←back to thread

NASA chief suggests SpaceX may be booted from moon mission

(www.cnn.com)
404 points voxleone | 2 comments | 21 Oct 25 12:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
tibbydudeza ◴[21 Oct 25 21:15 UTC] No.45661812[source]▶
The Chinese is planning a space habitat - the US is aiming for the same - it is rather different from the Apollo objectives.

Mars is out of reach and not feasible.

replies(1): >>45661843 #
thinkingtoilet ◴[21 Oct 25 21:18 UTC] No.45661843[source]▶
Mars is entirely within reach if we wanted to dedicate the resources to it. If we can get to the moon over 50 years ago, Mars is nothing today. I don't necessarily think it would be worth it given the cost, but it is totally possible if it was a priority.
replies(4): >>45661898 #>>45661909 #>>45662372 #>>45662536 #
tibbydudeza ◴[21 Oct 25 21:23 UTC] No.45661909[source]▶
To what end ?.

Mars is a total boondoggle - a colony would require constant supply runs from Earth to support a double-digit population - who is going to field the cost and what are they going to do there ?.

"The Martian" was work of fiction.

A lunar colony is cheaper and way more feasible.

replies(3): >>45661945 #>>45662089 #>>45662826 #
Xss3 ◴[21 Oct 25 23:00 UTC] No.45662826{3}[source]▶
Even a Venusian colony would be significantly more viable than mars.

Mars sucks. The moon sucks too. We need rotating space habitats. With gravity and hookers.

replies(1): >>45663092 #
viraptor ◴[21 Oct 25 23:29 UTC] No.45663092{4}[source]▶
I'm not sure 500⁰C and 100x earth pressure is in any range of viable...
replies(2): >>45664376 #>>45664507 #
Xss3 ◴[22 Oct 25 03:05 UTC] No.45664507{5}[source]▶
No, the surface sucks. The clouds are where its at.
replies(1): >>45669130 #
dotnet00 ◴[22 Oct 25 13:49 UTC] No.45669130{6}[source]▶
The clouds are even less viable, every resource would have to be imported from space.

Mars is infinitely more viable than anywhere in Venus for the simple fact that you are on solid ground with resources all around you.

replies(1): >>45670651 #
1. Xss3 ◴[22 Oct 25 15:30 UTC] No.45670651{7}[source]▶
I haven't seen any evidence we could actually harness the resources on mars without tech that doesn't exist. E.g. fusion power.

Without orbital infrastructure shipping supplies in neither are viable.

replies(1): >>45670849 #
2. dotnet00 ◴[22 Oct 25 15:43 UTC] No.45670849[source]▶
You don't need fusion power to melt ice, to move regolith over habitats for shielding, or to melt rocks to extract and process metals. I have absolutely no idea where you get the notion that it meeds fusion power? Solar power or things like kilopower reactors are a great option for Mars, especially for bootstrapping.