4 ms·

Does this mean that there's some insurmountable engineering problem(s) with Starship?

d_silin 9mo ago
Not likely. Mars is just infinitely harder target then Moon.
rolph 9mo ago
it just might be be some wisdom taking hold. we know people can exist and be productive in orbit for extended periods. we know people can make it to the moon remain for a time, and perform tasks, then return. energy generation, probably has to be nuclear, structures require low G engineering. we know "robots" can make it to mars and function for extended periods. very probably, there are locations that provide apparent resources required for extended human occupancy, and feasibility of development must be established. energy generation may be wind turbine, or some type of triboelectric harvesting of electric discharges. in both cases, its probably a good plan to pre emptively develop chattels of occupation. the idea of constructing self sufficient fabrication and launch facilities on the moon should be seriously examined.
ben_w 9mo ago
If so, my first guess would be heat shielding. Test-retry cycles are much slower when launch windows are 2 years apart. My second guess would be sabatier machines, which are vital for Mars and pointless on the Moon, and where I've failed to notice even a hint of progress.
tjpnz 9mo ago
To make Mars habitation sustainable you're going to need to launch hundreds of Starships every launch window. Some have speculated that it will take as many as 40 launches to fuel one Starship in orbit. The launch window lasts approximately 780 days so ~5 launches per day just for refueling - if something goes wrong you lose months. For the moon you still have the refueling problem but you don't need to ship nearly as much to make a moon presence sustainable. You're not constrained by launch windows and there will be multiple providers able to plug shortfalls in the coming decades (I'm not sure the same can be said about Mars).

Not likely. Mars is just infinitely harder target then Moon.

rolph 9mo ago

it just might be be some wisdom taking hold. we know people can exist and be productive in orbit for extended periods. we know people can make it to the moon remain for a time, and perform tasks, then return. energy generation, probably has to be nuclear, structures require low G engineering. we know "robots" can make it to mars and function for extended periods. very probably, there are locations that provide apparent resources required for extended human occupancy, and feasibility of development must be established. energy generation may be wind turbine, or some type of triboelectric harvesting of electric discharges. in both cases, its probably a good plan to pre emptively develop chattels of occupation. the idea of constructing self sufficient fabrication and launch facilities on the moon should be seriously examined.

ben_w 9mo ago

If so, my first guess would be heat shielding. Test-retry cycles are much slower when launch windows are 2 years apart. My second guess would be sabatier machines, which are vital for Mars and pointless on the Moon, and where I've failed to notice even a hint of progress.

tjpnz 9mo ago

To make Mars habitation sustainable you're going to need to launch hundreds of Starships every launch window. Some have speculated that it will take as many as 40 launches to fuel one Starship in orbit. The launch window lasts approximately 780 days so ~5 launches per day just for refueling - if something goes wrong you lose months. For the moon you still have the refueling problem but you don't need to ship nearly as much to make a moon presence sustainable. You're not constrained by launch windows and there will be multiple providers able to plug shortfalls in the coming decades (I'm not sure the same can be said about Mars).