NASA selects SpaceX as its sole provider for a lunar lander

[PACOX]

So working in tandem is actually the quickest way to reach the moon via the Artemis project. I thought that SLS and StarShip had similar payload capacities - why does it take StarShip so many more trips to get to the moon? Is it payload capacity or just getting there or some other combination.

I would love to see that infographic. I love this stuff.

I can't find the one I wanted so this will have to do. Ignore all the criticism on it. It's overblown concern but the graphic illustrates the fueling process.

Basically an empty fuel storage version of Starship is launched an parked around Earth. Then 4 - 14 (the graphic counts the initial empty Starship and the last one going to the Moon) Starships holding fuel will load fuel into the storage Starship. You need multiple because Starship doesn't have a very big tank on its own and a lot of fuel is spent just getting it into space. Why not give Starship a bigger tank? Rocket science is balancing fuel to weight ratios - the bigger the rocket the more fuel you need to carry/the more fuel you carry the bigger the rocket needs to be. A fully stacked Starship is already massive.

But once that's done the Lunar lander version of Starship launchs, docks with the one holding all the fuel, the goes on its way to the Moon. Another thing the graphic leaves out is 14 launches does mean you necessarily need 14 separate ships built because a single Starship is reusable. They could do the launches in quick succession.

[Easo]

I don't either. Did you see that the guy who championed the SLS project, and who also said that if the SLS can't lift off by 2016 it should shutter the project, is now the NASA Administrator?


I am deeply curious about this statement. The real question should be why aren't more people fanboying SpaceX and private companies and shitting all over outdated government programs with horrific wasteful spending. And I'm asking this as a huge fan of NASA and space exploration overall.

Quite ridiculous, isn't it?

Because fanboying means rose tinted glasses, thus not objective, ignoring issues companies have (and all of them do have those). For example, SpaceX is one bad tweet away from PR nightmare and potential losses if Musk does not take his meds and posts something idiotic again.

[cubby]

Quite ridiculous, isn't it?

Because fanboying means rose tinted glasses, thus not objective, ignoring issues companies have (and all of them do have those). For example, SpaceX is one bad tweet away from PR nightmare and potential losses if Musk does not take his meds and posts something idiotic again.

Yes, NASA's situation is pretty ridiculous. They were the pioneers of space travel, and I will always love them for that, but it's time they stepped away from launches and just started administering to private space travel. The SLS is a perfect example of where they ended up.

While I am a fan of SpaceX and Musk's accomplishments, I do not see them through Rose Coloured glasses.

[Ripster42]

Lateral launches are only beneficial when trying to hit the Earth. When shooting for orbit you go high fast before rolling into orbit trajectory so that you fight gravity for as little time as possible.

It's so you get less drag when getting up to the speeds necessary to get into orbit. Drag increases as a square of velocity and atmosphere decreases logarithmically. You go up first so you're not fighting the drag of the atmosphere, not so you're not fighting gravity.

- - - Updated - - -

I
I am deeply curious about this statement. The real question should be why aren't more people fanboying SpaceX and private companies and shitting all over outdated government programs with horrific wasteful spending. And I'm asking this as a huge fan of NASA and space exploration overall.

It's because of statements like this:

SpaceX isn't behind on anything - at all.

They're behind on their own timeline, and you can't admit it.

[cubby]

They're behind on their own timeline, and you can't admit it.

I already did.

Boy, it's a good thing I can take in new information and adjust my perspective. You should try reading the entire thread instead of just looking for gotcha quotes.

[Ripster42]

I already did.

Boy, it's a good thing I can take in new information and adjust my perspective. You should try reading the entire thread instead of just looking for gotcha quotes.

My man, look at the comment you responded to:

The story is about COVID, which pushed back all space agencies. EVERY company is at least a year behind where they thought they would be in 2019 (Musk said he would have Falcon Heavy sending people to Moon in 2018...). SpaceX is currently behind on its next test and had pull in employees from all over just to get SN20 to a pad. And it's only going to plateau for a bit seeing that assembly buildings are all in states where governors go out of their way to make enforcing masks/vaccinations hard. Or you Frick and Frac (Musk and Bezos) who whine about regulations.

It was after this you said spacex wasn't behind "on anything." After being told they were behind, according to their own schedule, in the context of space companies being behind on their schedules. This wasn't you adjusting your perspective due to new information, that was being a fanboy. There's no reason to be a smartass in addition to being a fanboy.

I've been reading the entire thread, it's not like this would be the only instance I could find if I actually went looking for gotcha quotes, instead of just going back to what I'd read today.

- - - Updated - - -

It’s a bit of both. If you try laterally launching you’re using fuel to go sideways instead of up to where there’s less gravity, and thus, less atmosphere.

The gravity change is negligible compared to the drag change. If the atmosphere didn't exist, they'd be going laterally almost as soon as they were confident they wouldn't be hitting a mountain.

This paper isn't specifically about this, but:

The constant equation image assumption is valid in the low-middle atmosphere models since the vertical extent of the low-middle atmosphere is only several tens of kilometers, resulting in only a 1% error in the specification of equation image.

"(S)everal tens of kilometers" is just about low earth orbit. A 1% difference in gravity.

You gotta realize how big the earth is. The difference between gravity at sea level and 120k feet is far less than 10%. Drag however, is reduced by substantially more, as the atmosphere is less than 5% of what it is at sea level. They start tipping laterally around 35k feet.

[cubby]

My man, look at the comment you responded to:



It was after this you said spacex wasn't behind "on anything." After being told they were behind, according to their own schedule, in the context of space companies being behind on their schedules. This wasn't you adjusting your perspective due to new information, that was being a fanboy. There's no reason to be a smartass in addition to being a fanboy.

I've been reading the entire thread, it's not like this would be the only instance I could find if I actually went looking for gotcha quotes, instead of just going back to what I'd read today.

And it was after that where I adjusted after learning new information. SpaceX was behind, just like the other launch organizations. Because of COVID related issues. That's what I meant by the gotcha and reading the entire thread.

PACOX responded with new articles, I read them, saw I was incorrect, and adjusted accordingly. You can see me quoting the articles and acknowledging the delays on all sides.

You're trying to get me on some small issue, which you still missed even though you claimed to read the "whole page", which is where my original criticism of your position comes from. Stop going for the "gotcha" moment, that doesn't actually exist, and keep going with the discussion of space exploration.

[Afrospinach]

The literal reason the atmosphere is more dense closer to the earth is gravity.

Why yes, yes it is, and as a function of fluid dynamics and so on and so forth the pressure gradient does not at all run parallel with the gravity gradient. Low earth orbit is virtually the same gravity as down on the surface - yet negligible atmosphere. You are not escaping gravity by going up a few thousand feet, the highest low earth orbit is barely escaping more than 20% of the earth's gravity.

On a bit of a tangent I do believe it is about 5% more fuel efficient to launch like virgin galactic because of things like lift.

[Ripster42]

The literal reason the atmosphere is more dense closer to the earth is gravity.

Talk about moving goal posts. That's not what you were talking about, and you know it. You could have just said, "Oh, thanks for correcting me." Instead, this.

And it was after that where I adjusted after learning new information. SpaceX was behind, just like the other launch organizations. Because of COVID related issues. That's what I meant by the gotcha and reading the entire thread.

You were already given the info. It's not even that bad to be a fanboy. You asked why he called you one, I just gave you the answer. It's comments like those.

[cubby]

SpaceX launches the first tourist trip, taking 4 amateurs (no professionals on the flight) up into orbit for three days.

[Santti]

SpaceX launches the first tourist trip, taking 4 amateurs (no professionals on the flight) up into orbit for three days.

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

[Edge-]

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

"It's a fluid dynamics experiment, we swear!"

[cubby]

Camping trip to space. Way cooler than when I went to Space Camp in middle school.

Totally - I mean, that is just awesome. A real, long, space ride. 3 days would be amazing up there. Those asshats at Blue Horizon and Virgin were in "space" for what? 12 seconds? Talk about amateurs.

- - - Updated - - -

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

Tom Cruise is already slatted to film a movie in space - it will be the first time. So porn can't be far behind, lol.

[Corvus]

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

Given that there have already been 'close encounters' in space between astronauts before, I would not be surprised if there wasn't some amateur video already somewhere.

[Hollycakes]

Good god that was one of the worst live broadcasts tonight tho.
The cheers from below plus the 9 different people all trying to talk was pretty bad.
They need to separate the broadcast booth from the crowd and lose like 5 talking heads.
Other than that was an awesome launch if anyone watched.

Also Santii, anal probes have been a thing since the 50's silly!

[PACOX]

Got to see some people seeing their first Falcon go up live at night.

If you have only seen expendable rockets go up, a Falcon 9 looks like it's 1 sec from blowing up a couple of seconds into the launch. You can see stage separations at night but they are faint. When the Falcon booster goes to separate it looks like the vehicle is on fire and for split second like it cleaves in two. Then it looks like two rockets are going up for a little bit.

[Nerraw]

Good god that was one of the worst live broadcasts tonight tho.
The cheers from below plus the 9 different people all trying to talk was pretty bad.
They need to separate the broadcast booth from the crowd and lose like 5 talking heads.
Other than that was an awesome launch if anyone watched.

Also Santii, anal probes have been a thing since the 50's silly!

What stream were you watching?

[Easo]

What stream were you watching?

The official one on YouTube had this.

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

With this PornHub should be capable of actually turning their old marketing stunt into reality (if you remember the "news" few years ago). Expensive, but not that much that they couldn't afford it.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Porn in space, when? Asking for a friend.

I hope you are in it for the story, because you won't get much use out of it otherwise.
Edit: I guess female only/solo shows could be a thing.

[Hollycakes]

What stream were you watching?

I found the one on Youtube yea that was the official one.
It was surprisingly bad.