• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

GlennB said:
Where's the money in a Starship lunar program?
Click to expand...
Does it all need to be about money? I think it's great that we are going back to the moon, we are bound to learn new and interesting things. I would object if anyone is in effect profiteering from it. Yeah make a bit of money for the people building the stuff but it shouldn't be seen as a "for profit" enterprise.
 
arthwollipot said:
... Both are much smaller than Starship. I've stood in the VAB with a Space Shuttle. It's surprisingly tiny. If it weren't for the fence I could have reached out and touched the nosecone. Like I said, the sheer scale of Starship makes everything orders of magnitude harder.


Endeavour! by Andrew Gould, on Flickr
Click to expand...
To be fair, the Shuttle's drop tank was bigger than the Shuttle itself, and had even more rocket motors strapped to it.
 
Darat said:
Does that take into account the mass of the nuclear reactor to be landed on the moon?
Click to expand...
The nuclear reactor is going to be taken to the moon in pieces and assembled there, using multiple missions. Probably quite a few - nuclear reactors are quite complex and have a lot of pieces. So yes.
 
arthwollipot said:
As I understand it, the plan is for there to be a permanent refuelling station orbiting the Moon.

Here's how I believe it's supposed to go:

Starship A has a fuel tank and a cargo hold. It launches to orbit. Starship B has two fuel tanks. It refuels Starship A from one of them, which goes off to the moon. Starship B comes back to earth. Starship C has already fuelled up the refuelling station in Lunar orbit in a previous mission. Since fuel is only required for insertion and landing burns, Starship A should be able to both land on and launch from the Moon on one tank, due to the Moon's lower gravity. It refuels in Lunar orbit and returns to Earth. That's three launches in total for one successful Moon landing mission. If it requires a second refuelling prior to landing on the Moon, then a fourth mission will be required to restock the orbital station, but on reflection I don't think the second refuelling should be necessary.
Click to expand...

Also, the astronaut has to bring the alien back with her when she comes back for the fuel after dropping off the cat, or else either the cat will eat the alien or the alien will drink the fuel. To get all three to the moon requires four trips.
 
I've been saying for years that orbital refueling is the future of superheavy launch vehicles. "Precarious" is just a signpost on the road to SOP.

A space station once sounded precarious. But people have taken the ISS for granted pretty much since the first crewed modules reached LEO.
 
Darat said:
Does it all need to be about money? I think it's great that we are going back to the moon, we are bound to learn new and interesting things. I would object if anyone is in effect profiteering from it. Yeah make a bit of money for the people building the stuff but it shouldn't be seen as a "for profit" enterprise.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't all have to be about money. But it should be about the benefits. I am totally skeptical of the benefits of going to the moon today. As for "learning new and interesting things. There are many new and interesting things we can learn on earth. What I see about going to the moon today, especially using Space-X is that it is all about profit. Trump’s ego and Musk's stock.
 
arthwollipot said:
I get that. However, you are forgetting the profoundly human tendency to do things just to prove that we can.
Click to expand...
I haven't forgot that at all. I had a poster in my bedroom throughout the 1970s with a famous picture on the surface of the moon. It had the date July 20, 1969 and the famous Neil Armstrong quote on it. I'd bet money I'm one of a few people in this forum that watched the lunar landing when it happened. But guess what? That's not why we went to the moon.

But if we want to prove something, why don't we educate our children and provide health care?
 
acbytesla said:
I haven't forgot that at all. I had a poster in my bedroom throughout the 1970s with a famous picture on the surface of the moon. It had the date July 20, 1969 and the famous Neil Armstrong quote on it. I'd bet money I'm one of a few people in this forum that watched the lunar landing when it happened. But guess what? That's not why we went to the moon.

But if we want to prove something, why don't we educate our children and provide health care?
Click to expand...
I saw it live at school.
 
acbytesla said:
I haven't forgot that at all. I had a poster in my bedroom throughout the 1970s with a famous picture on the surface of the moon. It had the date July 20, 1969 and the famous Neil Armstrong quote on it. I'd bet money I'm one of a few people in this forum that watched the lunar landing when it happened. But guess what? That's not why we went to the moon.

But if we want to prove something, why don't we educate our children and provide health care?
Click to expand...
If it was a binary choice I'd agree with you, but I bet if the money wasn't spent on this it wouldn't be spent on healthcare and education instead.
 
A boost for SpaceX?

An accident at Baikonur has effectively deprived Russia of the ability to launch humans into space for the first time in 60 years.

During the launch of the Soyuz MS-28, the service tower collapsed at launch pad 31.

This is the only site from which crewed missions to the ISS can be launched. Footage from the broadcast shows the structure simply caving in.

According to The Insider, the tower was torn off by the exhaust plume of the rocket’s first-stage engine. The cosmonauts were unharmed, but part of the launch complex was destroyed and will require long-term repairs.

Analysts say launches of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are now delayed indefinitely.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1994137928331874718
 
acbytesla said:
It's always a binary choice.
Click to expand...
From CoPilot:

The fallacy concerning false choices is called the False Dilemma (also known as a false dichotomy, either-or fallacy, or black-and-white thinking). It occurs when someone presents only two options as if they are the only possibilities, ignoring other valid alternatives.

---

🔎 What is the False Dilemma Fallacy?

• A false dilemma is an informal fallacy that arises when an argument limits choices to just two, even though more exist.
• It oversimplifies complex issues by presenting them as binary opposites (e.g., either X or Y), when in reality, there may be a spectrum of possibilities.
• This fallacy is often used in politics, advertising, and everyday debates to manipulate or pressure people into choosing one of the presented extremes.
 
acbytesla said:
The study of economics is the study of choices. There's a reason they cut the Apollo missions short. It was the budget.
Click to expand...
Which is nothing to do with the fact that the choice is not between a moon mission and funding healthcare and education. Those are not the set of available choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom