NASA will return to the moon thanks to SpaceX

VVonderVVoman wrote:

Linux user wrote:

VVonderVVoman wrote:

Linux user wrote:

Why?
1) Cheaper than the competition…so far (Starship was developed for SpaceX, not just for Artemis)
2) Bigger, bigger, more redundant (more cargo, more profit, possible loss of engine without losing mission, two airlocks, etc…)
3) The boats are already in the testing phase: even if the starship prototypes fart on landing, they exist and successfully complete 90% of the flight, the competition only has 3d stuff and a real size cardboard model
4) Starship will not be just for Atemis, contributing to Starship means contributing to America’s private space capabilities.

Beyond that, the competition seems timid, and some have shot themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuSM_-Aw5HM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQQL_3oqvZ8

For those of you who don’t know what a prototype is, thinking that SpaceX will do nothing on Starship for every fart, here’s the first result: $2.4 billion in subsidies from those who’ve already taken people to the moon and who knows What it’s like to develop a new launcher (different from a right-thinking troll, if I may say so).

And NASA isn’t alone in believing it: https://youtu.be/CNcp2HYMgDg?t=1196
Also, he’s right, Musk won’t colonize Mars alone, he’s just a transportation company.

From what I understand, the lunar version of the starship will not return to Earth, it will return to Earth orbit for resupply.

You must read the article…
Do you realize that we have landed on the moon more than 50 years ago?
SpaceX only reuses 60 years of technology?

Except the reasons given in the article are not the reasons NASA describes.
As for the reuse of technology, it’s wrong besides being ridiculous, and I’ve explained to you why in detail, but you come, you squirt, and you go.
And I’m too lazy to find my info, it would be useless.
Already, not to mention the unprecedented landing phase, I would like to remind you that the Raptor engine is the first of their technology (full flow staged combustion cycle) ever flown…

Your argument sounds like “Christopher Columbus went to America, so Boeing and Airbus are just reusing technology from 400 years ago”.
It makes you smile, but nothing more.

If SpaceX is not innovative to you, what is innovation? The USS Enterprise?

cool!

Falcon: Dirty 50’s Technology
Starship: Techno from the 1960s, must be methane super-polluted

Anyway, wouldn’t you compare the technology of the Vulcan engine to the 9 raptors?

Your argument that SpaceX is starting from scratch is wrong:
– There is a huge global technical responsibility in space
– It only reuses technology, not the latest, not clean
– They worked with ex-NASA
– They work with NASA

Still, they have not been successful in sending large satellites in the GTO, but they are lobbying to try to sink the only satellite capable of doing so with subsidies, against human interests, and against the ethics repeatedly demanded by NASA.

My argument is to redo a replica of a ship from 1492 in 1552…

Already, thanks for your answer. Rarely reported.

“You wouldn’t compare the technology of the Vulcan engine to the 9 Raptors anyway”

Uh, no, you’re the one who did it, there’s no comparison, because as I told you, it was the first full-flow staged combustion cycle engine to fly.
Comparing the thrust-to-weight ratios of the Raptor and Vulcain 2…watch out, it stings.
Also, eventually all the Raptors will be salvaged and the Vulcans will burn up in the atmosphere.
If not, where did the number nine come from? The only Raptor-equipped rocket is the Starship, and neither the Starship nor its boosters have 9 Raptors. The first stage of the Falcon 9 has 9 engines…Merlin.

“Methane must be super-polluting”

Well, yes, methane and oxygen produce carbon dioxide and water, and it definitely pollutes a lot…maybe you prefer hydrazine?

“Your argument is that SpaceX started from scratch,”

Not at all, I never said that, I just disagree with you that they don’t innovate but just reuse old technology. It’s wrong, but they certainly didn’t start from scratch.
Not starting from scratch doesn’t mean not innovating, does it? Because otherwise, we wouldn’t…
The truth is, for a company that doesn’t innovate, it’s weird: Chinese, Russians and Europeans would copy SpaceX…

“They still can’t get large satellites into the GTO”

Too funny, the satellite launched at GTO on July 22, 2018, carrying Flacon 9 Block 5, Telstar 19 VANTAGE weighed more than 7 tons when it took off. Isn’t this a big satellite? The Falcon 9 does its job perfectly as a medium launcher…but don’t worry, aren’t you comparing a heavy launcher?
Otherwise, the weight of satellites sent in GTO has nothing to do with innovation at all, you have innovative micro-launchers that will never be launched in GTO.

I really want to understand, your comment seems to confirm what I thought: to you, any chemical propulsion engine is necessarily a reuse of technology from the 50s and 60s, even if it uses principles that never existed The new engine up until the flight stage, even if it’s on a rocket with a reusable stage (unheard of in commerce), this will greatly reduce the cost of going to space…
From this principle, I’m serious: what is innovation *to you*? The USS Enterprise?

To be clear, I really want ESA to innovate like SpaceX, but in 2012 they laughed, and today they paid the price, which is unfortunate, but ranting about SpaceX is pointless, few people really want to innovate today ( And everyone’s getting ready to replicate SpaceX, including ESA’s proven innovation), never mind.

.

Leave a Comment