Definitely works out for whoever is building launch vehicles. Modern decision makers see confidence and associate that with competence in their head. After they write the 9 figure check they have literally bought in to the idea and can't afford to be wrong so they just don't talk about issues, lest they lose their pride/job/pensions.

Edit, this is a reference to the worlds richest con man.

Why we're on the subject, it's also interesting that the current Starship (as previously discussed) doesn't have landing gear to reduce weight, hence the whole "catch and restack" scenario.

Not sure when they plan to test that portion. Of course I guess the LEM was never tested before it landed the first time either.

I don't understand the whole purpose of dropping down into another gravity hole once you've got out of the one here.

Get into space. Collect all that existing garbage (mass). Go collect more mass. Stay there.
In space where you spent all that capitol to get to.

Dumpster diving into another sink seems futile.

It is NASA's program, is it not? SpaceX is just supplying the tools. I don't know if anything has changed since the video below, but the differences seem more complex for good reasons. What is your objection?

Seems like a bargain in comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T8cn2J13-4

Maybe I am missing something because it seems like I am alone here, but Destin and everyone seem to be missing the point of what they are doing. Destin references the video above, but misses the first few lines.

"...[Artemis] has the task of NOT just going to the moon, to create a long term human presence on an around it, but also to prepare for ever-more-complex human missions to Mars."

We can go to the moon using the mission design established by the Apollo missions, but would we be developing a process that gets us closer to going to Mars too? That design might get us to the moon in the simplest and easiest way, but it might be a dead-end-approach to missions beyond the moon.

While it is less efficient to do what they are doing, it is incremental and buildable to future missions to Mars. It is laying the ground work and proving the feasibility of going to Mars. Even if we were to use the simplest, classic approach of going to the moon, we would still need to practice going to the moon the way Artemis plans to do, so we could prepare to go to Mars. In that way, isn't this best?

Also, this is the way we are doing it now for the reasons I highlighted, but it doesn't have to be the only way we do things in the future. There are many governments, and there are other Space companies, and we can have other missions take us to the moon in a simple way for other missions like taking a car, bus, train or plane from one city to the next. There are different ways of doing things, but it doesn't mean one is inherently better. It really depends on the goals of the mission.

What am I missing?

Hmm, that video did not show a Starship lunar lander...

My objection is that upwards of 20 launches of by a factor of two the heaviest-lift rocket ever just to get the lander ready for a single mission to the moon's surface is not good. Originally E.M. said 4-6 launches which obviously was *way* off, but even at 6, that many launches required is going to have greatly increased risk of mission failing, *and* it will be super-expensive. I'm not really a fan of the astronauts having to take a fricking elevator to get to the moons surface and back up into the crew compartment either. Or maybe it'll be a deploying escalator like in old Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Overall it just seems like a terrible way to do this and I don't give it much chance of succeeding.




Yeah, I rate his estimate of $10M/launch about as highly as I rate his original estimate of 4-6 refuelling launches, or his original estimate for base price of Cybertruck or the unbreakableness of its windows:
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/f...rtruck2019.png

The man is consistently *way* optimistic with his "estimates".

Do the math. Even if every ship was $100million then 20 ships would be $2 billion, which is going to be far cheaper than the hundreds of billions NASA spent in the past over several missions. Also, see my last post for more of the rationale on why they are doing what they are doing.

The cost for Starship is already 40% cheaper than Falcon 9 just based on payload size. Over time, the cost should drop more. The economics of growth (Wrights Law) suggest the price can drop considerably, as they reuse rockets and expand from a few launches to hundreds.

Also, the window is thicker than most windows, so it should have held, but it was already cracked from sledge hammers. Here are windows surviving multiple attempts with rocks and with an arrow from a compound bow, so I have no doubt they figured the test would be fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA6kQZYVcFQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZueqR1JDQ8&t=620s

$200 million for two failed missions doesn't seem like that great a deal to me.

In any case, 20 launches of mega rocket for *one* landing mission, it just seems like this approach needs to be rethought...

Lol I guess it's not actually meant to land?

I believe the LEM landing gear was tested on a rig that held it from above to simulate 1/6th gravity. Or maybe I'm getting confused with the flight trainer.

*$2 billion to get just the fuel into earth orbit for one mission. Plus the cost of the fuel they are putting in orbit. Plus the cost of the tanks and mechanisms holding the fuel. Probably still cheaper than developing your own BFR with government procurement laws and other BS.

The rationale is probably to fund development of a domestic heavy launch industry and feel like they are getting their money's worth.

They were tests, not real "missions", regardless of language. There was no mission to do anything except test the capabilities of the ships and systems. They weren't launching anything or anyone at this time. Since it was a test, success is measured if the test provides fruitful data. If this was a typical one way test--a delivery test--then the second test was a success, but it was also a test of recovery, and that didn't work out the second time, even though it managed to complete the critical milestone of hot staging. Even if the tests were a complete success, the ships were going to be scrapped, so overall, things are looking really good for IFT3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX...est_objectives


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX..._flight_test_2

https://www.planetary.org/articles/s...ed-test-flight

$2 billion now, and maybe $200 million in the future. $20 billion to get to the moon now, and maybe $2 billion in the future. Almost guaranteed it isn't going to be $200+ billion like before.

SpaceX has Starlink and other private and government entities with plans to go to space. There may be plans to mine resources in space, besides going to Mars. Destin et. al. is thinking five years ahead, but not fifteen, fifty or hundreds of years ahead, but it seems like there are larger and loftier goals that dictate why NASA and SpaceX is doing what they are doing.

i'm guessing they'll add them on later. I misspoke as well, it's the booster that doesn't have landing legs and is designed to be snagged out of the air.