Quoted:


I don't really understand that myself either.  A long line of administrations have been promising that we'd be going to Mars ... so I am not really sure where/when the "let's go back to the moon and repeat stuff we already did in the 60s and 70s" came from.  

If it wasn't for various gov/NASA contracts related to the moon, I wonder if SpaceX would actually be interested in the moon, or would be focusing directly on Mars.

Quoted:

EUS is being built so..

Quoted:


I guess I have become somewhat jaded and skeptical.

I agree that it would be cool and awesome to build a permanent base on the moon, and to develop all sorts of technologies - like mining, resource extraction, manufacturing, etc. ... that could be useful on Mars.

But I am not convinced it is going to happen.  As far as I can tell, NASA's mission now seems to be that they want to put "a woman" on the moon, so they can say they did it.  From their website, their goal is very clear:  "During the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon,

Then there's a lot of vague talk and "maybes" and "possibles" about a base and a permanent presence, so that we can eventually go to Mars ...that sounds about as credible and likely as when Bush I said we were going to Mars, and when Clinton said we were going to Mars, etc.  

Elon Musk might be borderline crazy, but he has a VERY CLEAR goal and reason for going to Mars.  It's not so we can check a box, or for bragging rights ... it's for eventual colonization.  That is what is driving his program - a clear outcome.

I am not sure I understand what NASA's actual goal/plan for the moon is, or what the outcome is - beyond just being able to say they out a woman on the moon.  

Quoted:



I can think of two good reasons:

1)  We have to build (or re-build) the infrastructure both in terms of industry and talent to support a Mars mission.  If we really want to do more than just plant a flag on Mars, then we need to build a true Space Industrial Complex and those costs have to be endemic to the Federal budget in the same way that our military is.  Establishing a permanent presence on the moon and getting good at making regular round trips serves that goal.  You need kids in high school today to start being sucked in to career paths to that end so that 10-15 years from now, we have talent pool available to support going to Mars.  You need companies to recognize that there may be an ongoing several hundred billion dollar market in space to encourage them to make the investments in plants, property and equipment.  Kind of like what SpaceX is doing now in Texas on their own dime but taken ALL the way down the supply chain.  SpaceX may be forward looking but most companies need dollars and goals dangled out in front of them to start making those investments.

All of the industry, people, and technology that gets developed to support a permanent presence on the moon will ultimately only make a Mars mission more robust.

2)  It's a national security issue and ultra long term cultural priority.  As far as I know, there will only ever be one moon in orbit around Earth and there may only be one chance to establish a first mover advantage.  I know this is far out and it may be difficult to rationalize any benefits of devoting a permanent presence to the moon BUT I am also aware from history that both the Louisiana purchase and buying Alaska from Russia were considered follies at the time in certain circles.

I'd rather we move in the direction of owning that rock first and then having the luxury of deciding it's importance later.  Nothing says ownership quite like possession not matter what "official" treaties dictate.




I'd be happy to be wrong, but it is my opinion that most people greatly underestimate the timeline to get to Mars and what it will take.  I honestly think we won't see boots on the ground on Mars until long after going to the Moon is routine, Earth launches are damn near daily, and the ISS is a quaint obsolete structure in orbit compared to newer larger stations that are built with a reliance on super heavy launch vehicles like Starship or SLS.

Quoted:


A close friend of mine worked x-33. The tank design turned into a huge issue. Composite tank wasn't working. They could have used a metal tank and flown easily. That wasn't what the customer wanted. In order to make the requirement for the tank, redesign was required since it wouldn't fit the vehicle and a standoff of who was going to pay for it got the program killed.

Quoted:


As I said earlier in one of these threads, the US should be spending 1-2% of GDP on space between the Space Force and NASA.

Go ahead and take it right out of the military. The current MIC is irreparably broken, and playing "World Police" is a titanic waste of fucking money, especially now that we are energy-independent. Owning the ultimate high ground will give us a greater military advantage anyway than regime-changing Asscrackistan for the umpty-ninth time.

Quoted:



I think SLS has a purpose at this point.

But....


If starship is successfully launching 150tons for 5+ refueling flights for every lunar landing I don't think we'll need EUS or probably SLS for many more years.

Quoted:
The last time the US relied on one launch system it caused the US govt to force the formation of ULA.

Quoted:


The metal tank weighed less and would have worked. It didn't meet the desire to use the latest technology which at the time was still, new. The composite tank was getting fatter with every design hurdle.

Quoted:
SSTOs are generally a losing proposition mathematically in Earth's gravity well though.

Quoted:
No SSTO (from Earth) can manage more than about 7% payload, and that includes life-support. It MIGHT work for ferrying a few astronauts, but that's it.

Quoted:

EUS is being built so..

Quoted:


The metal tank weighed less and would have worked. It didn't meet the desire to use the latest technology which at the time was still, new. The composite tank was getting fatter with every design hurdle.



https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

Quoted:





Oh fuck!

Was the X33 SkunkWorks last hurrah?

Oh damn. That hurts.oof.

Quoted:





Oh fuck!

Was the X33 SkunkWorks last hurrah?

Oh damn. That hurts.oof.

Quoted:
No SSTO (from Earth) can manage more than about 7% payload, and that includes life-support. It MIGHT work for ferrying a few astronauts, but that's it.

Quoted:


VentureStar would have been about 1,000 tonnes GTOW to deliver 20 tonnes to orbit. 2%. It probably would have been less than that after a few engineering rounds.

I'm 100% certain that a Venture Star would cost more than a Starship + Superheavy to make. 900 tonnes of hydrolox fuel also costs more than the 4,600 tonnes of methalox fuel SS+SH will use. So roughly the same of higher costs for 1/7th the payload.

The math for SSTO on Earth is pretty oppressive.

Quoted:



Starship at 100million a shot? Or the fairyland 2million a shot?

20tonto orbit with crew for 200 million is absolute game changer and would have been 10 years ago.


Far far better than anything commercial crew has accomplished.

Quoted:


Starship will cost a lot less than $100m, lol. It's likely that they don't even cost that much to build right now. (Again, thank god they ditched composites)

Under $20m at first is a very easy target, perhaps $5m once they get the "rapid" part down.

Venture Star also couldn't do 20tonnes and crew at the same time (and bringing crew along on a cargo flight is a waste of resources anyway, TBH). A lot of the mass assumptions in that program (and most SSTOs) are also somewhat unrealistic.

Beyond LEO performance of the system is also poor.

Quoted:
Also, I'd hope VentureStar would be capable of much less than $200m/launch... It should have been.

Quoted:



If starship can do 100mil a shot in 2023 that would change everything. That will actually effect the average persons life. Wow. Incredible.


I’m just saying venturestar would have been amazing. It would have been awesome and it would have furthered our capabilities immensely. If it was cheap (less than 300mil) and quick(1 month) turn around.

It would be a juggernaut still dominating today.

Quoted:


Starship should easily cost much less than that. Again, the biggest cost to rockets is throwing away multimillion dollar aerospace equipment.

VentureStar should have been able to easily beat expendables (hopefully), But Starship is a superior system.

Quoted:


Starship should easily cost much less than that. Again, the biggest cost to rockets is throwing away multimillion dollar aerospace equipment.

VentureStar should have been able to easily beat expendables (hopefully), But Starship is a superior system.

Quoted:



TBF, Comparing anything to final form starship is comparing a saint to Jesus and talking about the saints faults.

Quoted:

The Human Landing System program needs competition, not the delay of starting over. The National Team has an open architecture, deep experience, massive self-funded investments and a safe, low-risk design to return to the Moon. Let’s go. #Artemis

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Here’s a snapshot of the progress that the National Team has already made to land Americans on the Moon. https://t.co/nMACzvne9g

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Quoted:

The Human Landing System program needs competition, not the delay of starting over. The National Team has an open architecture, deep experience, massive self-funded investments and a safe, low-risk design to return to the Moon. Let’s go. #Artemis

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Here’s a snapshot of the progress that the National Team has already made to land Americans on the Moon. https://t.co/nMACzvne9g

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Quoted:
Eh I'd rather two HLS competitors than 1.


It wouldn't take a dime from spacex but it would give them at least a pacer horse that they could motivate themselves against.

Also non similar redundancy.

Quoted:
Eh I’d rather two HLS competitors than 1.


It wouldn’t take a dime from spacex but it would give them at least a pacer horse that they could motivate themselves against.

Also non similar redundancy.

Quoted:
True but the capabilities of the two designs are so vastly different... One being so vastly superior to the other that they can't truly be called competitors.

I would love for there to be a competitor... If someone could do even half of the down mass of Starship for twice the price I'd be happy.  

None of the so called competitors can achieve even that.

Quoted:




In theory more money and 1/10 the ambitious ness should equate to being done faster right?

Quoted:
True but the capabilities of the two designs are so vastly different... One being so vastly superior to the other that they can't truly be called competitors.

I would love for there to be a competitor... If someone could do even half of the down mass of Starship for twice the price I'd be happy.  

None of the so called competitors can achieve even that.

Quoted:

The Human Landing System program needs competition, not the delay of starting over. The National Team has an open architecture, deep experience, massive self-funded investments and a safe, low-risk design to return to the Moon. Let’s go. #Artemis

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Here’s a snapshot of the progress that the National Team has already made to land Americans on the Moon. https://t.co/nMACzvne9g

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Quoted:

The Human Landing System program needs competition, not the delay of starting over. The National Team has an open architecture, deep experience, massive self-funded investments and a safe, low-risk design to return to the Moon. Let’s go. #Artemis

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021

Here’s a snapshot of the progress that the National Team has already made to land Americans on the Moon. https://t.co/nMACzvne9g

Blue Origin  (@blueorigin) May 27, 2021