Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:53:35 UTC No. 16281074
>>16281066
>germslop
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 08:53:42 UTC No. 16281139
>>16281064
two weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:08:25 UTC No. 16281204
>>16281064
you? never. the Chinese will be there within the century though
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:11:06 UTC No. 16281206
>>16281064
>moon
what's even there to make all that hassle worthwhile?
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:13:16 UTC No. 16281210
>>16281206
>what's there
a sense of pride in being able to flex as the smartest group of homosapiens with extraterrestrial colonization capability
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:16:54 UTC No. 16281212
>>16281206
A terrible NASA rocket that congress likes is needed to get there which means going to the moon is a way that NASA is able to fund Starship
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:39:01 UTC No. 16281229
>>16281064
They have to send a robot to build the landing pad first.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 10:49:45 UTC No. 16281241
>>16281206
You need way, way less fuel to launch a rocket to space from the surface of the moon than you do from the surface of the Earth. Most of the fuel that rockets carry is used up just getting to space. If you could assemble, fuel, and launch rockets on the moon you would need a lot less fuel to get to the same places in the solar system. Meaning you can have a smaller, more efficient rocket in general (since it's smaller and less massive). Or with the same amount of fuel you'd have in an Earth-launched rocket, you could go even further out into the solar system.
Not having to deal with an atmosphere also means you don't have to worry about aerodynamics.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 11:06:02 UTC No. 16281251
>>16281241
This is definitely not the reason since in the real world efficiency is measured in dollars and not delta v, and since the Earth has an established supply chain, cheap labor, abundant energy, a safe working environment, and is mostly water by area it's actually cheaper to launch fifteen rockets to LEO than it will be to build one anywhere else
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 11:16:59 UTC No. 16281260
>>16281251
You're also limited by what you can fit inside of an aerodynamic faring. Not the case on the moon.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 11:28:15 UTC No. 16281265
>>16281260
What are you suggesting you'll launch that doesn't fit in a Starship? Your cost of establishing the lunar facilities will be way higher than than just engineering it to fold up or connect in pieces in orbit
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 13:44:04 UTC No. 16281353
>>16281064
About two hundred and twenty five thousand miles.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:38:59 UTC No. 16281383
Artemis 3 - 2027-2029~ish
With that in mind, I'd say 10 years isn't a wrong guess to make at this point.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 14:51:18 UTC No. 16281388
>>16281064
Two more years
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:16:19 UTC No. 16281407
>>16281064
never because that's the bfr render
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 15:48:57 UTC No. 16281427
>>16281064
>rolls on reentry
>explodes
the shuttle makes more sense
spacex has design flaws that even kerbal players know not to breach, I don't understand it
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:36:40 UTC No. 16281455
>>16281064
about 400000 km
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 17:06:59 UTC No. 16281479
>>16281064
Idk, where do you live?
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:02:31 UTC No. 16281668
>>16281427
Just don't roll
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:37:32 UTC No. 16281703
>>16281265
>What are you suggesting you'll launch that doesn't fit in a Starship
Any spacecraft wider than Starship?
Something like a ship with an artificial gravity ring, for example. How are you going to launch a large diameter ring like that through the atmosphere? You could launch it piece by piece, I guess, but that introduces numerous failure points and potential leaks in the ring itself.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:54:05 UTC No. 16281717
>>16281064
Too late
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:29:32 UTC No. 16281753
Did jannies ban space flight general threads? What the fuck!
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:32:31 UTC No. 16281759
>>16281241
You're a fucking moron. You still have to send things to the moon first which costs almost as much dv as going to Mars.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:43:31 UTC No. 16281769
>>16281759
the idea is to get a manufacturing base on the moon, retardo
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:46:36 UTC No. 16281770
building anything beyond a few bunkers that may or may even be pressurized plus a few landing pads and cranes will be longer though.
Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:51:08 UTC No. 16281775
>>16281210
Why do we need pride? Who are we trying to beat? The United States was 90% white when the Space Race happened.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:10:36 UTC No. 16281794
>>16281769
OK and how long do you expect that to take by the time you export an entire fucking industry base there? Locating and mining a half hundred different kinds of ore with all the associated mining equipment, transport systems for raw materials across who knows how much of the moons surface, people and maintennance for mining equipment, chemical industry for refining various elements (a lot of this will have to be shipped from earth since it simply doesn't exist on the moon), giant ass electric steel and aluminum mills powered by acres and acres of solar panels that dont work for 2 weeks out of the month, giant warehouses for construction and all the people for said construction, plus all the infrastructure and power needs to grow food for the people, more hundreds of acres of solar panels to produce hydrolox fuel from water ice and all the equipment to mine and transport said ice, the list goes on and fucking on. There is no possible world where it's cheaper to mine, refine, build, synthesize fuel, launch and return from and to the moon is cheaper than sending up whatever you need on starship and building in orbit. You want to build a big rotating habitat? No problem, just send up coils of sheet metal and spiral weld it to whatever diameter you want, you can build arbitrarily large sized cylinders that way, far, far larger than what could possibly be launched with chemical rockets from the moon.
By the time there is any serious industry on the moon to even think about producing shit to send back here, we will be at least one if not two generations of launch vehicles ahead of starship with all the cost/kg reductions and fairing size increases that entails. Interplanetary economics is abysmal without a magic sci fi drive.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:15:51 UTC No. 16281801
>>16281703
>sir this method may introduce numerous leaks and failure points, we need to replicate the entire Earth's industrial stack on the moon to solve this problem
>>16281794
Sometimes you have video game guys that don't think about it like an engineering problem.
>Oh there's water molecules and iron atoms on the moon? You can just make and fuel a Starship there!
They don't have the slightest idea how retarded they're being so it's impossible to argue with them. Damn man it's like I made your post. Good stuff. Rare here
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 01:08:29 UTC No. 16281845
>>16281206
It's just the USA wasting money because China bad.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 01:20:40 UTC No. 16281850
>>16281801
To be fair, NASA's proposing this dubious idea.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 01:44:30 UTC No. 16281865
>>16281850
That's just for senators (for money) and Joe public. If you knew you'd know. The Artemis > Gateway > Mars plan is completely nonsensical until you factor in NASA's money incentives and it makes perfect sense. It's how they have to operate, oh well.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 02:09:31 UTC No. 16281876
>>16281850
The initial proposal is just a small moon base which is absolutely doable with starship sending supplies. I mean hell you dont even need to build a moon base, a couple of starships with some suspended pressurised catwalks suspended between them is a massive amount of volume, you could even cut out the fuel/oxygen bulkheads, do a little renovation and have huge buildings ready to go, take some spray foam and hose the fuck out of the outside for radiation protection along with water tanks in the walls. The resource extraction thing is on a long term roadmap. I think NASA are huge massive faggots and most of them should be put up against the wall but it's actually a fairly sensible plan. Excluding that they want to use SLS boondoggle and Orion death trap for some of it but you can't win them all I guess.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:36:51 UTC No. 16281945
You don't need to replicate the entire earth industrial stack
Small expensive stuff like computers would still be made on earth
What is needed in large quantities (>1000T) that can't be made out of moon rocks?
Wire insulation? Drill bits? Textiles? O-rings?
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:40:51 UTC No. 16281949
>>16281945
Yes, it's that simple, you just pick up the moon rocks, put them into the crusher and collect all sorts of elements. Just like in my video games!
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:46:13 UTC No. 16281953
>>16281949
>get metal-rich rock
>melt it
>seperate out metal
why wouldn't it work
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 03:55:36 UTC No. 16281958
>>16281953
Yes it absolutely would. That's called a mine, you usually get one, maybe two or three kinds of ores out of a mine as byproducts so you need lots of them all over the places because you won't have huge rich deposits of everything right next to your base so you need heavy duty transport for thousands of tonnes of shit across an untouched lunar regolith landscape. Please input "mining dump truck" or "mining bulldozer" into your favourite image search and imagine sending those to the moon, hundreds/thousands of them to cover all your mines and we haven't even begun to talk about the megawatts of energy consumption and special chemical requirements for refining ores, let alone the factories full of huge heavy equipment. And this is all assuming you can entirely automate this. You want people there? Cool now you are building dozens/hundreds of square kilometres of shielded and pressured space just to grow food for them and the also massive energy requirements for running all the grow lights. Have you even thought about this, at all? It's all possible, yes, but it's not a solution for anything. Not for going out into the solar system or for building things in earth orbit.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:34:46 UTC No. 16282185
>>16281958
Kino
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:05:44 UTC No. 16282202
>>16282185
It is Kino, you are absolutely right. Had Hitler won and Von Braun been running the reich space program since the 50s we would be living on Mars by now with self sufficient colonies out to the asteroid belt and young colonies around the jovian moons. Unfortunately here we are and have to live under the constraints of this useless fucking system that will give hundreds of billions of dollars to single negresses with their clutches of juvenile future criminals instead of building out manifest destiny.
Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:07:03 UTC No. 16282203
>>16282202
>Mars
>not Pluto
You're not nazi material. When did Hitler prioritize Mars? Are you a faggot? Yes.