Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
I'd call the 1st launch an abject failure, mainly due to someone not believing massive amounts of water is *required* to reduce acoustic energy into the bottom of the ship along with a dozen or so other considerations, and also thinking it'd be cute to launch on "4/20".
2nd launch I'd agree *mostly* successful, but still, failure of booster and failure of Starship.
If it works, it works, but I still have my doubts that it can be made reliable enough to launch 20 times in a short enough time to fully tank a lunar lander. It's just a hideously inelegant solution, stark contrast to Apollo.
I do have to think there must be a *much* better way...
Another thing is I think that they expanded mission scope vs. Apollo too much. It's a BIG step from setting 2 people down on the moon for a day or so and bringing them straight back.
Anyway, we shall see...
|
There was a plan to put a metal plate, but yes, they wanted to get the ship launched on 4/20, yet the engineers were under the impression that the deck would hold for several more launches before it NEEDED to be reinforced. That was an expensive and unfortunate miscalculation.
I agree that it isn't elegant and seems overcomplicated, but only in relation to Apollo. In light of what they plan to do for Mars, it seems entirely necessary. We basically need an ISS around the moon like we do earth.
I agree too. We will have to wait and see.