Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That was always a bullshit date. No different than elder Bush's Mars in 2030. 2028, maybe if everything goes well with Starship, and the suits. Their lunar variant is still a disaster waiting to happen without a better design. We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel? SLS is also supposed to somehow fit into the picture which is still not tested in any way resembling the baby steps Apollo took.


Starship didn’t destroy anything, that was the booster, and they’re not landing a 33 engine booster on the Moon.


"We've seen how Starship destroys a launch pad with ill-conceived flame diversion. How is it going to land on unprepared regolith without toppling in its own crater or destroying the engines with rebounding shrapnel?"

Starship has fewer engines than Super Heavy, it likely won't be landing at full throttle either, and lunar lander Starship could have landing legs as well. The lower gravity on the Moon means that you can carry more hardware with you. Maneuvering in 0.16 g is nowhere near as fuel intensive as in 1 g.


Super Heavy isn't going to the moon. Also, the moon has less gravity. WAY LESS.

I think those two things combined means your logic is off by at least 3 orders of magnitude.


Why is this being downvoted? These are all valid concerns.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: