Near Earth Asteroids

[Loren Pechtel]

Based on my understanding of how Starship works in the context of the Artemis mission profile, it does not appear that its design had any deeper thought than “build giant 50s-looking rocket”.

It has yet to be proven feasible as even an orbital rocket let alone an interplanetary one. Perhaps it will get there but it is a long, long way off. And if Musk pisses away any potential political capital he may have had prior to his maniacal government actions it becomes less likely that he will ever get to Mars.

In most regards the current system outperforms the SLS. Obviously they need to get the kinks out but other than that the SLS is ahead only in having hydrolox engines rather than metholox which becomes of increasing importance as you intend to head farther from Earth.

The “current” system hasn’t even gotten to orbit. Maybe it has the promise of “outperforming” the SLS by some metric you didn’t specify.

But as I understand it, the Artemis mission will require over a dozen starship launches because of all the refueling that will be needed.

It's gone to orbit for all practical purposes. They have deliberately kept the periapsis too low for it to stay up there but the additional burn to actually reach orbit it very low. To be a reasonable test it must hit at basically full orbital energy. His space stuff isn't crocks of shit, unlike pretty much everything else he's done.

You still feeling confident that Starship has “gone to orbit for all practical purposes”? Now they’ll have two FAA investigations on their hands.

Even If Starship only remains part of the Artemis mission profile (instead of becoming the primary rocket) it’s not clear when it will be feasible to get humans back to the Moon.

They’ll have to demonstrate reliability in launches into orbit then fuel transfers. We are likely a couple of years away from seeing that.

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be so sure of a functioning FAA when it comes to regulating Musk. Investigators will have been fired or afraid of being fired for investigating him and the head of the FAA will be a Toadie.

Irrespective of that, the optics of two failed rocket launches raining down over the Caribbean is not great.

Yeah. I don't trust him one bit. Anything where he won't bear the costs would be an issue. But if he wants customers to buy launches he needs to deliver a reliable product. Failures down the road still hurt him.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

In the long run it may indeed be a better performer than SLS but if SLS gets canceled and Starship had to do it all there would certainly be a lengthy delay in the Artemis program.

As it is, the double failures of the Intuitive Machine landers makes something with the vertical profile of Starship a less than ideal moon lander. If one of those fell over on landing there would be no recovery.

 

[Swammerdami]

I wouldn't be so sure of a functioning FAA when it comes to regulating Musk. Investigators will have been fired or afraid of being fired for investigating him and the head of the FAA will be a Toadie.

The conflicts of interest are so blatantly corrupt and criminal that American governance now seems like surreal art, or the Theater of the Absurd or an exaggerated story from The Onion but come to life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

In the long run it may indeed be a better performer than SLS but if SLS gets canceled and Starship had to do it all there would certainly be a lengthy delay in the Artemis program.

As it is, the double failures of the Intuitive Machine landers makes something with the vertical profile of Starship a less than ideal moon lander. If one of those fell over on landing there would be no recovery.

I've played enough KSP to know you have a miserable choice.

Tall and skinny is the what you need to punch through the atmosphere. Short and stout is what you need for uneven terrain landing (Google tells me the LEM could tolerate 40 degrees, not that it would be likely you could actually zero out the velocity well enough.) However, they have much, much better control of picking a landing site. They've done it hundreds of times with the Falcon 9, zero tips despite landing on a heaving surface. (I'm not counting the one where the leg buckled--the leg failure was unrecoverable, the fact that it tipped afterwards is irrelevant.)

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

In the long run it may indeed be a better performer than SLS but if SLS gets canceled and Starship had to do it all there would certainly be a lengthy delay in the Artemis program.

As it is, the double failures of the Intuitive Machine landers makes something with the vertical profile of Starship a less than ideal moon lander. If one of those fell over on landing there would be no recovery.

I've played enough KSP to know you have a miserable choice.

Tall and skinny is the what you need to punch through the atmosphere.

Atmosphere is not a concern for a lunar lander.

Short and stout is what you need for uneven terrain landing (Google tells me the LEM could tolerate 40 degrees, not that it would be likely you could actually zero out the velocity well enough.) However, they have much, much better control of picking a landing site. They've done it hundreds of times with the Falcon 9, zero tips despite landing on a heaving surface. (I'm not counting the one where the leg buckled--the leg failure was unrecoverable, the fact that it tipped afterwards is irrelevant.)

Falcon 9 is not Starship. I am not saying that Starship can't do a lunar landing, just that we are a long way off from being able to demonstrate reliability of that vehicle. Putting people on the Moon is likely not going to happen during a Trump administration and even less likely if SLS gets canceled.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unless SpaceX finds some major flaw in their design that has little to no consequences in fixing, I don't know how far off we are until SpaceX is capable of circling the planet with SpaceX, forget landing on the Moon. I was thinking about the fire suppression stuff they added to the Starship and I was remembering that the best way to fight a fire... is to not allow a fire to start.

Musk's let's break a lot of eggs spaceship design hit a big snag, and they aren't even that far into the program. The Moon is well down the road. Heck, Musk though launching something to Mars was in the next couple of years. The guy is really deluded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

In the long run it may indeed be a better performer than SLS but if SLS gets canceled and Starship had to do it all there would certainly be a lengthy delay in the Artemis program.

As it is, the double failures of the Intuitive Machine landers makes something with the vertical profile of Starship a less than ideal moon lander. If one of those fell over on landing there would be no recovery.

I've played enough KSP to know you have a miserable choice.

Tall and skinny is the what you need to punch through the atmosphere.

Atmosphere is not a concern for a lunar lander.

Unless you're planning to assemble it in space it is.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, he's got some problems. It's certainly not ready to ride but that's a matter of ironing out the kinks. But it's a lift platform that outperforms SLS for a tenth the price, the only downside being metholox rather than hydrolox engines which is relevant if you're planning an additional big burn.

In the long run it may indeed be a better performer than SLS but if SLS gets canceled and Starship had to do it all there would certainly be a lengthy delay in the Artemis program.

As it is, the double failures of the Intuitive Machine landers makes something with the vertical profile of Starship a less than ideal moon lander. If one of those fell over on landing there would be no recovery.

I've played enough KSP to know you have a miserable choice.

Tall and skinny is the what you need to punch through the atmosphere.

Atmosphere is not a concern for a lunar lander.

Unless you're planning to assemble it in space it is.

Or launch it in a shroud, like most satellites, or in a rocket section, like Apollo.

Yes, I agree if you want something that takes off with the astronauts from earth, lands on the moon, and returns them to earth without major vehicle configuration changes. However that is very far away and not the current plan for Artemis 3 as I understand it. There’s no specific need for a Starship to be the lunar lander in the current profile.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unless SpaceX finds some major flaw in their design that has little to no consequences in fixing, I don't know how far off we are until SpaceX is capable of circling the planet with SpaceX, forget landing on the Moon. I was thinking about the fire suppression stuff they added to the Starship and I was remembering that the best way to fight a fire... is to not allow a fire to start.

Musk's let's break a lot of eggs spaceship design hit a big snag, and they aren't even that far into the program. The Moon is well down the road. Heck, Musk though launching something to Mars was in the next couple of years. The guy is really deluded.

Yeah, it's hit snags. However, when it fails it just means a rocket blows up--I think he's right in being aggressive about flight testing.

Doing it with a country is quite another matter. I'm afraid we're facing a Mao, even worse than a Hitler.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Atmosphere is not a concern for a lunar lander.

Unless you're planning to assemble it in space it is.

Or launch it in a shroud, like most satellites, or in a rocket section, like Apollo.

Yes, I agree if you want something that takes off with the astronauts from earth, lands on the moon, and returns them to earth without major vehicle configuration changes. However that is very far away and not the current plan for Artemis 3 as I understand it. There’s no specific need for a Starship to be the lunar lander in the current profile.

Doesn't keep it from being fat and draggy. Shrouds that stick out past the rocket body cost you in drag. Besides, note that normal rockets jettison their shroud based on thermal load on the cargo rather than because of drag loss. I don't know where having an uneven shape costs you more than the shroud weight but it's not the criteria for shroud jettison.