• surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    44 minutes ago

    Every single current effort for a Mars journey is poorly planned PR nonsense.

    We’re putting the cart before the horse. We should not be wasting this much resources & effort into human spaceflight beyond the moon. We should be working to capture mineral rich asteroids, bring them into a Lagrange point, and start working on autonomous mining/refining/manufacturing from the asteroids.

    This is key to human colonization of the solar system. Trying to launch everything we’ll need from out of the gravity well is stupid. Once we have autonomous space manufacturing perfected, we can have massive spacecraft delivered to earth, and all we need launch is the personnel and their food. We can also have bases built at our destination point long before any humans arrive.

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 hours ago

    it’s very goofy to see the difference in attitude for any post involving obviously spacex things between lemmy and normal spaceflight communities lmao

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Is it true that starship will have less payload weight to LEO than all other SpaceX rockets?

  • Poach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I mean SpaceX is only about 5 years and $5 billion behind in their timeline and budget to go to the moon. So, Starship doesn’t seem to be a serious vehicle.

    • Bimfred@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      People love bringing up that Starship was supposed to be doing round trips to the Moon and Mars by now, but when has anything space ever been on budget, in time, and working perfectly on the first try? Every new launch vehicle takes longer and more money than initial optimistic predictions state. Damn near every probe and telescope is years over deadlines and often a significant percentage of first estimates over budget.

    • 9bananas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      i mean…going to the moon be expensive

      the u.s. spent about 96 billion on launch vehicles alone so getting stretching those 5 billion as far they did is pretty impressive in comparison!

      sure, it’s taking longer than musk claimed, but pretty much everyone else said from the very beginning that musk’s timeline is unrealistic…

      god i hate that idiot…spaceX could be so much better at what it does without him…

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m sure that leaking methane into the upper atmosphere will have only beneficial affects to our climate.

        • Kitathalla@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          26 minutes ago

          Except for that whole ‘atmosphere extends 100,000 miles past the moon’ bit that was recently acknowledged, but I do get what you mean. ;)

  • tomatolung
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Well, he’s not wrong technically, but the context feels like it’s obviously missing. We have no Saturn V vehicles anymore, nor can we build them again. Starship might require that many launches to get to TLI, but with reusability, it probably can. Not to mention that the cost will come down a bit. So it can at least do it soon.

    I’m sure others have more coherent and thought out rebuttals.

    • subignition@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      why can’t we build them again? were the blueprints and knowledge lost? deliberately destroyed? genuine question

      • Bimfred@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The production lines are shut down and any custom tooling has had its materials reclaimed to make other things. The institutional knowledge, the little bits that never got written down in the blueprints or manufacturing instructions, it’s all gone. The people who worked on that rocket and its components are dead or have been working on something else for the last 50 years. How well would you remember some little tidbit of information that you last needed half a lifetime ago?

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Because it is based on obsolete technology. You wouldn’t want to build a flight computer with hard-wired (as in literal wires) software, would you? A lot of it would also have to be reverse engineered, to the point where you might as well build a new vehicle.

        • Amon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          You wouldn’t want to build a flight computer with hard-wired (as in literal wires) software

          We can use an FPGA for that

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            The software was the thing that was in the wires, not I/O.

            The wires would be replaced by FLASH memory.

            • Amon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              58 minutes ago

              Wouldn’t they use a MROM or something instead, because flash memory can be quite volatile in the extreme conditions?

      • sprittytinkles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Because a lot of “Released Engineering Documents” were just engineering notebooks, and each vehicle was different, even the parts that were supposed to be the same. There was a lot of “repair” versus “rework” disposition, and a “Just make it work; it only needs to work once” culture.

        Basically, because it was a race against the Russians, and the Russians were winning.

        • subignition@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          12 hours ago

          huh, impressive that we did a (relatively) slapdash job of it and still pulled it off. Thanks for clarifying.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Ignoring the onvious fact that Starship has been designed from the beginning for going to Mars and SLS only to go to the Moon…

    Didn’t even the first Starship generation theoretically have a higher payload capacity than the SLS Block 2? And that doesn’t even include the further enhancements to the ship design and Raptor updates since.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Could you explain to us how a vehicle capable of getting payload to Mars would not be capable of putting the same or even a greater payload on the moon? What is the obvious difference in design?

      As far as I understand it, getting to Mars is harder, requiring more energy to get there, more energy to slow down and having an atmosphere to content with. Sure aerobraking is a thing, but in the big picture having to deal with an atmosphere makes things harder and not easier.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        delta v isn’t really a issue if you have orbital refueling and frequent+cheap flights figured out (as long as a full tank can complete a trans Martian injection and orbital capture at mars) , so I’d say they’re both similarly difficult:

        on Mars you have to deal with the atmosphere, higher gravity, etc

        on the moon you have to deal with the dusty surface, so you have issues with landing gear and landing engines kicking up dust

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I saw a graph of our local gravity wells, the moon and Mars are surprisingly similar. The moon has many extra challenges that Mars does not. Propulsively landing on a dust pile is trickier than slowing down with aerobraking.

        • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          And to land on Mars you need both, ideally. The athmosphere is too thin to rely on just aerobreaking and the other would use much more propulsion.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Didn’t even the first Starship generation theoretically have a higher payload capacity than the SLS Block 2?

      No? SLS block 2 is 130 tons to LEO. Starship “block 1” did “about 50 tons” according to one of Musk’s update videos with SpaceX, promising Starship 2 would do 100 tons.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        After years of saying Starship can do 100 tons to LEO… 'Block 1’s actual proven payload capacity is ‘a banana’… not 50 tons.

        Starship has never launched any actual payload to orbit.

        Anyway, onto ‘Block 2’, that’ll be able to do what ‘Block 1’ was aupposed to do, even though none of the contracts Musk’s signed to develop Starship have any mention of different Blocks… but its ok because Block 3 will do 150 tons!

        Just like how Hyperloop is an idea that makes any sense and will work.

        Just like how FSD is will be complete and ready in 2017.

        Just like how Solar Roof tiles are totally real and not completely fake.

        Just like how Tesla cars will be able to fly with monopropellant thrusters.

        Just like how Elon is a free speech absolutist except when people mock or disagree with him.

        As with basically all of Musk’s promises to shareholders and aspirations presented as facts at publicized events since about 2014… what Musk says is all almost entirely bullshit, and anyone would be a fool to take him at his word.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          but its ok because Block 3 will do 150 tons!

          When we were on the “4 ships to Mars in 2024” promises, it was 150 tons for the first edition

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 hours ago

        And knowing that everything Musk says has turned out to be total BS, who knows what the actual number is. So far no Starship has been to LEO and hasn’t carried any payload. Sure the last one carried a banana and technically made it to orbital speeds before plunging back into the atmosphere. That’s a long way from actually doing the thing and putting 50 tons into LEO.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Wait, are you saying we won’t have 4 starships on Mars before 2024 is over?

          I intentionally picked the most generous interpretation, and even that isn’t great