CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on January 24, 2026, 09:19:33 PM
-
https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/01/23/artemis-ii-crew-enters-quarantine-ahead-of-journey-around-moon/
This is pretty cool IMHO.
In all of history the only humans who have ever traveled higher than earth orbit are the Apollo Astronauts from 1968-1972. In the 53 years since (including my entire lifetime) no human has traveled beyond orbit. If all goes well, that is about to change.
-
I wouldn't do it.
unless I was paid handsomely
-
I wouldn't do it.
unless I was paid handsomely
no more income tax for me ever
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0vy33Br_3s
-
Once you leave the magnetic field, there's a lot of exposure to radiation.
-
Well then take the magnets out of your microwave,DUH
-
Once you leave the magnetic field, there's a lot of exposure to radiation.
A lot of the Apollo Astronauts lived (still living!) well into their 80’s and 90’s. Not sure how much extra radiation exposure they sustain, but I think it’s somewhat low, unless there is some kind of solar event.
-
well, they wore the tin foil suits, Duh!
-
I don't know how many of you follow the space program (what passes for today's space program) or what you know about the Artemis program but I'll give you a primer and some healthy criticism.
I think most of you here are around my age, solid Gen X (born sometime in the early to mid-70's), with a healthy helping of Boomers, born in the late 50's and 60's (I'm looking at you Cincy). I think we have a few millennials here as well, although I'd guess none born after 1990.
I think some of you boomers will remember when America had a real space program, in the late 60' and early 70's, when we sent 7 missions to land on the moon (one failed), and several more to orbit it, and one that could have landed but did not (Apollo X for those keeping track).
-
Now, as I hope you know, the United States used a very powerful rocket called the Saturn V to accomplish all this ( I'll skip the Mercury and Gemini rockets, they're like a non-conference game almost). The Saturn V used 3 stages to get to the moon, with the Apollo CSM (command module) and the LM (lunar module) sitting on top. It could sling both craft to the moon in one launch.
One of the reasons why we succeeded at Apollo where so many other gov't programs fall short is because we were in a space race with the Soviet Union. They beat us to space, first space walk, first woman in space, first satellite, first man in space. First everything, for a long time. So we put all our effort into it, and succeeded supremely, with a few life altering failures along the way (Apollo I fire). The Soviets, even though they denied it, never could get their rocket to successfully launch. We went with 5 large engines, they went with dozens of smaller but extremely powerful engines. The problem was that you really needed a good controlling program or system, and they did not.
We beat Kennedy's deadline to get to the moon, twice (two landings in 1969). No DEI, nobody was worried about how many women to send or what color. Well, let's just agree that the people in charge didn't worry about it, and that's all that really matters. Along the way we invented multiple technologies that seriously advanced us as a country. Things like portable computers, aerospace innovation, engine technology, communications.
We got so good at it, we landed 4 more times in the 1970's, (one failure, Apollo 13 that was safely brough home. Cue Tom Hanks).
-
Now, just like a lot of things in this life, once we achieved our goal, nobody quite knew what to do next. We had plans for more moon landings, and we had already built and planned at least two more Apollo missions. The rockets are still in existence, on display in Houston and Florida.
Certainly, The Apollo System and Saturn V were expensive. But the reality of it was that most of those costs had already been sunk, and winding down from R&D to building to production. I've tried to look up the numbers, and the costs to keep Saturn V running were not bad by modern standards.
We had one last pisser for the Russians, we launched a space station so big (Skylab) that it was almost bigger than all the other space stations they had launched combined, and is still almost as big as the ISS which consists of multiple modules launched one at a time and assembled over decades. And we did this in one launch, in the mid-70's.
Few people know this, but in order to launch an Apollo CSM we had a little rocket called I think the Saturn I, which was really just a Saturn rocket without all the stages. This is what we used to launch crews to Skylab.
Skylab was so large that they could do gymnastics on it. By comparison the ISS looks small and cramped.
https://youtu.be/d1sr6aVzW9M?si=KFS0HQJUebVH2lfG
-
Most people don't really understand this, but the first few Apollo missions were fairly short. They got there, they hopped out, stayed maybe a day and made some excursions, and took off. The last three missions were called J missions. These are the ones with the rover, they stayed up to 3 days, and explored multiple kilometers. The first three missions (11, 12, 14) were limited by how far they could walk. 15,16, 17 were only limited by supplies (power, electricity, etc). We were very close to establishing long duration bases on the moon that would be permanent and supplied. The Saturn V was at the start of it's life, it could have been easily upgraded to carry more cargo, and as systems evolved (lighter, more powerful computers) it is 100% assured we could have had much more presence on the moon.
But political forces conspired, the public lost interest, and they cancelled the Apollo Program before the last two flights were even flown and pivoted to something called the space shuttle.
-
Now, I really don't want to diss on the space shuttle too much, because as a Gen X, this thing literally personifies the 80's for me.
When this thing was in early stages, they knew that they wanted something cheaper. This was recognized decades ago, even in the early 70's they knew we couldn't keep throwing our rockets away after each use.
The space shuttle promised reusability and low cost. Everything except the exterior tank was to be re-used. The shuttle itself, the engines (most expensive part), the solid rocket boosters.
NASA even partnered with the Air Force and military, and part of what drove the shuttle design was for what the air force wanted, not necessarily what NASA needed.
-
I read some worry about the heat shield. They reenter much faster than things in orbit.
-
@Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706)
Thanks for the posts and all the detail. I always look forward to space program posts from you!
-
What we ended up with was a system that had some capability, but nobody really knew exactly what to do with it. The plan, as envisioned in the 70's, was a space truck that would deliver cargo to orbit, and we would build out things in orbit like large space stations. We could repair satellites in orbit, and they even hoped to assemble larger systems in orbit for Mars trips and return to the moon.
The issue is that the system ended up being so complex, with the shuttle, the SRB's, the ET, everything that even though it was reusable, it was still expensive to launch. Nobody would say this in the 80's, but it ended up being just as expensive, or maybe even more expensive, than the Saturn V, with way less capability. To give you an idea of how badly they messed up, they had planned to launch it dozens of times a year during the planning phase. The most they ever did in a year was 9, in 1985.
I vividly remember in the mid-80s my friends dad went to California to work on "the space program". They went out there and lived for 1-2 years. I never knew exactly what that meant, but later on I found out that they planned to launch the shuttle from Vandenburg AFB. After Challenger that never happened.
-
This isn't well understood by the public, but there was immense pressure on NASA to bring the cost down in the shuttle program. In order to do this, they needed to launch more times per year. The more times they launched, the less per launch the costs would be. You have so many fixed costs, so the incremental costs were not nearly as much. Plus, the thought was that you could refine things as you go, make things faster.
FF to 1986 and Challenger. We don't need to rehash the details, but 7 astronauts lost, vehicle lost. Major black eye on the Space Program.
-
After '86, everybody pretty much knew the SS program was a bust. Sure, we made some changes, made some safety refinements, but they pretty much knew then the program would never live up to the intended purpose or hype. So we spent the next decade launching a few missions per year to orbit, doing "science" and experiments, and even repaired a few satellites (hello Hubble!).
Obviously they started buildig the ISS in the very late 90's, but I question the amount of science retured for the money put in.
-
So we built ISS, and I’ve seen reports that it could not have been done without the shuttle.
ISS was a success in many ways. It gave Russian space program something to do ( selling ICBM Tech to not friendly nations ) , gave US Aerospace a jobs program, and it gave the shuttle something to do. We learned some in space construction methods, advanced our technology. But in my opinion , we could have done way more.
EssentiallyCongress only became interested in the space program as a jobs program. We flew it from 1981-2011, and things got pretty stale.
ISS is still there, but nobody really cares about it. It’s boring. Science returns are somewhat minimal.
-
All this writing, but I’m getting to my point.
After Columbia broke apart in 2003 it simply confirmed what everybody already knew. The shuttle program needed to end, and we needed to move on with whatever comes next.
This was early in GW Bush’s presidency. Indeed, he tried. They announced big plans, big rockets and all kinds of return to the moon and go to Mars programs, but the money from Congress never followed. That initiative, called Constellation for those keeping score, never really did much.
-
In 1979 when Skylab was crashing to Earth my friend and I put on hardhats and binoculars and made a sign proclaiming us the Skylab Patrol and rode it all over my small home town in my old Nissan. They put us on the front page of our local newspaper.
-
In 1979 when Skylab was crashing to Earth my friend and I put on hardhats and binoculars and made a sign proclaiming us the Skylab Patrol and rode it all over my small home town in my old Nissan. They put us on the front page of our local newspaper.
This isn’t well known, but they actually intended to fly the shuttle to Skylab, but there were delays in the Shuttle program, and Skylab deorbited a few years earlier than they predicted.
-
So, this brings us to Artemis.
Obama actually cancelled Constellation and the predecessors to Artemis.
Congress and the Senate invented SLS as a compromise. It was supposed to use Space Shuttle tech to build a rival to the Saturn V rocket.
SLS is often referred to as the Senate Launch System. It uses 4 Space Shuttle Main Engines, or SSME. Now known as RS-25 engines.
No matter what you think about the success or failure of the shuttle program, SSME was a tremendous technological achievement.
The problem is they were designed to be reusable. So the cost of each engine wasn’t really that big of a concern. Reusability was a priority.
SLS is a single use rocket. It drops the first stage off in the ocean after each use. Now , the government has a decent supply of RS-25 engines left over from the shuttle program. There were three orbiters left. Endeavor, Atlantis, and Discovery. 3 engines each, so 9 flight proven engines, plus a stock of a few dozen more from previous flown and unflown missions. About 16-20 total. Enough for 4-5 flights of SLS.
-
SLS was meant to take advantage of shuttle era tech and build a modern, heavy lift rocket. The dimensions of the core stage are the same as the shuttle exterior tank. The solid rocket boosters are evolved from SS boosters. The 2nd stage engines are from Apollo era tech.
Boeing was the prime contractor for SLS. I believe it was authorized around 2010 or 2011, they said they could have it flying by 2016.
Needless to say , the program has excelled as a cost plus jobs program. Not only did it not fly in ‘16, it was 5 years behind even that schedule.
So what did congress do ? They happily threw more money at it. Schedule slipped all the way to 2022, all while tens of billions were thrown at it. Nobody cared, because the jobs are spread around all over the country.
-
This brings us to Artemis II. Some of you may be wondering why we're sending humans around the moon, like we did with Apollo 8 and 10 (and 13 by accident).
BTW, as an aside, Apollo 8 was a very bold move at the time. The CIA and NASA got wind that the Soviets were going to beat us to the moon. The N1 was pretty much equivalent, if not slightly stronger, than the Saturn V. This was the first human mission for Apollo/Saturn V full stack. They sent it all the way to the moon and back, just to beat the Russians.
Back to my point. SLS, even though it's advertised as "the most powerful rocket ever flown" is not as capable as the Saturn V because the 2nd stage, known as the ICPS or Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, is underpowered, and the capsule, known as Orion, is overweight compared to the Apollo CSM.
For comparison, Saturn V could hurl 48-50 tons to TLI (Trans Lunar Injection). Artemis/SLS: measley 26 tons to TLI. So roughly half the capability. Some of this is due to the fact that they tried to "stage" in the SLS rocket, with later versions planned for more capability, and some if it just simply dumb decisions early in the project. There is a Block 2 version (no hardware ready) that will be comparable to SV, and a Block 1B that is like .75 Saturn V.
The comparison from Saturn V to SLS and the lack of performance doesn't just end with the rocket. The Apollo CSM had a very large engine with a thrust of about 91 kN. Some of this was not needed because decisions were made early in the program that were not necessarily warranted. They didn't have all the components figured out, so they overbuilt. Orion has a SM (service module) thrust of a meager 25 kN. So basically 1/4 the power of Apollo. Stupid.
Now, to be fair, the Apollo CM (command module) was much smaller than Artemis. It only held a crew of 3, and it did not have nearly the shielding and other life support that Artemis will have. The main reason for this is that Orion was designed more for a general mission, Apollo was meant for Moon only.
BTW, we gave the SM for Orion to the Europeans. They built and designed it. I have no idea why?
-
Now, I know you think I'm sour on Artemis II but I'm not. It will be a great achievement for the United States and I think orbiting 4 humans around the moon for the first time since 1972 is an amazing thing.
I'm just kind of disappointed by the whole thing. It won't land, there is zero capability to land anything with humans in it on the Moon with anything SLS related. It costs about $4 billion per launch, and we only have the cadence to launch about 1 per year.
But it will inspire kids and young people, and we are entering the first phase of a new era of exploration, so that's neat. I was just hoping we could do more, sooner.
-
I've got more to write, but I want to hear from others. I know a lot of people don't give two rips about the program, or maybe only a passing interest.
-
So... how long before we fake some more moon landings?
-
The last I had read is that NASA is planning a mission with Artemis to land men on the moon. However, the plan is/was to use Elon Musk's Starship to rondevue with Orion in the Moons orbit, tranfer the landing party to the Starship and use Starship to actually land on the moon.
Question or Gigem: Am I correct about this or do you have any information regarding this?
-
I hope to hell some of that was copy & paste - I did read it all and found it interesting
-
The last I had read is that NASA is planning a mission with Artemis to land men on the moon. However, the plan is/was to use Elon Musk's Starship to rondevue with Orion in the Moons orbit, tranfer the landing party to the Starship and use Starship to actually land on the moon.
Question or Gigem: Am I correct about this or do you have any information regarding this?
This is 100% true. SLS/Orion cannot co-manifest a lander of any size due to the lack of performance and the weight of the Orion CSM/SM, and the lack of power from the Orion SM.
Back around 2020, NASA put out a bid for a HLS, or Human Landing System (dumb name). I'd like to point out that prior to the SLS rockets start, there were almost no commercial providers for space and rocket systems. Everything was pretty much gov't contracted. What I'm referring to is not only Space X and the Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy, but Rocket Lab, and various other space entities. Starting in the mid 2010's, and especially after 2016, Space X has not only dominated US Rocket launches, but world-wide mass to space, by a larger percentage.
Now, Elon and Space X has been working on Starship/Super Heavy (SS/SH) for about 10 years now. Elon has always stated his goal is to get to Mars. Love the man or hate him, he's got big plans.
SS/SH, as a system, far out-classes anything that NASA/Boeing/Gov't can do. Elon envision SS to be 100% reusable, and it's quite a bit larger than either Saturn V, or SLS, in both terms of size and power. It's taller, and has more thrust.
It's unlike anything ever seen before, because it's made from Stainless Steel. Elon pivoted to SS once he figured out he couldn't make it work with composites.
You may wonder if it has landing legs like the Falcon 9, and the answer is no. Elon realized that the extra mass of having legs would take away from the MTO, or mass to orbit. This is one of the things that limited the space shuttle, it was indeed powerful, but the shuttle itself was so heavy it subtracted from it's cargo mass to orbit.
SS/SH are both expected to be landed, or caught, back on the launch tower. Space X has already done this, twice, for the SH part.
-
After the moon landings, NASA obviously struggled to find purpose, as noted above. I agree the ISS has not yielded much beyond how to survive long time in earth orbit.
The upcoming mission is puzzling, to me, why not send an unmanned ship to do the same thing? I don't see why the four humans aboard are somehow changing anything.
I recall grandiose proposals to build a launcher in the Andes, sounded like an idea, never happened, using a rail gun to do the initial acceleration.
The key is a cheaper way to get something into orbit.
-
I hope to hell some of that was copy & paste - I did read it all and found it interesting
Negative ghostrider.
-
the pattern is full
-
After the moon landings, NASA obviously struggled to find purpose, as noted above. I agree the ISS has not yielded much beyond how to survive long time in earth orbit.
The upcoming mission is puzzling, to me, why not send an unmanned ship to do the same thing? I don't see why the four humans aboard are somehow changing anything.
I recall grandiose proposals to build a launcher in the Andes, sounded like an idea, never happened, using a rail gun to do the initial acceleration.
The key is a cheaper way to get something into orbit.
NASA actually never struggled to find purpose, they were given a new purpose every 4 years, or sometimes every 2 years by a congress that was only concerned with jobs in their district.
Despite it's shortcomings, we did learn a lot with the space shuttle. It was a worthwhile endeavor, it should have just lasted 15 years at most instead of 30.
And there were plans, plans that got scrapped, changed, or were never realistic.
-
I just wrote out a bit of a screed, but deleted it because it broke all kinds of rules here and would surely lead to all the wrong kinds of responses.
Damn it--I really believe that most of us want more or less the same things, probably including a well-functioning space program. But we're fighting over a lot of BS that isn't getting us closer to what we all actually want. I wish we could find a way to focus on how to make the [space] program work.
-
The amount of science that NASA has done over the last 50 years is staggering. For a hot minute, the Soviet Union was kicking our tails. First satellite, first man, first woman, first to see the back side of the moon.
After about 1968, it’s pretty much been all US. First to have a manned orbit around the moon, first to dock in space, first communication satellite, most powerful rocket, biggest space station, first reusable spacecraft, first to put 7 people into space simultaneously. First to send a probe to Mars. I believe the Soviets had first to Venus, and actually had a very robust Venus exploration program including several landings ( with pictures!). Because of orbital dynamics, Venus is much easier to reach than Mars. It’s also an acidic, literal hot hell hole.
Nobody has done solar system exploration like US.
We’re still the only country that has successfully sent probes to the outer solar system. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, and finally Pluto. It took so long to get a probe to Pluto that in between the time they launched and arrived they literally downgraded Pluto from a planet to a mini-planet. Multiple, even dozens of missions.
The Soviets tried, and exploded many rockets and had many failed missions. The EU….either doesn’t care or doesn’t have the funds.
-
Make Pluto a Planet Again!
-
NASA actually never struggled to find purpose, they were given a new purpose every 4 years,
I should perhaps have said they struggled to find a consistent long term goal. One was the ISS, one was the shuttle (ostensibly a way to get stuff to orbit cheaply), one was exploration of planets etc. IMHO, the latter has been more beneficial to us, and can largely be done with robots today. I think the two large space telescopes have done real stuff beyond providing snazzy photos at times.
At least Musk articulated one possible long term goal, Mars colonization. What SpaceX has done is pretty amazing, to me, and I realize Musk may have had little to do with much of it. Does a Mars return mission make sense now, or perhaps a one way to Mars mission instead, manned? Maybe, the vision of getting humanity onto another rock makes sense to me.
I've read about the possibility of pseudo-terraforming Mars, to get atmospheric pressure up to negative need for suits, you'd still need an O2 tank. Radiation remains an issue of course.
"We" spend so much on other stuff, though, and our finances are not good.
-
I think the problem is:
Space enthusiasts: "We need a robust space program!"
Doubters: "Why? It costs a ton of tax dollars that could be used here on Earth for practical purposes."
Space enthusiasts: "Uhh... Because it's really cool?"
No matter how we slice it, we haven't really identified a valuable commercial application for space travel. Not for travel manned or unmanned to other planetary bodies, and not for much manned space travel at all even in LEO. It largely remains in the realm of doing science for science's sake and hoping some practical applications come from the science.
I love the idea of expanding the space program. I love the idea of some of the really cool things that we could possibly do. But even I can't find much justification for it other than the fact that it's really cool stuff.
-
One idea is mining an asteroid, by altering its orbit into a Lagrange point and building a metals factory. I see some weird numbers justifying that from enthusiasts.
But, basically, getting anything into low Earth orbit is still very expensive.
-
One idea is mining an asteroid, by altering its orbit into a Lagrange point and building a metals factory. I see some weird numbers justifying that from enthusiasts.
But, basically, getting anything into low Earth orbit is still very expensive.
Yeah... Often when I see that, it tends to not understand what supply does to pricing.
"Hey, this asteroid has $10 Trillion USD worth of critical minerals! Isn't that worth a project spending $30B to retrieve?"
Uhh... No. Because once you flood the market with these critical minerals, they won't be worth $10T any more. They're only worth that because of how rare they are. If they're suddenly not rare, they're not worth that much. That's how supply and demand work.
-
It makes a bit more sense with respect to colonizing the Moon, which is bereft of heavier metals, like iron. But for things like gold etc., yup, it would crash the markets.
And colonizing the Moon might make little sense.
-
might???
you think rent is high in NYC and San Fran?
-
I realize Musk may have had little to do with much of it.
I'm not sure what you mean there? Love him or hate him, I think it would be a mistake to say anything other than when it comes to Space and rocket technology he's singlehanded transformed our world.
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives hated Musk and thought he was a liberal, and liberals loved him. Now we've come full circle.
-
I think the problem is:
Space enthusiasts: "We need a robust space program!"
Doubters: "Why? It costs a ton of tax dollars that could be used here on Earth for practical purposes."
Space enthusiasts: "Uhh... Because it's really cool?"
No matter how we slice it, we haven't really identified a valuable commercial application for space travel. Not for travel manned or unmanned to other planetary bodies, and not for much manned space travel at all even in LEO. It largely remains in the realm of doing science for science's sake and hoping some practical applications come from the science.
I love the idea of expanding the space program. I love the idea of some of the really cool things that we could possibly do. But even I can't find much justification for it other than the fact that it's really cool stuff.
For a long, long time the NASA budget was relatively stale and paltry, by Federal Gov't standards. I remember that for a long time it was stuck at about $16 billion a year. Now, $16 billion is nothing to sneeze at, but when the Federal Gov't spends in excess of $2-3 trillion every single year, it's really not all that much. I haven't kept up with it as much in the last few years, but I think it's now sitting at about $20-25 billion. Not a small amount, but nothing that would keep anybody awake at night.
The big thing about Space exploration is that it's related to National Prestige. What did going to the moon really give the United States that we didn't already have? More than anything else, it proved to the world that our way of doing things was better. If it had been Russia/USSR getting to the moon first, maybe a lot of countries would have to think about who best to model themselves after.
China has a very active Space program. They've landed rovers on the Moon, and If I'm not mistaken they landed one on Mars. They've landed one on the far side of the moon (technically the moon doesn't have a dark side FWIW).
They have plans to land a man (Taikonaut) on the moon before 2030. They have an active space station, not as big as ISS but sizeable. They have an assortment of rockets and heavy lift rockets. Somebody on another forum posted up about China being the 2nd to land on the moon, and I had to point out they would be 7th, because we did it 6 times in 4 years. It would have been 9 times if we simply flew the last two missions that were already built and had hardware for, and 10 if Apollo 13 hadn't failed.
-
The big thing about Space exploration is that it's related to National Prestige. What did going to the moon really give the United States that we didn't already have? More than anything else, it proved to the world that our way of doing things was better. If it had been Russia/USSR getting to the moon first, maybe a lot of countries would have to think about who best to model themselves after.
It's related to national prestige? Or it WAS related to national prestige in the 1960s?
China has a very active Space program. They've landed rovers on the Moon, and If I'm not mistaken they landed one on Mars. They've landed one on the far side of the moon (technically the moon doesn't have a dark side FWIW).
They have plans to land a man (Taikonaut) on the moon before 2030. They have an active space station, not as big as ISS but sizeable. They have an assortment of rockets and heavy lift rockets. Somebody on another forum posted up about China being the 2nd to land on the moon, and I had to point out they would be 7th, because we did it 6 times in 4 years. It would have been 9 times if we simply flew the last two missions that were already built and had hardware for, and 10 if Apollo 13 hadn't failed.
Do you think it's anywhere near as relevant as it was then? Do you think half the nerdy kids who might be interested in space exploration [and I was one of those] necessarily care in 2025 what country does it? Will they ascribe "this is the political system I should spend the rest of my life advocating for?" based on which one does something first?
Will someone think "OMG China is the best country in the world!!!" if they are first? Or will they roll their eyes and think that "national prestige" is just something those silly Boomers care about?
-
I don’t know if Musk contributed technically to SpaceX.
-
Anyways, I didn't mean to ramble on, I'm just really tuned into this stuff, and I have nothing to do with the space program, but I'm an interested observer.
So, Artemis II will launch soon, and it will not even orbit the moon. It will go on a free-return trajectory like Apollo 13 (after the incident). It will still be stunningly cool, and there are 4 people aboard instead of the Apollo era 3 crew. I'm sure there will be a lot of attention, and for good measure.
The average person is probably expecting us to make a real moon landing soon, but it's probably a few years away. The reason is because it took so long to develop SLS/Orion and so much money that there was not much money left over for the lander (HLS). By the time they got around to awarding the lander, there were several contendors. Old Space (Lockheed/Boeing and some others), Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos' company), a couple more, and Space X. Space X was already developing Star Ship/SH, and they won the bid. They were the furthest along, and they already had billions of their own money invested.
Now, I'm sure you've seen the videos of SS/SH crashing, blowing up, and in general not doing too well. It needs to be stated here that Elon Musk is simply not scared to push the envelope and fail. These rockets they are sending up are purely iterations of each other, and they are being thrown together in a way that a production rocket never would. But they are making progress, including landing the SH part of SS onto the tower.
The hard part is and always will be re-using the upper stage, which in this case is the StarShip portion of the rocket. They've been evolving the design for years, experimenting with tiles, different fin combinations, different engine strategies (hot staging!). They're actually pretty close to being able to bring SS back, intact, and landing in back onto the launch tower. They've had several controlled re-entry tests, and they're getting the heat shield dialed in. The upper stage is so much harder to save, because it's going so much faster and takes so much more thermal abuse.
Again, it's not well known or publicized by the press, but one "flaw" in the SS/SH concept is that once SS reaches space, it almost immediately will need to be refueled. It's essentially empty. You remember the giant external tank on the space shuttle? We threw that away after every launch. The main engines on the space shuttle were paperweights after tank separation. The only fuel it had was it's little orbital maneuvering thrusters (OMS).
Well, guess what....orbital refueling has never been done. At least, nothing beyond small experiments. What Space X plans is to land the SH rocket, refuel, mate it up and fly a new version of SS up called tanker. They haven't really released very many details about this portion of the plan, but essentially I think there will be no humans, no cargo (other than fuel). It's only job is to get a tank load of fuel into space, refuel the other SS, and come back. And in order to do this enough to send SS to the moon or anywhere else, it needs to do it maybe a dozen or more times. I've seen reports that it will take up to 16 tankers to fully fuel up starship.
So as you can imagine, complex.
-
I don’t know if Musk contributed technically to SpaceX.
I don't want to confuse you that I'm some kind of Musk can do no wrong fan-boi. He's polarizing. He's divisive. He's....autistic. And an asshole sometimes. I don't have to like the man, but I can recognize his accomplishments.
But from the reports and stories I've read, he's very much technically involved with Space X, and very much the driver behind the vision. Now, I acknowledge that I live in my own bubble, and I probably haven't seen stories about how he is disinvolved or overstates his involvement.
-
As I said, I don’t know.
-
and very much the driver behind the vision
He is that. I don't put a lot of faith in his technical skills, but he is absolutely the driver behind the vision. And he can secure the funds to back up the vision too.
-
Now this part gets a little comical. Assuming SS can be successfully refueled, and get to lunar orbit, it’s supposed to dock with Orion during Artemis III. There is something else called Gateway that is supposed to be a permanent moon orbiting space station. Ignore that, it’s vaporware.
So Artemis III and SS are to dock in Lunar orbit, take the astronauts down to the surface, and after a stay, take off and bring them back to Orion, and then Orion comes back to Earth.
If you have seen the size of Orion, it’s about 1/3 bigger than the Apollo CSM. Starship, in comparison, is massive. There is a joke somewhere about a flea f*cking an elephant, and that’s appropos. Starship will literally be 100x bigger than Orion. And this is just the pressurized volume. Physically, it will be much larger.
So comically, Orion will “dock” with SS, they will transfer all crew into SS, with room for perhaps dozens of people but I guess there will only be 4. My current understanding is that Orion won’t need to be manned, so nobody will be left behind like Apollo.
They take their little trip, return, redock with Orion, and return to earth in Orion. SS will also return to Earth, and possibly be refueled and landed, or maybe it will simply stay in orbit. They haven’t really said very much about that phase.
Now you may be wondering…if SS can launch->go to moon—>land—>return to orbit—>return to earth—>land back on earth….why do we need SLS/Orion? You’re not the only one. Now, one obstacle may be that it’s not yet “man rated”. NASA basically needs to put their stamp of approval on every rocket and system that is going to carry their astronauts. Obviously, this is for good reason, with fatal accidents on Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia. Space X has history with this, with Falcon 9 being man rated. I think they actually call it crew rated now, but whatever.
-
So…you can quickly see where this is heading. IF, and that’s a big IF, it’s only a matter of time until SS is fully man rated, and ready to take dozens of people to the moon. They haven’t figured everything out, but they retiring risk.
SH is a done deal. They’ve already launched it and landed it back on it’s launch mount several times. I’m sure there will be tweaks, but that part of the system is considered solved.
SS still has major hurdles to clear. Firstly, it has never made it to orbit. Several have exploded during launch. Some burned up during reentry. To be fair, they’ve never actually tried to put one in orbit, because they need to be able to safely deorbit such a large mass. They’ve been sending it to a suborbital trajectory to ensure that it comes down, no matter what, and in a place of their choosing. They did succeed to make a successful “water landing “, where they landed it in a particular spot, vertically. I think this year they may try to put one in orbit, and land it back on the launch mount.
Im not sure if they will try to land one first, or do an in-orbit refueling. Neither has been done. When, and maybe IF, they can solve those two problems, SS will be ready for prime time. Man rating will be swift after that. I’m speculating that 2028 will be the year. It’s Trump’s last year, and you know he’s going to want that glory. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they call the first SS Trump One or something.
They will fly Orion, maybe a couple of times. It will be funny because at some point Space X will do a tourist trip, with a dozen or more passengers. The whole Orion dock to Starship will be completely ludicrous at some point.
The kicker for all this will be that Space X is attempting to fly Starship for hundreds of millions per flight. With a fully reusable SS and SH, able to launch->land>launch essentially they’re aiming to fly it more like a plane. Will they succeed, nobody knows. Certainly they’ve accomplished much.
-
He is that. I don't put a lot of faith in his technical skills, but he is absolutely the driver behind the vision. And he can secure the funds to back up the vision too.
Can I ask why you think that? Do you think that narrative would still be pushed if he wasn’t so polarizing? I heard the same thing from republicans when he was considered a liberal, and now I hear it from democrats now that he’s considered a conservative.
-
It's related to national prestige? Or it WAS related to national prestige in the 1960s?
Do you think it's anywhere near as relevant as it was then? Do you think half the nerdy kids who might be interested in space exploration [and I was one of those] necessarily care in 2025 what country does it? Will they ascribe "this is the political system I should spend the rest of my life advocating for?" based on which one does something first?
Will someone think "OMG China is the best country in the world!!!" if they are first? Or will they roll their eyes and think that "national prestige" is just something those silly Boomers care about?
It really depends on who you ask. There was always certain groups, even in the 60’s and 70’s, who said it was a waste of money. Some people never cared. It affected people differently.
However, I think I’m justified to say that on the whole, it was a very positive thing for the United States. It gave us a certain amount of validation, added onto the whole “we won WW2, we invented atomic energy/weapons, jet engines (not really but maybe jet airplane travel).
it certainly inspired Musk, and the other richest person in the World Jeff Bezos.
I think about going to Mars a lot. How would you feel if instead of the Stars and Stripes being planted by an American astronaut it’s the red flag with yellow stars? Maybe to some, it would be just another day. But overall, even if nothing else changes, there would be a subliminal feeling that it’s over for us. Some kind of deep rooted psychological effect.
Certainly losing the Moon race didn’t necessarily end the USSR, but after that their space program really stalled. If you think flying the shuttle for 30 years was too long, they’re pretty much flying the same rockets and space craft since the 60’s. They’ve been flying the Soyuz rocket and capsule since 1967, or 59 years. They’ve upgraded and refined it along the way, but nevertheless it’s the same basic design.
-
It makes a bit more sense with respect to colonizing the Moon, which is bereft of heavier metals, like iron. But for things like gold etc., yup, it would crash the markets.
And colonizing the Moon might make little sense.
Colonization of the moon is a joke. It will be nothing more than McMurdo station in Antarctica.
I do have to mention that there is a couple of things on the moon that may have value. One is water, in the form of ice. The value comes from making this into rocket fuel. The gravity on the moon is 1/6 that of the earth. So with the same fuel, you can launch 6 times the load. It’s why Apollo could launch the ascent stage of the LM with a little chicken shit rocket motor that was closer to the ejection seat of a fighter jet. In theory, you could create rocket fuel on the Moon, and launch a rocket to Mars, Much faster than you could from earth. It’s called a gravity well, Earths is high. Moon and Mars is not.
The other thing on the moon is helium 3, which is supposed to be the fuel for fusion. Fusion is always 30 years away, I don’t think it will be a factor.
-
https://youtube.com/shorts/Gi3ZcH7g_9c?si=z2p8I8NOR4UfXVNr
https://youtube.com/shorts/K6rUDI0MVXI?si=gveUrOhfkk2bFp2F
-
This concept shows how much comically larger SS is compared to Orion.
(https://i.imgur.com/C2RCnNO.jpeg)
-
How would you feel if instead of the Stars and Stripes being planted by an American astronaut it’s the red flag with yellow stars? Maybe to some, it would be just another day. But overall, even if nothing else changes, there would be a subliminal feeling that it’s over for us. Some kind of deep rooted psychological effect.
I agree with this. It would be a further sign that we are no longer as far in the lead (or in the lead at all) on technological development. In the grand scheme of things, it puts the question to whether our system of government is better than their system of government. That's a big question and a little silly to base on a single aspect of space exploration, but the psychological impact is real.
Also, space exploration has--and I presume continues to--pushed overall scientific/engineering advancement forward. In the 1950s and 1960s that could be directly correlated to defense (i.e., how good were we at launching rockets that could carry big payloads to precisely where we wanted them to go); in the 1970s through the 1990s at least, it still was, with the increasing importance of connectivity to satellites (a huge amount of current warfighting technology relies on--or at least is much more effective with--GPS and early warnings/tracking we get from our satellites). One of the key reasons for Space Force--whether a separate military branch was necessary or not--is that we foresee a military future where satellites have to fight for their survival during an armed conflict (and, likewise, will likely attempt to disable opposition satellites). So the national defense aspect of space exploration can't be ignored, even if the government rarely highlights its importance when talking to the public about NASA.
-
I will add: exploration is a fundamental human trait. We are explorers. Our planetary exploration is now primarily in the oceans and subterranean. To borrow from Star Trek, space is the obvious other frontier.
-
I agree with this. It would be a further sign that we are no longer as far in the lead (or in the lead at all) on technological development. In the grand scheme of things, it puts the question to whether our system of government is better than their system of government. That's a big question and a little silly to base on a single aspect of space exploration, but the psychological impact is real.
I agree, +1
with the increasing importance of connectivity to satellites (a huge amount of current warfighting technology relies on--or at least is much more effective with--GPS and early warnings/tracking we get from our satellites). One of the key reasons for Space Force--whether a separate military branch was necessary or not--is that we foresee a military future where satellites have to fight for their survival during an armed conflict (and, likewise, will likely attempt to disable opposition satellites). So the national defense aspect of space exploration can't be ignored, even if the government rarely highlights its importance when talking to the public about NASA.
I've believed this to be true for as long as I've thought about it.
I think the near perfect historical analogue is aviation in WWI. When the war started aviation was in it's infancy and the original, as you put it, "warfighting" use for the primitive aircraft available was simply reconnaissance. Planes that looked more like glorified kites (sheets wrapped wrapped around wooden spars) were sent up to see where the enemy was and to spot for artillery. It didn't take long before pilots started shooting at each other and soon the purpose-built fighter was born.
I foresee roughly the same development here. Blinding our opponents by taking out their satellites and protecting ourselves from being blinded by protecting our satellites would be a MAJOR theatre in any future great power conflict.
I think there are treaties that prohibit this but there were also treaties that prohibited unrestricted submarine warfare and the use of gas and well, we all know how that worked out.
-
The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.
-
thanks for sharing, @Gigem (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1706) ...
one thing I learned dealing with gov't, contracts, black budgets, etc, over the years while id did so was not to ask a lot or even a few questions unless you were intentionally read in. that doesn't mean you don't have some SA of things going on in the peripheral of your lane. honestly and factually, i always believed the space program to be a slush fund - one mighty cozy to the military and other smaller groups such as DARPA and DTRA. Add to that the interests intersect in some occasions making overt pursuit of something reasonable.
as a for instance, we can identify a radioactive isotope from a very far distance by pointing a laser at it. we can also point into a plume aka cloud and identify not only if there are biologicals in it but what size they are, and how they react under introduced conditions- identifying, with certainty, the presence of potentially harmful and purposeful biological agents... again, from a vast distance.
there is a thing called the 'hazmat ID' and later the 'hazmat360' which is a computer/device in a pelican box with a little glass tray, and which has a crystal under it a laser is scattered through... anything positioned on that tray can be analyzed and identified in seconds.... the chemistry of it's structure, that is. These things came out of funding, at least, through the 'space program'.
-
The technology resulting from space advancements is tremendous.
-
Just caught up on this fascinating thread.
So when are we getting the first Warp Core Reactor and hitting WF9 so we can solve every science problem by reversing the polarity?
Make it so.
-
The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.
Yes but through the use of a massive deterrent.
Hitler famously was gassed in WWI and the allies made it known that we had gas and would use it if they did. They held back largely because they knew there was no advantage to be gained. Early in the war they didn't need to and late in the war when they needed a gamechanger their once feared Luftwaffe was mostly destroyed so they knew that if they used gas against us we would use it against them and unlike them, we actually had the ability to deliver it.
The Japanese didn't use gas against Americans that I am aware of but they did use it against others. The obvious difference here being the ability or inability to retaliate in kind. Also, at least later in the war they faced the same delivery problem that the Germans faced. Frankly the invasions of Okinawa and Iowa Jima and eventually the home islands (had that been necessary) would have been a LOT easier if we had been able to gas all the defenders before going in. We didn't because of the treaties, they didn't because they KNEW that gas inherently favors the attacker so trying to use it defensively against an enemy with a MUCH larger ability to produce it and a MUCH better ability to deliver it would be suicidal (granted the Japanese made a lot of stupid and suicidal decisions).
I see taking out satellites very differently. For one thing nobody would be killed which substantially reduces the likelihood of War Crimes Prosecution / Execution post-war if you lose. For another our military is probably a lot more dependent on technology whereas the Chinese are more dependent on numbers so if shooting down satellites results in both sides being blinded I would guess that would be an advantage for the Chinese.
-
Just caught up on this fascinating thread.
So when are we getting the first Warp Core Reactor and hitting WF9 so we can solve every science problem by reversing the polarity?
Make it so.
The irony is that we have faster means of propulsion, technically speaking. Nuclear ships, fusion drives, all sorts of ways to get faster. They need to be built and used in space, you can’t do it on earth because of the environment. In space, it’s already radioactive, and no police to stop you.
-
The irony is that we have faster means of propulsion, technically speaking. Nuclear ships, fusion drives, all sorts of ways to get faster. They need to be built and used in space, you can’t do it on earth because of the environment. In space, it’s already radioactive, and no police to stop you.
Care to explain how those foo fighters move? :)
-
Care to explain how those foo fighters move? :)
Infinite improbability drive.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt9G7yxiR6g
-
The use of gas in war has been sparse since treaties were enacted.
Turkey, Syria, Iraq... all on their own people. Rhodesian war saw use and Nicaragua saw similar use, though not aerosolized so much but instead sewn into soil otherwise intended for agriculture. Rhodesia's bane was anthrax, which is a strange substance straddling chemical and biological when it has been weaponized- as its encapsulated in a protective cell where it can "live" a long, long time or until its disturbed or wetted. In central America the govt and the rebels destroyed fertile soil in effort to deny food from one vantage, and economic asset to the other. I don’t recall what they used if I ever knew, but it was something that takes generations to neutralize.
An aside- the Vuelta bajo in Cuba is the tobacco growing region. Cuba has a govt appointed "master blender" for their cigar manufacturing. They had a introduction of new labels event way back in the early 2ks, and this master blender was asked "who is growing the best crop right now?" And he answered "the padron plantation"... it was a bit shocking because the padron's are in Nicaragua. Turns out what we believed was Cuban puros cigars are blends with variants from other nations. Thats significant because it shows how they are getting their feet back under themselves from the destruction of wars... that master blender went on to say "when Nicaragua and Honduras recovers, their soil is better for growing than our own"..... to better understand that, though, this was post hurricane Andrew which really jacked them (cuba) up badly- destroying that industry infrastructure and with heavy infusion of runoff, and whatever comes along with it, into the soil.
NASA, if interested in colonizing Mars, should pay attention to how those guys make and then keep their soil fertile. :)
-
Haven't read the whole thread but I lived the space race. I knew all the rockets astronauts, etc.. had a giant model of the Saturn v complete with a lunar module. I have a super 8 film where we filmed the first walk on the moon off put TV. Never missed anything not a launch, not a space walk. Not a moon landing. It was very formative for a young kid. I pity the generations since who didn't have this common national feat. Could be what we need as a nation is a lofty goal that inspires us.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Rj2axSA.png)
This impresses me. I would be interested in understanding how much technical guidance Musk offered beyond some broad concepts.
This is highly sophisticated stuff.
-
V3 will use SpaceX’s new Raptor 3 engines on both the Super Heavy booster and the Starship upper stage. These engines are designed to offer more thrust, better efficiency, and improved reliability than earlier Raptors. In fully reusable mode, Starship V3 could carry ~100 tons (or more) of cargo to low Earth orbit (LEO) — a massive increase compared to current rockets like Falcon 9. Some projections suggest even ~200 tons when optimized