed situations without endangering the occupants and other road users. I don’t think the two scenarios are really comparable.
  - gtowey 4y ago
    That's kind of my point though. SpaceX isn't claiming that Starship is boring old reliable 60's technology. He's promising a rocket with huge leaps in capability. It's a lot to ask to do all these new things and do it reliably enough for human-rated space travel. I mean, their engines are still melting which means they fundamentally don't have the lift capability they claim. I'm sure they could get them to work if they just ran them cooler, but cooler engines means less thrust and that changes everything about a rocket's capability. And that's what makes it exactly like the self-driving car problem in my mind -- they're stuck at an impasse that might not really have a viable solution all while Musk is saying they'll be delivering any day now. You just can't trust a thing he says about when and how much they'll deliver.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    Their plan of landing a single stage is pure fantasy. The risk of tipping over or damaging the engines with debris makes it unworkable. At best they might be able to pull off a special two stage variant with landing legs but they aren't going to get there in three years.
    - versteegen 4y ago
      The issue with stability is not that it's a single stage, but rather the tall shape of the lunar Starship. A single stage lander/ascender, with all the weight of the engines on the bottom, will be beneficial for stability. The mass of the engines is a significant fraction of the total because there's rather little propellant. (E.g. the Apollo ascent stage had a propellant mass ratio of exactly 1:1 (2,353kg to 4,700kg gross), despite a low ISP of only 311s.) But certainly you're right about the risk of damage on landing.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Good that you know so much more then the people at NASA who investigated the design. The initial design has special high up landing engines btw, this solves the debris issue. And in terms of the stability, Starship has enough mass-fraction to add whatever kind of legs on that thing they want. NASA didn't even list that as a minor issue in the report.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  NASA has selected Starship as the only lander, if SpaceX wont make it to the moon, neither will NASA.

panick21_ 4y ago

SLS wouldn't put people back on the moon. The actual moon lander is Starship. If people land on the moon. Starship will be the impressive inspirational thing, not SLS. And Starship is what you need to have a permanent moon base. Its a simple fact that there is not enough budget for a moon base, as long as NASA is forced into SLS. Do the math and you will see. There is a reason literally everything other then Orion is already taken away from SLS. Both science missions and all other moon missions and landers are no longer going to use SLS. SLS is literally just there to put Orion into moon orbit. That's it. And that could be achieved other ways as well. SLS is just a crouch that NASA is forced to use. And on the pictures on television, when Astronauts get out on to the moon, it will be a large SpaceX rocket.