4 ms·

SpaceX rocket set for unintentional moon landing – well, a piece of it anyway

62 points by beardyw 6mo ago

anticensor 6mo ago
Let's make it intentional and controlled then.
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  They should paint a cowboy onto all the ones they aren't trying to re-use. Would fit with the Texas motif of the operation. https://youtu.be/snTaSJk0n_Y?t=48 https://youtu.be/snTaSJk0n_Y?t=48
trueno 6mo ago
inb4 wreckage on the moon that stays there forever
spwa4 6mo ago
What I think is very ironic is that Blue Origin actually beat SpaceX to Mars, after a decade of SpaceX "make life multiplanetary". A few months after Blue Origin did that SpaceX announced now they'll just go to the Moon, no more Mars. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-blue-origin-launch-two-spacecraft-to-study-mars-solar-wind/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-blue-origin-launch-tw...
- dmix 6mo ago
  That article says that Rocket Lab is building the spacecraft designed by NASA. Blue Origin is just launching it. Falcon Heavy launched a spacecraft that used a Mars gravity assist in 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(spacecraft) same with the Europa Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper going to Jupiter
  - dylan604 6mo ago
    They also launched the roadster that has an orbital radius out to the distance of Mars
- GMoromisato 6mo ago
  That's not irony, that's shallow thinking. If you want to "make life multiplanetary" you would do it by building a very large, reusable, refillable rocket that can land 100 tons on Mars. Which is exactly what SpaceX is doing. [p.s.: The drive to land on the moon makes sense in the context of "how can we fund colonizing Mars?" Starlink funded the initial development of Starship. Musk believes (rightly or wrongly) that data centers in orbit and on the moon can fund the next set of projects.]
  - danaw 6mo ago
    also a great way to raise money on abstract and impossible promises, musks specialty
  - michaelmrose 6mo ago
    Data Centers in orbit could be the single dumbest idea Musk has ever expressed. They would be in every respect worse than on land and there is just no solution for heat dissapation. As stupid as the basic idea is the scope he's described is beyond any reasonable endeavor it's nor clear our society could achieve it if it was the singular goal of our species and what for? There is simply no use nor demand for it and it's by no means a durable investment we should have to continue the effort forever to sustain it.
LeoPanthera 6mo ago
"List of artificial objects on the Moon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_... It's a lot more than you might think, and I couldn't find a comprehensive list of the non-spacecraft objects, some of which are hinted at in the first paragraph.
- Polizeiposaune 6mo ago
  The later Apollo missions (13-17) deliberately crashed their 3rd stages into the moon, in part to provide a signal for the seismometer packages left at each of the landing sites. They hit the moon a little faster than the Falcon 9 2nd stage will hit (2.6km/s vs 2.43km/s for the new one). All of those impact sites have been located but the last one wasn't pinpointed until 2016: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moon-mystery-solved-apollo-rocket-impact-site-finally-found/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moon-mystery-solved-apollo-rock...
drivebyhooting 6mo ago
Several times the speed of sound? That is meaningless when there is no media for the sound waves. I think a better unit might be furlongs per fortnight.
- hgoel 6mo ago
  "several times the speed of sound" is obviously just meant to mean really fast to earthlings in relation to their speed of sound.
  - __m 6mo ago
    It’s not a constant on earth either, should have used km/h instead for a relate able number
- ambicapter 6mo ago
  From TFA: > 2.43 kilometers a second, or 1.51 miles a second, or 5,400 miles an hour, or 8,700 kilometers an hour. > There is, of course, no air and no sound on the Moon, so a "Mach number" doesn't really make sense. But if there were air, the speed would be about Mach 7, seven times the speed of sound.
  - roelschroeven 6mo ago
    "If there were air". Air at which temperature though? Th sound of speed, and hence what Mach numbers mean, depends on the temperature of the air. The temperature air would have at the moon's surface? By day or by night? Or the air at Earth's surface? Or at some other altitude?
  - SecretDreams 6mo ago
    How many Machs is the earth moving?
- jghn 6mo ago
  What about giraffe lengths per second?
- 6mo ago
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
flockonus 6mo ago
Curious to see if to what intensity the Moon will "ring like a bell" at this one. ref: https://books.google.ie/books?id=6QAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=popular+science+mar+1970&source=bl&ots=Z3OOgcOG1V&sig=smZ-Uim9lcCPbxHL2IzmvSmvUDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iNR5UPzyHeWViQKSuoDoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%20mar%201970&f=true https://books.google.ie/books?id=6QAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA...
the_king 6mo ago
I cannot wait for Starship to become a real thing, but you have to admit it's way behind schedule. The engines are awesome now.
- eagerpace 6mo ago
  It's so much further advanced than anything anyone else is working on, does it really need to be on schedule? I feel like "on schedule" only pertains to non-research-intensive projects.
  - estearum 6mo ago
    More bigger != more advanced != more economical != more sensical And anyway yes there are programs that are dependent on Starship working on a schedule. If it doesn't work on schedule, those programs will advance without it and the Starship program will eventually fail.
    - eagerpace 6mo ago
      There are so many individual features in this program that have never been done or even attempted before. That's "Advanced" in my book. Yes, they attached it to an overly ambitious program that is rife with delays (and hubris) but the program started on its own, is the best path to making the 2028 landing happen (it won't), and on its own is incredible.
      - estearum 6mo ago
        Starship is at this point probably not even the best path to making a 2028 landing happen. How many of those things that have never been done/attempted before sit downstream of poor strategic decisions?
        eagerpace 6mo ago
        You have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.

62 points by beardyw 6mo ago

anticensor 6mo ago

Let's make it intentional and controlled then.

cucumber3732842 6mo ago
They should paint a cowboy onto all the ones they aren't trying to re-use. Would fit with the Texas motif of the operation. https://youtu.be/snTaSJk0n_Y?t=48 https://youtu.be/snTaSJk0n_Y?t=48

trueno 6mo ago

inb4 wreckage on the moon that stays there forever

spwa4 6mo ago

What I think is very ironic is that Blue Origin actually beat SpaceX to Mars, after a decade of SpaceX "make life multiplanetary". A few months after Blue Origin did that SpaceX announced now they'll just go to the Moon, no more Mars. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-blue-origin-launch-two-spacecraft-to-study-mars-solar-wind/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-blue-origin-launch-tw...

dmix 6mo ago
That article says that Rocket Lab is building the spacecraft designed by NASA. Blue Origin is just launching it. Falcon Heavy launched a spacecraft that used a Mars gravity assist in 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(spacecraft) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psyche_(spacecraft) same with the Europa Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Clipper going to Jupiter
- dylan604 6mo ago
  They also launched the roadster that has an orbital radius out to the distance of Mars
GMoromisato 6mo ago
That's not irony, that's shallow thinking. If you want to "make life multiplanetary" you would do it by building a very large, reusable, refillable rocket that can land 100 tons on Mars. Which is exactly what SpaceX is doing. [p.s.: The drive to land on the moon makes sense in the context of "how can we fund colonizing Mars?" Starlink funded the initial development of Starship. Musk believes (rightly or wrongly) that data centers in orbit and on the moon can fund the next set of projects.]
- danaw 6mo ago
  also a great way to raise money on abstract and impossible promises, musks specialty
- michaelmrose 6mo ago
  Data Centers in orbit could be the single dumbest idea Musk has ever expressed. They would be in every respect worse than on land and there is just no solution for heat dissapation. As stupid as the basic idea is the scope he's described is beyond any reasonable endeavor it's nor clear our society could achieve it if it was the singular goal of our species and what for? There is simply no use nor demand for it and it's by no means a durable investment we should have to continue the effort forever to sustain it.

LeoPanthera 6mo ago

"List of artificial objects on the Moon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_... It's a lot more than you might think, and I couldn't find a comprehensive list of the non-spacecraft objects, some of which are hinted at in the first paragraph.

Polizeiposaune 6mo ago
The later Apollo missions (13-17) deliberately crashed their 3rd stages into the moon, in part to provide a signal for the seismometer packages left at each of the landing sites. They hit the moon a little faster than the Falcon 9 2nd stage will hit (2.6km/s vs 2.43km/s for the new one). All of those impact sites have been located but the last one wasn't pinpointed until 2016: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moon-mystery-solved-apollo-rocket-impact-site-finally-found/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/moon-mystery-solved-apollo-rock...

drivebyhooting 6mo ago

Several times the speed of sound? That is meaningless when there is no media for the sound waves. I think a better unit might be furlongs per fortnight.

hgoel 6mo ago
"several times the speed of sound" is obviously just meant to mean really fast to earthlings in relation to their speed of sound.
- __m 6mo ago
  It’s not a constant on earth either, should have used km/h instead for a relate able number
ambicapter 6mo ago
From TFA: > 2.43 kilometers a second, or 1.51 miles a second, or 5,400 miles an hour, or 8,700 kilometers an hour. > There is, of course, no air and no sound on the Moon, so a "Mach number" doesn't really make sense. But if there were air, the speed would be about Mach 7, seven times the speed of sound.
- roelschroeven 6mo ago
  "If there were air". Air at which temperature though? Th sound of speed, and hence what Mach numbers mean, depends on the temperature of the air. The temperature air would have at the moon's surface? By day or by night? Or the air at Earth's surface? Or at some other altitude?
- SecretDreams 6mo ago
  How many Machs is the earth moving?
jghn 6mo ago
What about giraffe lengths per second?
6mo ago

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

flockonus 6mo ago

Curious to see if to what intensity the Moon will "ring like a bell" at this one. ref: https://books.google.ie/books?id=6QAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=popular+science+mar+1970&source=bl&ots=Z3OOgcOG1V&sig=smZ-Uim9lcCPbxHL2IzmvSmvUDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iNR5UPzyHeWViQKSuoDoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=popular%20science%20mar%201970&f=true https://books.google.ie/books?id=6QAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA...

the_king 6mo ago

I cannot wait for Starship to become a real thing, but you have to admit it's way behind schedule. The engines are awesome now.

eagerpace 6mo ago
It's so much further advanced than anything anyone else is working on, does it really need to be on schedule? I feel like "on schedule" only pertains to non-research-intensive projects.
- estearum 6mo ago
  More bigger != more advanced != more economical != more sensical And anyway yes there are programs that are dependent on Starship working on a schedule. If it doesn't work on schedule, those programs will advance without it and the Starship program will eventually fail.
  - eagerpace 6mo ago
    There are so many individual features in this program that have never been done or even attempted before. That's "Advanced" in my book. Yes, they attached it to an overly ambitious program that is rife with delays (and hubris) but the program started on its own, is the best path to making the 2028 landing happen (it won't), and on its own is incredible.
    - estearum 6mo ago
      Starship is at this point probably not even the best path to making a 2028 landing happen. How many of those things that have never been done/attempted before sit downstream of poor strategic decisions?
      - eagerpace 6mo ago
        You have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.