/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16220559
>completely moggs these small scope proposals
This is why I created this image: >>16220541

SpaceX took $3 billion in tax monies for the HLS and they have two more years to complete everything on that list in order to avoid delaying Artemis III. The date will slide, sure, but until there's significant progress on that checklist, it doesn't seem rational to allocate any further funding for "loftier" goals.

Do-able goals? Absolutely. Even in its current state, their booster is a marvel of engineering. A lot could be done with that beast.

>>16184665
Screencap this post:
>NASA will "fire" SpaceX from the HLS after Artemis II successfully completes, tagging off to the Blue Origin HLS

...Which is just as well, because Starship was never anything but a heavy-launch LEO system anyway. Musk basically absconded with $3 billion with a completely false "HLS" objective to fund Starlink with taxpayer money. And they'll let him get away with it, because the DoD loves the low-latency and what it did for the Ukrainians.

>>16078129
>when NASA switches the HLS funding from SpaceX to Blue Origin

>>16078030
It's more realistic at this point to expect a Trump visit to the moon than Starship.

>>15807073
Make it official that you're kicking Musk's meme rocket off of Artemis and re-allocate his funding to Dynetics. Their horizontal lander was dope af.

>>15450295
>the equivalent of being given a participation trophy for showing up

Actually, to use a more pertinent sports metaphor, the overrated pitcher just got a humiliating tap on the shoulder and is being escorted to the bench. NASA officially claims the Blue Origin lander is needed for Artemis V...it's actually for Artemis III.

Starship failed its audition. But keep the Falcons coming.

>>15426057
>SpaceX is the only successful space flight program

I dunno, bra...of NASA and SpaceX, only one is currently fielding a heavy-lift rocket that's actually orbited the fucking Moon. The other exploded from Hopium over-pressure and filled the sky with raining vaporware.

>>15415449
>new era of rocketry

>shit-tier Space Shuttle that can't achieve orbit, trashes its launch site and relies entirely on chemical propellant to self-destruct its overclocked engines one by one until it even fails to self-abort

N-1 did most of this shit in the 1960s.

>>15392516
SLS is better on every conceivable metric...thrust, efficiency, payload, astronauts, safety, etc. Problem is congressional commitment when you have some fucking shyster telling politicians he can do it all cheaper with his exploding silver dildo that still needs a dozen refueling flights even if it limps to orbit.

>>15360517
Before I get excited, explain to me what the fully tested version of this has to do once it gets to orbit in order to get to the Moon or Mars. I already know the answer, but I just want to see if you and the other SpaceX fans are fully contemplating what this thing is and why NASA or "Old Space" never built one in the past.

That being said, the military could always use a 100 ton launch vehicle, so okay.

>>15221732
>this exists

...And just imagine if it actually flew!

>>15014326
>too bashful

>still barely in prototype stage
>fucking thing can't even correctly test fire without cooking its "Raptor 2" engines (AKA overclocked Raptor engines, lol)
>that's to get the prototype to LEO
>the final HLS would need another six+ flights by a nonexistent tanker version to get enough fuel to make it to the moon
>still needs a nonexistent refueling system to even transfer this fuel
>and the HLS itself is nonexistent
>a top-heavy tower landing on the uneven surface of the moon for a life-or-death mission that could strand astronauts if it fails

NASA picked SpaceX because the normie Congress heard of them from their LEO and GSO successes and they wanted to secure the funding, which could easily be handed over to another contractor when they fail. But at the end of the day, it's like hiring a taxi cab company to take you on a transcontinental journey.

>>14987772

Good morning Muskrats.

>>14980791
>what an absolute waste of money and effort this shit is

No, that would be a rocket that is launched into LEO, then has to wait for seven nearly identical launches in order to give it the fuel to go anywhere.

>implying you spent time and money figuring out how to fuel a rocket parked in LEO anyway