Why is it so fucking difficult to get to the moon???

Previous >>510171659

>>510183422 (OP)
Anyone post this video in your last thread? It's required viewing. QRD: the current moon project is unfeasible. It's an enormous grift.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU

>>510183742
holy midwit

>>510183422 (OP)
it was easy for the very smart boomers maybe we should ask them. i'm sure buzz aldrin will answer your very valid questions ... if you want a shot right in the kisser!

>>510183833
But it was the Nazis that the US snagged in Operation Paperclip that gave us the ability to get to the moon.

>>510183825
who, me or him?

Because we have a number of safety regulations and challenges we did not have back then. One of the chiefest challenges is the increase in fuel costs, another would be the barrier around earth made of debris, satellites, and the like making calculation of a flight path much harder, and then there's the distance. The moon is farther away than it was in the 60s. In fact - Every planet in our solar system can fit between the Earth and Moon. It's really, really far away. We have to pay everyone involved in the mission a lot more than we used to have to pay them. It's a lot of budget and math problems to solve at a time when nobody wants to come together to solve hard questions.

it's only hard because in the 60s we didn't give a fuck about spending a bajillion dollars on a giant single-use rocket, the niggercattle at the time were totally fine spending that money to get one over on le communism. once we got to the moon everybody lost interest and wanted the money back to spend on niggers

>>510184250
>>510184310
We don't have 24 billion 1960 dollars

>>510184310
This is correct. Saturn V weighed close to 3000 tons, one of the Starship launchers is about 100 tons. So using eight of these is actually a significant increase in efficiency.
The "how could we misplace the technology" spergs simply don't understand the 1960s mindset, people just didn't give a fuck, they built everything as large as humanly possible and they didn't care about cost or the occasional catastrophic failure.

>>510183422 (OP)
Because starship sucks in general but specifically it sucks at going to the moon because you need to bring all the ship there for no good reason.

>>510184757
Starship weights 5000 tons.

>>510184757
They had political and emotional reasons. I don't understand why China aren't taking the lead by now, seems like a logical area of expansion for them.
>using eight of these is actually a significant increase in efficiency
the current starship is nowhere near ready to perform such a task, it would take more than eight payloads anyway. Might as well make hypothetical future starship models your starting point.

>>510184250
If the moon is further away then how come tides are still high? Checkmate atheist

Because Stanley Kubrick died.

>>510185267
>Starship weights 5000 tons.
Uh, you are right. Disregard anything I said then.
I didn't realize Starship is heavier than Saturn V, that's insane.

>>510183422 (OP)
Because Starship is not designed to go to the moon. It's primarily designed to be a Starlink truck, with a secondary function as a Mars lander. It's a kludge solution to use it as a moon lander. When NASA wanted a moon lander, SpaceX offered to bang the square peg they were working on into a round hole, and NASA agreed.

>>510187697
You had the payload as the total weight
Lots of things about starship are cool but Elon's earned his share of suspicion. What is NASA up to these days? It would be sweet if they exercised some oversight with spaceX and gave a third-party report on how things are going, or something.

>>510188097
how the hell would it ever get to Mars?

>>510185267
You miss the point then. You bring the whole ship so you don't throw it away. The spending on liquid methane and liquid oxygen is cheaper than rebuilding the entire rocket. You can see the economic at work with falcon9. It does 2 stages instead of 3, it doesn't use fancy pants liquid hydrogen fuel for an isp boost, it has to carry around landing legs, and yet it carries the most mass to orbit.

>>510188345
see the previous thread. Its not much harder to go to mars than round trip to the moon.

>>510188345
Starship would use aerobraking in Mars' atmosphere to slow down enough to land on Mars. Then it would refuel on Mars in order to return to Earth (once a fuel production plant has been established on Mars)

The Moon has no atmosphere and there is no carbon dioxide ice from which to produce methane on the Moon

>>510188345
Starship would use aerobraking in Mars' atmosphere to slow down enough to land on Mars. Then it would refuel on Mars in order to return to Earth (once a propellant production plant has been established on Mars)

The Moon has no atmosphere and there is no rocket propellant production plant on the Moon yet

>>510188165
Does NASA have the chops to do a technical evaluation of spacex anymore? SpaceX's design is a million miles away from anything nasa was doing. for example: Nasa: tanks of aluminum/lithium alloy (iirc) joined with friction stir welding, spacex: steel.

>>510188708
How far out has starship actually gotten? I don't think the moon is on the menu either. Maybe later models

>>510189056
For the first several/many people that go, its a one way trip.

>>510183742
>unfeasible
kys

>>510183422 (OP)
Starship to the Moon is a much different architecture than Apollo.
>>510184580
>We don't have 24 billion 1960 dollars
This can't be emphasized enough. Plus the backing of nearly the entire public and a worthy adversary to compete against.

>>510189628
just make a new space ship design, retarded bot. if the current project sucks, it doesn't mean anything except money for elong.

>>510189180
idk. The problems they seem to be dealing with are almost details. The last explosion was from a composite over wrapped tank from an outside supplier that failed below its design pressure on the test stand. It looks like spacex is jerry rigging a test setup on the lauch tower to test the next couple rockets because its test site was so damaged.

Basically spacex already has a whole new rocket series designed; but it can't launch from the old launch tower. So they are trying to finish the new launch tower and get as much data as they can from the old rockets. I think there may only be a couple more old rockets.

I personally think this year they will get the full stack working with a tower capture of both vehicles. Once they have data from that, the rest is optimization. The whole approach seems to be workable.

They are also building a launch complex in florida btw.

>>510189275
That's media-driven hyperbole. The first crews heading to Mars will probably be expected to do a five or ten year tour, then retire back to Earth. The whole Mars-suicide-mission hysteria that sprang from the old One Way To Stay plan and fueled by Mars One has always been nonsense.
You spend five years on the surface building ISRU systems and rigging habitats, then come home.

>>510183422 (OP)
Maybe it's just really hard to get there. Maybe we haven't been there yet. Maybe.

>>510188708
this is the most retarded opinion. from a delta V standpoint, sure, but it's 6 months vs 3 days.

>>510183422 (OP)
>Why is it so fucking difficult to get to the moon???
Because it's all a show anyway. We've had superior vehicles for decades and have already explored at least the solar system but probably farther out in the galaxy. They are hiding what they've found out there, I don't know why. But obviously they think we can't handle it. So they distract with this shit instead.

>>510190074
We have to step out of the cradle and doing long deep space transits is part of that until we build high thrust, high ISP engines.

>>510190051
>That's media-driven hyperbole.

I don't think so at all. You have to survive the launch, survive the landing, survive a rough industrial work environment in an unimaginably harsh environment. Then once you have done that, if you are still alive, why come back? In 10 years, your a martin.

>>510189833
I don't think it can even reach a stable orbit around earth. Could be wrong

>>510190074
I personally think it is stupid to do this with chemical rockets; we should use nuclear thermal instead. But It will take this path-finding work and exploration before that happens.

And if you are talking about 5-10 year missions like that other guy 6 months isn't that long.

Keep in mind starship is designed to be rapidly reusable and relaunchable within hours. A single booster and ship combo could theoretically make all 8 of these trips in a day or two. That is what is so crazy about what spacex is trying to build, I really hope they can pull it off.

>>510190182
there's nothing out there. we are alone. we're not going anywhere. deal with it. scamX is a giant fraud and the steel dildo isn't capable enough.

>>510190342
I don't think that is in question, they are keeping these initial launches on a sub-orbital trajectory so they know exactly where the pieces are coming back (into the Indian ocean).

>>510190536
the shuttle was designed to be rapidly reusable too.

>>510190643
I look forward to when they have orbit and reentry figured out. If there's not enough fuel to do that, the moon will be tough.

>>510190721
It was not designed to be refueled and launched again within hours. Starship is. The main issue with shuttle reusability was heat tiles, which may well end up being the biggest problem with starships reusability as well. We will see once they have all the plumbing issues worked out.

>>510187697
god damn that's huge, I had no idea SpaceX's stuff was this massive

>>510183422 (OP)
>8 starships
at least there's a way. And these rockets are reusable so it's much more efficient

>>510184250
While you are correct that the moon has been getting further away from earth since the 60s — and will continue to do so until moon & earth become tidally locked — it’s a negligible difference because the moon is only getting further away by a few centimeters per year.

You’re right about fuel costs

Idk about space debris but it seems like there ought to be a reasonable solution

>>510190928
>It was not designed to be refueled and launched again within hours.
Originally it was next day or so I thought. What a dangerous program that was

>>510183422 (OP)
>>510183833
>>510188501
Different goals too. The Boomers only needed to send two guys and a flag for 8 hours to show that they could. Musk is trying to create a permanent base which is much harder.

>>510185285
They had the Faustian Spirit, which we still have to this day. It still glows golden in the hearts of all of Europe’s sons and it will return to its rightful place in our culture. But not on its own, and not without great cost.

>>510185285
>I don't understand why China aren't taking the lead by now
From what I know, they are. Theyre still struggling because they were always more used to copying western tech than cutting the way through on the forefront, but they have a huge sheet of projects and timetables. youre in trouble

>>510191387
maybe musk should start with duplicating what happened before. his current mission involves doing a fuel transfer in orbit and that has never been done before
kind of stupid to make something so new and unknown mission critical

>>510191749
Falcon9 does 90%+ of all mass to orbit worldwide. SpaceX is so far ahead it is not even funny. If starship ever gets perfected it would actually monopolize nearly 100% of all space travel.

>>510190855
I have not done any math, but I think the shear size of the upper stage helps re-entry. You want the thing to be as light as possible (empty of fuel), and then you have this massive cross-sectional area effectively generating 'lift'. Its like a ballute - by accident (or not).

>>510191749
I meant China's lack of threat means we still don't have an equivalent to the soviets, far less an equivalent to the first moon landing in terms of allure, or as Thunderf00t said, the emotional equivalent of JFK promising the moon before 1970, followed by his brutal assassination.

I'm still amazed these rockets are bigger than Saturn V, those are so huge

>>510183422 (OP)
Last night I had a black man refill my booty hole with his big black rocket if you know what I mean ;)

>>510190970
The Saturn V could bring 50 tons to the surface of the moon. And return only a fraction of that. Starship can bring over 100 tons to the lunar surface AND return it all.

>>510190970
>>510194121
mass fraction calls bullshit

>>510194121

It can? When did it do so for you to speak about it so definitively?

>>510184580
We could have sent that money to Israel...

Just shoot supplies up with a giant gun and send people on a rocket.

>I trust Elon on this one

>>510195189
space shuttle never went beyond leo

>>510196178
the main big deceitful thing Elon has ever done is lying about his gamer stats one time

>>510190161
This desu. No one speaks of the actual products of the scientists acquired for paperclip before they were brought in for the moon showcase. Definitely need more research in that direction.

>>510195189
This is well acknowledged. Starship can only barely reach earth orbit. It needs refueling to go anywhere else. Also you circled the wrong area for almost everything, you only circles the capsules when a more accurate comparison would be circling the entire last stage.

>>510195474
It will have the capacity to do that

>>510190322
>if you are still alive, why come back?
These will be some of the safest industrial sites ever conceived. Yes, shit happens but they'll try to keep it to a minimum.
Why come back to Earth? Medical care, family, book tours, hookers and blow. The usual.

>>510190615
bawwwwww
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us are going to the stars.

Because there is a reactor on the moon that supresses the earths natural frequency and beams frequency and holograms on earth keeping us at a 3D matrix that limits us to 5 senses, even though naturally the earth and humans are 5D.

Though the 3D matrix is only partially operational as a couple of the reactors are damaged over tens of thousands of years, 50,000+ years does that. It was originally put there by the federation to keep reptilians on earth as there was a bloody war. Now the federation has regained its strength. There is currently two seperate factions of reptilians on earth living undeground in 4D. They can't use ships but have portals only limited.

There's two factions of reptiles that want to help humans ascend to 5D and those who want to fight until the bitter end, and the ones that want to fight to the bitter end are in the US gov.

Infared light, RF, etc are all things we can't sense but they exist.

They've had the technology to go to the moon since the year 1980, and even craft that don't rely on combustible fuel and purely use electromagnetism to create lift and a zero G field.

The good news is the entire quadrant is elevating to 5D slowly and earth and humans are currently in upper 3D right before 4D. around 3.8 if I had to guess.

Earth is ascending and I am ascending to 5D consciousness. I am source

>>510183422 (OP)
because its all fake

>>510189068
To be fair most of what SpaceX is doing is based on work that NASA did years ago but never got to put to use.
SpaceX lifts a lot of personnel from NASA

>>510195189
All other vehicles count vehicle mass as payload to LEO. Shuttle can do 110 t if you measure it this way

>>510184757
>or the occasional catastrophic failure.
This part is untrue. Von Braun was obsessed with making things as safe as possible, and like a true good German required a lot of redundancy to reduce failure.

By cutting EBT subsidies and foreign aid (military and otherwise) the USA could easily afford an equivalent to the 1960s space program. You could even redirect a lot of the pentagon budget towards it, as many of those same contractors would make components for the rocket.

>>510197361
>hookers and blow

doubtful

>>510197802
I kek'd

>>510198279
flat earth /pol/ is the only real pol left

>>510197423
you can have mars and whatever other dusty rock you want. i'd rather have earth.

>>510196472
wrong. look up a diagram

>>510183422 (OP)
Why are we even talking about going to the moon? Didn't this get achieved successfully like 10 times in the 1960s?

>>510184757
I once read a comment claiming that "losing the technology" wasn't that we didn't know how to make the things, anymore, it's that we couldn't replace anything because of red tape. Now, weather or not that's true, I don't know. We do have an awful lot of diversity hires involved, now, and a rabidly anti-meritocratic regime.

>>510183422 (OP)
My personal opinion is that nasa was a grift to develop icbms and satellites.

Space is the final frontier of cognitive dissonance.>>510198730

>>510188345
Stop asking stupid questions and pay more taxes

>>510198730
Its a couple of things.

All the technical diagrams and so on are still in the NASA archives. But its hundreds of thousands of documents that aren't well organised by our standards.
On top of that we don't have all the production documentation which will includes changes made during the manufacturing process.
Going through all those documents would be equivalent to reverse engineering the technology. At that point? May as well just redevelop it from scratch since we know the fundamental principles and can potentially do it better.

>>510198705
NASA needed a mission.

>>510189056
Imagine being the poor bastards tasked with building that plant

>>510183422 (OP)
What do anons think about China's Helium-3 mining on the far side of the moon?

>>510198931
kek, I wonder how many 'information specialists' nasa has

Reminder to report flat earthers

>>510184189
both

>>510190223
where do you think they're from?

>>510199357
they have (((copies)))

>>510183422 (OP)
Doing things for the first time is always difficult
It's like telling all your buddies you had sex with Lucy, and they believed you...but you actually didn't. Back to square one.

>>510198730
it's both. take for example the gold plating on the helmet glass. one guy was doing that with a proprietary process and he died. now no one knows how he did it.