Cracktacular

Lol, no Blue Origin static fire, but we got blue somethings

That's because you seem to be hung up on making another Apollo. Of course we can make some bare-bones craft to do a single-launch mission. The difference between Apollo and Artemis, is that Apollo was the equivalent of going camping for a few days in a tin can, and Artemis is supposed to be a permanent base that will expand over time. The reason the much higher payload capacity is desired for Artemis vs Apollo is because the individual modules to be transported will likely be heavier than what your 1/3rd size rocket can even lift. The original Lunar Module famously could not support its own weight under Earth's gravity. I think the modules we send to the Moon to process regolith for ISRU, etc. are going to have to be a bit beefier than NASA-grade aluminum foil structures. This reminds me of an aviation saying: "Nobody cares about how much sky is above you, how much runway is behind you, or how much fuel you left back at the airport." Nobody cares about having "too much" payload capacity. In fact, I posit that the entirety of human spaceflight has been constrained by not enough payload capacity. My brain is having trouble processing seeing the word "quick" in a thread about SLS

Going fast is a dividend of manufacturing rockets on an industrial scale, not those (admittedly impressive as all hell) Rube-Goldberg devices NASA launched due to the programs being pretty much experimental. My guess is thy will use Crew Dragon for the near term, and long term have a modular crew section that gets launched with cargo pods atop Superheavy. "Go fast and break things we intend to break, because we are hardware-rich" FTFY Didn't NASA come up with the whole SkyCrane thing for Opportunity/Perseverence? I think they knew SpaceX was gonna do the R&D so publicly they said how great an idea it was to give SpaceX good press. I think this is all part of SpaceX undercutting everyone else on price. They are playing the long game and sacrificing a bit of money upfront to be the people that has the technology NASA needs.

It seems it may be too late for anyone to catch up to SpaceX in the near term. While many were pointing and laughing at SpaceX for things like no landing legs and demolishing the launchpad, SpaceX was doing R&D. Is Blue Origin still on a single shift 5 days a week or have they figured out they need 24/7 ops to compete?

So you admit you replied to a joke with a serious answer, and are miffed when I didn't give you a serious answer back? I don't understand.

Sorry I didn't add a In my reply, my bad.

Y'know, I actually agree with you on that one. I thought you were just a pot-stirrer. Dude, I'm joking. You really think Elon Musk conducts business based upon what is said on a message board? Get real Wait wait wait, is this Exoscientist?

I dunno about a trillion dollars...well maybe if inflation doesn't slow down, but I do believe that the practical value of the technology we will develop for space will be worth way more than that. Also, I think one of the biggest benefits of space is inspiring the younger generation. We need hard problems to solve to make people want to be the best they can be.

Soylent green?

It's almost like Elon Musk reads Exoscientist's posts and wants to prove him wrong

I use maneuver nodes in my YouTube videos to communicate what I am doing, but when I am just messing around playing for myself, I try to do everything seat-of-the-pants. One of my favourite flights in KSP was when I was doing the caveman level tech with the Stayputnic to the moon, I had to spin stabilize that craft and it made me realize that maneuver nodes can be a crutch you don't need necessarily. I do use them for more complex burns, but I suggest to all you fellow players to just wing it and see how accurate you can be without the maneuver nodes tool

What are you talking about? Billions of dollars of equipment? You must be referring to the Artemis program, lol. SpaceX has cheap rockets, [snip] Months of delays? That's the FAA. It's fine you don't like the idea, but you can't just say things that are blatantly false. Jokingly, I hope they fail the catch attempt just to prove to all of you that it's not gonna be some disaster. It seems that the detractors think it will be some sort of atomic blast if it fails. it really makes me laugh that a bunch of armchair engineers in a vidja game forum think they know better than the total of the collective intelligence of all SpaceX employees. [snip], tell us how they could do it better.

I don't agree. The physical dimensions of an object do not imply anything about the density of the atoms that comprise it. Remember, this is a vehicle that literally fights gravity...it is necessary that they remove as much mass as possible.

Not to mention the tower is made of solid steel and re-enforced concrete. Additionally, we already saw what happens when Starship flubs a landing, and when there is a fuel-air explosion on the pad. I have not run the numbers, but I think that due to the fact that the tower is supported by the entire Earth, they are not mass restricted like they would be when constructing a vehicle that has to be light enough to accelerate straight upwards fighting gravity. Even if I am incorrect in my above statement, I think that it would be downright silly to assume that SpaceX did not do the math on how big a boom the residual fuel would cause, and designed the tower with that in mind.

Hello everyone, I'm new here, but I can tell this is a cool place!