SpaceX plans to launch about five uncrewed Starships to Mars in two years.

This is awesome. It is something that the world needs. Innovation. Dreams. Ideas. At one time that was what NASA was for. Then someone decided to derail in in 2010. It never recovered.

We need something like the Space X program and I hope when he wins in a few months he will once again start funding for that innovation, investing in ideas and making dreams come true.

This is the end game for Musk. He can build his Fortress of Solitude up there once and for all...

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: lilzazz
Why isn't the Moon being used as a platform to explore the Solar system?

...

Because it doesn’t make any sense. The Moon isn’t “on the way” to anywhere. It’s a gravity well. You have to burn rocket propellant to get down to the surface and to get back off. It’s a detour. If you want to go back to the Moon and explore it then you should go and do that in the most cost-effective way possible, which doesn’t include stopping at Mars first. Likewise, if you want to go and explore Mars, that doesn’t include stopping at the Moon first.

I don't know, but it takes a chitload of fuel to escape lunar orbit.

I thought at one time, it was discussed to eventually build habitats on the moon and mine moon resources as a proof of concept to use on Mars. At one time there were talks of having ships launched from lunar orbit.

Wasn't H3 supposedly found in abundance? Plans were to mine the moon for resources and potentially build and launch probes and landers from there.

I remember that discussion. Lunar regolith can be use in giant 3D printers to make habitats and various other needed parts without requiring additives as it's largely silica.

Yeah I made a mistake I said escaping lunar orbit but I meant Earth's atmosphere, at one time we were suppoed to be able to build while in earth's orbit and some had suggested build and launch from the moon's orbit which would have required the moon base for fueling etc.

Exactly the 3D printers make the outer shell of the habitats and then pressurized airtight living quarters are constructed inside.

All are concepts that could be tested on the Moon and used on Mars too.

I wanted to see a moon base where we mine resources happen, but it sounds as if NASA isn't interested.

NASA did.not loose interest in the Moon and manned space flight, congress did in the 1970s. Congress could not imagin the benefits of continued funding.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: lilzazz
Why isn't the Moon being used as a platform to explore the Solar system?

...

Because it doesn’t make any sense. The Moon isn’t “on the way” to anywhere. It’s a gravity well. You have to burn rocket propellant to get down to the surface and to get back off. It’s a detour. If you want to go back to the Moon and explore it then you should go and do that in the most cost-effective way possible, which doesn’t include stopping at Mars first. Likewise, if you want to go and explore Mars, that doesn’t include stopping at the Moon first.

I don't know, but it takes a chitload of fuel to escape Earth's atmosphere.

I thought at one time, it was discussed to eventually build habitats on the moon and mine moon resources as a proof of concept to use on Mars. At one time there were talks of having ships launched from lunar orbit.

Wasn't H3 supposedly found in abundance? Plans were to mine the moon for resources and potentially build and launch probes and landers.

spacenews.com...

In a presentation at a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee Nov. 17, Lakiesha Hawkins, assistant deputy associate administrator in NASA’s Moon to Mars Program Office, said the company will have to perform Starship launches from both its current pad in Texas and one it is constructing at the Kennedy Space Center in order send a lander to the moon for Artemis 3.

SpaceX’s concept of operations for the Starship lunar lander it is developing for the Human Landing System (HLS) program requires multiple launches of the Starship/Super Heavy system. One launch will place a propellant depot into orbit, followed by multiple other launches of tanker versions of Starship, transferring methane and liquid oxygen propellants into the depot. That will be followed by the lander version of Starship, which will rendezvous with the depot and fill its tanks before going to the moon.

Yes, it takes a chitload of fuel to launch to Mars from the Earth. It takes a BIGGER chitload to launch from the Earth to the Moon, do a propulsive soft-landing there, then do a propulsive takeoff and finally transit to Mars and do a propulsive soft landing there. The only way that could possibly be a reasonable thing to do is if you had a propellant station on the Moon AND all the rockets you plan on using are completely reusable so that you're not throwing hardware away at every step, AND the propellant was produced from local resources on the Moon instead of being trucked in from Earth. NASA refers to producing the fuel there locally as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).

But we don't have a propellant station on the Moon and it would take a very large number of launches to put one there and maintain the crew.

Besides, if you want to introduce ISRU into the equation for Mars exploration, it would be far better to do the ISRU on Mars. You can make the kind of rocket fuel that Elon's Starships burn (Methane and Oxygen) from the Martian atmosphere. That's what he plans to do for the exact reason that it's more cost-effective than stopping by the Moon and it's why he designed his rockets to burn Methane and Oxygen.

Think of it this way:

If you want to send rockets with humans to the Moon and return the humans to Earth, make all your plans as if Mars did not exist. If you want to do ISRU for the Earth-Moon-Earth trip, then put the ISRU plant on the Moon. (And it probably won't produce Methane and Oxygen, by the way, so you will have to use different rocket motors than you would for a Mars trip).

Likewise, if you want to send rockets with humans to Mars and return the humans to Earth, make all your plans as if the Moon did not exist. And if you want to do ISRU for the Earth-Mars-Earth trip, then put the ISRU plant on Mars.

Flying humans to either destination first does not make sending them to the other destination for the second leg of the trip any easier, if you're going to return them to Earth.

As an analogy, if I want to fly from Los Angeles to Seattle and return, it makes the trip more costly, not less costly if I first fly from Los Angeles to Paris, then from Paris to Seattle and then back to Los Angeles. That's true even if I can refuel in Paris.

This has been studied to death over the decades, and the rocket equation always gives the same answer.

a reply to: pianopraze

i swear when i first read the title to the op, i thought what the hell is a unscrewed starship.
my dyslexia must be acting up or i need new computer glasses.

a reply to: putnam6

my bad wrong tab and memeber.

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: pianopraze

i swear when i first read the title to the op, i thought what the hell is a unscrewed starship.
my dyslexia must be acting up or i need new computer glasses.

I read it that way every time, and laugh to myself…

But I’m dyslexic, so do such things all the time.

It also took me way too many times to figure out I was reading that word wrong.

It’s getting more and more amazing to be living in the timeline with this guy. If our crap government we currently live under halts progress, I hope he goes to Mexico or somewhere else to continue his dreams. Our dreams! I’m sure a small country like Mexico would love the money that came with a space program.

a reply to: pianopraze

I may or may not be around to see the day when space travel to Mars is an every day occurrence but I think with the way things are on Earth with all this fighting/warring going on... religious battles, resources etc... extremists... it would be a good idea for those who want to get away from it all...

Just hope the lunatics don't sneek onto a Mars mission to screw it up there too..

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: lilzazz
Why isn't the Moon being used as a platform to explore the Solar system?

...

Because it doesn’t make any sense. The Moon isn’t “on the way” to anywhere. It’s a gravity well. You have to burn rocket propellant to get down to the surface and to get back off. It’s a detour. If you want to go back to the Moon and explore it then you should go and do that in the most cost-effective way possible, which doesn’t include stopping at Mars first. Likewise, if you want to go and explore Mars, that doesn’t include stopping at the Moon first.

I don't know, but it takes a chitload of fuel to escape Earth's atmosphere.

I thought at one time, it was discussed to eventually build habitats on the moon and mine moon resources as a proof of concept to use on Mars. At one time there were talks of having ships launched from lunar orbit.

Wasn't H3 supposedly found in abundance? Plans were to mine the moon for resources and potentially build and launch probes and landers.

spacenews.com...

In a presentation at a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s human exploration and operations committee Nov. 17, Lakiesha Hawkins, assistant deputy associate administrator in NASA’s Moon to Mars Program Office, said the company will have to perform Starship launches from both its current pad in Texas and one it is constructing at the Kennedy Space Center in order send a lander to the moon for Artemis 3.

SpaceX’s concept of operations for the Starship lunar lander it is developing for the Human Landing System (HLS) program requires multiple launches of the Starship/Super Heavy system. One launch will place a propellant depot into orbit, followed by multiple other launches of tanker versions of Starship, transferring methane and liquid oxygen propellants into the depot. That will be followed by the lander version of Starship, which will rendezvous with the depot and fill its tanks before going to the moon.

Yes, it takes a chitload of fuel to launch to Mars from the Earth. It takes a BIGGER chitload to launch from the Earth to the Moon, do a propulsive soft-landing there, then do a propulsive takeoff and finally transit to Mars and do a propulsive soft landing there. The only way that could possibly be a reasonable thing to do is if you had a propellant station on the Moon AND all the rockets you plan on using are completely reusable so that you're not throwing hardware away at every step, AND the propellant was produced from local resources on the Moon instead of being trucked in from Earth. NASA refers to producing the fuel there locally as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).

But we don't have a propellant station on the Moon and it would take a very large number of launches to put one there and maintain the crew.

Besides, if you want to introduce ISRU into the equation for Mars exploration, it would be far better to do the ISRU on Mars. You can make the kind of rocket fuel that Elon's Starships burn (Methane and Oxygen) from the Martian atmosphere. That's what he plans to do for the exact reason that it's more cost-effective than stopping by the Moon and it's why he designed his rockets to burn Methane and Oxygen.

Think of it this way:

If you want to send rockets with humans to the Moon and return the humans to Earth, make all your plans as if Mars did not exist. If you want to do ISRU for the Earth-Moon-Earth trip, then put the ISRU plant on the Moon. (And it probably won't produce Methane and Oxygen, by the way, so you will have to use different rocket motors than you would for a Mars trip).

Likewise, if you want to send rockets with humans to Mars and return the humans to Earth, make all your plans as if the Moon did not exist. And if you want to do ISRU for the Earth-Mars-Earth trip, then put the ISRU plant on Mars.

Flying humans to either destination first does not make sending them to the other destination for the second leg of the trip any easier, if you're going to return them to Earth.

As an analogy, if I want to fly from Los Angeles to Seattle and return, it makes the trip more costly, not less costly if I first fly from Los Angeles to Paris, then from Paris to Seattle and then back to Los Angeles. That's true even if I can refuel in Paris.

This has been studied to death over the decades, and the rocket equation always gives the same answer.

This isn't a scenario Ive pulled out my azz this was discussed as the likely next step BEFORE we had SpaceX.

Here's a link that pretty much describes exactly what my post said, though the article was an even more robust Moon base and lunar orbital station.

SpaceX stole some of that thunder and is easier and quicker but Starship hasn't even made a dry landing not to mention there are plans to have Starship refueled in orbit as well, according to its Wikipedia page

en.wikipedia.org...

Starship is planned to be able to be refueled by docking with separately launched Starship propellant tanker spacecraft in orbit. Doing so could allow it to reach higher-energy targets,[d] such as geosynchronous orbit, the Moon, and Mars.[35] A propellant depot could store methane and oxygen on-orbit, and could be used by Starship HLS to replenish its fuel tanks.[36]
If Starship's second stage lands on a pad, a mobile hydraulic lift will move it to a transporter vehicle. If it lands on a floating platform, it will be transported by a barge to a port and

www.space.com...

A jumping-off point
The Gateway will, of course, be much more distant from Earth's surface than the ISS, which circles a mere 250 miles (400 kilometers) above our planet.

NASA plans to assemble the Gateway in a highly elliptical "near-rectilinear halo orbit," which will bring the outpost within 930 miles (1,500 km) of the lunar surface at closest approach and as far away as 43,500 miles (70,000 km). (Reminder, the moon lies about 238,900 miles, or 384,400 km, from Earth on average.)

This six-day orbit will keep the Gateway out of the moon's shadow at all times, permitting constant communication with Earth, NASA officials have said. And with this orbit, the outpost can serve as a jumping-off point, both for landers headed down to the lunar surface and for vehicles venturing out into deep space.

"We eventually want to go to Mars, and the systems that are going to take crew to Mars and back are going to be fairly large — very large," Guidi said.

As much as possible, NASA wants to avoid having to haul this heavy gear out of Earth's deep gravity well, to make Red Planet treks more efficient and cost-effective, Guidi added. And the Gateway should be able to help with that.

[in other words, to] go to the Gateway, we can move the Gateway a little bit in orbit — and the PPE is capable of doing that — dock to Mars-type transportation-habitation systems and send them off," Guidi said. Then, when those craft return, they can "again rely on SLS-Orion to make the link between the lunar environment and home," he said.

Musk an FREE SPEECH X are not the darlings of the current regime so it might make one wonder how much politics is involved in anything to do with the FAA ? You can bet China is very happy at any delays for Space X

SpaceX Exposed FAA Administrator's BIG Mistake To Starship Launch License! Musk's Reaction
FINALLY! After a period of silence, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has addressed the Starship launch situation. However, their statements show no sign of repentance or acknowledgment of Starship's monumental importance. Instead, they have unleashed a barrage of baseless rebuttals, which Elon Musk has described as an "inept & politically driven" response.
So, why is the FAA making these inaccurate statements? What are they hiding?
How has Elon Musk exposed these issues?
Let’s find out in today’s episode of Alpha Tech:
SpaceX Exposed FAA Administrator's BIG Mistake To Starship Launch License! Musk's Reaction
On September 24, FAA Administrator Mike Whitaker, along with lawmakers from the House Transportation Committee, held an in-person conference. During the meeting, Whitaker defended the decision to delay the launch of SpaceX's Starship, asserting that the company did not comply with licensing and permit requirements. This came after Elon Musk voiced concerns that FAA bureaucracy was hindering the company's ambitions.
Whitaker explained that the decision to postpone SpaceX's launch by several months was driven by safety concerns. He also defended the proposed $633,000 fine against SpaceX as the "only tool" the FAA has to ensure compliance with regulations. This fine is related to two launches SpaceX conducted in 2023 without the agency's approval of their plans. Additionally, the FAA made a separate decision to delay SpaceX's fifth test launch of the Starship super rocket due to non-compliance with launch licensing procedures.
Furthermore, Whitaker acknowledged his desire for SpaceX to operate at the highest level of safety, given their 20 years of experience.
He stated, (3:41-3:48) “They've been around 20 years, and I think they need to operate at the highest level of safety, and that includes adopting a safety management system program, which includes having a whistleblower program.”
SpaceX Exposed FAA Administrator's BIG Mistake To Starship Launch License! Musk's Reaction
At first glance, one might interpret Whitaker’s comments as a demonstration of trust in SpaceX. However, this actually reflects the FAA's strict oversight and heightened demands specifically related to Starship. This raises the question: are they not requiring the same level of safety from other companies as well?
Developing a new vehicle of Starship's scale and groundbreaking technology is inherently challenging, even for experienced companies like SpaceX. Mistakes are to be expected during this process. Therefore, the FAA should be cautious about imposing excessively strict standards on Starship simply because SpaceX has previously succeeded with the Falcon 9. Do you agree with this perspective? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Regarding the delays in launch permits for Starship, Whitaker stated: (1:39-1:46) “The delay of the Starship has to do with SpaceX filing an application and not disclosing if [they] were in violation of Texas and federal law on some matters — and that’s a requirement to get a permit.”
Whitaker's defense was a response to Representative Kevin Kiley (Republican-California), who questioned whether the FAA was subjecting SpaceX to "undue scrutiny" and hindering innovation. Whitaker explained that the delay—pushed back to November instead of the hoped-for August—was related to licensing laws governing spacecraft launches and the latest environmental analysis concerning sonic booms in the vicinity of Musk’s Boca Chica, Texas launch site. This required the FAA to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service beforehand.

youtu.be...

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
So, five rockets will be ready in two years. Will those be returnable rockets or will they just land and provide material for future ''manned'' landings. Water supplies, food, three d printers, prefab habitats to be constructed, that sort of thing. Come on Elon, if you are going to try it, do it right.

I have forwarded your post to Elon and the mission planning team. Your timing was sublime and much appreciated as it is unlikely anyone in-house who has been involved in the engineering and fielding of actual space-going vessels has given any thought to “doing it right”.

You may have just pushed the very first manned mission to Mars ahead by several years. On behalf of the Space X team and the human species, THANK YOU!

a reply to: FloridaManMatty

And that Flo, was one splendid and sublime job of sarcasm, nicely done.

I hope elon sends his space force up soon. It will be interesting how the aliens receive his experiment.

originally posted by: pianopraze

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: lilzazz
Why isn't the Moon being used as a platform to explore the Solar system?

Elon knows....

Subterranean dinosaur-riding Nazi's of course.

I hope pianopraze's youtube link is from Iron Sky. I can't see it currently.

It’s a fart joke from baked bean company, here’s link: YouTube link

On topic:
Elon says Starlink internet service is funding the program (ibed link in OP, just check comments)

By the way, our commercial Starlink program is the primary source of funding for Starship (NASA is helping too).

So thank for buying Starlink and supporting humanity’s future in space.

If you look closely at your Starlink router, you will notice that it has an illustration of the Earth-Mars transfer orbit.

This is a great rejoinder to the nay-sayers; it truly is.

Musk has revolutionized low Earth orbit exploration and space systems. No one can take this away from him and Space X.

Mars is hard, but so is space. I applaud his forward looking attitude and his willingness to take risks.

I had my doubts about Space X right up UNTIL I saw Space X land their boosters (two of them) back on the ground. NO ONE had done that before...NO one. That was a game-changer in my mind, and something which set commercial space exploration apart from NASA. Space X didn't accomplish this because they were timid, but rather because Musk said..."Work Harder!!".

I like that mantra!

That was the NASA of the early 80's I remember..."Work Harder!"

I have serious doubts about Mars, but Musk and Space X have proven my standards wrong already, so maybe I'm wrong. Mars is a lot harder than the Moon, for a whole variety of reasons.

I guess we will see.