Discussion
Loading...
@jackwilliambell Better idea: because the Moon is possibly-achievable within the lifespan of the current US presidency, whereas Mars isn't. And getting onto the Moon would buy Musk the credibility he needs to pitch for backing for Mars.
If he doesn't get either done before Trump/Vance/MAGA is given the boot, he will have zero credibility afterwards. Like, credibility bankruptcy. Nobody will touch him (not with Blue Origin and Rocket Labs etc. only 5 years behind SpaceX on reusability).
I'm thinking it has a lot to do with the fact they haven't been able to make the Starship *work*, even after multiple redesigns and reducing capabilities. It seems likely to me SpaceX has run into some intractable engineering problems and, even should they get it flying relatively safely, it will never serve the (stupid in the first place) Mars program.
Whereas they can get to the moon on the Falcon Heavy if they had a decent lander.
@jackwilliambell Starship *does* work—already!—if they simply ditch the reusable upper stage idea and fly it as a disposable, like Falcon 9. In which case it's around the 150-200 tonne payload level already, which is just insane for an est. $200M per flight launch system.
What we're seeing is disappointment at the non-delivery of a revolutionary step-change.
Been giving this some thought … and here's the route I would go if I ran SpaceX and REALLY wanted a moonbase:
1. Take a Starship booster and make some modifications allowing it to work, once in orbit, as a habitat (connections between tanks where you can cut holes after launch, etc.)
2. Launch said booster with a payload consisting of solar panels, life support systems, and some big ion engines – plus one lander
3. Put it into a 'cycler' orbit for the moon and launch new landers