5 ms·

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

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 5mo 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 5mo ago
  You have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.
  - estearum 5mo ago
    I don't know what "two" you're referring to, nor what politics.
- panick21_ 5mo ago
  The alternative to Starship needs to solve many of the same problem and is from a less proven company. If they can do it, great but I don't think its more likely.
  - estearum 5mo ago
    They really don't though! Starship chose to structure the problem such that they require this groundbreaking several-things-never-before-done design.
    - panick21_ 5mo ago
      Then tell me how to land 100t on the moon or mars without solving any of these problems. Even if you want to put less then that on the moon, anything but a tiny lander still needs refueling and reusable launch.
      - estearum 5mo ago
        I'm perfectly comfortable with not landing 100t of material on either the moon or Mars. Have yet to hear any compelling argument for why we should except that ermygoerrdd sci-fi!!!11!!
        panick21_ 5mo ago
        Because a base for humans needs lots of cargo and large areas to live in ...
        estearum 5mo ago
        Oh! We need a base because we need a base. Okay that solves it.
        panick21_ 5mo ago
        Ok I misunderstood your argument. The fact is, its the governments planned to build a base. If your opinion is that instead we should build a base at the bottom of the ocean, you are correct, Starship is not a good engineering solution. In fact, anything not in space wouldn't be ideal. But that's a political choice, and Moon base is what NASA and congress are working towards.
  - Zigurd 5mo ago
    Starship is going for a fully reusable upper stage. Google "second system syndrome." This is engineering by fiat. It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability to be demonstrated, and another 10 to make it reliable. And that's generous because it implies that other problems like in orbit refueling will get solved in parallel. How many starship problems have actually been solved in parallel? I became a starship skeptic because I thought the project management was bullshit. Nothing I've seen changes in my mind about that.
    - panick21_ 5mo ago
      I hate the typical "second system syndrome" nonsense. People always only use that for things that fail, while in reality plenty of second systems are good, technically and/or commercially. Starship has come as close to landing an upper stage as its possible on water, and from orbital velocity. That's already a huge accomplishment and the landing on land has also been demonstrated. Problems are constantly being worked on in parallel. Transferring fuel between tanks in the Ship is literally something already tested and that's a big part of the validation of inter-ship fuel transfer. There was even a NASA contract about exactly that. There is parallel work on the launch site, ship the booster and the interior (this is just less visible but its being worked on as we can see from the contract). Orbital refueling can continually be worked on even if some ships fail landings. > It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability Or it could take less ... And even so, if we ever want a serious moon base, an architecture like that is required. The tiny BlueOrigin lander might be ok for flags and footprints but not to deploy serious infrastructure.
      - Zigurd 5mo ago
        The assertion that something like starship is required for a moon base is wild. Why would anyone want to have to rely on a rocket that needs multiple refueling missions before it can even start to go to the moon? The whole starship project is the wrong way to get to the wrong goal.
        panick21_ 5mo ago

estearum 5mo 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 5mo ago
You have to separate the two. There are no good options to 2028. It's just politics.
- estearum 5mo ago
  I don't know what "two" you're referring to, nor what politics.
panick21_ 5mo ago
The alternative to Starship needs to solve many of the same problem and is from a less proven company. If they can do it, great but I don't think its more likely.
- estearum 5mo ago
  They really don't though! Starship chose to structure the problem such that they require this groundbreaking several-things-never-before-done design.
  - panick21_ 5mo ago
    Then tell me how to land 100t on the moon or mars without solving any of these problems. Even if you want to put less then that on the moon, anything but a tiny lander still needs refueling and reusable launch.
    - estearum 5mo ago
      I'm perfectly comfortable with not landing 100t of material on either the moon or Mars. Have yet to hear any compelling argument for why we should except that ermygoerrdd sci-fi!!!11!!
      - panick21_ 5mo ago
        Because a base for humans needs lots of cargo and large areas to live in ...
        estearum 5mo ago
        Oh! We need a base because we need a base. Okay that solves it.
        panick21_ 5mo ago
        Ok I misunderstood your argument. The fact is, its the governments planned to build a base. If your opinion is that instead we should build a base at the bottom of the ocean, you are correct, Starship is not a good engineering solution. In fact, anything not in space wouldn't be ideal. But that's a political choice, and Moon base is what NASA and congress are working towards.
- Zigurd 5mo ago
  Starship is going for a fully reusable upper stage. Google "second system syndrome." This is engineering by fiat. It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability to be demonstrated, and another 10 to make it reliable. And that's generous because it implies that other problems like in orbit refueling will get solved in parallel. How many starship problems have actually been solved in parallel? I became a starship skeptic because I thought the project management was bullshit. Nothing I've seen changes in my mind about that.
  - panick21_ 5mo ago
    I hate the typical "second system syndrome" nonsense. People always only use that for things that fail, while in reality plenty of second systems are good, technically and/or commercially. Starship has come as close to landing an upper stage as its possible on water, and from orbital velocity. That's already a huge accomplishment and the landing on land has also been demonstrated. Problems are constantly being worked on in parallel. Transferring fuel between tanks in the Ship is literally something already tested and that's a big part of the validation of inter-ship fuel transfer. There was even a NASA contract about exactly that. There is parallel work on the launch site, ship the booster and the interior (this is just less visible but its being worked on as we can see from the contract). Orbital refueling can continually be worked on even if some ships fail landings. > It could easily take another 10 years for upper stage reusability Or it could take less ... And even so, if we ever want a serious moon base, an architecture like that is required. The tiny BlueOrigin lander might be ok for flags and footprints but not to deploy serious infrastructure.
    - Zigurd 5mo ago
      The assertion that something like starship is required for a moon base is wild. Why would anyone want to have to rely on a rocket that needs multiple refueling missions before it can even start to go to the moon? The whole starship project is the wrong way to get to the wrong goal.
      - panick21_ 5mo ago