←back to thread

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

(www.cnn.com)
404 points voxleone | 7 comments | 21 Oct 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.18s | source | bottom
Show context
allenrb ◴[21 Oct 25 20:38 UTC] No.45661384[source]▶
There is just so much wrong with this from start to finish. Here are a few things, by no means inclusive:

1. We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting.

2. Nothing based around SLS is remotely serious. The cost and timeline of doing anything with it are unreasonable. It is an absolute dead-end. The SpaceX Super Heavy has been more capable arguably as early as the second flight test and certainly now. They could have built a “dumb” second stage at any time, but aren’t that short-sighted.

3. Blue Origin? I’ve had high hopes for the guys for two decades now. Don’t hold your breath.

4. Anyone else? Really, really don’t hold your breath.

This whole “race to the moon, part II” is almost criminally stupid. Land on the moon when we can accomplish something there, not just to prove we haven’t lost our mojo since Apollo.

replies(37): >>45661569 #>>45661650 #>>45661812 #>>45661864 #>>45662019 #>>45662078 #>>45662268 #>>45662530 #>>45662636 #>>45662805 #>>45662869 #>>45663083 #>>45663232 #>>45663254 #>>45664108 #>>45664333 #>>45664434 #>>45664870 #>>45665102 #>>45665180 #>>45665389 #>>45665607 #>>45665948 #>>45666137 #>>45666225 #>>45666739 #>>45667016 #>>45667353 #>>45667484 #>>45667622 #>>45668139 #>>45668273 #>>45671330 #>>45671920 #>>45674500 #>>45674624 #>>45680644 #
testing22321 ◴[21 Oct 25 21:34 UTC] No.45662019[source]▶
> We’ve already beaten China to the moon by 56 years, 3 months, and some change. And counting

Of course, but there a few things to consider.

1. This is a new race. The olympics happen every four years to see which nation is the current best. It seems it’s time to find out again.

2. The last time the US was dominant was 56 years ago. That’s three generations. Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant. Let’s find out.

replies(4): >>45662154 #>>45662265 #>>45662772 #>>45664846 #
tw04 ◴[21 Oct 25 22:55 UTC] No.45662772[source]▶
>Based on SLS and the comments here, it seems extremely unlikely the US is still dominant.

Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers.

I don't know by what measure you'd say that the US isn's still far, far ahead but I don't know of any other country currently re-using rockets dozens of times. What did I miss?

replies(4): >>45662905 #>>45663157 #>>45663490 #>>45668865 #
1. testing22321 ◴[22 Oct 25 00:17 UTC] No.45663490[source]▶
> Literally every other nation is trying to catch up to Space-X and is nowhere close. An American company, based in American, primarily staffed by American engineers

The whole point of this article, and the NASA admin steps to open up the contract and all of Berger’s recent reporting is that it’s almost a certainty China will beat the US back to the moon.

replies(1): >>45663905 #
2. georgeecollins ◴[22 Oct 25 01:22 UTC] No.45663905[source]▶
It is already too bad that the US's plan to get to the moon was so flawed that it has been delayed again and again and money was wasted.

Let's imagine that China puts people on the moon next year in a method similar to the way the US did it in 1969 (but probably better in some ways). They still are mostly doing something that has been done before by the USA.

In that same year, the USA will probably continue to launch 80% of the rockets to space. Maybe we don't do our next trip to the moon for another five years. But there's good chance by then we will be using much more advanced and reusable rockets. Does that really make the US behind?

I want to see us invest more into space exploration. I think its sad that NASA's plan has been dumb. But getting two or three people to the moon is more about showing that China is capable (which is a very reasonable goal for them) then showing they have some long term advantage.

replies(2): >>45664394 #>>45665294 #
3. testing22321 ◴[22 Oct 25 02:48 UTC] No.45664394[source]▶
China’s plan looks nothing like what was done in 69. They’re going to build a base there, just like the US wants to.
replies(2): >>45665394 #>>45668330 #
4. ◴[22 Oct 25 05:47 UTC] No.45665294[source]▶
5. cryptonector ◴[22 Oct 25 06:08 UTC] No.45665394{3}[source]▶
What a tremendous waste of resources.
replies(1): >>45667132 #
6. tonyhart7 ◴[22 Oct 25 10:34 UTC] No.45667132{4}[source]▶
what do you mean waste of resources????
7. oskarkk ◴[22 Oct 25 12:53 UTC] No.45668330{3}[source]▶
Yeah, their plan is more extended than Apollo, but their initial part of the plan with which they can beat US to the moon is just like Apollo. The later parts of their plan need a rocket which doesn't exist yet (and they recently decided that it will be Starship-like). Meanwhile Starship may be delayed and be later than the first Chinese landing, but it allows to send unprecedented payload to the Moon from the start.