SpaceX fails to repeat Starship catch, as Trump looks on - eviltoast
  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    The original timeline NASA gave to SpaceX was to have a successful landing on the moon, with humans, and their safe return, in Q2 2025.

    7 months from now.

    You could theoretically refuel the S-IVb, the Apollo/Saturn V third stage, in LEO, with Falcon Heavies…

    …assuming you redesigned both to do refueling in orbit, which has never been accomplished before with huge volumes of cryogenic fuel.

    But you could not actually launch even a completely unfueled, completely dry S-IVb with a Falcon Heavy.

    The S-IVb is about 22ft in diameter.

    The Falcon Heavy’s final ascent rocket is about 12 ft in diameter.

    There’s almost certainly no way that would be aerodynamically stable through launch.

    The service module and lander are just too wide.

    NASA did actually award another contract to Blue Origin (Bezos Private Space Program) for an updated, embiggened Apollo style lander.

    https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/blue-origin-wins-pivotal-nasa-contract-to-develop-a-second-lunar-lander/

    That’s going to be mated to a Locked Martin designed orbiter, and they’ll all launch on the SLS.

    … Assuming the SLS does not also fall (further) behind schedule or suffer from quality control problems.

    A whole lot of SLS is built by Boeing. Not doing so great in the quality control department lately.

    But hey at least one of the things so far has actually completed an uncrewed lunar fly by!

    To conclude: Yes, Space is indeed hard.

    But uh, the last thing Musk said about Starship+Booster is that it will actually have… half… the originally promised payload capacity to LEO.

    … and they’re going to making a Starship+Booster 2, that will have the original promised payload, and then a 3rd version that will have even more!

    If you have to cut your effective payload capacity in half, thats a whole lot more than quality control problems, its fundamental design mishaps.

    • niemcycle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah, the Starship was severely over-promised from the start, especially the payload capacity. I wish there had been more required demonstrations from the beginning, instead of just using the numbers promised by Musk, who is known to inflate numbers for marketing purposes.

      Not to mention the assumption of orbital fuelling working perfectly without even doing any demonstrations at all or pointing to any existing technologies. It’s a very Kerbal Space Program idea but significantly more complex in reality. Especially as now they are planning 5+ refuelling missions per Starship going to the Moon, which is logistically baffling.

    • deltapi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Or…Elon maybe was talking out of his ass when he came up with the original numbers? If he went wildly optimistic on the “if I tell them to do it we’ll do it” attitude it would explain it too.