Are there chopstick catchers on the moon and mars? No there are not, so what is the point in doing something that can't be done off Earth?
Actually it is called the starship because its stated purpose is to go to the moon and mars, except now it has proven that it cannot land as intended even on the Earth
Hypothetically, an entire small self-contained plant that is fully autonomous could be deployed as cargo on the first successful landing on Mars. But to answer your question more succinctly, likely a team of suicidal astronauts who will carry out its construction and die on Mars, of which likely Mars' first established colony will be named after.
Nope because the only room for cargo is used for food, water and O2. If you run the math, you will see this as the trip takes 9 months to 3 years depending on the launch window. Then it is another 9 months to 3 years back. Even if the urine is filtered the food cannot be stored nor could the O2 and does anyone ever actually take a shower. Have fun not 4 me
It depends on whether you're talking about the Starship or the booster. These are the two very different parts of full stack. The booster, which they will be attempting to catch this flight will not be used anywhere besides Earth. The booster is just the first stage and will not even fully leave the atmosphere so there are no plans to have it land on other planets/moons. The starship upper stage will be the part that actually goes to orbit, and potentially other planets/moons, meaning that there will probably be many different variants of starship, some made for the catch tower for orbital missions, and others with landing legs or other systems for landings on other moons/planets. Either way it makes perfect sense for them to be catch testing the booster this flight.
The long term plan would be to send many starships to Mars at the same time, some with crew and others with cargo so they can bring all the mass they need for a successful mission and surface operations.
The booster was supposed to land itself, and it did then blew up, then they splashed it down in the ocean where it sunk and now by using chopsticks they are actually admitting that it cannot land. Also you can watch every minute of NASA footage and you will not see anyone in mission control laughing and clapping like the spacex control does to try to hide their complete failure after an explosion. Just think how are they going to bring heavy construction equipment to Mars? Where does the food and water come from? a pipeline from Earth perhaps. Perhaps in 200 years but not even then with solid/liquid rocket tech.
And if the crucial ship blows up on takeoff or landing the entire mission fails for lack of certain parts. See Mars has no parts stores, just like the ISS has no new Helium fittings. Which starships are being refurbished by the way? You know like Musk promised would reduce cost? What parts from the first 4 launches are on starship 5?
Except the FAA has not certified the starship for flight, until then you can watch the real 10 inch model Enterprizes on star trek and dream. Which starship can transport this? Because habitats will need to be subterranean to escape the radiation, or everyone dies
I'd guess there's like a 60% chance of success, but that's just from experience watching SpaceX development/launches. I'm really hoping it goes well also
Oh now that you mention it the thing that tried to land then exploded was the main stage that would have the crew and supplies. So which mission is the 5th booster reconditioned from? Or are no parts being reused?I'd guess there's like a 60% chance of success, but that's just from experience watching SpaceX development/launches. I'm really hoping it goes well also
The booster actually hasn't "landed and then blown up" before, but you are correct, there have been failures. The soft landings in the ocean was not meant for recovery, only to test if the booster and ship could slow themselves sufficiently after surviving reentry. The main point you seem to misunderstand is that the approach SpaceX uses is called "irritative testing" they are expecting/welcoming failures during testing so they can improve/fix the points of failure (like Edison and the lightbulb). Like you said, NASA would not be celebrating a launch explosion/failure because NASA does not use this "iterative testing" approach and instead relies on very precise expensive engineering so that everything goes right on the first try. The downside is this means it takes much longer for NASA to design and produce a rocket. Both approaches have pros and cons, but it's important to understand that they're very different. As for bringing supplies to Mars, that's a whole different discussion, but it all comes down to being able to launch enough mass to sustain a mission with redundancy which starship aims to do once it's fully operational.
On another note, I totally understand being critical of starship/SpaceX especially if starship has failures when it's launching actual payloads for official missions, but for now there's a reason they're called flight tests and not missions. There's no payload and no guarantee of success. But from SpaceX's track record with falcon 9, it's reasonable that they will get starship fully operational soon.
I still respect your opinions and willingness to share them even if I don't agree.
No "main stage" has ever landed or attempted to land on the catch-arms. Everything that landed, landed and then blew up, or unceremoniously (or ceremoniously, if you're a SpaceX fan), was a test-article that came down on leg-like sticks on the ground, not the catch-arms, with one-shot shock absorbers. Or came down in bits and pieces. A coupla of them survived, but they were never intended for re-use. They were test-articles. In fact, so far, all of the launches have been test-rockets. Possibly this launch will have a booster that will survive for reuse.
Are there catch arms on the Moon and Mars or MUST the thing land without exploding?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram