4 ms·

How does this work out? Instead of one rocket they will have to launch a dozen or so rockets for one visit to the moon. Why did they choose this option to begin

How does this work out? Instead of one rocket they will have to launch a dozen or so rockets for one visit to the moon. Why did they choose this option to begin with? And is cost per time on moon not a bit misleading, just stay longer and this cost goes down? You obviously have to bring more food and air and so on, but is that really a significant amount? Or are there other limiting factors that prevent you from staying say a month?

idontwantthis 3y ago
> Why did they choose this option to begin with Because this will be the first time in history that the cost of a launch will be mostly the cost of the fuel. This is the first fully reusable rocket in history. If you had to throw away a dozen tankers it wouldn’t make any sense.
- alemanek 3y ago
  Also being able to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon is a fantastic reason as well. Everyone can bring a set of golf clubs and balls. Heck we can setup a little driving range with the extra mass allowance.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Notably, we don't need to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon. Or golf clubs. Stable hypergolic fuel would be useful, but there are no plans for that.
    - alemanek 3y ago
      NASA has stated they want to maintain a long term presence on the moon. If we take them at their word then we absolutely do need to be able to bring 100 tons to the surface of the moon. Water, food, air, parts, habitats, ..etc. All of that adds up. Super Heavy lift capability and refueling will be vital to making those plans feasible.
- danbruc 3y ago
  How many flights do they want to get out of each rocket? For Falcon 9 the current record seems to be 18 which would be about one moon mission. They will have to go far beyond that, otherwise it would essentially be an expendable system - one rocket, one mission, just with a couple of launches each costing time and money and probably increasing the risk. Then again, if one does the accounting in terms of mass delivered to the moon, it would probably look more favorable even if they could only get one mission out of each rocket.
  - Klathmon 3y ago
    It's a crazy sounding goal, but I've heard the idea thrown around that they want them to be closer to airliners in terms of numbers of flights. I have no idea if that's just Elon spouting nonsense or if it's realistic, but that seems to be the goal.
    - idontwantthis 3y ago
      It’s not just the goal it’s the whole point. I’m not saying it will be achieved but that is the reason it exists and every promised capability is predicated on full reusability.
angiosperm 3y ago
Not just a dozen. Current estimates say closer to 20. It makes the notion of ss cans supporting Mars colonization a bad joke. The cans might be just barely adequate to support a Lunar outpost. The "gateway" concept is another bad joke. It is in plans solely because that is the closest to the moon that SLS can get to. It isn't legitimately a gateway to anything: stopping there makes getting where you really want to go substantially harder. The only legitimate place for a gateway would be in high Earth orbit, because it wouldn't require extra fuel to stop at it and then get moving again.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Mars landing is actually less energy intensive the moon landing. SpaceX is already launching 100 times a year. Starship is supposed to have even faster turn around, launching multiple 100 times per year doesn't seem crazy, specially as current launches require complex iteration, unlike pure fuel launches. Its likely closer to 16 then 20. And optimizing the process and efficiency it will be less then that. You end up landing around 100 tons. So you can potentially do 1000+ tons a year, and that is before you even go to having many ocean launch pads. Ok not enough for colonization, but its a damn good start.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Not even enough for a Mars outpost, never mind colonization. The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home, not even the engines on the cans that got them there; so those would pile up. The "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price, just like the "full self driving" that was supposed to enable you to farm out your car during the day for taxi service. Musk hyped that one hard.
    - panick21_ 3y ago
      > Not even enough for a Mars outpost Landing a single Starship on Mars literally is already an output if we want to be exact about it. The idea that the Starship architecture isn't enough to have a small base on Mars is just nonsense. > The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. As with everything 100 was an inspirational goal, once you have good infrastructure on both sides and everything optimized for mass transport. And yes you might be right, 100 is to optimistic. He didn't sign any contracts based on those numbers, he promised nobody that number. Its literally an inspirational goal with a low chance of success. > they might fit a dozen Damn, a dozen is amazing. > And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home Nobody claimed their was ... but you are really good a fighting straw man. > "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price That just proves that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Musk literally admits that Mars colonization isn't gone make money. The reason they want Starlink is because they think that can actually make money and support large rockets so they can use it for Mars. Musk things he will spend his private money on Mars colonization. Pushing Mars is literally the opposite of stock price pumping.

idontwantthis 3y ago

> Why did they choose this option to begin with Because this will be the first time in history that the cost of a launch will be mostly the cost of the fuel. This is the first fully reusable rocket in history. If you had to throw away a dozen tankers it wouldn’t make any sense.

alemanek 3y ago
Also being able to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon is a fantastic reason as well. Everyone can bring a set of golf clubs and balls. Heck we can setup a little driving range with the extra mass allowance.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Notably, we don't need to bring 100 tonnes to the surface of the moon. Or golf clubs. Stable hypergolic fuel would be useful, but there are no plans for that.
  - alemanek 3y ago
    NASA has stated they want to maintain a long term presence on the moon. If we take them at their word then we absolutely do need to be able to bring 100 tons to the surface of the moon. Water, food, air, parts, habitats, ..etc. All of that adds up. Super Heavy lift capability and refueling will be vital to making those plans feasible.
danbruc 3y ago
How many flights do they want to get out of each rocket? For Falcon 9 the current record seems to be 18 which would be about one moon mission. They will have to go far beyond that, otherwise it would essentially be an expendable system - one rocket, one mission, just with a couple of launches each costing time and money and probably increasing the risk. Then again, if one does the accounting in terms of mass delivered to the moon, it would probably look more favorable even if they could only get one mission out of each rocket.
- Klathmon 3y ago
  It's a crazy sounding goal, but I've heard the idea thrown around that they want them to be closer to airliners in terms of numbers of flights. I have no idea if that's just Elon spouting nonsense or if it's realistic, but that seems to be the goal.
  - idontwantthis 3y ago
    It’s not just the goal it’s the whole point. I’m not saying it will be achieved but that is the reason it exists and every promised capability is predicated on full reusability.

angiosperm 3y ago

Not just a dozen. Current estimates say closer to 20. It makes the notion of ss cans supporting Mars colonization a bad joke. The cans might be just barely adequate to support a Lunar outpost. The "gateway" concept is another bad joke. It is in plans solely because that is the closest to the moon that SLS can get to. It isn't legitimately a gateway to anything: stopping there makes getting where you really want to go substantially harder. The only legitimate place for a gateway would be in high Earth orbit, because it wouldn't require extra fuel to stop at it and then get moving again.

panick21_ 3y ago
Mars landing is actually less energy intensive the moon landing. SpaceX is already launching 100 times a year. Starship is supposed to have even faster turn around, launching multiple 100 times per year doesn't seem crazy, specially as current launches require complex iteration, unlike pure fuel launches. Its likely closer to 16 then 20. And optimizing the process and efficiency it will be less then that. You end up landing around 100 tons. So you can potentially do 1000+ tons a year, and that is before you even go to having many ocean launch pads. Ok not enough for colonization, but its a damn good start.
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Not even enough for a Mars outpost, never mind colonization. The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home, not even the engines on the cans that got them there; so those would pile up. The "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price, just like the "full self driving" that was supposed to enable you to farm out your car during the day for taxi service. Musk hyped that one hard.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    > Not even enough for a Mars outpost Landing a single Starship on Mars literally is already an output if we want to be exact about it. The idea that the Starship architecture isn't enough to have a small base on Mars is just nonsense. > The story about ferrying 100 people to Mars in a can is 100% lying; they might fit a dozen. As with everything 100 was an inspirational goal, once you have good infrastructure on both sides and everything optimized for mass transport. And yes you might be right, 100 is to optimistic. He didn't sign any contracts based on those numbers, he promised nobody that number. Its literally an inspirational goal with a low chance of success. > they might fit a dozen Damn, a dozen is amazing. > And there is literally nothing on Mars worth refining and exporting home Nobody claimed their was ... but you are really good a fighting straw man. > "Mars colonization" story is purely to pump up stock price That just proves that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Musk literally admits that Mars colonization isn't gone make money. The reason they want Starlink is because they think that can actually make money and support large rockets so they can use it for Mars. Musk things he will spend his private money on Mars colonization. Pushing Mars is literally the opposite of stock price pumping.