Space and Science BS Thread

The point is that every other rocket company would be and does use concrete blocks as payloads for their prototype launches. The value of the concrete blocks is for payload simulation, without risking an actual payload. Spacex from a financial perspective should be using concrete, and the only reason they didn't is because in Elon's own words "that's boring". As for building a stripped down buggy, it's just not likely. Putting a cybertruck in the rocket is simple. It's already made, and takes very little extra time. Having something that isn't going to be used again, also means that they don't have to worry about going through the process of proofing with NASA, which even the simplest moon buggies would have to go through. They're not going to want to throw astronauts on a gokart that was thrown together in a hurry, only to have it break down several miles from the moon base, and then have astronauts suffocate on the hike back. It also has the added benefit of being advertisable for both of his companies. It could literally be advertised as the only truck to be driven on the moon.

 

Pardon the interruption:

I don’t think that’s the plan.

• Starship HLS launch
• A bunch of (7 or more) Tanker Starships to refuel
• Rendezvous with Starliner at Gateway
• Go to surface of Moon
• Return to Gateway
• Astronauts take Starliner home.

I think further refueling in LEO then teturn to Gateway.

Back to the debate at hand

 

That’s a good point but then it also applies to the truck if NASA has its way. Starship doesn’t have the grid fins so it can’t be caught and isn’t designed to land here necessitating a water drop on any test launches. It IS designed to land on the moon so any that go there shouldn’t waste the opportunity to learn from an attempt. Any cargo at all becomes pricesless if successful unless it’s just bricks so the choice of test cargo should consider that as well. Sub orbital test launches don’t have that upside in play.

 

https://twitter.com/airandspace/status/1454843113676197897?s=21

 

I've heard current and former X engineers discuss how Elon always wanted to launch/land Starship from a offshore Oil Rig(s) where they produce their own Methane. Supposedly they own two already.

Starship is too powerful for Kennedy, that's why they are in Boca Chica.

 

Rumors I know…
https://spaceexplored.com/2021/10/26/scoop-improvements-coming-to-spacex-launch-pad-hint-at-big-things-coming-to-slc-40/

 

Today’s the last day to submit comments for the SpX Starship License in Boca Chica, TX.

 

Starbase is 20 miles from Brownsville, while 40 is further from Titusville than 39A, it's still in the range of 10-13 miles on a straight line. There will be carnage if Starship launches from KSC.

I think Elon likes being away from the watchful eye of NASA brass as well.

 

I don’t think that’s possible when it comes to a privately owned company landing NASA astronauts on the Moon.

 

Nasa employees haven't been on site since March of '20. How much oversight can you have from the recliner?

 

And that still leaves the big problem of PR. If they crash a rocket into the moon loaded with supplies every media outlet will be reporting it as "SpaceX loses rocket filled with valuable, essential supplies". They are held to a higher standard and their competitors would love for that story to be in the headlines. A perfect example of this already happening to them is here.

https://youtu.be/N8A1kukGVc0

 

They were originally building starship in both Kennedy and Boca chica. They consolidated it because it accelerates things like revisions. Elon has said they will eventually return to Kennedy though.

The choice for oil rigs is a brilliant one. It limits risk to people, and creates a system that can be implemented worldwide. Texas also happens to be home to many construction companies with experience building and modifying oil rigs. Boca chica is also easier to cleanup crashes than the swamps of Florida.

 

Elon loves Nasa. What he has said he doesn't like is building things FOR them. For example, lets say they make a special flavor of Pringles in Florida, and Nasa wants to transport a can via rocket to California, without breaking a single chip. So they put out a contract, and a bunch of manufacturers create proposals, 2 of them are accepted and build their pringles rockets. Those rockets are specific built to Nasa's contract standards. They'll do nothing else but transport a can of pringles. If doritos creates a new florida flavor, and they want to transport that, it will take years of modifications, reviews, and cost twice as much retrofitting the pringles rocket for the doritos than the rocket cost to originally develop. He wants to create more of a universal platform, more akin to a semi truck trailer, or a train car, and require the customers to modify their payload to fit his rocket. This is why he did not take money from Nasa for Starship until it's basic shape and design were already solidified. He had a lot of success with this method for Falcon 9. While there were more powerful, capable rockets, the cost savings led many satellite manufacturers to add more propulsion to their satellites to obtain the extra altitude that the F9 could not deliver, but still saved them millions and millions of dollars compared to more specific built rockets that would have put them exactly where they wanted.

Nasa is starting to see the benefit of this. A lot of their projects that run over time and budget are rockets. (I don't think any have come in on time or budget) Often times by a decade or more, and over budget by billions<<thats a B. They're starting to realize that those billions could have been new satellite telescopes, or rovers. With Rocketlab moving up in capabilities too, Boeing and Blue Origin are probably REALLY starting to panic.

 

As opposed to the press release of “Spacex just spent xxx million dollars shipping bricks to the moon”. You cannot control what idiots say or think and your enemies will always look for a negative spin to any outcome. You can look at best/worst case scenarios and select a payload that would be more useful than bricks if it survives but isn’t irreplaceable if it doesn’t. Heck, a load of water and O2, or food supplies would be better than bricks. The choices for “something better” are almost endless.

 

I just think they'd rather do something more exciting that will attract more attention. If Starship and the HLS variant works, the moon becomes as accessible as Antarctica, maybe even more so. The publicity and the investments that would bring to the sector are worth more than what ever supplies they could/would launch and they need that. Elon has said he wants to be to space like the railroad was to the USA. Everyone envisions Spacex becoming this competitor to Nasa, but I think they want to just focus on the rockets, and leave the construction of colonies on other planets to industry and governments. It'd be much easier to convince investors if they could say "we have this stuff so dialed in that we launched a cybertruck, landed it on the moon, drove it around on the moon, launched it back into space, docked with another starship, transferred the cybertruck to it, landed that back on earth, and thats the truck im driving now" as opposed to "we're so scared and insecure in our abilities to do this that we're stock piling supplies just in case" Plus it's a huge moral boost for the entire Spacex team.

 

Agreed, I just think that trips are going to be so precious it would be regrettable to waste even one.

 

He wants to be the Spacing Guild?

 

He wants to be the railroad to space. His desire is to bring the cost of space down to prices that entities other than governments can afford and he has a chance of making that happen.

 

Indeed. Starship is scaling up and improving his success with the F9.
(Spacing Guild is a Dune reference BTW…If you didn’t know )

 

Funniest tweet I’ve seen in a while:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1455217850432606223?s=21

Coolest tweet I’ve seen today (let’s see how many actually fly)

https://twitter.com/spacex360/status/1455223903756894220?s=21