• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    10 days ago

    Ehhh, two years late for a rocket isn’t terrible. Space is hard.

    But yeah 2030 is an aggressive timeline. I’m shocked NASA didn’t go for an Apollo-style service module and lander that gets assembled in-orbit, launched by Falcon Heavies. That seems like the least crazy architecture and requires very little new technology.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      The original timeline NASA gave to SpaceX was to have a successful landing on the moon, with humans, and their safe return, in Q2 2025.

      7 months from now.

      You could theoretically refuel the S-IVb, the Apollo/Saturn V third stage, in LEO, with Falcon Heavies…

      …assuming you redesigned both to do refueling in orbit, which has never been accomplished before with huge volumes of cryogenic fuel.

      But you could not actually launch even a completely unfueled, completely dry S-IVb with a Falcon Heavy.

      The S-IVb is about 22ft in diameter.

      The Falcon Heavy’s final ascent rocket is about 12 ft in diameter.

      There’s almost certainly no way that would be aerodynamically stable through launch.

      The service module and lander are just too wide.

      NASA did actually award another contract to Blue Origin (Bezos Private Space Program) for an updated, embiggened Apollo style lander.

      https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/05/blue-origin-wins-pivotal-nasa-contract-to-develop-a-second-lunar-lander/

      That’s going to be mated to a Locked Martin designed orbiter, and they’ll all launch on the SLS.

      … Assuming the SLS does not also fall (further) behind schedule or suffer from quality control problems.

      A whole lot of SLS is built by Boeing. Not doing so great in the quality control department lately.

      But hey at least one of the things so far has actually completed an uncrewed lunar fly by!

      To conclude: Yes, Space is indeed hard.

      But uh, the last thing Musk said about Starship+Booster is that it will actually have… half… the originally promised payload capacity to LEO.

      … and they’re going to making a Starship+Booster 2, that will have the original promised payload, and then a 3rd version that will have even more!

      If you have to cut your effective payload capacity in half, thats a whole lot more than quality control problems, its fundamental design mishaps.

      • deltapi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        Or…Elon maybe was talking out of his ass when he came up with the original numbers? If he went wildly optimistic on the “if I tell them to do it we’ll do it” attitude it would explain it too.

      • niemcycle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yeah, the Starship was severely over-promised from the start, especially the payload capacity. I wish there had been more required demonstrations from the beginning, instead of just using the numbers promised by Musk, who is known to inflate numbers for marketing purposes.

        Not to mention the assumption of orbital fuelling working perfectly without even doing any demonstrations at all or pointing to any existing technologies. It’s a very Kerbal Space Program idea but significantly more complex in reality. Especially as now they are planning 5+ refuelling missions per Starship going to the Moon, which is logistically baffling.

    • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      They’ve also blown their entire development budget and have received another billion dollars in development funds.

      The sheer number of people looking at starship’s delays and cost overruns and not seeing the exact same issues SLS had with Boeing are kind of staggering.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        If you think that Starship has the exact same issues that SLS has you’re truly stretching reality. A billion dollars and two years is a TINY cost overrun compared to what they are doing. I know it sounds like a lot but for comparison, SLS costs like $2.5 billion per launch, not including development costs.

        • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          For comparison SLS spent about 2 billion in taxpayer money per year in development costs, and in the 4 years since the development contract was awarded to spaceX, they’ve spent around 5 billion in taxpayer money in development costs. (~1.25 billion per year)

          For launch comparisons, the SLS can take a payload directly to the moon for 2.2 billion, while the proposed starship launch requires 10-12 refueling launches at ~1-2 million per launch (proposed, but falcon 9 heavy costs like 90 million per launch, so that puts it closer to 900 million-1.1 billion per combined launch)

          I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch in reality to question these costs.