4 ms·

Landing on the moon is worthwhile.

by unethical_ban 4y ago

natch 4y ago
Artemis will not land on the moon.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- killyourcar 4y ago
  No one claimed the first Artemis mission would. The parent claimed "nothing the SLS will ever do" The SLS will (most likely) put people on the moon as part of a later Artemis mission.
  - natch 4y ago
    Nope. Starship will do that, not SLS. NASA already gave the contract for landing to SpaceX. And as for later versions of SLS after that… I highly doubt they will ever fly, because the insanity of the cost and they non-reusability will become too glaringly obvious to everyone.
  - adastra22 4y ago
    The SLS won't land people on the moon either. A completely unrelated rocket system that doesn't rely on the SLS in any way is used for that. SLS is totally redundant.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    SLS isn't redundant. SLS+Orion is a system that is trusted and certified to put Humans into LEO and then lunar orbit. The "completely unrelated rocket" will not be certified to launch Humans in time. The modified Starship that is used as a lander will undergo some certification, but ferrying Humans from lunar surface to lunar orbit is a lot less difficult and risky than blasting off of Earth.
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      If I had to be launched into space, I would prefer to take my chances with a rocket ship that blew up lots of times in testing until it didn't anymore, vs. a boondoggle mega rocket with a bunch of paperwork.
      - kevinteger 4y ago
        > “..blew up lots of times in testing until it didn’t anymore” Yeah, Starship hasn’t stopped blowing up. What it has flown successfully is a small atmospheric hop, with a pretty pared down version. The first stage hasn’t even successfully static fired yet. And yet, everyone is falling over themselves to say various versions of “SLS is obsolete because starship”. SpaceX has a great track record in developing Falcon 9, its reusability, and Dragon. But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years.
        panick21_ 4y ago
        SLS has been obsolete since its creating by the Senat in 2011. It never made sense and it was never needed. Its purely political. I remember in 2017 when people said Falcon Heavy is not real, SLS is and all this bullshit. SLS has no logical justification, even if either Falcon Heavy nor Starship existed. It just doesn't make sense if you actually think threw the problem. NASA knew this, and didn't want (outside of Johnson) but were forced to do it. > But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years. That quite the claim. I would bet you 10k$ that Starship will reach orbit 5 times before SLS reaches Orbit twice? Interested?
    - Tuna-Fish 4y ago
      People don't need to take off from Earth on the Starship to get to the moon with it. Dragon 2 exists. The only thing SLS currently adds to the moon mission is that it allows the switchover between capsule and Starship to happen in lunar orbit instead of LEO. This is not very valuable.
      - 4y ago
pfdietz 4y ago
Landing on the moon, by itself, is utterly worthless. Landing on the moon is only of value if it leads to things additional that are of value. But this indirect benefit requires that landing on the moon be cheap enough and easy enough that the additional activities are practical. I don't think anything needing SLS qualifies. The confusion of symbol with substance has bedeviled the space program since its inception. It's a kind of cargo cult thinking. To do worthwhile things on the moon requires being able to get to the moon in a practical and economical way. I'm not sure even Starship qualifies, to be honest, but it may.

Landing on the moon is worthwhile.

natch 4y ago

Artemis will not land on the moon.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
killyourcar 4y ago
No one claimed the first Artemis mission would. The parent claimed "nothing the SLS will ever do" The SLS will (most likely) put people on the moon as part of a later Artemis mission.
- natch 4y ago
  Nope. Starship will do that, not SLS. NASA already gave the contract for landing to SpaceX. And as for later versions of SLS after that… I highly doubt they will ever fly, because the insanity of the cost and they non-reusability will become too glaringly obvious to everyone.
- adastra22 4y ago
  The SLS won't land people on the moon either. A completely unrelated rocket system that doesn't rely on the SLS in any way is used for that. SLS is totally redundant.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  SLS isn't redundant. SLS+Orion is a system that is trusted and certified to put Humans into LEO and then lunar orbit. The "completely unrelated rocket" will not be certified to launch Humans in time. The modified Starship that is used as a lander will undergo some certification, but ferrying Humans from lunar surface to lunar orbit is a lot less difficult and risky than blasting off of Earth.
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    If I had to be launched into space, I would prefer to take my chances with a rocket ship that blew up lots of times in testing until it didn't anymore, vs. a boondoggle mega rocket with a bunch of paperwork.
    - kevinteger 4y ago
      > “..blew up lots of times in testing until it didn’t anymore” Yeah, Starship hasn’t stopped blowing up. What it has flown successfully is a small atmospheric hop, with a pretty pared down version. The first stage hasn’t even successfully static fired yet. And yet, everyone is falling over themselves to say various versions of “SLS is obsolete because starship”. SpaceX has a great track record in developing Falcon 9, its reusability, and Dragon. But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        SLS has been obsolete since its creating by the Senat in 2011. It never made sense and it was never needed. Its purely political. I remember in 2017 when people said Falcon Heavy is not real, SLS is and all this bullshit. SLS has no logical justification, even if either Falcon Heavy nor Starship existed. It just doesn't make sense if you actually think threw the problem. NASA knew this, and didn't want (outside of Johnson) but were forced to do it. > But Starship is order of magnitude more complicated, optimistically it will not fly for several years. That quite the claim. I would bet you 10k$ that Starship will reach orbit 5 times before SLS reaches Orbit twice? Interested?
  - Tuna-Fish 4y ago
    People don't need to take off from Earth on the Starship to get to the moon with it. Dragon 2 exists. The only thing SLS currently adds to the moon mission is that it allows the switchover between capsule and Starship to happen in lunar orbit instead of LEO. This is not very valuable.
    - 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

Landing on the moon, by itself, is utterly worthless. Landing on the moon is only of value if it leads to things additional that are of value. But this indirect benefit requires that landing on the moon be cheap enough and easy enough that the additional activities are practical. I don't think anything needing SLS qualifies. The confusion of symbol with substance has bedeviled the space program since its inception. It's a kind of cargo cult thinking. To do worthwhile things on the moon requires being able to get to the moon in a practical and economical way. I'm not sure even Starship qualifies, to be honest, but it may.