Most active commenters
  • foxyv(6)
  • terminalshort(3)

←back to thread

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

(www.cnn.com)
404 points voxleone | 15 comments | 21 Oct 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
namlem ◴[21 Oct 25 15:28 UTC] No.45657019[source]▶
This would be such a dumb move on the government's part. "Lose the new space race" is ridiculous PR-brain. We are not racing to the same goal! China is trying to land on the moon, we are trying to establish a permanent presence. There is no value to merely returning to the moon to say we did it, and Starship is the only vehicle that can plausibly deliver huge quantities of cargo to the lunar surface.
replies(2): >>45657163 #>>45658738 #
1. foxyv ◴[21 Oct 25 17:31 UTC] No.45658738[source]▶
Starship has yet to demonstrate that capability. They would need to show rapid re-usability for it to be viable. Not to mention docking and orbital re-fueling.

Falcon Heavy seems to have that capability though. I suspect that Starship will have similar cost to Falcon Heavy when they get done with it. Maybe marginally cheaper. The re-entry problem is really throwing a wrench into things.

replies(2): >>45659996 #>>45660576 #
2. terminalshort ◴[21 Oct 25 18:53 UTC] No.45659996[source]▶
SpaceX has already successfully landed and reused a booster, which is the most expensive part of the rocket. As for the reentry problem, that seems to have been solved in the last couple of test flights. Still much more economically viable than SLS even if they can't reuse the upper stage.
replies(2): >>45660365 #>>45662214 #
3. HippyTed ◴[21 Oct 25 19:19 UTC] No.45660365[source]▶
As someone who is a tad skeptical of SpaceX duevto their side claims, I have to give it to them, that last launch of Starship proved they are making some real progress again. Wasnt looking good at the start of the year but now their re-entries are doing fairly well.
replies(1): >>45670568 #
4. imtringued ◴[21 Oct 25 19:33 UTC] No.45660576[source]▶
One thing I don't understand about Musk and his Mars obsession is that he has had a rocket that can launch stuff to Mars for years now and he didn't even bother with the tiniest pilot project just for PR purposes. He is not sending rovers, satellites or living plants on a journey to Mars.

Even if by some miracle Starship carries people to Mars, there won't be anything for them to do there. They'll be stuck in their Starship and that would be the end of that mission, since there isn't even a plan to return.

replies(2): >>45660757 #>>45663125 #
5. oceanplexian ◴[21 Oct 25 19:47 UTC] No.45660757[source]▶
When humans get to Mars the infrastructure will already be there waiting for them. The plan is to send unmanned Starships to Mars basically as soon as it's flight proven.
6. foxyv ◴[21 Oct 25 21:54 UTC] No.45662214[source]▶
Booster re-usability is only the first half of the problem. It's the second stage re-usability that makes Starship viable despite its massive second stage. The re-entry heating is trashing their second stages which would make the killer feature of Starship, fast turnaround, impractical.

Also, as far as I can tell from their last test video, they are still shredding their Flaperons at the joint.

replies(2): >>45662365 #>>45663362 #
7. m4rtink ◴[21 Oct 25 22:09 UTC] No.45662365{3}[source]▶
I don't think there were any visible burn throughs this way around at the flaps.
8. cubefox ◴[21 Oct 25 23:34 UTC] No.45663125[source]▶
Starship (the upper stage) can launch from Mars and bring humans back to Earth. The problem is that they need a lot of propellant to do this, and they can't bring that much from Earth. Their current plan is to generate it on Mars, which requires complex infrastructure built by unmanned missions. A simpler approach could be developing a smaller ascent vehicle:

https://spacenews.com/how-carrying-enough-water-to-make-retu...

https://spacenews.com/crewed-mars-missions-will-require-a-ne...

But I'm sure that approach also has drawbacks.

9. terminalshort ◴[22 Oct 25 00:03 UTC] No.45663362{3}[source]▶
Who cares? Even if they never solve the flap issue, the cost of bolting on new flaps every flight is minimal.
replies(1): >>45663787 #
10. foxyv ◴[22 Oct 25 01:02 UTC] No.45663787{4}[source]▶
That's like bolting new wings on a 777 after every flight. It's going to cost a LOT and you won't be able to just load up fuel/passengers and take off again.

I'm sure SpaceX will eventually fix the problem. They are well funded, the materials exist, and they have amazing engineers. They just haven't reached that point yet.

replies(2): >>45664628 #>>45664813 #
11. terminalshort ◴[22 Oct 25 03:25 UTC] No.45664628{5}[source]▶
When the current industry standard is that the whole 777 is replaced every flight, that's one hell of an improvement.
replies(1): >>45670486 #
12. postingawayonhn ◴[22 Oct 25 04:09 UTC] No.45664813{5}[source]▶
'Cost a LOT' is relative though.

Expensive compared to a 777 flight? Sure. Expensive compared to every other moon capable rocket? No.

replies(1): >>45670301 #
13. foxyv ◴[22 Oct 25 15:07 UTC] No.45670301{6}[source]▶
But is it going to be cheaper than Falcon Heavy?
14. foxyv ◴[22 Oct 25 15:18 UTC] No.45670486{6}[source]▶
That isn't the industry standard anymore thanks to SpaceX. Starship isn't competing with Saturn 9 and the Space Shuttle, it is competing with Falcon Heavy. If the second stage cannot be re-used then you may as well launch a much cheaper second stage that isn't rated for re-entry like Dragon.
15. foxyv ◴[22 Oct 25 15:24 UTC] No.45670568{3}[source]▶
I agree, they are doing a great job with Starship so far. I think they were overly optimistic at first (Typical Engineering Management Thing), but their Raptor engines alone are a huge advancement. The rest of Starship is coming together great.

They have set a hard goal, but they definitely have the expertise to make it work. I look forward to seeing the first orbital re-fueling.