4 ms·
That was always a bullshit date. No different than elder Bush's Mars in 2030. 2028, maybe if everything goes well with Starship, and the suits. Their lunar vari
by kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
That was always a bullshit date. No different than elder Bush's Mars in 2030. 2028, maybe if everything goes well with Starship, and the suits. Their lunar variant is still a disaster waiting to happen without a better design. We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel? SLS is also supposed to somehow fit into the picture which is still not tested in any way resembling the baby steps Apollo took.
- mr_toad 2y agoStarship didn’t destroy anything, that was the booster, and they’re not landing a 33 engine booster on the Moon.
- boxed 2y agoSuper Heavy isn't going to the moon. Also, the moon has less gravity. WAY LESS. I think those two things combined means your logic is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.
- inglor_cz 2y ago"We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel?" Starship has fewer engines than Super Heavy, it likely won't be landing at full throttle either, and lunar lander Starship could have landing legs as well. The lower gravity on the Moon means that you can carry more hardware with you. Maneuvering in 0.16 g is nowhere near as fuel intensive as in 1 g.
- wormlord 2y agoWhy is this being downvoted? These are all valid concerns.