From: nospam@127.0.0.1   
      
   On 2022-11-16 2:39 AM, JF Mezei wrote:   
   > On 2022-11-14 08:55, David Spain wrote:   
   >> I'd love to see them shoehorn in the flight software for a pointless   
   >> trip to the moon. Pointless because, 1) It ain't landing on the moon,   
   >> and 2) it probably ain't carrying much cargo in lieu of fuel.   
   >   
   > SLS is also pointless saince they will need to launch a big heavy   
   > Starship to land on moon.   
   >   
   >   
   >> Shuttle was purpose built for LEO operation only.   
   >   
   > Ny curiosity pertains to converting the Shuttle to act as a shuttle   
   > between earth and moon orbit. And only after seeing the massive   
   > costs/boondoggle of  Constellation/SLS.   
   > SLS/Orion *is* primarily that conversion. Not happy with that?   
      
   >> Waving the re-usability flag means little when the cost to refurbish per   
   >> flight isn't better than or worse than an ELV.   
   >   
   > But one isn't comparing against private enterprise, one is comparing   
   > against SLS where costs are far greater per flight. And the disposable   
   > SSMEs/RS25 won't be cheap.   
   >   
   Your point?   
   >   
   >> SpaceX got us off that   
   >> curve thank goodness.   
   >   
   > SpaceX was not a player at the time decisions for SLS were made. And it   
   > still isn't.  As I post this, all Musk has achieved is 1 successful hop   
   > of something in the shape of starship. (and earlier, succesful hop of   
   > something unlike Starship).   
   >   
      
   And it still isn't? Seriously? The points you miss by this statement are   
   too numerous to bother rebutting. Suggest you read up a bit on what   
   SpaceX is actually doing in Boca Chica.   
      
   > Considering the way he is managing Twitter, I have concerns that the   
   > whole starship project may be a Spruce Goose.  once FAA told Musk that   
   > he can't keep exploding rockets over Texas willy-nilly, that whole   
   > iterative testing thing went out. Once  Musk realised the cost of   
   > building the launch tower, he realised that he can't afford to blow up   
   > rockets at the pad anymore. And it remains to be seen if the   
   > revolutioanry approach to landing will work again, consider the cost of   
   > the tower should a landing fail.   
   >   
   You are joking right? Am I supposed to take you seriously? You do know   
   he is building another one at the Cape as I write this? It's steel. It's   
   known how to do. Take a look at the NYC skyline sometime.   
      
   > While it looked lie Starship would fly well before SLS, tonight, that   
   > didn't happen and it remains to be seen when it will fly. I know people   
   > say first starship orbital flight is imminent. But it has been imminent   
   > for how many years now?   
   >   
   Only imminent next year or possibly end of this year. But I think most   
   people accept that it might be early next year. Testing proceeds apace.   
   SpaceX successfully completed a full thrust test on 14 engines just last   
   week. 19 to go. Sounds iterative to me.   
      
   > For a lunar lander sharship to work, it will need to be refueled in   
   > lunar orbit. That means a Starship shuttle that bring in fuel and   
   > returns to Earth, so Musk has to deal/develop a proper heat shield for   
   > re-entry from moon.   
   >   
   No it doesn't. To me, the most non-nonsensical proposal as I understand   
   it is to place tankers at both LEO and LLO (Low Lunar Orbit). The LLO   
   one is basically a holding tank. Artemis Starship would deliver its TEI   
   fuel to it so it does not have to land and lift that mass on/from the   
   lunar surface. The LEO tanker to be refueled from tanker Starships   
   designed for fuel transfer that do have heat shields for return to Earth   
   from LEO only.   
      
   The current proposal is for Starship to ferry between the lunar surface   
   and the toll-both in NRHO, acting as both the tanker and docking port   
   with arrival and return from the toll-booth on the SLS/Orion capsule.   
      
   But an alternate proposal has the Artemis Starship as a ferry going   
   directly between LEO and the Lunar Surface. It does not return to   
   Earth's surface. Did you ever see the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey?   
      
   The alternative proposal would eliminate SLS/Orion all together and   
   launch crew into LEO on Falcon-9/Crew-Dragon for transfer to the   
   Starship derivative Artemis lander in LEO at the LEO tanker for TLI.   
   Followed by TEI fuel dump to the LLO tanker, then a descent and landing   
   on the moon. Return to LLO, refuel at the tanker with the TEI fuel and   
   return to LEO tanker for refueling and crew transfer back to the Crew   
   Dragon for return to Earth.   
      
   > Has Musk given details of habitable volume on the lunar lander version   
   > of Starship? ECLSS that works in 0G as well as lunar gravity? toilets   
   > that work in 0-g as well as lunar gravity?   
      
   No, but Artemis is very early in the design cycle. How about this   
   concept; place Dragon Crew Capsule inside the Starship pretty much as is   
   minus the unneeded trunk? You could even keep the heat shield on the   
   Dragon if the Artemis is able to slow into LEO first as an emergency   
   escape plan.   
      
   There is a lot of work to be done. What we have now is an expensive   
   non-reusable rocket that can launch once a year at best. And that's all   
   we have. NASA is *depending* upon SpaceX to deliver a lunar lander. We   
   don't even have a working lunar spacesuit.   
      
   Dave   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)