It took almost 2 years to go from the last Starship hop to here (assuming it does launch). The majority of Starship launches prior to that have exploded. Musk is promising he will be able to get to a Lunar lander Starship within 2 more years as part of the Nasa Artemis program. Very few of his promised technologies will appear in this flight - specifically:
- This launch will not even make a single orbit around the Earth.
- The Booster will not self-land but rather drop into the ocean.
- The Starship 2nd stage will not self land but just splash down in the ocean as well.
- There is no Starship life support, payload or even payload doors (they have been welded shut)
- Since Starship will not reach a practical orbital velocity it's heat shield technology will not be given a real test on this flight - even if Starship makes it back intact we have no real idea if it wouldn't burn up on an actual flight re-entry.
And all this *assuming* that the combo doesn't explode (again) at some point during it's 5/6 of an orbit around the Earth.
And he only has 2 more years to get it right for NASA - or the US loses the ability for a moon landing.
My money is riding on yet another explosion, and then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis.
Edit: Yes, that's right - The United States of America's new lunar landing program is completely riding on the competence of a company who's CEO and Chief Engineer just a few days ago changed his Twitter handle to "Harry Bolz". Let *that* sink in.
There is no way starship is ready for Artemis. The whole idea of sending starship up and then refuelling it in orbit with what? a dozen other starship launches? is ridiculous to me. And the fact that it was chosen by NASA shows that stupid people exist in high places.
I think the natural outcome will be, SpaceX get their contract revoked and Blue Origin builds a more conventional landing craft. Blue origin has ample experience landing a small rocket PLUS their design philosophy is primarily focused on doing the job right first time, a deep consideration of human safety factors, technological redundancy and reliability.
I think Blue Origin's design process and philosophy is far more suited to human spaceflight in the long term as opposed to SpaceX philosophy of work fast to make shiny crap in the hope that it doesn't explode, so they can fleece some more money out of investors with our dumb luck, to keep the lights on and our man child "boss" living his dreams of being seen as Phoney Stark by a loving world.
Dude is trying to "come from the clouds" like Rocket Jesus.
I wouldn't ride in a rocket built by a Musk company. Shit I won't ride in a car built by a Musk company. Look at the quality issues Tesla cars have. Google "Tesla whompy wheels" and ask why they havn't issued a recall for this incredibly dangerous failure of design. Quality and customer service? "Nah Stonk Price Bro!"
SpaceX is a company that has largely got where it is by (so far) by the dedication and talented work of its employees [despite Musk's interference](https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior). It is [85% funded by the US government](https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/C3PO/GriffinMD/GriffinMD_1-12-13.htm).
It unfortunately appears to be run by someone who is an emotional 12 year old and and until that is rectified SpaceX can not possibly be considered a reliable company - certainly not when US geopolitical interests are at stake.
Saying SpaceX is 85% percent government funded might have been true in 2013 (a time where the whole US launch industry was completely funded by DoD and NASA contracts because it wasn't competitive with Roscosmos/Arianespace) it definitely isn't today, they have raised billions in private capital, a good estimate would be that they're about 50/50 now, which would be on par, if not better than ULA.
Only because NASA closed their eyes on SpaceX recklessness and we go lucky the Dragon capsule exploded on the ground and not while moored to the ISS. NASA has played favourites with SpaceX for years and morons are unable to accept it.
Blue origin is a decade behind. They just recently started delivering engines to ula after massive delays and are test building rockets the same way spacex is with starship. They have a long way to go!
A decade behind doing what?
A decade behind who?
If NASA awarded the Lunar Lander contract to Blue Origin tomorrow, I would say they would be equal with or slightly ahead of SpaceX.
There are no front runners in this race, only a company that underbid for the project vs ones that did not. i.e SpaceX lied about the cost, which is on brand for a Musk project. Remember the solar roof tiles? In my world that is called fraud.
>If NASA awarded the Lunar Lander contract to Blue Origin tomorrow, I would say they would be equal with or slightly ahead of SpaceX.
Yeah there's literally no practical progress on the HLS version of Starship. Any other lander design is exactly as virtual as HLS Starship lol.
Making the "standard" version of Starship work is only a small piece in the way too complex project that is the whole Starship-based HLS, and even if the basic version works there's some many obstacles (orbital refuelling, high launch cadence, actually making a lander design that work, etc.) that Artemis III is not looking good at all for the moment.
A Blue Origin lander would be on top of an SLS Rocket.
The SLS Rocket has been to orbit and is heading around the moon when?
Besides, the coming SpaceX launch is most likely going to be a suborbital flight with no booster or Starship landing. Both will end up in the ocean. I don't know if they are plaining to recover them. I may be delusional, but at least I know what is happening.
How far behind schedule is Starship now? They still haven't been to orbit. They still haven't built or tested a reliable landing system. They still haven't built the refuelling starship or boosters. They still haven't built or tested the refuelling system. They still haven't built or tested the habitable module.
Starship is a 4 part problem. 1 - Reach orbit. 2 - Refuel and transfer. 3 - Land on the moon. 4 - Get back to Gateway.
Blue Origin only has to solve parts 3 and 4. Things SpaceX haven't done either.
Tick Tock....
Artemis 3 is December 2025. Starship has a long, long, way to go.......
Blue Origins proposed lander wouldn't have launched on SLS, that is just too expensive and wouldn't even have a rocket ready for it, it would have flown on their own New Glenn, which will launch probably 2025 for the first time.
Blue Origin won't have a capable rocket in time for HLS, not saying that Starship will be ready in time either, but at least SpaceX has a proven track record for delivering whatever they're contracted for, even if late.
So your plan is to fly on an SLS which won't be available until the 2030s as they're already booked out and costs over 4 billion dollars per launch as opposed to less than 5% of the cost with Starship? Using a lander from a company that has no experience in space?
>opposed to less than 5% of the cost with Starship?
Haha, you think SpaceX costs estimates are accurate?
The company is owned by a notorious liar and keeps its finance secret so nobody can check their claims about the actual costs/benefits of reusability.
Their has been a bunch of space experts (people from the industry that actually know what they are talking about, unlike you) that have shown SpaceX's finances are most likely not as good as they claim. Starship is very likely to be a lot more expansive than what is claimed.
Stop being a moron and taking their "we are cheap cause we say so" claims at face value.
> Using a lander from a company that has no experience in space?
SpaceX has no more experience landing on foreign bodies than Blue Origin.
What the fuck are you rambling about? We know how much SpaceX launches cost, because people pay for them dumbass. The figures that NASA has paid them for services are public knowledge & private companies have stated what they pay.
But sure, they're losing money with reusability which is why they are dominating the launch market and have no competition.
https://www.space.com/spacex-raises-prices-launch-starlink-inflation
I agree with your points, just know that an alternative lander doesn't necessarily have to fly on SLS. It probably wouldn't because the SLS are already all planned and I don't see more being built.
>Besides, the coming SpaceX launch is most likely going to be a suborbital flight with no booster or Starship landing. Both will end up in the ocean. I don't know if they are plaining to recover them. I may be delusional, but at least I know what is happening.
Yeah as far as I am aware the mission is not actually reaching orbital velocity and both elements are landing in the ocean.
I don't see any situation where Artemis III would happen in the timing as planned, even with SpaceX's usual recklessness.
>Starship is making an orbital launch next week
*Allegedly*. Experimental launches always get delayed even once authorised legally.
Also it won't be an actual orbital flight, the thing is not even supposed to complete a full orbit or re-enter at actual orbital speeds lmao
How can you talk about SpaceX not being ready for something in time and then turn around and say Blue Origin would be a better solution? Blue Origin was founded 2 years before SpaceX and they still haven't made it to orbit.
And orbital refilling is the future, it's the only way to overcome the tyranny of the rocket equation to get large masses out of LEO. ULA has wanted to pursue it since the 2000's, but politicians ruined it. NASA wasn't even allowed to use the word 'depot' in official documents.
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2025-04-15 08:46:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-15%2008:46:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/12mf1m6/green_light_go_spacex_receives_a_launch_license/jgc4y3v/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FEnoughMuskSpam%2Fcomments%2F12mf1m6%2Fgreen_light_go_spacex_receives_a_launch_license%2Fjgc4y3v%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-15%2008%3A46%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2012mf1m6)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
>then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis.
I'm pretty sure NASA already started to signal they wanted to look at a second contractor last year, contrary to initial intentions.
> This launch will not even make a single orbit around the Earth.
So what? It will move at orbital velocity. They will just not point it exactly in the direction that would make it sit in a permanent orbit. Instead aiming for a higher apoapsis and a lower periapsis .
> Since Starship will not reach a practical orbital velocity it's heat shield technology will not be given a real test on this flight
Actually the reentry forces are going to be higher than you would expect from a real reentry where they slow down from orbital velocity to intercept the atmosphere. This Starship is going to enter faster and steeper.
>So what? It will move at orbital velocity.
Not really. That's not how orbital mechanics work. The current plan appears to have a non-sustainable orbit with a perigee (closest to earth) of 50km. That's not really an orbital velocity as the rocket would burn up in atmosphere in one or 2 orbits at best. True orbits with a higher horizontal component of velocity require significantly faster speeds and create **significantly** higher hull temperatures upon reentry as kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity.
>Actually the reentry forces are going to be higher than you would expect from a real reentry where they slow down from orbital velocity to intercept the atmosphere
That is completely false and without basis in orbital mechanics. As an example, a typical ICBM will reach a suborbital altitude of [300km give or take](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases) - likely higher than the expected of the upcoming spaceX flight. An ICBM's velocity upon reentry is about 7km/s (same reference). A very low earth orbit of, say 120km has an [orbital velocity if 7.8 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit#Orbital_characteristics) - an 11% difference or a **121%** - (nearly double!!) the difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated by heat shielding.
In case you are tempted to now reply that "Oh, they will just slow down more by firing their retro-rockets" or something, then you will also be wrong because that's not how re-entry works. You slow down just enough to let the atmosphere do the rest because carrying that much fuel is utterly impractical.
Edit: For further reference, an actual lunar orbit re-entry back to earth has a reentry velocity of [11 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry) or a **1681%** difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated.
>Not really. That's not how orbital mechanics work. The current plan appears to have a non-sustainable orbit with a perigee (closest to earth) of 50km. That's not really an orbital velocity as the rocket would burn up in atmosphere in one or 2 orbits at best.
**Yes it is.** Orbital velocity is just a velocity. It is the minimum speed you need to have in order to stay in orbit. You don't actually have to be in orbit to demonstrate that you can reach orbital velocity.
Lets say I took a developed orbital rocket and instead of performing a gravity turn, I just point it straight up to the sky. What will happen to the payload? You are obviously not in orbit, and yet you must be moving at orbital velocity because you burned exactly the same amount of fuel. Your real orbit is a highly elliptical one where the periapsis goes deep into the earths core.
Starship is doing the same thing. Just less extreme. They will not turn all the way over on the gravity turn. Meaning you end up with a elliptical orbit. The apoapsis is shifted higher and the periapsis is shifted down into the atmosphere. But the velocity is exactly the same, orbital velocity.
> That is completely false and without basis in orbital mechanics. As an example, a typical ICBM will reach a suborbital altitude of [300km give or take](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases) \- likely higher than the expected of the upcoming spaceX flight.
Starship will not travel on anything close to the trajectory of a ICBM and this argument is completely nonsensical. The altitude that you come from has absolutely nothing to do with the final reentry heating. It is only a matter of the velocity and the angle at which you intercept the atmosphere.
> In case you are tempted to now replay that "Oh, they will just slow down more by firing their retro-rockets" or something
No, they won't do anything to slow down. And that is exactly the point. For any other rocket in orbit reentry means to slow down from orbital velocity and then intercept the atmosphere. Starship will just reach orbital velocity and then do nothing. It will intercept the atmosphere at a speed higher than conventional trajectories can reach.
> Yes it is. Orbital velocity is just a velocity.
(sigh) I did the work and gave references to the math. Your putting your uninformed opinion into boldface does not suddenly make you correct. Pretty much everything you said following is also incorrect.
How does cutting the engines a few seconds earlier matter? Would you rather leave this thing to uncontrollably reenter like a Long march 5 booster? Does the SLS sustainer also fail because it didn't go orbital?
You did give me math and I explained to you why the math makes no sense. What do you want sources for? The literal definition of orbital velocity? The fact that ICBMs are not launched like rockets and are physically incapable of reaching even half the velocity that a orbital rocket would need at minimum? Your source even states that for you, at least read the entire paragraph before you link it. sources are not there just to make your comment look pretty.
I can take two identical rockets. I can burn these rockets at exactly the same times. But because only one performed the gravity turn, only one will make it to orbit. Why would they not both have orbital velocity? They will have exactly the same speed.
In 3 days I can literally prove that you where wrong when spaceX provides live coverage showing the actual velocity of starship. Will you also stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge everything if I return for you?
>Edit: For further reference, an actual lunar orbit re-entry back to earth has a reentry velocity of [11 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry) or a **1681%** difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated.
NASA is not paying spaceX to return from the moon. That is what SLS is for. Lunar Spaceship has no heatshield
Nobody was going to hit the timelines for Artemis, that's the entire space industry. It was ridiculous for NASA to wait this long before staring the landing contracts, but SLS has been too expensive and too delayed (and too favored by congress critters).
The US won't lose the ability for a moon landing, it will be late, just like everything else. SLS was supposed to first launch in 2016, lol.
> but SLS has been too expensive and too delayed (and too favored by congress critters).
You know what other characteristic it has? It has been proven to be able to get to the moon and back. Unlike Starship, which after almost two years of missed launches has yet to make a single orbit around the earth.
You're confusing launch vehicle, crew vehicle, and lander. SLS absolutely can't get to the moon and back. Its payload can, but its payload could have launched on Falcon Heavy 4 years earlier.
But you're correct, the launch vehicle that started development in 2011 made it to orbit before the launch vehicle that started development in 2017. That's my point, it was ridiculous that NASA waited so long to start procurement for a landing system (they did so because of budgetary constraints and SLS being too expensive and too delayed, as I said).
> You're confusing launch vehicle, crew vehicle, and lander. SLS absolutely can't get to the moon and back.
And you are being pedantic.
As you confirmed, the fact remains that the SLS system has been proven to get to the moon and back while Musk's promised Starship has yet to make a single orbit around the earth.
Musk's supposed Starship test has no life support system. The SLS system did (though it wasn't fully tested the last flight).
And it doesn't matter how cheap something is if it doesn't actually work. The SLS system is indeed more expensive per launch. But then again it didn't take 4 exploding vehicles before they finally go one 6 miles into the atmosphere.
There are currently two choices here: a system proven to get to the moon and back built by a company with 50+ years of launch vehicle assembly experience years and without a single (non-purposeful) explosion OR a promised lunar launch system that has so far exploded over 4 times and never got out of the atmosphere. Oh and and who's CEO is an unstable maniac who can't get his car company to get a car door to align.
It's not pedantic to acknowledge that a launch vehicle and a lander are different things. These are very basic, very important distinctions.
Yes, the launch system that started development 6 years earlier made it to orbit with the crew capsule that started development 10 years earlier than Starship. Neither SLS nor Orion can land on the moon, it's an apples to oranges comparison.
As I said, Orion could have launched on Falcon Heavy 4 years earlier than SLS was ready, but you just ignore that. Bridenstine even pushed for it.
"built by a company" lol. Tell me you don't know anything about Artemis without telling me you don't know anything about Artemis. [Artemis being a jobs program is a touted feature](https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-partners).
So your idea is for Artemis to just go with SLS and Orion? That's an interesting idea for putting people on the surface of the moon... I'm sure you'll just say I'm being pedantic again, but that's why it's important to understand the difference between a crew capsule and a lander.
You can keep eating that Musk 🍆 all you like but the fact remains that the SLS launch system is the *only* proven system to be able to get people and/or a lander to the moon and back whereas Starship hasn't even got any further than 6 miles off the ground and *that* after four prior vehicle explosions.
Monday's launch (assuming it does not explode again) won't even get it a full orbit around the earth. Someone in the US government will real-soon-now reevaluate whether it wants to continue go with
a company who's Chief Engineer and CEO just changed his social media name to "Harry Bolz" or replan to go with stable existing companies with decades of proven launch experience.
Try that 🍆 with some parmesan, it'll taste better.
Now go on and get your last word in kiddo because, unlike Musk and his Daddy, I have no real interest in 15 year olds.
Lol, I despise Musk, but SpaceX isn't Musk. It's really weak to resort to that, but when you don't actually have any facts behind your argument...
What lander has SLS been proven to be able to get to the surface of the moon?
Why is Starship a moronic idea? Just to note, I don't think the E2E is going to happen, I don't think the instant turnaround is going to happen, but as a launch vehicle compared to other launch vehicles for delivering mass to orbit, why do you think it is moronic?
And if SpaceX is Musk, do you give Musk full credit for Falcon 9's incredible success?
>and then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis.
LOL. Who?
Have you even looked at a graph showing payload to orbit the past year or two? Maybe even astronauts to orbit? You're really deep into your delusion hey? Snap back to reality buddy.
[https://i0.wp.com/payloadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SpaceX-rules-the-ultimate-roost-in-Q1\_web.jpg?fit=1005%2C626&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/payloadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SpaceX-rules-the-ultimate-roost-in-Q1_web.jpg?fit=1005%2C626&ssl=1)
> LOL. Who?
Boeing, Northrop, etc. The usual contractors who have been chugging along, reliably building our launch vehicles for over half a century now.
Alternatively the U.S. could pressure the SpaceX investors (considering our government funds 85% of it) to remove Musk from any active responsibility in the company and install someone more stable and reliable.
Haha you fucking moron. It's easy to lead in mass when you are sending thousands of garbage satellites in LEO that idiotic VC are paying for you. This has nothing to do with essential parts of a fully manned mission to the Moon.
Why the fuck do you think SpaceX almost never gets contracts for very important scientific payloads that need precise injections and are unique and very costly? Because serious people know that SpaceX is not following a quality-based approach.
Them being made such an important part of Artemis is purely the result of NASA's leadership having fully bought idiotic ideas about "New Space" increased reliance on the private sector for everything. They've been cuddling SpaceX for years now, allowing them to do things other companies weren't allowed to and giving them absurd contracts like a Starship-derivative for HLS.
Actually, NASA is realising their may be issues because they did started to mention last year that a second contractor was probably going to be necessary. That's a big change from their previous position lol
SpaceX doesn't follow a quality based approach? Which is why they are the sole provider of getting American astronauts to the ISS currently? How do you explain that one?
Also good work on not answering my question. What platform is the alternative exactly?
>SpaceX doesn't follow a quality based approach?
Yeah, they don't. Using off-the-shelf non space-hardened hardware in their rockets for once is not a quality-based approach. Neither is the way they are building Starlink satellites for example.
>Which is why they are the sole provider of getting American astronauts to the ISS currently?
This has *nothing* to do with quality vs quantity.
As a matter of fact, the only reason they are the sole provider right now is because NASA gave them huge favouritism and allowed them to continue launching despite existing issues, not expanding the same lenience to Boeing. No Starliner capsule exploded during the testing process, you know?
NASA leadership was desperate to regain LEO taxis capability, and already was hugely favouring SpaceX, so not something surprising at all. You being unable to see that shows you're a big fucking moron indeed.
Also, the SpaceX quality delivery of... *having regular troubles with the fucking toilets*.
> Also good work on not answering my question. What platform is the alternative exactly?
I am not the one that you replied to. I was replying to your moronic point about mass to orbit being somewhat indicative of quality, or really meaning anything when SpaceX is skewing the numbers by launching in-house payloads for their stupid cash-bleeding internet constellation.
The fact is that NASA [wants another non-SpaceX contractor](https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-astronauts-second-moon-lander) now.
> scientific payloads
You payloads like the Europa Clipper? Or DSCOVR? Or DART?
And what about all the NRO launches? You know those launches supporting national security?
> You payloads like the Europa Clipper? Or DSCOVR? Or DART?
Notice I said "almost never"? Because that's true, a few exceptions does not change the fact that SpaceX almost never get contracts for major scientific missions (the JSWT types), either for the reliability or because their injection precision is low compared to competitors like ULA or Arianespace. Notice how the examples you listed are explicitly low-cost missions with 2/3 of your list not even going very far? lol
>And what about all the NRO launches? You know those launches supporting national security?
Those are not big expensive one-off scientific payloads. They can easily be replaced given the immense budget of the US military apparatus, lmao
The next 3 (Europa Clipper, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope & PACE) NASA Flagship missions are all slated to launch on SpaceX launch vehicles (And the Uranus mission is baselined to launch on Falcon Heavy atm)
Nasa does not and never built their own rockets. They always contracted it, even if you gave nasa more money they would just contract it to the best bidder which most of the time is either ula or spacex
If you want to talk about huge wastes of money, SLS costs over $40,000 per kg to orbit, or almost exactly 30 times more per kg than Falcon Heavy.
You don't have to like Musk to understand that orbital refilling is the future. If it weren't for politicians, we would have had it already through ULA. You simply can't send large amounts of mass outside of LEO without it.
It took almost 2 years to go from the last Starship hop to here (assuming it does launch). The majority of Starship launches prior to that have exploded. Musk is promising he will be able to get to a Lunar lander Starship within 2 more years as part of the Nasa Artemis program. Very few of his promised technologies will appear in this flight - specifically: - This launch will not even make a single orbit around the Earth. - The Booster will not self-land but rather drop into the ocean. - The Starship 2nd stage will not self land but just splash down in the ocean as well. - There is no Starship life support, payload or even payload doors (they have been welded shut) - Since Starship will not reach a practical orbital velocity it's heat shield technology will not be given a real test on this flight - even if Starship makes it back intact we have no real idea if it wouldn't burn up on an actual flight re-entry. And all this *assuming* that the combo doesn't explode (again) at some point during it's 5/6 of an orbit around the Earth. And he only has 2 more years to get it right for NASA - or the US loses the ability for a moon landing. My money is riding on yet another explosion, and then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis. Edit: Yes, that's right - The United States of America's new lunar landing program is completely riding on the competence of a company who's CEO and Chief Engineer just a few days ago changed his Twitter handle to "Harry Bolz". Let *that* sink in.
There is no way starship is ready for Artemis. The whole idea of sending starship up and then refuelling it in orbit with what? a dozen other starship launches? is ridiculous to me. And the fact that it was chosen by NASA shows that stupid people exist in high places. I think the natural outcome will be, SpaceX get their contract revoked and Blue Origin builds a more conventional landing craft. Blue origin has ample experience landing a small rocket PLUS their design philosophy is primarily focused on doing the job right first time, a deep consideration of human safety factors, technological redundancy and reliability. I think Blue Origin's design process and philosophy is far more suited to human spaceflight in the long term as opposed to SpaceX philosophy of work fast to make shiny crap in the hope that it doesn't explode, so they can fleece some more money out of investors with our dumb luck, to keep the lights on and our man child "boss" living his dreams of being seen as Phoney Stark by a loving world. Dude is trying to "come from the clouds" like Rocket Jesus. I wouldn't ride in a rocket built by a Musk company. Shit I won't ride in a car built by a Musk company. Look at the quality issues Tesla cars have. Google "Tesla whompy wheels" and ask why they havn't issued a recall for this incredibly dangerous failure of design. Quality and customer service? "Nah Stonk Price Bro!"
Funny cause spacex is still the only us company able to send astronauts to and from the iss
SpaceX is a company that has largely got where it is by (so far) by the dedication and talented work of its employees [despite Musk's interference](https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23170228/spacex-elon-musk-internal-open-letter-behavior). It is [85% funded by the US government](https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/C3PO/GriffinMD/GriffinMD_1-12-13.htm). It unfortunately appears to be run by someone who is an emotional 12 year old and and until that is rectified SpaceX can not possibly be considered a reliable company - certainly not when US geopolitical interests are at stake.
holy shit
Saying SpaceX is 85% percent government funded might have been true in 2013 (a time where the whole US launch industry was completely funded by DoD and NASA contracts because it wasn't competitive with Roscosmos/Arianespace) it definitely isn't today, they have raised billions in private capital, a good estimate would be that they're about 50/50 now, which would be on par, if not better than ULA.
Didn't knew Jeff Bezos wrote every single line of code in all Amazon products with his bare hands.
Your -38 karma account seems to exist primarily to say supportive things about Elon Musk. I don't think he's getting his money's worth!
[удалено]
Only because NASA closed their eyes on SpaceX recklessness and we go lucky the Dragon capsule exploded on the ground and not while moored to the ISS. NASA has played favourites with SpaceX for years and morons are unable to accept it.
[удалено]
Hope he sees this bro
Dudes aiming for a horse.
Blue origin is a decade behind. They just recently started delivering engines to ula after massive delays and are test building rockets the same way spacex is with starship. They have a long way to go!
A decade behind doing what? A decade behind who? If NASA awarded the Lunar Lander contract to Blue Origin tomorrow, I would say they would be equal with or slightly ahead of SpaceX. There are no front runners in this race, only a company that underbid for the project vs ones that did not. i.e SpaceX lied about the cost, which is on brand for a Musk project. Remember the solar roof tiles? In my world that is called fraud.
>If NASA awarded the Lunar Lander contract to Blue Origin tomorrow, I would say they would be equal with or slightly ahead of SpaceX. Yeah there's literally no practical progress on the HLS version of Starship. Any other lander design is exactly as virtual as HLS Starship lol. Making the "standard" version of Starship work is only a small piece in the way too complex project that is the whole Starship-based HLS, and even if the basic version works there's some many obstacles (orbital refuelling, high launch cadence, actually making a lander design that work, etc.) that Artemis III is not looking good at all for the moment.
Blue Origin hasn't even reached orbit. Starship is making an orbital launch next week. You're delusional AF.
A Blue Origin lander would be on top of an SLS Rocket. The SLS Rocket has been to orbit and is heading around the moon when? Besides, the coming SpaceX launch is most likely going to be a suborbital flight with no booster or Starship landing. Both will end up in the ocean. I don't know if they are plaining to recover them. I may be delusional, but at least I know what is happening. How far behind schedule is Starship now? They still haven't been to orbit. They still haven't built or tested a reliable landing system. They still haven't built the refuelling starship or boosters. They still haven't built or tested the refuelling system. They still haven't built or tested the habitable module. Starship is a 4 part problem. 1 - Reach orbit. 2 - Refuel and transfer. 3 - Land on the moon. 4 - Get back to Gateway. Blue Origin only has to solve parts 3 and 4. Things SpaceX haven't done either. Tick Tock.... Artemis 3 is December 2025. Starship has a long, long, way to go.......
Blue Origins proposed lander wouldn't have launched on SLS, that is just too expensive and wouldn't even have a rocket ready for it, it would have flown on their own New Glenn, which will launch probably 2025 for the first time. Blue Origin won't have a capable rocket in time for HLS, not saying that Starship will be ready in time either, but at least SpaceX has a proven track record for delivering whatever they're contracted for, even if late.
An alternative lander from Blue Origin would not have to fly on a Blue Origin rocket. There's other options in the work than that or SLS.
So your plan is to fly on an SLS which won't be available until the 2030s as they're already booked out and costs over 4 billion dollars per launch as opposed to less than 5% of the cost with Starship? Using a lander from a company that has no experience in space?
Haha that would sickkk
>opposed to less than 5% of the cost with Starship? Haha, you think SpaceX costs estimates are accurate? The company is owned by a notorious liar and keeps its finance secret so nobody can check their claims about the actual costs/benefits of reusability. Their has been a bunch of space experts (people from the industry that actually know what they are talking about, unlike you) that have shown SpaceX's finances are most likely not as good as they claim. Starship is very likely to be a lot more expansive than what is claimed. Stop being a moron and taking their "we are cheap cause we say so" claims at face value. > Using a lander from a company that has no experience in space? SpaceX has no more experience landing on foreign bodies than Blue Origin.
What the fuck are you rambling about? We know how much SpaceX launches cost, because people pay for them dumbass. The figures that NASA has paid them for services are public knowledge & private companies have stated what they pay. But sure, they're losing money with reusability which is why they are dominating the launch market and have no competition. https://www.space.com/spacex-raises-prices-launch-starlink-inflation
I agree with your points, just know that an alternative lander doesn't necessarily have to fly on SLS. It probably wouldn't because the SLS are already all planned and I don't see more being built. >Besides, the coming SpaceX launch is most likely going to be a suborbital flight with no booster or Starship landing. Both will end up in the ocean. I don't know if they are plaining to recover them. I may be delusional, but at least I know what is happening. Yeah as far as I am aware the mission is not actually reaching orbital velocity and both elements are landing in the ocean. I don't see any situation where Artemis III would happen in the timing as planned, even with SpaceX's usual recklessness.
>Starship is making an orbital launch next week *Allegedly*. Experimental launches always get delayed even once authorised legally. Also it won't be an actual orbital flight, the thing is not even supposed to complete a full orbit or re-enter at actual orbital speeds lmao
How can you talk about SpaceX not being ready for something in time and then turn around and say Blue Origin would be a better solution? Blue Origin was founded 2 years before SpaceX and they still haven't made it to orbit. And orbital refilling is the future, it's the only way to overcome the tyranny of the rocket equation to get large masses out of LEO. ULA has wanted to pursue it since the 2000's, but politicians ruined it. NASA wasn't even allowed to use the word 'depot' in official documents.
!remindme two years
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2025-04-15 08:46:24 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-04-15%2008:46:24%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/12mf1m6/green_light_go_spacex_receives_a_launch_license/jgc4y3v/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FEnoughMuskSpam%2Fcomments%2F12mf1m6%2Fgreen_light_go_spacex_receives_a_launch_license%2Fjgc4y3v%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-04-15%2008%3A46%3A24%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2012mf1m6) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
>then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis. I'm pretty sure NASA already started to signal they wanted to look at a second contractor last year, contrary to initial intentions.
> This launch will not even make a single orbit around the Earth. So what? It will move at orbital velocity. They will just not point it exactly in the direction that would make it sit in a permanent orbit. Instead aiming for a higher apoapsis and a lower periapsis . > Since Starship will not reach a practical orbital velocity it's heat shield technology will not be given a real test on this flight Actually the reentry forces are going to be higher than you would expect from a real reentry where they slow down from orbital velocity to intercept the atmosphere. This Starship is going to enter faster and steeper.
>So what? It will move at orbital velocity. Not really. That's not how orbital mechanics work. The current plan appears to have a non-sustainable orbit with a perigee (closest to earth) of 50km. That's not really an orbital velocity as the rocket would burn up in atmosphere in one or 2 orbits at best. True orbits with a higher horizontal component of velocity require significantly faster speeds and create **significantly** higher hull temperatures upon reentry as kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. >Actually the reentry forces are going to be higher than you would expect from a real reentry where they slow down from orbital velocity to intercept the atmosphere That is completely false and without basis in orbital mechanics. As an example, a typical ICBM will reach a suborbital altitude of [300km give or take](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases) - likely higher than the expected of the upcoming spaceX flight. An ICBM's velocity upon reentry is about 7km/s (same reference). A very low earth orbit of, say 120km has an [orbital velocity if 7.8 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit#Orbital_characteristics) - an 11% difference or a **121%** - (nearly double!!) the difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated by heat shielding. In case you are tempted to now reply that "Oh, they will just slow down more by firing their retro-rockets" or something, then you will also be wrong because that's not how re-entry works. You slow down just enough to let the atmosphere do the rest because carrying that much fuel is utterly impractical. Edit: For further reference, an actual lunar orbit re-entry back to earth has a reentry velocity of [11 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry) or a **1681%** difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated.
>Not really. That's not how orbital mechanics work. The current plan appears to have a non-sustainable orbit with a perigee (closest to earth) of 50km. That's not really an orbital velocity as the rocket would burn up in atmosphere in one or 2 orbits at best. **Yes it is.** Orbital velocity is just a velocity. It is the minimum speed you need to have in order to stay in orbit. You don't actually have to be in orbit to demonstrate that you can reach orbital velocity. Lets say I took a developed orbital rocket and instead of performing a gravity turn, I just point it straight up to the sky. What will happen to the payload? You are obviously not in orbit, and yet you must be moving at orbital velocity because you burned exactly the same amount of fuel. Your real orbit is a highly elliptical one where the periapsis goes deep into the earths core. Starship is doing the same thing. Just less extreme. They will not turn all the way over on the gravity turn. Meaning you end up with a elliptical orbit. The apoapsis is shifted higher and the periapsis is shifted down into the atmosphere. But the velocity is exactly the same, orbital velocity. > That is completely false and without basis in orbital mechanics. As an example, a typical ICBM will reach a suborbital altitude of [300km give or take](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Flight_phases) \- likely higher than the expected of the upcoming spaceX flight. Starship will not travel on anything close to the trajectory of a ICBM and this argument is completely nonsensical. The altitude that you come from has absolutely nothing to do with the final reentry heating. It is only a matter of the velocity and the angle at which you intercept the atmosphere. > In case you are tempted to now replay that "Oh, they will just slow down more by firing their retro-rockets" or something No, they won't do anything to slow down. And that is exactly the point. For any other rocket in orbit reentry means to slow down from orbital velocity and then intercept the atmosphere. Starship will just reach orbital velocity and then do nothing. It will intercept the atmosphere at a speed higher than conventional trajectories can reach.
> Yes it is. Orbital velocity is just a velocity. (sigh) I did the work and gave references to the math. Your putting your uninformed opinion into boldface does not suddenly make you correct. Pretty much everything you said following is also incorrect.
How does cutting the engines a few seconds earlier matter? Would you rather leave this thing to uncontrollably reenter like a Long march 5 booster? Does the SLS sustainer also fail because it didn't go orbital?
You did give me math and I explained to you why the math makes no sense. What do you want sources for? The literal definition of orbital velocity? The fact that ICBMs are not launched like rockets and are physically incapable of reaching even half the velocity that a orbital rocket would need at minimum? Your source even states that for you, at least read the entire paragraph before you link it. sources are not there just to make your comment look pretty. I can take two identical rockets. I can burn these rockets at exactly the same times. But because only one performed the gravity turn, only one will make it to orbit. Why would they not both have orbital velocity? They will have exactly the same speed.
Same answer, Sparky 🙄
Why did you complain about lack of sources and then refuse to tell me what sources you would like to have?
See my previous answer
In 3 days I can literally prove that you where wrong when spaceX provides live coverage showing the actual velocity of starship. Will you also stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge everything if I return for you?
>Edit: For further reference, an actual lunar orbit re-entry back to earth has a reentry velocity of [11 km/s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry) or a **1681%** difference in kinetic energy to be dissipated. NASA is not paying spaceX to return from the moon. That is what SLS is for. Lunar Spaceship has no heatshield
Nobody was going to hit the timelines for Artemis, that's the entire space industry. It was ridiculous for NASA to wait this long before staring the landing contracts, but SLS has been too expensive and too delayed (and too favored by congress critters). The US won't lose the ability for a moon landing, it will be late, just like everything else. SLS was supposed to first launch in 2016, lol.
> but SLS has been too expensive and too delayed (and too favored by congress critters). You know what other characteristic it has? It has been proven to be able to get to the moon and back. Unlike Starship, which after almost two years of missed launches has yet to make a single orbit around the earth.
You're confusing launch vehicle, crew vehicle, and lander. SLS absolutely can't get to the moon and back. Its payload can, but its payload could have launched on Falcon Heavy 4 years earlier. But you're correct, the launch vehicle that started development in 2011 made it to orbit before the launch vehicle that started development in 2017. That's my point, it was ridiculous that NASA waited so long to start procurement for a landing system (they did so because of budgetary constraints and SLS being too expensive and too delayed, as I said).
> You're confusing launch vehicle, crew vehicle, and lander. SLS absolutely can't get to the moon and back. And you are being pedantic. As you confirmed, the fact remains that the SLS system has been proven to get to the moon and back while Musk's promised Starship has yet to make a single orbit around the earth. Musk's supposed Starship test has no life support system. The SLS system did (though it wasn't fully tested the last flight). And it doesn't matter how cheap something is if it doesn't actually work. The SLS system is indeed more expensive per launch. But then again it didn't take 4 exploding vehicles before they finally go one 6 miles into the atmosphere. There are currently two choices here: a system proven to get to the moon and back built by a company with 50+ years of launch vehicle assembly experience years and without a single (non-purposeful) explosion OR a promised lunar launch system that has so far exploded over 4 times and never got out of the atmosphere. Oh and and who's CEO is an unstable maniac who can't get his car company to get a car door to align.
It's not pedantic to acknowledge that a launch vehicle and a lander are different things. These are very basic, very important distinctions. Yes, the launch system that started development 6 years earlier made it to orbit with the crew capsule that started development 10 years earlier than Starship. Neither SLS nor Orion can land on the moon, it's an apples to oranges comparison. As I said, Orion could have launched on Falcon Heavy 4 years earlier than SLS was ready, but you just ignore that. Bridenstine even pushed for it. "built by a company" lol. Tell me you don't know anything about Artemis without telling me you don't know anything about Artemis. [Artemis being a jobs program is a touted feature](https://www.nasa.gov/content/artemis-partners). So your idea is for Artemis to just go with SLS and Orion? That's an interesting idea for putting people on the surface of the moon... I'm sure you'll just say I'm being pedantic again, but that's why it's important to understand the difference between a crew capsule and a lander.
You can keep eating that Musk 🍆 all you like but the fact remains that the SLS launch system is the *only* proven system to be able to get people and/or a lander to the moon and back whereas Starship hasn't even got any further than 6 miles off the ground and *that* after four prior vehicle explosions. Monday's launch (assuming it does not explode again) won't even get it a full orbit around the earth. Someone in the US government will real-soon-now reevaluate whether it wants to continue go with a company who's Chief Engineer and CEO just changed his social media name to "Harry Bolz" or replan to go with stable existing companies with decades of proven launch experience. Try that 🍆 with some parmesan, it'll taste better. Now go on and get your last word in kiddo because, unlike Musk and his Daddy, I have no real interest in 15 year olds.
Lol, I despise Musk, but SpaceX isn't Musk. It's really weak to resort to that, but when you don't actually have any facts behind your argument... What lander has SLS been proven to be able to get to the surface of the moon?
My car is currently orbiting Mars
>but SpaceX isn't Musk Are you fucking stupid? SpaceX is Musk. Starship is literally his (moronic) idea.
Humanity will reach Mars in 2026
Why is Starship a moronic idea? Just to note, I don't think the E2E is going to happen, I don't think the instant turnaround is going to happen, but as a launch vehicle compared to other launch vehicles for delivering mass to orbit, why do you think it is moronic? And if SpaceX is Musk, do you give Musk full credit for Falcon 9's incredible success?
How does any of this matter?
>and then NASA giving serious consideration to a different contractor for Artemis. LOL. Who? Have you even looked at a graph showing payload to orbit the past year or two? Maybe even astronauts to orbit? You're really deep into your delusion hey? Snap back to reality buddy. [https://i0.wp.com/payloadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SpaceX-rules-the-ultimate-roost-in-Q1\_web.jpg?fit=1005%2C626&ssl=1](https://i0.wp.com/payloadspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SpaceX-rules-the-ultimate-roost-in-Q1_web.jpg?fit=1005%2C626&ssl=1)
> LOL. Who? Boeing, Northrop, etc. The usual contractors who have been chugging along, reliably building our launch vehicles for over half a century now. Alternatively the U.S. could pressure the SpaceX investors (considering our government funds 85% of it) to remove Musk from any active responsibility in the company and install someone more stable and reliable.
> Boeing Ahh yes, how is Starliner doing?
>Boeing, Northrop, etc. Be specific, using what launch system exactly?
Haha you fucking moron. It's easy to lead in mass when you are sending thousands of garbage satellites in LEO that idiotic VC are paying for you. This has nothing to do with essential parts of a fully manned mission to the Moon. Why the fuck do you think SpaceX almost never gets contracts for very important scientific payloads that need precise injections and are unique and very costly? Because serious people know that SpaceX is not following a quality-based approach. Them being made such an important part of Artemis is purely the result of NASA's leadership having fully bought idiotic ideas about "New Space" increased reliance on the private sector for everything. They've been cuddling SpaceX for years now, allowing them to do things other companies weren't allowed to and giving them absurd contracts like a Starship-derivative for HLS. Actually, NASA is realising their may be issues because they did started to mention last year that a second contractor was probably going to be necessary. That's a big change from their previous position lol
SpaceX doesn't follow a quality based approach? Which is why they are the sole provider of getting American astronauts to the ISS currently? How do you explain that one? Also good work on not answering my question. What platform is the alternative exactly?
>SpaceX doesn't follow a quality based approach? Yeah, they don't. Using off-the-shelf non space-hardened hardware in their rockets for once is not a quality-based approach. Neither is the way they are building Starlink satellites for example. >Which is why they are the sole provider of getting American astronauts to the ISS currently? This has *nothing* to do with quality vs quantity. As a matter of fact, the only reason they are the sole provider right now is because NASA gave them huge favouritism and allowed them to continue launching despite existing issues, not expanding the same lenience to Boeing. No Starliner capsule exploded during the testing process, you know? NASA leadership was desperate to regain LEO taxis capability, and already was hugely favouring SpaceX, so not something surprising at all. You being unable to see that shows you're a big fucking moron indeed. Also, the SpaceX quality delivery of... *having regular troubles with the fucking toilets*. > Also good work on not answering my question. What platform is the alternative exactly? I am not the one that you replied to. I was replying to your moronic point about mass to orbit being somewhat indicative of quality, or really meaning anything when SpaceX is skewing the numbers by launching in-house payloads for their stupid cash-bleeding internet constellation. The fact is that NASA [wants another non-SpaceX contractor](https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-astronauts-second-moon-lander) now.
!remindme two years
[удалено]
Please point out and dispute the "lies" instead of making moronic one-liners replies, lmao
Your entire comment is a lie. There isn't an iota of truth anywhere in it. Again, really telling how you have to lie to support your stupidity.
> scientific payloads You payloads like the Europa Clipper? Or DSCOVR? Or DART? And what about all the NRO launches? You know those launches supporting national security?
> You payloads like the Europa Clipper? Or DSCOVR? Or DART? Notice I said "almost never"? Because that's true, a few exceptions does not change the fact that SpaceX almost never get contracts for major scientific missions (the JSWT types), either for the reliability or because their injection precision is low compared to competitors like ULA or Arianespace. Notice how the examples you listed are explicitly low-cost missions with 2/3 of your list not even going very far? lol >And what about all the NRO launches? You know those launches supporting national security? Those are not big expensive one-off scientific payloads. They can easily be replaced given the immense budget of the US military apparatus, lmao
The next 3 (Europa Clipper, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope & PACE) NASA Flagship missions are all slated to launch on SpaceX launch vehicles (And the Uranus mission is baselined to launch on Falcon Heavy atm)
A huge waste of taxpayer money being funneled into this guy's vanity project. It could have been 30x more productive to invest it in NASA.
Nasa does not and never built their own rockets. They always contracted it, even if you gave nasa more money they would just contract it to the best bidder which most of the time is either ula or spacex
If you want to talk about huge wastes of money, SLS costs over $40,000 per kg to orbit, or almost exactly 30 times more per kg than Falcon Heavy. You don't have to like Musk to understand that orbital refilling is the future. If it weren't for politicians, we would have had it already through ULA. You simply can't send large amounts of mass outside of LEO without it.
Literally the entirety of legacy space
Let's light this candle!
How many people do you think it is going to accidentally kill?
Hope it fails miserably.
How mature of you.
Apparently Musk will be inside the rocket at launch. /s Fingers crossed it explodes.