Originally Posted By kill-9:
Now that the government stuff seems to be out of the way, has anybody compiled a list of what needs to happen before an orbital flight attempt?

Originally Posted By Chokey:

Starship will be ready to fly next month. I was in the high bay & mega bay late last night reviewing progress.

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) June 14, 2022

We will have a second Starship stack ready to fly in August and then monthly thereafter

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) June 14, 2022

Originally Posted By Chokey:

Starship will be ready to fly next month. I was in the high bay & mega bay late last night reviewing progress.

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) June 14, 2022

Originally Posted By clickclickBOOM:
We might see starship hit space this year now!

Originally Posted By Dagger41:

Let's just hope it doesn't hit it like a Russian tank turret.

Originally Posted By RhinelandArms:
What are the odds we will be able to see a launch from Galveston?  I dont expect to see anything more than the exhaust from that distance.

Jut not too excited about driving down to Padre, is pretty far from here.

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Now that the government stuff seems to be out of the way, has anybody compiled a list of what needs to happen before an orbital flight attempt?

Originally Posted By Zam18th:

Starship Launch Readiness 6/13 FAA Edition pic.twitter.com/itCQgSmnsg

GrandpaJoe  (@Grandpajoe42) June 14, 2022

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVLnyenXwAAR-KY?format=png&name=large

Originally Posted By Skibane:
Easy solution: Elon buys Morton.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


They definitely weren't sitting on their hands.  

Still, I have no doubt that an extra SIX MONTHS of not being able to flight-test anything has substantially delayed them.  Thanks government.  

“Elon’s behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us, particularly in recent weeks,” the letter, first obtained by The Verge, asserted. “As our CEO and most prominent spokesperson, Elon is seen as the face of SpaceX — every tweet that Elon sends is a de facto public statement by the company.”

The employees also said that “it is critical to make clear to our teams and to our potential talent pool that his messaging does not reflect our work, our mission, or our values,” exhorting SpaceX to “swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon’s personal brand.”

Those responsible for the Wednesday letter were fired by Thursday afternoon, the Times reported on the basis of three employees’ confirmation and an email obtained from SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell.

“The letter, solicitations and general process made employees feel uncomfortable, intimidated and bullied, and/or angry because the letter pressured them to sign onto something that did not reflect their views,” Shotwell wrote. “We have too much critical work to accomplish and no need for this kind of overreaching activism.”

Originally Posted By dedreckon:
On top of all the great launch news about Starship, here's some other good news:

Get Woke, Go Broke: SpaceX Fires Employees Who Wrote A Letter Blasting Elon Musk’s ‘Behavior’ And ‘Values’

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
The second Elon Musk said he would vote Republican, asshole progressives decided he needs to be destroyed.

Fortunately, Elon will win that battle.  

Originally Posted By Zam18th:
Gwynne seems like a solid, no bs executive. Focused on goals and no time for nonsense.

Also

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVe8JhCVIAMz0C1?format=jpg&name=medium

\uD83E\uDD23\uD83D\uDC4D\uD83D\uDCAF

Elon Musk  (@elonmusk) June 18, 2022

Originally Posted By dedreckon:
On top of all the great launch news about Starship, here's some other good news:

Get Woke, Go Broke: SpaceX Fires Employees Who Wrote A Letter Blasting Elon Musk’s ‘Behavior’ And ‘Values’

We got a leaked look at NASA’s future Moon missions—and likely delays
"Has nobody at NASA read the space policy?"


The Artemis I mission should launch later this year, testing NASA's Space Launch System rocket and boosting the Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit. The second mission, Artemis II, will more or less be a repeat, only with four humans on board Orion. Then comes the big test, Artemis III, which will send two humans to the Moon and back during the middle of this decade.

Beyond these missions, however, NASA has been vague about the timing of future Artemis missions to the Moon, even as some members of Congress have pressed for more details. Now, we may know why. Ars Technica has obtained internal planning documents from the space agency showing an Artemis mission schedule and manifest for now through fiscal year 2034.

At present NASA has its baseline plan for Artemis, which is shown below. But NASA has also developed at least two "in-guide" schedule options, which agency planners believe are achievable with anticipated budgets, the documents show. These revised schedules indicate that NASA planners do not believe the baseline plan will be achievable on time or within budget.

One of the internal schedules, labeled "cadence," prioritizes launching regularly. The other, labeled "content," prioritizes launching only when the most meaningful payloads are ready. Combined, they reveal that NASA is struggling to cram an ambitious exploration plan into a finite budget. The result is a slow-moving lunar program that, in large part, fails to deliver on the goals of the US National Space Policy.



Here are some of the key issues raised by the revised schedules, which are reproduced above from the original NASA documents to protect our sources.

There are huge gaps between missions. To close one three-year gap, NASA is considering the creation of an "Artemis III.5" mission that would require the agency to procure a fourth interim upper stage and delay development of other key programs.
The slow progression in missions puts off development of a "base camp" on the Moon for years, with the earliest emplacement of a lunar surface habitat not coming until 2034.
NASA will spend the next 10 years focused on assembling a small space station in lunar orbit, rather than building up capabilities on the Moon's surface.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Part of NASA’s problem is that SLS is so insanely expensive to operate - the exact opposite of what was intended - that it will completely destroy their budgets.  

I wonder how many people at NASA really want to blow all the money that could be spent on cool science and robotic missions - you know, the stuff NASA is actually really good at - just so some politicians can put a black woman on the moon.  

Originally Posted By RockMech:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/we-got-a-leaked-look-at-nasas-future-moon-missions-and-likely-delays/



That's basically begging for OSTP to call in another Commission to propose "alternatives" (read: give NASA/POTUS an excuse to cancel) to Artemis.

Gateway is only around because SLS can't lob an Orion+Lander pair that can go to the Moon and return to Earth on one tank.  Starship has no such problem.

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:



I seem to recall the former head (or maybe it was deputy) being VERY openly critical of SLS.   Like, she was screaming from the rooftops what a gigantic pork barrel waste the whole thing was.

Originally Posted By RiverSwine45:


I could be wrong on this but my understanding is starship would only reach LEO in 1 launch. I thought it would need like 5 tanker launches to refuel it before being able to head out to the moon?

Originally Posted By RiverSwine45:


I could be wrong on this but my understanding is starship would only reach LEO in 1 launch. I thought it would need like 5 tanker launches to refuel it before being able to head out to the moon?

Originally Posted By RockMech:



Yep.  Orion, OTOH, can't really be refueled as such (or, at least, that's not in the current design....at all).  Without Gateway.....no Moon.

Starship is designed, from the ground up, to be refueled in orbit......and not by a completely different system that will take a decade to fully deploy.  Or cost a couple of $Billion per launch (every couple of years).


So, in terms of going to and coming from the Moon.....Starship is not only vastly superior.....it can do it and Orion cannot.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Sure, neither have launched - but I think it is a reasonable point to talk about the design, and what it intended for.  SLS, pretty much by definition is a backwards-looking design, whereas Starship undeniably is a forward-looking design.

Is Starship going to take a LOOOONG time before people will ever fly on it, and before it is headed to the moon?  Definitely.    Is it going to kill some people along the way?  Almost certainly.    But at least it is intended for the future, and for bigger things, whereas SLS is pretty much a dead end.  

Originally Posted By Dagger41:

What has Starship done to back up your claims ?
(other than not even launching yet either)

Putting the cart before the horse rarely pans out.

SLS is closer to the Moon than Starship is, by leaps and bounds.
You do realize that its inaugural flight is going to the Moon and back, don't you ?

Originally Posted By TacticalGarand44:

Not really. Starship is being designed from the ground up for the purpose of colonizing Mars. It relies on atmospheric braking and Methalox, neither of which can be found on the Moon.

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Actually I don't.  I think it's a complete waste of time and resources going back to the moon.

Also, if you think NASA or the US government is going to build a permanent base on the moon, then I think you are going to be very disappointed.  They are going to spend taxpayer money like drunken sailors in order to put a brave woman of color on the moon, and the second they have done that, they are going to cancel everything else related to the moon and Mars.  Government has been promising manned missions to Mars as long as I can remember, and nothing has ever come of it.