Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 24-05-2024, 10:01 PM
ChrisD's Avatar
ChrisD (Chris)
Image, Stack, Repeat.

ChrisD is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 262
I don't think SpaceX can get NASA back to the moon

I hope I'm wrong. but with the last launch attempt lasting approx 8 minutes before loss of both vehicles it doesn't look good given that the contract specifies landing on the moon in 2025.

I lived through the Apollo moon landing missions, in fact it was the most inspirational event that i have ever experienced, and I would love to see fresh footprints up there. However, Artemis just appears so unnecessarily complex.

For example, after launch starship will need 15!! further refueling launches to fill its tanks before it leaves for the moon. Starship is huge, they will be landing a 23 storey building on the uneven lunar surface.

I just dont think its realistic.

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 25-05-2024, 10:24 AM
Leo.G (Leo)
Registered User

Leo.G is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lithgow, NSW, Australia
Posts: 599
I guess my concept of an iris type mechanism with stabiliser arms to support the upright vehicle would add too much weight and complexity but I still wonder at Space X trying to stand a pencil on it's end (blunt end thankfully).
I understand they learn from their failures but eventually it becomes a lot of money sunk into the project without much forward motion (advancements).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 25-05-2024, 11:41 AM
Startrek (Martin)
Registered User

Startrek is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Sydney and South Coast NSW
Posts: 6,128
I too grew up through the Apollo era and its was the greatest engineering feat the world has ever witnessed
To look at the Space X Starship program achievements to date is absolutely astounding as a private company
Comparing the Saturn 5 to version 2 Starship is like comparing a kids dinky to a Aston Martin
Version 3 will have a lift off thrust at ground zero of 21 million pounds compared to Saturn 5 at 7.6 million
Starship will eventually be 100% usable
Saturn 5 was 98% disposable
Cost per tonne to orbit is orders of magnitude lower than Saturn 5
Saturn 5 carried 3 crew to the moon and back
Starship will carry up to 100 to Moon , Mars and beyond
So comparing the Apollo program ( Government funded using 400,000 American workers ) to the Starship program ( Privately funded using 5000 staff ) is really difficult.
Starship is not a 2 or 3 year program for success , it’s going to take up 4 or 5 years to hit orbit and return both ship and booster for a safe landing and even longer for interplanetary visits.
Starship will get to the Moon and Mars but not before 2030.
Artemis is going to die a slow death as its old Shuttle technology slapped together into a modified Clayton’s Apollo program. Super Expensive and doesn’t have 100% support of the American people.
Whether you agree or disagree Starship has certainly got me excited about future space travel.
Cant wait for ITF4 next month , if they get through re entry and soft land Starship and Booster then progress will accelerate
Cheers
Martin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 25-05-2024, 11:44 PM
ChrisD's Avatar
ChrisD (Chris)
Image, Stack, Repeat.

ChrisD is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 262
Lets just look at reusability of Starship HLS.

Starship HLS does not have a heat shield, so it's definitely not coming back to Earth (in one piece) and there is no plans to refuel it in the lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit also they don't carry enough fuel to return to LEO so they will be disposed of in heliocentric orbit. So not reusable.

Also with 15+ tanker launches needed just to refuel the Starship to get to the moon for a single landing on the surface, will that be cheaper or more efficient than a single Saturn 5 launch needed for an Apollo mission?

As for privately funded, NASA have already paid $1.83 billion to SpaceX just to see 3 launch vehicle explode. I'm willing to bet that no Apollo era Saturn 5 engineer ever said that "Everything after clearing the tower was icing on the cake." as Kate Tice did. I guess for them failure is an option

Chris
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-05-2024, 08:50 AM
Constant's Avatar
Constant (David)
Registered User

Constant is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The Shire
Posts: 130
Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Startrek View Post
I too grew up through the Apollo era and its was the greatest engineering feat the world has ever witnessed
To look at the Space X Starship program achievements to date is absolutely astounding as a private company
Comparing the Saturn 5 to version 2 Starship is like comparing a kids dinky to a Aston Martin
Version 3 will have a lift off thrust at ground zero of 21 million pounds compared to Saturn 5 at 7.6 million
Starship will eventually be 100% usable
Saturn 5 was 98% disposable
Cost per tonne to orbit is orders of magnitude lower than Saturn 5
Saturn 5 carried 3 crew to the moon and back
Starship will carry up to 100 to Moon , Mars and beyond
So comparing the Apollo program ( Government funded using 400,000 American workers ) to the Starship program ( Privately funded using 5000 staff ) is really difficult.
Starship is not a 2 or 3 year program for success , it’s going to take up 4 or 5 years to hit orbit and return both ship and booster for a safe landing and even longer for interplanetary visits.
Starship will get to the Moon and Mars but not before 2030.
Artemis is going to die a slow death as its old Shuttle technology slapped together into a modified Clayton’s Apollo program. Super Expensive and doesn’t have 100% support of the American people.
Whether you agree or disagree Starship has certainly got me excited about future space travel.
Cant wait for ITF4 next month , if they get through re entry and soft land Starship and Booster then progress will accelerate
Cheers
Martin
The problem, mass or too much of it, Starship carries too much mass. Rather than 10-15 refueling missions of cryogenic fuel and all the losses associated with cryogenics.
Run starship in its current configuration, strap x2 or x4 DUMB solid fuel boosters, make them massive, run a much higher MaxQ the only vectoring via the mighty starship engines. Get the “milk run” refuel done in one mission.
Discarding mass is how the mighty Apollo reached the Moon, landed and return her precious and delicate cargo too their family’s
Run bloody big, dumb ass, solid boosters and our wet dreams become reality, in our lifetimes
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30-05-2024, 09:19 AM
mldee's Avatar
mldee (Mike)
Photon sorter

mldee is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Near Warwick, Qld, Australia
Posts: 656
Dumb-ass rocket engineers

Yep, I'm surprised SpaceX engineers hadn't considered any of these solutions before deciding on their final configuration. /s
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30-05-2024, 05:12 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,632
Martin,
Quote:
So comparing the Apollo program ( Government funded using 400,000 American workers ) to the Starship program ( Privately funded using 5000 staff ) is really difficult.
I wonder if going back to the Moon is so difficult
that 400,000 people is what you actually need to do it?

With all the last rockets launched, blowing up, you wouldn't get
me volunteering to go on one.

Allan
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement