Some have argued that the first interplanetary for starship should be to deliver some sort of floating probe to Venus, if they don't get the moon contract from NASA. The argument has some merit as I recall.TexAgs91 said:
Unless the FAA gets super political, I think SpaceX will go on to the moon & mars whether NASA helps out or not.
The same administration that appointed Nelson controls the FAA. Nelson lobbied the admin for this position and got it despite plenty of opposition. What else will he lobby for and get? Perhaps FAA cooperation?TexAgs91 said:
Unless the FAA gets super political, I think SpaceX will go on to the moon & mars whether NASA helps out or not.
Quote:
For the first time ever, SpaceX has stacked a Super Heavy tank section to its full height, effectively completing assembly of the largest rocket booster ever built.
While a good amount of work still remains to weld the two halves together and connect their preinstalled plumbing and avionics runs, those tasks are largely marginal and will tweak the massive steel tower that's now firmly in one piece. Comprised of 36 of the steel rings also used to assemble Starships, the first Super Heavy prototype serial number BN1 will stand roughly 67 meters (220 ft) tall from the top of its uppermost ring to the tail of its soon-to-be-installed Raptor engines.
At that height, Super Heavy BN1 is just 3 meters (~10 ft) shorter than an entire two-stage Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy rocket the second and third tallest operational rockets today. Of course, Super Heavy is just a booster and SpaceX says the rocket will stand at least 120m (~395 ft) tall with a Starship upper stage and spacecraft installed on top, easily making it the tallest (and likely heaviest) launch vehicle ever assembled.
TexAgs91 said:ABATTBQ11 said:double aught said:But I think SLS still can't land people on the moon in just one launch. Is that correct? If so, another strike against it.Quote:
It's my understanding that SLS is purpose built for going to the moon, while Starship is more for reusable, heavy lift into earth orbit. SLS should be able to put more mass into lunar orbit sooner
Like I mentioned a while back, all this makes Apollo/Saturn that much more impressive.
SLS is just the rocket. It's only responsible for getting the payload there and into lunar orbit. It's the payload's job to land and get back off the surface. SLS could certainly "land" people on the moon in one launch in that sense. Initial Block 1 will have a lunar injection payload of 27(?) time and Block 1B bumps that to 43 with an improved upper stage I believe. Block 2 would have improved boosters (supposed to be able to put 130 tons into LEO) and be used for crewed missions to Mars, but we'll see how that plays out. Starship would require multiple launches to get to the moon. One refueling could deliver 40ish tons. Not sure how or if Starship could get to Mars. I would think it would take multiple refuelings, and that's maybe part of why NASA wants to establish a lunar presence as a hopping off point.
The thing about reusing rockets like SpaceX is doing is that it reduces your payload for a reduction in cost. That's fine (great even for satellite launches), but going to the moon and Mars requires a large payload and a lot of speed. The trade-off is much higher cost for a simpler, more capable launch (in terms of deliverable mass and how far/fast you can send it). It seems like SpaceX will have to figure out in orbit refueling before they can get beyond LEO, but when they do they will be much more cost effective. In the meantime, NASA will push forward with landing on the moon again and possibly Mars.
Saturn V was impressive as it still beats SLS and Starship in capability. It could deliver 50 tons into lunar orbit.
Yeah in orbit refueling will be another game changer. It is absolutely required (or in orbit spacecraft assembly) to do anything other than plant-the-flag missions.
At one point back in the Apollo days, engineers were given a $1000 bonus if they could figure out how to shave a point off the lunar lander. I'm surprised they didn't starve the astronauts before sending them to the moon.
Quote:
(Reuters) - NASA said on Thursday it had signed an agreement with billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX that would focus on avoiding collisions between the agency's spacecraft and the rocket company's large constellation of satellites.
The agreement would enhance data sharing between NASA and Starlink, SpaceX's space internet venture, to ensure both parties are fully aware of the exact location of spacecraft and debris in orbit
Note, that post was around 2 years ago. The current one is 9 meters. The present one is almost ludicrously large, so doubling it again would be....going plaid.hph6203 said:
I had heard next was 12m, and then 18, guess they're skipping the 12m.
That thing is going to be ridiculous.
Mathguy64 said:
So a current BN is set for 28 Raptors. I'm trying to imagine one 4 times as a large needing 100 Raptors. It's a little scary and a little erotic all at the same time.
I haven't thought of that, but that would be cool. I just now have it in the state it's in now. The surrounding area was added this weekend and the construction site cleaned up (still needs more cleaning up). And I want to start working on the launch site next. I'll take a look at some to see if I can help outAg_of_08 said:
Are you working with any of the YouTubers, allowing then to display any of the renders?
They did multiple in the same day for SN10 right?Malachi Constant said:
Just had about a 3 second static fire. Longer than the others, but still very short.
