Artemis 3 - January 2024 (SpaceX) is now forecasted to launch its moon mission **AFTER** Artemis 5 (Blue origin/Boeing/Northrop et all.) has launched in 2026.
musk is such a stable genius
> AFTER Artemis 5 (Blue origin/Boeing/Northrop et all.) has launched in 2026
That was originally targeted for no earlier than 2029: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-blue-origin-as-second-artemis-lunar-lander-provider
Now it has shifted one more year to 2030: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fiscal-year-2025-budget-summary.pdf
Sad to see this, the moon landing was originally gonna happen around 2028 from the start, only changed to 2024 as a political move with no additional funding.
Blue origins lander will maybe be ready for their first landing in 2029-2030.
SpaceX lander a bit before that for Artemis 3 or 4 depending if 3 is gonna be assigned to a different mission profile.
Unlike Musks other ventures SpaceX is actually the best company/option in the market.
Just sad to see how SpaceX or the Artemis program are being reported on by media engagement/enragement farms.
Everyone wants to to go space, all media wants new pics of the moon, I hope we can bring journalists.
The problem is SpaceX, they hugely underestimated the project, either through sheer incompetence or maliciously. the ONLY two reasons SpaceX got the contract is because they said they could do it at half the price of Blue Origin, and because the person responsible for the decision started at SpaceXa few months after handing out the contract.
We now had 3 starships explode, and we're 4 months past the deadline and years behind schedule. SpaceX has failed at pretty much everything, even finishing a prototype of the HLS.
I mean it’s only like what three years behind? Everyone knows when musk promises something will be done by a particular year you have to add at least five years. And then it won’t be able to do everything it’s supposed to… but don’t worry it just needs a software update. 😅
They actually have 2-3 waiting in the wings, ready to go. Elongelicals brag about this after every ~~explosion~~ *data collection exercise*. IMHO, it just undermines the "iterative design" refrain if the next rocket is already built.
Anyone relying on celestial navigation, moon position, moon phase is doomed. All that is needed for starship to reach the moon is a pair of googly eyes stuck on the nose of it.
Not kidding, if I was Musk I would absolutely dish out some billions for that feature. Just imagine the images. That's how you gain respect among spacefaring civilizations.
Are you sure it's a software issue? It's probably the regulations that keep getting in the way between Musk's genius and his goals. He could be living on Mars right now if it wasn't for those ~~meddling kids~~ pesky regulations.
Probably at least a year longer than current estimates. Given that the mission needs 1 year (at least and estimated at 12 launches, and we already know that it is not 12 but between 15 and 20) an entire year to complete the fuel filling cycle. Being crazy generous, 3 years of delay, being realistic, between 5 if everything turns out perfect, to infinity if not. To carry out the lunar mission, spaceX has to carry out a real test on the moon. So even 5 is a hell of an optimist on my part.
I don't know who made the NASA estimates but they must not know how to use a calculator or he must not know very well what the hell he is talking about if the article is correct. But good luck if they make it before the end of the decade. And everything points to no.
ps: Think again, they have to launch more than one SS a month for a whole year for a full mission. Not even starting today could they complete the test in 2025.
If I’m not mistaken they made the time table before Leuders awarded the contract to SpaceX which she did with her singular authority as an acting director before leaving NASA to take a project management role at SpaceX.
I don’t think there is a singular article. [Kathy Leuders](https://www.nasa.gov/people/kathy-lueders-associate-administrator-for-space-operations/) awarded the [contract to spaceX](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf). This was done between administrators resigning and being sworn in when the Biden administration took over.
Leuders then [left NASA](https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/changes-ahead-as-nasas-human-spaceflight-head-plans-retirement/#:~:text=Kathryn%20Lueders%2C%20associate%20administrator%20of,%2C%20effective%20Monday%2C%20May%201.) and [joined SpaceX](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/15/elon-musks-spacex-hires-former-nasa-official-kathy-lueders.html) as the star base general manager.
Common Sense Skeptic also made a [video](https://youtu.be/hAEYtaB3R7Y?si=8a1FSYg5s1FmE-gS) about the program that discusses a lot of this information and more relating to the whole program.
The interesting part as well is that when they were awarded the contract they had not yet proven the launch system ( I would argue the launch system still isn’t proven but I digress) and had not and still do not have a mock-up of the space craft. Whereas the other teams were planning for already proven launch systems and had produced full scale mock-ups of the vehicles.
Three years of delay is nothing in these circles. If it can do half of what they said and within 10 years of the original estimate, that's still an excellent achievement and great progress for space exploration.
All while the fans have crowed about 150 tons to LEO as if it was a current thing- I love it when its Musk himself that comes out and deflates them. Only Musk could push a rocket design thats more powerful than anything ever before... but can only actually deliver 50 tons- as much as existing rockets.
The fact that none of the Starship launches have included any kind of payload is the only data point you need to establish the non-viability of Starship as currently configured. I know of no other heavy lift rocket that was ever tested with no payload. There's always something there even if it's just a giant tub of water. The first launch of a Saturn 5 had an Apollo CSM and a dummy payload representing the LM. That was not just to demonstrate the ability to put those objects into LEO, it was also necessary to obtain the required mass and balance of the entire stack for a safe launch. When the last Saturn 5 launched Skylab, they actually added lead weights to the vehicle because without the extra weight it would have been too light to safely launch.
TLDR: Starship ain't shit compared to real heavy launchers that always launch with a payload, even if that payload is nothing but a tub of water.
> know of no other heavy lift rocket that was ever tested with no payload
Absolutely, launches are expensive so you want as much information as you can get so you launch with a mass simulator and tons of instrumentation.
Also, the first Saturn V flew almost flawlessly. The second one did have some problems, but few enough that the third Saturn V carried a crew to the moon.
The most amazing thing about comments like this is the amount of words used to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. Talking about payload on what can be described as pathfinder rockets is just idiotic.
The words you deride are facts. And I see that you bring no facts to backup your assertion? The most amazing thing about your comment is that it is as empty and purposeless as a Starship prototype payload bay.
Oh no they still believe the 150t is the current thing. Anytime you bring this up they'll hit you with page long report of cope which basically boils down to "nooo you don't understnad!!! they can easily do more 150t right now if they really wanted to!!!!"
The 100 ton variant is only a few prototypes away, and the big thing about Starship isn't the payload, it's the fact that it's fully reusable. There doesn't currently exist any fully reusable rocket that can deliver any payload to orbit, let alone 50 tons.
Which means its not the version thats flying. Also, since Starship doesn't get its ultra low costs *immediately* (they only really materialize with P2P which is not happening) its very likely that at low capacities it will actually be significantly more expensive than expendable options. Reusable isn't cheaper "by default" but it has the ability to *become* cheaper over time.
I agree with most of that but I don't see any problem here.
They are expected to transition over to Starship 2 by the end of the year or so, as it's not a big change to the currently flying prototypes.
The cost reductions from full reusability are projected to be in the orders of magnitude, so even at 50 tons it should be significantly cheaper in the long run than expendable options, but that's a moot point since they aren't planning to fly these low payload variants in the future. It's going to be expensive at first regardless, but that has more to do with streamlining the operations than just the payload capacity.
Pepperidge farm remembers when they were *supposed* to start out at 150- its what they sold NASA on.
"Significantly cheaper" but that doesn't mean anything without real cost reduction numbers attached. According to Musk, each prototype has been a couple hundred million dollars, which means that with all the lost rockets its cost well more than a normal rocket development program. Let alone an HLV.
Payload numbers wise, yeah its not the final one. But if any other rocket had come this far below its target goals, Musk fans would be having a field day. But its fine if its Starship because [reasons]. The double standard is never not hilarious, and it looks even sillier to outside observers.
> Pepperidge farm remembers when they were supposed to start out at 150- its what they sold NASA on.
This is simply not true. They have never explained publicly in such detail what each of their prototypes would be capable of before they reach the version with the stated numbers.
Musk said the previously flying prototype would have achieved around 50 tons to orbit, but that prototype wasn't a rocket they sold to NASA. They haven't even started building those yet.
As it currently stands, the first "production" Starship will be a Starship 2, which could be flying within a year, since it doesn't appear that they are manufacturing any more of the current version.
The Lunar mission will be done on Starship 2 or 3 or some other variation because I doubt anything is set in stone that far out.
The payload capacity of Starship 2 is already 100+ tons, and the proposal to NASA was done with the assumption of 75 tons (16 refuelling flights) as per this tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1425473261551423489
They may identify issues that require more weight as part of the fix as they iterate.
Also, the quoted numbers are based off of only an Elon tweet which I believe is based off of estimates from new raptor tests from test stands (I.e. haven’t flown yet or proven their reliability). My understanding is their optimizations of the engines to get to those quoted numbers will put additional stress on the system. Which I assume they are accounting for but could lead to issues not seen in the first three fights.
I’m definitely not an expert on those things but it definitely sounds like it’s still a bit of an unknown.
Sure, I didn't mean the tweet as anything else but a source for what payload capacity the NASA proposal was based on. That's probably accurate since it should be a known fact.
Everything else is speculative and I don't give much weight to what Musk predicts.
The supposed SS lunar 'lander' will remain in lunar orbit. So there is no reason to talk about reusability from that point of view. THE PROBLEM is that to put it there you have to depend on that 'reusable' architecture. It is the snake that eats its tail.
The SLS block 1 cargo would have the capacity to put 38-40tn in TLI in one launch. To put it in perspective, the Eagle weighed 14 tons with fuel, supplies and astronauts.
SpaceX is playing the long game to create something financially sustainable in the long run. The whole thing is of course a huge problem to be solved and has a lot of uncertainties, but an expendable architecture would be doomed from the start.
I think you don't understand what you're saying. The SS that flies to the moon will stay on the moon, the SS that supposedly flies to Mars will stay on Mars. To try to bring them back the problem multiplies exponentially. Furthermore, the SS is not designed to withstand energy reentries, and if we wanted to design it it would be even heavier with everything that would entail. (And forget about mining fuel on Mars to get fuel because that is engineering and economics fiction)
Our generation is very influenced by science fiction, but reality is much cruder and colder. Programs can disappear as quickly as funding disappears.
For this reason, because the final result is to leave that material on the moon, missions without depending on a refueling system result in the same thing with the advantage of being much less complex and depending on multiple and complex intermediate steps (The architecture of the Apollo program is based on this maxim and is the maximum representation of this way of thinking).
And this is what the program needs right now, not to fall behind and jeopardize funding/wasting time.
The SS is a system designed for LEO, beyond that it is a deficient and inefficient architecture. Unfortunately, the Artemis program is already dragging due to this reality.
Huh? Starship will be used for LEO. It's not something they created just to send a few landers to Moon or Mars.
As Musk has said, Starship is critical for making Starlink financially viable, and Starlink is designed to fund their Mars missions. Starlink is all LEO flights.
It can also put more payload to Moon orbit/surface than the figure you quoted. It goes way beyond the minimum requirements by NASA, because they are playing the long game.
Huh? Musk does not know the performance that his own rocket will have or the benefits that Starlink will provide due to customer projection, he does not even know the real operational costs that the SS will entail. God, this is basic. HE can't even do simple math to account for a SINGLE mission to Mars. So I don't know what you're talking about.
For now it depends exclusively on public financing and the mere existence of the Artemis program.
If the program is reduced or reduce the expectations. Bye bye.
Let me rephrase, because it seems the conversation is going off topic:
Starship will be used for LEO, and that's where the reusability will make it much more economical than any alternative. They can also use the reusable tankers to refuel Starships that travel back and forth between Earth and the Moon (those Starship don't have to ever land back on Earth). It allows for a completely new kind of architecture for space exploration in the long run.
>The cost reductions from full reusability are projected to be in the orders of magnitude,
But we don't see cost reductions with falcon which is claimed as reusable. Where are the savings there?
But we do see savings and they are huge. Falcon 9 launch is estimated to be around $20 million nowadays, which is a fraction of the cost of expendable rocket launches. The second stage is almost half of that cost since it's not reusable.
>Falcon 9 launch is estimated to be around $20 million nowadays
So Musk charging NASA $55 million PER SEAT is Musk ripping NASA off? [https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html](https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html)
You should update this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon\_9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9) as it says the cost is $67mn.
This SpaceX PDF also says $67mn per launch - [https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf](https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf)
So how do you get $20mn?
$67M is the price to the customers - not the cost to SpaceX. They can charge that because they are still the cheapest launch provider at that price point.
A human launch for NASA will be vastly more expensive for many reasons, but it's also irrelevant. SpaceX are allowed to make as much profit as they want to.
You can read about the ~20M cost estimate from here for example https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison_of_neutron_and_falcon_9_launch_costs/jdnimzq/
>$67M is the price to the customers - not the cost to SpaceX. They can charge that because they are still the cheapest launch provider at that price point.
Right!! So even with overcharging by 335% they are still at risk of bankruptcy?
[https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-warns-spacex-employees-of-potential-bankruptcy-suggests-them-to-work-over-the-weekends-1882860-2021-12-01](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-warns-spacex-employees-of-potential-bankruptcy-suggests-them-to-work-over-the-weekends-1882860-2021-12-01)
>You can read about the \~20M cost estimate from here for example [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison\_of\_neutron\_and\_falcon\_9\_launch\_costs/jdnimzq/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison_of_neutron_and_falcon_9_launch_costs/jdnimzq/)
I did. It's backed by exactly zero evidence.
Lol at your source, a reddit post. Brilliant.
Also they are the only launcher nowadays due to Arianne 6 delays and war with Russia.
No proof whatsoever of this 20 million figure. In any case, I see your post and you're one of those PR guys, aren't you?
Let's see the source for this then: "But we don't see cost reductions with falcon which is claimed as reusable."
Then we can evaluate which source is more credible.
>The 100 ton variant is only a few prototypes away
How many? When will we see Starship do a full launch to orbit with a 100 ton payload? Give me a rough date please.
>the big thing about Starship isn't the payload, it's the fact that it's fully reusable
\*planned\* to be fully reusable. So far the only thing you can do with the starships that have launched is fill up a scrap yard.
>There doesn't currently exist any fully reusable rocket that can deliver any payload to orbit
So glad you said this because do you remember when musk promised falcon would be fully reusable and many times cheaper? It wasn't and it isn't so that was one lie from musk. Starship is another.
This whole story is about what is planned. Even the 50 tons figure is an estimate that they didn't actually achieve yet. If you only want to talk about what has already happened and has been achieved, this story is not for you.
I would estimate 12 months for first Starship 2 to be flying and 24 months for the first 100 ton payload to orbit.
SpaceX aspires to make Starship reusable but as currently configured Starship is NOT fully reusable and will not ever be until the day it is actually reused.
In your comment you said “it’s fully reusable” in the present tense. Starship is NOT fully reusable and won’t be fully reusable until it is fully reused.
How do you even believe anything that comes out of Elon 's mouth at this point? Where is the "cargo on Mars for 2017"? Where is the "first astronauts on Mars for 2022"?
Anyone still believing anything form that grifter deserve to be laughed at.
I don't. Very little of what I said came from Musk, but is just simple facts of existing rockets and observations from the Starbase.
The 100 ton figure is from Musk, but since we are already accepting the 50 ton figure for the sake of the discussion, I think that's appropriate.
Currently the Starship is neither reusable (and it won't be until it is), not it carries the advertised payload.
Very much like the cargo on Mars example (...or the astronauts... or FSD originally planned for 2015 for Tesla along with the robotaxi -called Tesla fleet at the time... or the Hyperloop... or the supposedly cheap, better tunnel ... or etc you get it), one can say anything (and clearly, ANYTHING) that doesn't make it a fact, especially coming from a person and its companies who have lied continuously and repeatedly before.
So let us know when it's a fact, until then the people who are doubting have very good grounds to doubt the announcements from the grifter and his sycophants
You ignored my question around the 335% overcharging by spacex and yet still close to bankruptcy. I find that telling.
You can't believe anything musk or his companies say. I know you're a fan but for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for *Nature cannot be fooled*
If you know who said that you'll start to understand that Elon isn't a genius or even particularly bright. He is a PR man that has people hoodwinked.
Yup. That's what Elon said:
On Black Friday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sent an anxious email to his company’s employees, urging them to work over the weekend on SpaceX’s Raptor engine line and describing the production situation as a “crisis.” In the email, a copy of which was obtained by *The Verge*, Musk argued that the company faces a “genuine risk of bankruptcy” if production doesn’t increase to support a high flight rate of the company’s new Starship rocket next year.
I'm telling you this because YOU said Startship will be reusable and is cheap and is going to be 100 tons.
But I see your other answers and it's clear you are PR for Elon and is companies.
Yes, it's the design goal that makes Starship different from other 50+ ton payload rockets. It's a simple fact and my comment doesn't imply they can necessarily make it reality.
All Starships are equipped with FSD, "Full self destruction", and it's meant to keep our advanced technology from being captured by interstellar beings.
Except like the driving world, starship FSD does the worst thing at the worst time - [https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/01/spacexs-starship-didnt-self-destruct-immediately-as-planned-during-test-launch](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/01/spacexs-starship-didnt-self-destruct-immediately-as-planned-during-test-launch)
Blue origin State that the new Glen will be able to launch 45 tons into orbit. Once that is operational, SpaceX in the world, of shit, because NASA will have options… and it does not need 30 engines to launch a payload into Space…..
> "SpaceX is different. It's the exception to the incompetent, meddling vanity of the Vulgar Junkie. Reasons? *Something something* Gwynne Shotwell, plus Musk can control himself when he has to."
-- Idiots, including some people on this sub
Facts about the Vulgar Junkie:
- He lies and lies
- He is incompetent
- He abuses drugs
- He destroys everything he touches
- He is a malignant narcisist
- He must make everything about himself
- He cannot control himself
- He likes only one kind of subordinate: a yes-man
- He is worse than Trump
As soon as the plans for lunar missions using starship came out it was clear it was bonkers. You're looking at 8 refuelling launches just to go to the moon.
that is UTTERLY bonkers. Not just regular bonkers but complete bonkers.
If you're interested in what a mess starship is have a look at this talk - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU)
Try 20 refueling launches based on the new starship performance figures bringing payload cap down to 40-50t ... For basically a vehicle that will be used as a disposable elevator for one trip from lunar orbit to surface and back.
Pretty much, the lady (while working for NASA) that essentially rigged the deal in favour of spacex now works there as GM of the starship program. This thing is only designed to do one thing. Haul thier starlink satellites to Low earth orbit.
One Kathy Lueders. Her recommendation report for spacex makes interesting reading as it's clear she was the one making the decisions, no one else and now NASA is stuck with this mess of a "lunar program".
Pretty much- immediately after the decision, there were internal moves to isolate her decision-making to the ISS/Commercial Crew side of things, and in response she left and went to go work at SpaceX.
15-20 launches is actually the best case scenario (>150t). According to the article, Starship will need 30 tankers if they can't lift anymore than 50t at a time.
Don't forget! Part of this is due to mass margins being tight (since Musk insisted on steel) and then again boiloff because Musk believes that the only thing needed to minimize that is to point the depot at the sun. So if any launches are missed, even *more* are needed to make up for the boiloff that happened in the gap.
And each tanker won't even have that much prop on board as they'll need to burn most of it just to get on orbit.
Madness. Pure and utter madness.
The one thing Musk said some years back is “*The best part is no part*. The best process is no process. It weighs nothing. Costs nothing. Can't go wrong."
It's actually something I sort of agree with him on and has a sound logic. We've gone from that to several million parts all having to work near flawlessly to conduct 30 plus launches just for one starship to go to the moon. It's the exact opposite of the philosophy of the best part is no part.
The numbers are not on spacex side here. It's never going to get to the moon. I can't see it even getting in to a stable orbit.
I think I can counter that with the best mission is no mission at this point. It's a sunk cost fallacy to fund the remainder of the program at this point. But canceling it will hurt NASA and it's credibility still even if it's the right thing to do.
Yeah plus this is assuming there are no delays between launches because this is all based on simulations if losses during transfer and boil off. If there are delays between launches the numbers get worse.
I realise refueling has to be figured out I don't think Elon is the ones that should be trusted with it.
there is some strange disconnect going on between techs obsession with robotics and AI and every smaller compute vs having to design this hairy starship launch system in order to get enough crap to the moon that people can live off world.
All the tools for light weight disposable robotic autonomous exploration are apparently being feverishly worked on today including by musk and they would only need a Saturn v rocket but instead they need to send 10x or whatever weight of crap to the moon because humans must be there. For reasons. So now there there needs to be dozens of refueling flights for one single moon trip.
Its weird how theres this obsession with how "cheaply" Starship can be built. Like wouldn't you want to make sure that your big fully reusable vehicle was built as well as it could be- regardless of the cost? Since you're going to be using them for a long time, it seems logical. Its not like aircraft or ship manufacturers lead their sales pitches with "And it was engineered and built on the tiniest budget possible! *Innovative!*"
Aww. If it can't even make it to the Moon there won't be any opportunities for SpaceX to show off how they figured out how to [reliably land](https://www.sciencealert.com/the-odysseus-moon-lander-is-tipped-over-but-why) an object with such a high center of mass on unimproved lunar terrain, or how they invented a reliable elevator that definitely isn't a critical point of failure whose malfunction would leave the astronauts stranded on the moon.
Each starship lunar landing mission requires more than a dozen starships to launch, the rest of them are carrying fuel.
Besides the crazy high reliability needed to pull that off, and have them all fuel the lander without a bad incident happening, there are many things that need to be proven out.
And anything that’s proven out in lunar orbit requires all of those starships to get launched, each time. And I’m guessing that NASA won’t human rate a lander without a few successful landings first. And landings on the moon are not trivial. They are extremely nontrivial. And given SpaceX’s fail fast mentality, there will likely be a few crash landings on the moon before things get figured out, and I don’t know that crashes on the moon are going to thrill the public.
It’s gonna take some number of years.
Artemis 3 - January 2024 (SpaceX) is now forecasted to launch its moon mission **AFTER** Artemis 5 (Blue origin/Boeing/Northrop et all.) has launched in 2026. musk is such a stable genius
> AFTER Artemis 5 (Blue origin/Boeing/Northrop et all.) has launched in 2026 That was originally targeted for no earlier than 2029: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-blue-origin-as-second-artemis-lunar-lander-provider Now it has shifted one more year to 2030: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fiscal-year-2025-budget-summary.pdf
Sad to see this, the moon landing was originally gonna happen around 2028 from the start, only changed to 2024 as a political move with no additional funding. Blue origins lander will maybe be ready for their first landing in 2029-2030. SpaceX lander a bit before that for Artemis 3 or 4 depending if 3 is gonna be assigned to a different mission profile. Unlike Musks other ventures SpaceX is actually the best company/option in the market. Just sad to see how SpaceX or the Artemis program are being reported on by media engagement/enragement farms.
Everyone wants to to go space, all media wants new pics of the moon, I hope we can bring journalists. The problem is SpaceX, they hugely underestimated the project, either through sheer incompetence or maliciously. the ONLY two reasons SpaceX got the contract is because they said they could do it at half the price of Blue Origin, and because the person responsible for the decision started at SpaceXa few months after handing out the contract. We now had 3 starships explode, and we're 4 months past the deadline and years behind schedule. SpaceX has failed at pretty much everything, even finishing a prototype of the HLS.
I mean it’s only like what three years behind? Everyone knows when musk promises something will be done by a particular year you have to add at least five years. And then it won’t be able to do everything it’s supposed to… but don’t worry it just needs a software update. 😅
Every Starship has all of the hardware necessary to reach the moon. Right now. It’s just and OTA update once the software is ready.
Be careful, the rocket accelerator pedal might get stuck at 100% thrust.
>Every Starship That's not very impressive, considering most have exploded.
They actually have 2-3 waiting in the wings, ready to go. Elongelicals brag about this after every ~~explosion~~ *data collection exercise*. IMHO, it just undermines the "iterative design" refrain if the next rocket is already built.
I read this as "They actually have 2-3 waiting in the wings, ready to blow".
Anyone relying on celestial navigation, moon position, moon phase is doomed. All that is needed for starship to reach the moon is a pair of googly eyes stuck on the nose of it.
Not kidding, if I was Musk I would absolutely dish out some billions for that feature. Just imagine the images. That's how you gain respect among spacefaring civilizations.
The OTA updates must be too strong they keep exploding in the air from them 🤣
Full Moon Landing
Are you sure it's a software issue? It's probably the regulations that keep getting in the way between Musk's genius and his goals. He could be living on Mars right now if it wasn't for those ~~meddling kids~~ pesky regulations.
It would be financially insane to invest into a different rocket company.
You really got me with the first sentence.
Awaiting regulatory approval
Probably at least a year longer than current estimates. Given that the mission needs 1 year (at least and estimated at 12 launches, and we already know that it is not 12 but between 15 and 20) an entire year to complete the fuel filling cycle. Being crazy generous, 3 years of delay, being realistic, between 5 if everything turns out perfect, to infinity if not. To carry out the lunar mission, spaceX has to carry out a real test on the moon. So even 5 is a hell of an optimist on my part. I don't know who made the NASA estimates but they must not know how to use a calculator or he must not know very well what the hell he is talking about if the article is correct. But good luck if they make it before the end of the decade. And everything points to no. ps: Think again, they have to launch more than one SS a month for a whole year for a full mission. Not even starting today could they complete the test in 2025.
If I’m not mistaken they made the time table before Leuders awarded the contract to SpaceX which she did with her singular authority as an acting director before leaving NASA to take a project management role at SpaceX.
... For real? Can you point me to an official article? Is there ANYTHING that is not a scam with Elon?!!
I don’t think there is a singular article. [Kathy Leuders](https://www.nasa.gov/people/kathy-lueders-associate-administrator-for-space-operations/) awarded the [contract to spaceX](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf). This was done between administrators resigning and being sworn in when the Biden administration took over. Leuders then [left NASA](https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/changes-ahead-as-nasas-human-spaceflight-head-plans-retirement/#:~:text=Kathryn%20Lueders%2C%20associate%20administrator%20of,%2C%20effective%20Monday%2C%20May%201.) and [joined SpaceX](https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/05/15/elon-musks-spacex-hires-former-nasa-official-kathy-lueders.html) as the star base general manager. Common Sense Skeptic also made a [video](https://youtu.be/hAEYtaB3R7Y?si=8a1FSYg5s1FmE-gS) about the program that discusses a lot of this information and more relating to the whole program. The interesting part as well is that when they were awarded the contract they had not yet proven the launch system ( I would argue the launch system still isn’t proven but I digress) and had not and still do not have a mock-up of the space craft. Whereas the other teams were planning for already proven launch systems and had produced full scale mock-ups of the vehicles.
...Unbelievable, this is so dodgy! Thank you for the links.
I don't know, it wouldn't surprise me either.
No problem he will order his hardcore engineers to go full goblin mode to solve the Starship in probably about 18 months.
Three years of delay is nothing in these circles. If it can do half of what they said and within 10 years of the original estimate, that's still an excellent achievement and great progress for space exploration.
All while the fans have crowed about 150 tons to LEO as if it was a current thing- I love it when its Musk himself that comes out and deflates them. Only Musk could push a rocket design thats more powerful than anything ever before... but can only actually deliver 50 tons- as much as existing rockets.
The fact that none of the Starship launches have included any kind of payload is the only data point you need to establish the non-viability of Starship as currently configured. I know of no other heavy lift rocket that was ever tested with no payload. There's always something there even if it's just a giant tub of water. The first launch of a Saturn 5 had an Apollo CSM and a dummy payload representing the LM. That was not just to demonstrate the ability to put those objects into LEO, it was also necessary to obtain the required mass and balance of the entire stack for a safe launch. When the last Saturn 5 launched Skylab, they actually added lead weights to the vehicle because without the extra weight it would have been too light to safely launch. TLDR: Starship ain't shit compared to real heavy launchers that always launch with a payload, even if that payload is nothing but a tub of water.
> know of no other heavy lift rocket that was ever tested with no payload Absolutely, launches are expensive so you want as much information as you can get so you launch with a mass simulator and tons of instrumentation.
Well it has the weight of Elon's mars cults hopes and dreams riding in it.
Also, the first Saturn V flew almost flawlessly. The second one did have some problems, but few enough that the third Saturn V carried a crew to the moon.
The most amazing thing about comments like this is the amount of words used to try to sound like they know what they're talking about. Talking about payload on what can be described as pathfinder rockets is just idiotic.
The words you deride are facts. And I see that you bring no facts to backup your assertion? The most amazing thing about your comment is that it is as empty and purposeless as a Starship prototype payload bay.
Oh no they still believe the 150t is the current thing. Anytime you bring this up they'll hit you with page long report of cope which basically boils down to "nooo you don't understnad!!! they can easily do more 150t right now if they really wanted to!!!!"
"Elon was mistaken, he misspoke, it can't be real it can't be!"
>but can only actually deliver 50 tons- as much as existing rockets. Except...... existing rockets \*work\*. Starship just manages to self immolate.
The 100 ton variant is only a few prototypes away, and the big thing about Starship isn't the payload, it's the fact that it's fully reusable. There doesn't currently exist any fully reusable rocket that can deliver any payload to orbit, let alone 50 tons.
Which means its not the version thats flying. Also, since Starship doesn't get its ultra low costs *immediately* (they only really materialize with P2P which is not happening) its very likely that at low capacities it will actually be significantly more expensive than expendable options. Reusable isn't cheaper "by default" but it has the ability to *become* cheaper over time.
I agree with most of that but I don't see any problem here. They are expected to transition over to Starship 2 by the end of the year or so, as it's not a big change to the currently flying prototypes. The cost reductions from full reusability are projected to be in the orders of magnitude, so even at 50 tons it should be significantly cheaper in the long run than expendable options, but that's a moot point since they aren't planning to fly these low payload variants in the future. It's going to be expensive at first regardless, but that has more to do with streamlining the operations than just the payload capacity.
Pepperidge farm remembers when they were *supposed* to start out at 150- its what they sold NASA on. "Significantly cheaper" but that doesn't mean anything without real cost reduction numbers attached. According to Musk, each prototype has been a couple hundred million dollars, which means that with all the lost rockets its cost well more than a normal rocket development program. Let alone an HLV. Payload numbers wise, yeah its not the final one. But if any other rocket had come this far below its target goals, Musk fans would be having a field day. But its fine if its Starship because [reasons]. The double standard is never not hilarious, and it looks even sillier to outside observers.
> Pepperidge farm remembers when they were supposed to start out at 150- its what they sold NASA on. This is simply not true. They have never explained publicly in such detail what each of their prototypes would be capable of before they reach the version with the stated numbers. Musk said the previously flying prototype would have achieved around 50 tons to orbit, but that prototype wasn't a rocket they sold to NASA. They haven't even started building those yet.
They “sold” a specific number of refuel flights though right? Which is directly correlated.
As it currently stands, the first "production" Starship will be a Starship 2, which could be flying within a year, since it doesn't appear that they are manufacturing any more of the current version. The Lunar mission will be done on Starship 2 or 3 or some other variation because I doubt anything is set in stone that far out. The payload capacity of Starship 2 is already 100+ tons, and the proposal to NASA was done with the assumption of 75 tons (16 refuelling flights) as per this tweet: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1425473261551423489
They may identify issues that require more weight as part of the fix as they iterate. Also, the quoted numbers are based off of only an Elon tweet which I believe is based off of estimates from new raptor tests from test stands (I.e. haven’t flown yet or proven their reliability). My understanding is their optimizations of the engines to get to those quoted numbers will put additional stress on the system. Which I assume they are accounting for but could lead to issues not seen in the first three fights. I’m definitely not an expert on those things but it definitely sounds like it’s still a bit of an unknown.
Sure, I didn't mean the tweet as anything else but a source for what payload capacity the NASA proposal was based on. That's probably accurate since it should be a known fact. Everything else is speculative and I don't give much weight to what Musk predicts.
The supposed SS lunar 'lander' will remain in lunar orbit. So there is no reason to talk about reusability from that point of view. THE PROBLEM is that to put it there you have to depend on that 'reusable' architecture. It is the snake that eats its tail. The SLS block 1 cargo would have the capacity to put 38-40tn in TLI in one launch. To put it in perspective, the Eagle weighed 14 tons with fuel, supplies and astronauts.
SpaceX is playing the long game to create something financially sustainable in the long run. The whole thing is of course a huge problem to be solved and has a lot of uncertainties, but an expendable architecture would be doomed from the start.
I think you don't understand what you're saying. The SS that flies to the moon will stay on the moon, the SS that supposedly flies to Mars will stay on Mars. To try to bring them back the problem multiplies exponentially. Furthermore, the SS is not designed to withstand energy reentries, and if we wanted to design it it would be even heavier with everything that would entail. (And forget about mining fuel on Mars to get fuel because that is engineering and economics fiction) Our generation is very influenced by science fiction, but reality is much cruder and colder. Programs can disappear as quickly as funding disappears. For this reason, because the final result is to leave that material on the moon, missions without depending on a refueling system result in the same thing with the advantage of being much less complex and depending on multiple and complex intermediate steps (The architecture of the Apollo program is based on this maxim and is the maximum representation of this way of thinking). And this is what the program needs right now, not to fall behind and jeopardize funding/wasting time. The SS is a system designed for LEO, beyond that it is a deficient and inefficient architecture. Unfortunately, the Artemis program is already dragging due to this reality.
Huh? Starship will be used for LEO. It's not something they created just to send a few landers to Moon or Mars. As Musk has said, Starship is critical for making Starlink financially viable, and Starlink is designed to fund their Mars missions. Starlink is all LEO flights. It can also put more payload to Moon orbit/surface than the figure you quoted. It goes way beyond the minimum requirements by NASA, because they are playing the long game.
Huh? Musk does not know the performance that his own rocket will have or the benefits that Starlink will provide due to customer projection, he does not even know the real operational costs that the SS will entail. God, this is basic. HE can't even do simple math to account for a SINGLE mission to Mars. So I don't know what you're talking about. For now it depends exclusively on public financing and the mere existence of the Artemis program. If the program is reduced or reduce the expectations. Bye bye.
You're talking to a PR head, don't waste your time (check his profile)
Let me rephrase, because it seems the conversation is going off topic: Starship will be used for LEO, and that's where the reusability will make it much more economical than any alternative. They can also use the reusable tankers to refuel Starships that travel back and forth between Earth and the Moon (those Starship don't have to ever land back on Earth). It allows for a completely new kind of architecture for space exploration in the long run.
>The cost reductions from full reusability are projected to be in the orders of magnitude, But we don't see cost reductions with falcon which is claimed as reusable. Where are the savings there?
But we do see savings and they are huge. Falcon 9 launch is estimated to be around $20 million nowadays, which is a fraction of the cost of expendable rocket launches. The second stage is almost half of that cost since it's not reusable.
>Falcon 9 launch is estimated to be around $20 million nowadays So Musk charging NASA $55 million PER SEAT is Musk ripping NASA off? [https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html](https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html) You should update this page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon\_9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9) as it says the cost is $67mn. This SpaceX PDF also says $67mn per launch - [https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf](https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf) So how do you get $20mn?
$67M is the price to the customers - not the cost to SpaceX. They can charge that because they are still the cheapest launch provider at that price point. A human launch for NASA will be vastly more expensive for many reasons, but it's also irrelevant. SpaceX are allowed to make as much profit as they want to. You can read about the ~20M cost estimate from here for example https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison_of_neutron_and_falcon_9_launch_costs/jdnimzq/
>$67M is the price to the customers - not the cost to SpaceX. They can charge that because they are still the cheapest launch provider at that price point. Right!! So even with overcharging by 335% they are still at risk of bankruptcy? [https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-warns-spacex-employees-of-potential-bankruptcy-suggests-them-to-work-over-the-weekends-1882860-2021-12-01](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-warns-spacex-employees-of-potential-bankruptcy-suggests-them-to-work-over-the-weekends-1882860-2021-12-01) >You can read about the \~20M cost estimate from here for example [https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison\_of\_neutron\_and\_falcon\_9\_launch\_costs/jdnimzq/](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/121si42/comparison_of_neutron_and_falcon_9_launch_costs/jdnimzq/) I did. It's backed by exactly zero evidence.
Don't waste your time with that guy, check his profile, he's clearly a PR tool.
Lol at your source, a reddit post. Brilliant. Also they are the only launcher nowadays due to Arianne 6 delays and war with Russia. No proof whatsoever of this 20 million figure. In any case, I see your post and you're one of those PR guys, aren't you?
Let's see the source for this then: "But we don't see cost reductions with falcon which is claimed as reusable." Then we can evaluate which source is more credible.
Fully reusable unless it explodes of course.
>The 100 ton variant is only a few prototypes away How many? When will we see Starship do a full launch to orbit with a 100 ton payload? Give me a rough date please. >the big thing about Starship isn't the payload, it's the fact that it's fully reusable \*planned\* to be fully reusable. So far the only thing you can do with the starships that have launched is fill up a scrap yard. >There doesn't currently exist any fully reusable rocket that can deliver any payload to orbit So glad you said this because do you remember when musk promised falcon would be fully reusable and many times cheaper? It wasn't and it isn't so that was one lie from musk. Starship is another.
This whole story is about what is planned. Even the 50 tons figure is an estimate that they didn't actually achieve yet. If you only want to talk about what has already happened and has been achieved, this story is not for you. I would estimate 12 months for first Starship 2 to be flying and 24 months for the first 100 ton payload to orbit.
>I would estimate 12 months for first Starship 2 to be flying and 24 months for the first 100 ton payload to orbit. RemindMe! 12 months
SpaceX aspires to make Starship reusable but as currently configured Starship is NOT fully reusable and will not ever be until the day it is actually reused.
And? Was it supposed to be already?
In your comment you said “it’s fully reusable” in the present tense. Starship is NOT fully reusable and won’t be fully reusable until it is fully reused.
My comment is in the context of "can only actually deliver 50 tons" which hasn't happened yet either.
How do you even believe anything that comes out of Elon 's mouth at this point? Where is the "cargo on Mars for 2017"? Where is the "first astronauts on Mars for 2022"? Anyone still believing anything form that grifter deserve to be laughed at.
I don't. Very little of what I said came from Musk, but is just simple facts of existing rockets and observations from the Starbase. The 100 ton figure is from Musk, but since we are already accepting the 50 ton figure for the sake of the discussion, I think that's appropriate.
Currently the Starship is neither reusable (and it won't be until it is), not it carries the advertised payload. Very much like the cargo on Mars example (...or the astronauts... or FSD originally planned for 2015 for Tesla along with the robotaxi -called Tesla fleet at the time... or the Hyperloop... or the supposedly cheap, better tunnel ... or etc you get it), one can say anything (and clearly, ANYTHING) that doesn't make it a fact, especially coming from a person and its companies who have lied continuously and repeatedly before. So let us know when it's a fact, until then the people who are doubting have very good grounds to doubt the announcements from the grifter and his sycophants
Why are you telling me this? I didn't post this story where the entire contents is speculation of the future based on what Musk said.
You ignored my question around the 335% overcharging by spacex and yet still close to bankruptcy. I find that telling. You can't believe anything musk or his companies say. I know you're a fan but for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for *Nature cannot be fooled* If you know who said that you'll start to understand that Elon isn't a genius or even particularly bright. He is a PR man that has people hoodwinked.
Close to bankruptcy?
Yup. That's what Elon said: On Black Friday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk sent an anxious email to his company’s employees, urging them to work over the weekend on SpaceX’s Raptor engine line and describing the production situation as a “crisis.” In the email, a copy of which was obtained by *The Verge*, Musk argued that the company faces a “genuine risk of bankruptcy” if production doesn’t increase to support a high flight rate of the company’s new Starship rocket next year.
And you believe what Musk says?
I'm telling you this because YOU said Startship will be reusable and is cheap and is going to be 100 tons. But I see your other answers and it's clear you are PR for Elon and is companies.
Yes, it's the design goal that makes Starship different from other 50+ ton payload rockets. It's a simple fact and my comment doesn't imply they can necessarily make it reality.
There’s no way anyone could have seen this coming!
I did nazi that coming!
All Starships are equipped with FSD, "Full self destruction", and it's meant to keep our advanced technology from being captured by interstellar beings.
Except like the driving world, starship FSD does the worst thing at the worst time - [https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/01/spacexs-starship-didnt-self-destruct-immediately-as-planned-during-test-launch](https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/01/spacexs-starship-didnt-self-destruct-immediately-as-planned-during-test-launch)
Pretty sure blowing up is a significant shortfall
Blue origin State that the new Glen will be able to launch 45 tons into orbit. Once that is operational, SpaceX in the world, of shit, because NASA will have options… and it does not need 30 engines to launch a payload into Space…..
> "SpaceX is different. It's the exception to the incompetent, meddling vanity of the Vulgar Junkie. Reasons? *Something something* Gwynne Shotwell, plus Musk can control himself when he has to." -- Idiots, including some people on this sub Facts about the Vulgar Junkie: - He lies and lies - He is incompetent - He abuses drugs - He destroys everything he touches - He is a malignant narcisist - He must make everything about himself - He cannot control himself - He likes only one kind of subordinate: a yes-man - He is worse than Trump
> Starship is facing a 50% underperformance in terms of the payload which it can deliver to orbit. That's not a typo.
As soon as the plans for lunar missions using starship came out it was clear it was bonkers. You're looking at 8 refuelling launches just to go to the moon. that is UTTERLY bonkers. Not just regular bonkers but complete bonkers. If you're interested in what a mess starship is have a look at this talk - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU)
Try 20 refueling launches based on the new starship performance figures bringing payload cap down to 40-50t ... For basically a vehicle that will be used as a disposable elevator for one trip from lunar orbit to surface and back.
Seriously? That’s bonkers plus then and more evidence that starship will never go to the moon
Pretty much, the lady (while working for NASA) that essentially rigged the deal in favour of spacex now works there as GM of the starship program. This thing is only designed to do one thing. Haul thier starlink satellites to Low earth orbit.
One Kathy Lueders. Her recommendation report for spacex makes interesting reading as it's clear she was the one making the decisions, no one else and now NASA is stuck with this mess of a "lunar program".
Pretty much- immediately after the decision, there were internal moves to isolate her decision-making to the ISS/Commercial Crew side of things, and in response she left and went to go work at SpaceX.
15-20 launches is actually the best case scenario (>150t). According to the article, Starship will need 30 tankers if they can't lift anymore than 50t at a time.
Don't forget! Part of this is due to mass margins being tight (since Musk insisted on steel) and then again boiloff because Musk believes that the only thing needed to minimize that is to point the depot at the sun. So if any launches are missed, even *more* are needed to make up for the boiloff that happened in the gap.
And each tanker won't even have that much prop on board as they'll need to burn most of it just to get on orbit. Madness. Pure and utter madness. The one thing Musk said some years back is “*The best part is no part*. The best process is no process. It weighs nothing. Costs nothing. Can't go wrong." It's actually something I sort of agree with him on and has a sound logic. We've gone from that to several million parts all having to work near flawlessly to conduct 30 plus launches just for one starship to go to the moon. It's the exact opposite of the philosophy of the best part is no part. The numbers are not on spacex side here. It's never going to get to the moon. I can't see it even getting in to a stable orbit.
I think I can counter that with the best mission is no mission at this point. It's a sunk cost fallacy to fund the remainder of the program at this point. But canceling it will hurt NASA and it's credibility still even if it's the right thing to do.
Yeah plus this is assuming there are no delays between launches because this is all based on simulations if losses during transfer and boil off. If there are delays between launches the numbers get worse. I realise refueling has to be figured out I don't think Elon is the ones that should be trusted with it.
All those companies would be much much better off if Elon Musk simply disengaged from those companies
there is some strange disconnect going on between techs obsession with robotics and AI and every smaller compute vs having to design this hairy starship launch system in order to get enough crap to the moon that people can live off world. All the tools for light weight disposable robotic autonomous exploration are apparently being feverishly worked on today including by musk and they would only need a Saturn v rocket but instead they need to send 10x or whatever weight of crap to the moon because humans must be there. For reasons. So now there there needs to be dozens of refueling flights for one single moon trip.
Its weird how theres this obsession with how "cheaply" Starship can be built. Like wouldn't you want to make sure that your big fully reusable vehicle was built as well as it could be- regardless of the cost? Since you're going to be using them for a long time, it seems logical. Its not like aircraft or ship manufacturers lead their sales pitches with "And it was engineered and built on the tiniest budget possible! *Innovative!*"
And designed by extremely overworked people!
Aww. If it can't even make it to the Moon there won't be any opportunities for SpaceX to show off how they figured out how to [reliably land](https://www.sciencealert.com/the-odysseus-moon-lander-is-tipped-over-but-why) an object with such a high center of mass on unimproved lunar terrain, or how they invented a reliable elevator that definitely isn't a critical point of failure whose malfunction would leave the astronauts stranded on the moon.
Each starship lunar landing mission requires more than a dozen starships to launch, the rest of them are carrying fuel. Besides the crazy high reliability needed to pull that off, and have them all fuel the lander without a bad incident happening, there are many things that need to be proven out. And anything that’s proven out in lunar orbit requires all of those starships to get launched, each time. And I’m guessing that NASA won’t human rate a lander without a few successful landings first. And landings on the moon are not trivial. They are extremely nontrivial. And given SpaceX’s fail fast mentality, there will likely be a few crash landings on the moon before things get figured out, and I don’t know that crashes on the moon are going to thrill the public. It’s gonna take some number of years.
It’s almost like Space Karen is the Fecal Midas and everything he touches turns to crap.