NASA selects SpaceX as its sole provider for a lunar lander

[cubby]

Just going to the moon to land on the moon again is pointless. IF we are going there to set up some sort of base that is different but I don't expect that to happen any time soon. We have treaties in place atm to stop that.

No one is saying, nor has said, that we're going back there just to land someone again. We're going back there to stay. We don't have treaties in place to prevent that.

Like I said, the Moon Base gives us several opportunities all wrapped up into one. We can test the efficacy of an orbiting platform to launch/land on the moon. The Moon Base itself will test our ability to set up an terrestrial base - which is a relatively cheap and close method of testing out Mars Base solutions (although the race to Mars might eclipse the initial results of a Moon Base, or, we might actually get a Mars Base first, because of the cost/equipment/timing necessary to go there).

[Orange Joe]

No one is saying, nor has said, that we're going back there just to land someone again. We're going back there to stay. We don't have treaties in place to prevent that.

Like I said, the Moon Base gives us several opportunities all wrapped up into one. We can test the efficacy of an orbiting platform to launch/land on the moon. The Moon Base itself will test our ability to set up an terrestrial base - which is a relatively cheap and close method of testing out Mars Base solutions (although the race to Mars might eclipse the initial results of a Moon Base, or, we might actually get a Mars Base first, because of the cost/equipment/timing necessary to go there).

We pretty much had this exact discussion already in this thread. Yes we do.


https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwo...agreement.html


Can we go up there and do some tests? Sure. Can we go up there and build a base and start using resources? no.

[cubby]

We pretty much had this exact discussion already in this thread. Yes we do.


https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwo...agreement.html


Can we go up there and do some tests? Sure. Can we go up there and build a base and start using resources? no.

I appreciate you posting the treaty. Which clearly does not prevent us from going back and establishing a base. If you're seeing something in that Treaty that says otherwise, specifically about not building a base, I'd be happy to discuss it. Or link the page where the discussion occurred in this thread - sorry I missed that.

What you're probably misinterpreting is this:

...forbids the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications on the Moon and, the testing of any type of weapons, and the conduct of military maneuvers on the Moon. But the use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes is not prohibited.

The key to that portion is that it's all about military installations and bases. Nothing in the treaty prevents civilian - i.e. NASA - installations, etc. And those installations can be manned by military personnel.

[PACOX]

We pretty much had this exact discussion already in this thread. Yes we do.


https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwo...agreement.html


Can we go up there and do some tests? Sure. Can we go up there and build a base and start using resources? no.

The commerical agencies can though. Its why are bunch of scientists and countries aren't happy with the Artemis Accords. The loophole is massive.

NASA leads an expedition to the Moon but uses a SpaceX lander under the commerical spaceflight program. NASA finds a bed of minerals, NASA can't take advantage of it but SpaceX can, and SpaceX is a US based company attached to the hip with the US government.

[cubby]

The commerical agencies can though. Its why are bunch of scientists and countries aren't happy with the Artemis Accords. The loophole is massive.

NASA leads an expedition to the Moon but uses a SpaceX lander under the commerical spaceflight program. NASA finds a bed of minerals, NASA can't take advantage of it but SpaceX can, and SpaceX is a US based company attached to the hip with the US government.

Where are we seeing that NASA can't build a base? If you know the specific section of the treaty, can you point to it and/or link it?

[PACOX]

Where are we seeing that NASA can't build a base? If you know the specific section of the treaty, can you point to it and/or link it?

When did I said NASA can't build a base?

[cubby]

When did I said NASA can't build a base?

In your response to OJ, it was kind of implied. If you didn't intend that, my bad. Are you saying NASA can build a base?

[PACOX]

In your response to OJ, it was kind of implied. If you didn't intend that, my bad. Are you saying NASA can build a base?

I was referring to resources because he brought them up. And I think he strictly means military (airforce/space force) bases, not scientific 'bases'.

[cubby]

I was referring to resources because he brought them up. And I think he strictly means military (airforce/space force) bases, not scientific 'bases'.

Ah, understood. That was my understanding as well, regarding military bases vs scientific.

- - - Updated - - -

And in case anyone thinks the government can overcome private companies at this point, guess again:

NASA’s big rocket misses another deadline, now won’t fly until 2022.

This is a program that was supposed to fly in 2016, spent more money than SpaceX, and has yet to put anything into orbit. The idiot Senator that spearheaded the program, and who said if it can't get off the ground by 2016, then NASA shouldn't be in the business anymore, is now running NASA.

Private companies are the only future of advancing space exploration at this point.

[PACOX]

Ah, understood. That was my understanding as well, regarding military bases vs scientific.

- - - Updated - - -

And in case anyone thinks the government can overcome private companies at this point, guess again:

NASA’s big rocket misses another deadline, now won’t fly until 2022.

This is a program that was supposed to fly in 2016, spent more money than SpaceX, and has yet to put anything into orbit. The idiot Senator that spearheaded the program, and who said if it can't get off the ground by 2016, then NASA shouldn't be in the business anymore, is now running NASA.

Private companies are the only future of advancing space exploration at this point.

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.

I still don't get why you keep crapping on SLS when this thread is basically about SLS. If SLS doesn't fly then Artemis is canceled. If Artemis is canceled, SpaceX doesn't get to land on the Moon. Can SpaceX get to the Moon on its own? Yes. Anytime soon? No. It would need to complete At least two or three Starship rockets because one can't get to the Moon and back on its own. It would be 2024 at the earliest if you know stuff like spacesuits, instrumentation, learning how to safely and effectively fuel their vehicles in space.

SpaceX could technically send a crew to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy next week. Except the crew will have a hellish trip, if a dragon capsule could even sustain them the whole way and back. But a Falcon Heavy is capable of putting a capsule into a Trans-lunar orbit. A Delta Heavy (NASA/ULA current heavy workhorse) could do the same with an Orion capsule. It would be dumb either way.

[Zuben]

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.

I still don't get why you keep crapping on SLS when this thread is basically about SLS. If SLS doesn't fly then Artemis is canceled. If Artemis is canceled, SpaceX doesn't get to land on the Moon. Can SpaceX get to the Moon on its own? Yes. Anytime soon? No. It would need to complete At least two or three Starship rockets because one can't get to the Moon and back on its own. It would be 2024 at the earliest if you know stuff like spacesuits, instrumentation, learning how to safely and effectively fuel their vehicles in space.

SpaceX could technically send a crew to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy next week. Except the crew will have a hellish trip, if a dragon capsule could even sustain them the whole way and back. But a Falcon Heavy is capable of putting a capsule into a Trans-lunar orbit. A Delta Heavy (NASA/ULA current heavy workhorse) could do the same with an Orion capsule. It would be dumb either way.

I thought Falcon Heavy was never intended to be human rated?

[PACOX]

I thought Falcon Heavy was never intended to be human rated?

Both SpaceX and NASA considered using Falcon Heavy for humans. Falcon Heavy is hardly used and SpaceX is focusing on Starship now - talks about the rocket have kind of died down. Wikipedia says the Falcon Heavy will be to Lunar Gateway what Falcon 9 is to the ISS, a human and cargo lifter.

[cubby]

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.

I still don't get why you keep crapping on SLS when this thread is basically about SLS. If SLS doesn't fly then Artemis is canceled. If Artemis is canceled, SpaceX doesn't get to land on the Moon. Can SpaceX get to the Moon on its own? Yes. Anytime soon? No. It would need to complete At least two or three Starship rockets because one can't get to the Moon and back on its own. It would be 2024 at the earliest if you know stuff like spacesuits, instrumentation, learning how to safely and effectively fuel their vehicles in space.

SpaceX could technically send a crew to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy next week. Except the crew will have a hellish trip, if a dragon capsule could even sustain them the whole way and back. But a Falcon Heavy is capable of putting a capsule into a Trans-lunar orbit. A Delta Heavy (NASA/ULA current heavy workhorse) could do the same with an Orion capsule. It would be dumb either way.

The story is about SLS being delay yet again, which also includes some issues with COVID - the story isn't about COVID - that's ridiculous and disingenuous. COVID can't explain their 5+ years long delay. And now we're looking at maybe 2022 for the first SLS launch.

SpaceX isn't behind on anything - at all. They are literally leaps and bounds ahead of any other company. I'm really curious why you keep trying to crap all over the only company in the U.S. putting humans into space. It's fucking adorable that you claim SpaceX is "behind" while blatantly ignoring the litany of errors, none related to COVID, that put the SLS 5 years and counting behind.

I'm crapping all over the SLS because it's a joke of a program. They took $20B over an 11 year period and haven't had one launch. NOT ONE. SpaceX took the same amount of money and revolutionized space launches, using NASA's own designs, and at the same time gave the U.S. back their dignity.

Starship is about to have their first orbital launch - before the end of the year. Starship has as much or more lift capability than the SLS, and has actually gotten off the ground, which is infinitely more times than the SLS has accomplished. So when you say if the SLS doesn't launch, then Artemis is canceled; why can't StarShip take over?

Walk me through your thinking on how if Artemis is canceled, then SpaceX doesn't land on the moon. Why wouldn't NASA just hand over the Artemis mission to the only space launch company/program that actually gets things into space?

EDITS - I've made some edits above, apologies if I caught you responding while I edited.

- - - Updated - - -

Both SpaceX and NASA considered using Falcon Heavy for humans. Falcon Heavy is hardly used and SpaceX is focusing on Starship now - talks about the rocket have kind of died down. Wikipedia says the Falcon Heavy will be to Lunar Gateway what Falcon 9 is to the ISS, a human and cargo lifter.

It is interesting how Falcon Heavy succeeded, and then is barely used any more. SpaceX's whole focus is on Starship, as you said, and I'm wondering if the extra launch capability of Falcon Heavy just isn't needed on a cost basis for their launch contracts.

[Zuben]

It is interesting how Falcon Heavy succeeded, and then is barely used any more. SpaceX's whole focus is on Starship, as you said, and I'm wondering if the extra launch capability of Falcon Heavy just isn't needed on a cost basis for their launch contracts.

Looks to me Falcon Heavy is reserved for outer space cargo transport and/or heavier cargo transport to orbit. The regular Falcon seems to have been sufficient for most stuff they've been putting into orbit so far. Heavy is also designed to be capable of human transport, but remains uncertified for it as SpaceX shifted that purpose to the Starship.

Far be it from me to downplay the engineering effort developing Falcon Heavy required, but even on its level it was a relatively simple upgrade to the regular Falcon. The way I see it, it was a "why not" project. Grander capability for distance and payload, which might be desired in the future, if not for present day orbit launches.

[PACOX]

The story is about SLS being delay yet again, which also includes some issues with COVID - the story isn't about COVID - that's ridiculous and disingenuous. It includes COVID as one of the excuses for their 5+ years long delay.

SpaceX isn't behind on anything - at all. They are literally leaps and bounds ahead of any other company. I'm really curious why you keep trying to crap all over the only company in the U.S. putting humans into space. It's fucking adorable that you claim SpaceX is "behind" while blatantly ignoring the litany of errors, none related to COVID, that put the SLS 5 years and counting behind.

I'm crapping all over the SLS because it's a joke of a program. They took $20B over an 11 year period and haven't had one launch. NOT ONE. SpaceX took the same amount of money and revolutionized space launches, using NASA's own designs, and at the same time gave the U.S. back their dignity.

Starship is about to have their first orbital launch - probably this month. Starship has as much or more lift capability than the SLS, and has actually gotten off the ground, which is infinitely more times than the SLS has accomplished. So when you say if the SLS doesn't launch, then Artemis is canceled. Why can't StarShip carry it or something like it?

Walk me through your thinking on how if Artemis is canceled, then SpaceX doesn't land on the moon. Why wouldn't NASA just hand over Artemis to the only space launch company/program that is successful?

Let's get our rocket news from sources that actually know what they are talking about and not going for spin or playing sides.


https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/08/3...nch-schedules/


https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/08/3...ght-this-year/


Read the articles or not but please stop presenting hype as facts.

ALL space agencies are behind. I linked why. Funny enough in the article you have SpaceX saying one thing and Musk lying in the next paragraph.

Im not going to split hairs about SLS being 'x years behind' and SpaceX being 'y years behind'. SLS and Starship (or is the MCT or the BFR) have been 'delayed' years. 'Delayed' because aging projects by dates mentioned in drafting, conceptual, even early prototype tests is ridiculous. You know SLS and Starship (under a different name) started development within a year of one another right? SLS's maiden rocket is sitting in the VAB getting its plumbing connected and and SpaceX is still running through prototypes. None of that means one superior to the other unless your fanboying one over the over the without understanding the R&D process and how the two rockets are connected at the hip. That it doesn't matter if SN20 is the last Starship prototype before an official launch, it won't independently taking anyone anywhere until a number of time sensitive milestones are met.

To quote Musk, Starship will launch 'hundreds of missions' before it flies people.

Walk me through your thinking on how if Artemis is canceled, then SpaceX doesn't land on the moon. Why wouldn't NASA just hand over Artemis to the only space launch company/program that is successful?

Just ignored everything I wrote after. Okay.

- - - Updated - - -

It is interesting how Falcon Heavy succeeded, and then is barely used any more. SpaceX's whole focus is on Starship, as you said, and I'm wondering if the extra launch capability of Falcon Heavy just isn't needed on a cost basis for their launch contracts.

Yup, you're last sentence explains the status of Falcon Heavy.

Falcon Heavy is not economically viable for SpaceX as a commercial product right now. Being able to land rockets is a technological marvel but not always economical. To be economical you need a steady stream of demand and customers, which unfortunately the Heavy does not have. There's just not enough people trying to put heavy payloads into high orbits. The rocket could be made to be more expendible but why go through the process of changing flight profiles and material design when Starship is coming down the pipe?


Think about it in terms of more practical products. Disposable razer vs a nice stainless steel double-edge razer. Disposable razer feel cheap don't have the best build quality, and useless after one or two uses. They are great for people who might save infrequently or don't have to time, resources, whatever, to maintain a good razer. A double edged razer will last you decades. They feel good, they are sturdy, reliable. They also take time and effort to maintain, time and effort that's not 'worth' it if you are someone who doesn't shave often.

Expendible vs reusable rockets. Launching 4-5 rockets a month? The process you have to go through to reuse a rocket pays for itself. Only launching 5 ockets a year? Might as well let your parts burn up

Falcon 9 has been a huge success because there's a high demand for its services. Heavy has one lauch this year and I bet SpaceX would like to break the contract if they could.

[cubby]

Let's get our rocket news from sources that actually know what they are talking about and not going for spin or playing sides.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/08/3...nch-schedules/
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/08/3...ght-this-year/

Read the articles or not but please stop presenting hype as facts.

ALL space agencies are behind. I linked why. Funny enough in the article you have SpaceX saying one thing and Musk lying in the next paragraph.

Im not going to split hairs about SLS being 'x years behind' and SpaceX being 'y years behind'. SLS and Starship (or is the MCT or the BFR) have been 'delayed' years. 'Delayed' because aging projects by dates mentioned in drafting, conceptual, even early prototype tests is ridiculous.

The articles you linked also state that SLS will be delayed probably until next year. They mention COVID and liquid oxygen shortages as a more recent reason for delays, but those aren't the reason SLS was delayed - again - and those articles say that as well. Also keep in mind that while COVID certainly affected everyone, SLS is back on it's heels and going through more testing, StarShip has already launched several times (successfully and unsuccessfully). Objectively speaking, SLS delays aren't because of COVID. Starship has launched and SLS has not - no other way to look at it.

You know SLS and Starship (under a different name) started development within a year of one another right?

It was my understanding that the SLS began development in 2011, while Starship didn't begin until 2016. Moreover, StarShip has been doing flight jumps since 2019. You should also keep in mind that Starship is significantly more complicated than the SLS, given that StarShip not only plans to launch upwards to orbit, but to also land itself and then do it all over again. So StarShip having already launched and landed, albeit suborbital, makes it light years ahead of the SLS, in terms of schedule.

SLS's maiden rocket is sitting in the VAB getting its plumbing connected and and SpaceX is still running through prototypes. None of that means one superior to the other unless your fanboying one over the over the without understanding the R&D process and how the two rockets are connected at the hip. That it doesn't matter if SN20 is the last Starship prototype before an official launch, it won't independently taking anyone anywhere until a number of time sensitive milestones are met.

I would have to disagree. As I stated above, only one of those rockets has actually left the ground. SLS should have lifted off years ago, but it hasn't, and now won't until at least next year. Starship has left and landed several times, between the static jump tests and the 10 mile launch and land. You suggest I'm fanboying over something, but I'm wondering if your judgment is clouded over your hated for Musk. Something to consider - and I will certainly review my fanboying.

Just ignored everything I wrote after. Okay.

I promise you I wasn't. If the SLS doesn't work or fails, why couldn't SpaceX/StarShip take over the whole program (obviously with some adjustments for launching the Orion capsule).

- - - Updated - - -

Looks to me Falcon Heavy is reserved for outer space cargo transport and/or heavier cargo transport to orbit. The regular Falcon seems to have been sufficient for most stuff they've been putting into orbit so far. Heavy is also designed to be capable of human transport, but remains uncertified for it as SpaceX shifted that purpose to the Starship.

Far be it from me to downplay the engineering effort developing Falcon Heavy required, but even on its level it was a relatively simple upgrade to the regular Falcon. The way I see it, it was a "why not" project. Grander capability for distance and payload, which might be desired in the future, if not for present day orbit launches.

I think you may be right. Falcon Heavy might have had some grander designs, but at the end of the day, StarShip will do all it could and plenty more. I think the "why not" label is pretty accurate. Plus, they have a heavier cargo launch capability if they need it. Which is kind of awesome in some ways.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup, you're last sentence explains the status of Falcon Heavy.

Falcon Heavy is not economically viable for SpaceX as a commercial product right now. Being able to land rockets is a technological marvel but not always economical. To be economical you need a steady stream of demand and customers, which unfortunately the Heavy does not have. There's just not enough people trying to put heavy payloads into high orbits. The rocket could be made to be more expendible but why go through the process of changing flight profiles and material design when Starship is coming down the pipe?


Think about it in terms of more practical products. Disposable razer vs a nice stainless steel double-edge razer. Disposable razer feel cheap don't have the best build quality, and useless after one or two uses. They are great for people who might save infrequently or don't have to time, resources, whatever, to maintain a good razer. A double edged razer will last you decades. They feel good, they are sturdy, reliable. They also take time and effort to maintain, time and effort that's not 'worth' it if you are someone who doesn't shave often.

Expendible vs reusable rockets. Launching 4-5 rockets a month? The process you have to go through to reuse a rocket pays for itself. Only launching 5 ockets a year? Might as well let your parts burn up

Falcon 9 has been a huge success because there's a high demand for its services. Heavy has one lauch this year and I bet SpaceX would like to break the contract if they could.

Great explanation - and I love the analogy. Thanks for the run through on that analysis. It seems if/when StarShip is up and running viable orbital launches and landings, Falcon Heavy will just sit in the garage.

[PACOX]

The articles you linked also state that SLS will be delayed probably until next year. They mention COVID and liquid oxygen shortages as a more recent reason for delays, but those aren't the reason SLS was delayed - again - and those articles say that as well. Also keep in mind that while COVID certainly affected everyone, SLS is back on it's heels and going through more testing, StarShip has already launched several times (successfully and unsuccessfully). Objectively speaking, SLS delays aren't because of COVID. Starship has launched and SLS has not - no other way to look at it.


It was my understanding that the SLS began development in 2011, while Starship didn't begin until 2016. Moreover, StarShip has been doing flight jumps since 2019. You should also keep in mind that Starship is significantly more complicated than the SLS, given that StarShip not only plans to launch upwards to orbit, but to also land itself and then do it all over again. So StarShip having already launched and landed, albeit suborbital, makes it light years ahead of the SLS, in terms of schedule.


I would have to disagree. As I stated above, only one of those rockets has actually left the ground. SLS should have lifted off years ago, but it hasn't, and now won't until at least next year. Starship has left and landed several times, between the static jump tests and the 10 mile launch and land. You suggest I'm fanboying over something, but I'm wondering if your judgment is clouded over your hated for Musk. Something to consider - and I will certainly review my fanboying.



I promise you I wasn't. If the SLS doesn't work or fails, why couldn't SpaceX/StarShip take over the whole program (obviously with some adjustments for launching the Orion capsule).

I believe Starship can and will independently fly people to the Moon but not any time soon. Not before SLS. The way Starship is designed, there's several variants that are part of the 'Starship' family. They are, quite a bit of ways from the variations needed to get to the Moon, land, and return. SLS and Starship working in tandem is just two flight.

Either rocket trying to do so on its own is complicated. SLS would have to do it in two flights because the Orion capsule takes up too much room, it can't be launched with a lander.

Starship would take anywhere between 4 to 16 launches to get to Moon (Musk says 4-8, NASA says 14 depending on how you count but legally 16). That sounds crazy at first but what basically the fuel necessary for the trip is launched first then a crewed Starship would fuel up in space. There's scenarios where it could take more or less due to the way orbits and launch windows work.

If I can find/remember to post an infographic outlining the process I will. Point is that SpaceX will be in the R&D phase a a lot longer if NASA was to just give them all of Artemis. Other companies would also (rightfully in terms of government oversight, not so much in practicality) kill the project through litigation. No shot SLS could do it on its own due to red tape.

Follow up edit.

SLS began development in 2011, Starship in 2012 as MCT (Mars something, I'm not at my computer). 10 years isn't terrible but SLS is an embarrassing display of how inefficient the government can be. The rocket has its merits but overshadowed by bureaucrats. SLSs current setback (which was overblown by arstechnica as if it meant another year of work versus a couple of months) is due to COVID. One one hand its general assembly/logistics hurdles in the VAB due to outbreaks and outbreak prevention. Work is slower in general. Secondly the global oxygen supply (industrial) is stressed due to COVID. Rockets need oxygen and they can get it now. Both SLS and Starship (both are similar but identical plumbing phases when it comes to launching. Plumbing being fuel) are hundred in that regard to point that NASA is considering skipping some plumbing tests just so it can get SLS fueled and on the launch pad, otherwise SLS's tests have been nominal.

[cubby]

I believe Starship can and will independently fly people to the Moon but not any time soon. Not before SLS. The way Starship is designed, there's several variants that are part of the 'Starship' family. They are, quite a bit of ways from the variations needed to get to the Moon, land, and return. SLS and Starship working in tandem is just two flight.

Either rocket trying to do so on its own is complicated. SLS would have to do it in two flights because the Orion capsule takes up too much room, it can't be launched with a lander.

Starship would take anywhere between 4 to 16 launches to get to Moon (Musk says 4-8, NASA says 14 depending on how you count but legally 16). That sounds crazy at first but what basically the fuel necessary for the trip is launched first then a crewed Starship would fuel up in space. There's scenarios where it could take more or less due to the way orbits and launch windows work.

If I can find/remember to post an infographic outlining the process I will. Point is that SpaceX will be in the R&D phase a a lot longer if NASA was to just give them all of Artemis. Other companies would also (rightfully in terms of government oversight, not so much in practicality) kill the project through litigation. No shot SLS could do it on its own due to red tape.

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.

[Easo]

No matter what people think I really do not agree that SLS delays can all be excused. There is an obvious issue somewhere in the project, it needs to be resolved. Otherwise this looks like the best Roskosmos tradition of always moving target dates "to the right".

Though cubby would do good to chill about SLS and fangirl a tiny bit less about SpaceX/private companies.

[cubby]

No matter what people think I really do not agree that SLS delays can all be excused. There is an obvious issue somewhere in the project, it needs to be resolved. Otherwise this looks like the best Roskosmos tradition of always moving target dates "to the right".

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?

Though cubby would do good to chill about SLS and fangirl a tiny bit less about SpaceX/private companies.

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.