On 10/21/2025 at 5:56 PM, SayAgain said:

 

 

There are other teams in the running.

We are in a new space race, and the other competitor is indeed China. 

As I've mention recently, a super tall lander like the Starship lander doesn't seem optimal to me, given the huge size and topple risk. Sure, its an incredibly cool vehicle with a huge payload, but I agree with the video above, that the Dynetics lander seem more logical for the fist manned landing. 

 

 

Quote

 

At the same time, political pressure has mounted as the space race with China heats up. The country, which aims to land its astronauts on the moon by 2030, has already sent two robotic rovers to the lunar surface and conducted key tests of a new rocket that would be used for crewed moon missions.

In appearances Monday on Fox News and CNBC, Duffy said NASA will open up the Artemis III contract and solicit other moon lander proposals from rival space companies to help the U.S. stay competitive with China.

“We’re not going to wait for one company,” Duffy said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday. “We’re going to push this forward and win the second space race against the Chinese.”

Duffy added that he and President Donald Trump are eager to have astronauts back on the moon within Trump’s second term.

 

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musk-tirade-nasa-sean-duffy-spacex-rivals-rcna238940

 

Dynetics. 

 

 

 

Blue Origin

 

 

Always thought Space X top heavy design was idiotic, just design a modern day larger Apollo LEM

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/elon-musk-tirade-nasa-sean-duffy-spacex-rivals-rcna238940

 

Dynetics

We all know where that will end up … completely defunded NASA from corruption within the US government.

As far as SpaceX design, I tend to agree on keep it simple approach as Musk has spent too much time on things that don’t matter vs. things that do matter.

For example, the need to be able to self-sustain during space travel, the need to provide crew protection from space debris (even more so if they plan to include a nuclear reactor for power), a much better heat shield for re-entry (tile lose is excessive), the need to be more efficient and faster for a propulsion system.  There are so many other hurdles that need to be addressed that are far more important than his/SpaceX current focus.  Literally putting the chariot in front of the horse and cross one’s fingers.

Why use SS for structural material when it’s proven to not be structurally sound for this type of environment and mass involved?

Pattern of failure after failure after failure … it’s as if they didn’t learn from their failures or they just ignore it and try to explain it away as small one-off, two-off, three-off …  

What happened to affordable launches as promised?

The entire SpaceX program seems to be more like the same process as OceanGate Titan submersible just on a larger scale and for space exploration.  No wonder NASA said no thanks to Musk/SpaceX … horribly expensive, inefficient, and lacking safety in design.  Musk indicated he will go up in his Starship … sound familiar?

I might be a little BIAS as the company I work for right now is 4th highest risk environment (Logistics) so “safety first” is the mantra, #1 policy (and for good reason, and not just from an insurance perspective).

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

For example, the need to be able to self-sustain during space travel, the need to provide crew protection from space debris (even more so if they plan to include a nuclear reactor for power), a much better heat shield for re-entry (tile lose is excessive), the need to be more efficient and faster for a propulsion system.  There are so many other hurdles that need to be addressed that are far more important than his/SpaceX current focus.  Literally putting the chariot in front of the horse and cross one’s fingers.

 

Huh...

Starship HLS would be "self-sustaining" on the way to the Moon. I'm not sure what you mean by that, to be honest. Starship to the Moon is for the lander, only. As for protecting crew from  "debris" I presume you mean micrometeorites, in which case its no different to the other lander option. You do know that it's the NASA Artemis rocket that takes the crew to the Moon, and Starship would have rendezvoused at the Moon to transfer crew to the Moon surface and back?

 

SpaceX has been contacted for the Moon lander, the HLS. There is a deadline of just a few years. There's no time for years to pass by while they develop exotic propulsion systems and revolutionary heat shields.. 

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

 Literally putting the chariot in front of the horse and cross one’s fingers.

 

Literally not. The Starship Moon lander would have to be ready for 2027, and an unmanned Moon landing before that, 2026, I recall. The vehicle is currently being developed and tested very rapidly. Amazing progress has been made in a very short time. 

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Why use SS for structural material when it’s proven to not be structurally sound for this type of environment and mass involved?

 

Because this particular, proprietary, stainless steel alloy (30X stainless steel alloy I recall) is great for heat resistance across a wide temperature range, from cryogenic to reentry. It most definitely IS structurally sound for this application, no idea where you got that idea from. 

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Pattern of failure after failure after failure … it’s as if they didn’t learn from their failures or they just ignore it and try to explain it away as small one-off, two-off, three-off …  

What happened to affordable launches as promised?

 

Huh..... its the testing program. The philosophy is build them fast and learn from the failures. Of course they've learnt from their failures. Starship progress has been very rapid, faster than conventional means. Failures are absolutely expected. Its the fastest way if NASA were to get their lander on time, rather than a decade away.

 

Quote

. SpaceX builds the Starship by applying its "fail fast, learn faster" philosophy, which prioritizes rapid, iterative testing over traditional, cautious development. This means building and testing prototypes at a quick pace, accepting that failures are likely, and using the data from each failure to make quick improvements on the next iteration. While this approach has led to numerous explosions, it has also allowed the company to gather vast amounts of data to solve complex engineering problems more quickly than conventional methods.

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

What happened to affordable launches as promised?

 

🤣 Its still in testing, its not ready yet. Affordable launches have already been achieved with SpaceX Falcon rockets. 

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

The entire SpaceX program seems to be more like the same process as OceanGate Titan submersible just on a larger scale and for space exploration.  No wonder NASA said no thanks to Musk/SpaceX … horribly expensive, inefficient, and lacking safety in design.  Musk indicated he will go up in his Starship … sound familiar?

 

I think we must live on a different planet. That's a bizarre statement. The only reason NASA are opening up the program to other lander options is because SpaceX might not be ready in time.... despite you thinking they should be slower, while they develop revolutionary propulsion, and space shields from Star Trek. 😁

 

2 hours ago, SayAgain said:

I might be a little BIAS

 

You aren't kidding!

I know you don't like Musk, but I'm afraid you also don't know much about the Artemis mission and the SpaceX role in it. Or the role of the other companies. 😉

Edited October 22, 2025Oct 22 by martin-w

The target is to put Americans on the moon whilst Trump is still in the White House?

....and they haven't settled on a lander yet? 

I really can't see this timetable being achievable safely. 

9 hours ago, martin-w said:

stainless steel alloy (30X stainless steel alloy I recall) is great for heat resistance across a wide temperature range, from cryogenic to reentry. It most definitely IS structurally sound for this application, no idea where you got that idea from.

Not if you looking weight to strength ratio, it’s a horrible choice.  Carbon fiber or aluminum is a far better option.  SS has terrible heat dissipation compared to aluminum.  Musk solution is to make it thin but cold roll it, to recover strength … but still it’s losing structural integrity.  He’s going down road already travelled that failed.  300-series SS cold rolled isn’t “new” technology nor his idea.

Failure and learning aren’t automatic.  Musk is rushing thru the process without sufficient datum or confirmed 100% accuracy of failure cause/analysis because the testing and equipment necessary just aren’t there … primary due to his attempt to accelerate timelines and cutting corners.

I know you want to believe this guy is a super genius, but he really isn’t … he’s the kinda person that knows a little, just enough to get himself into trouble … but he IS NOT ground level engineer nor material scientist.

My comments were primarily aimed at missions to Mars, the moon is a stepping to stone to Musk’s real objective that he wants to achieve in his lifetime.  And for that end, any attempts he makes without figuring out how to deal with space debris be it micro or of any size rolls the dice … just like OceanGate.  Sure, you can accept the responsibility and hope, but is it really necessary?  What’s the rush?  This isn’t like building cybertrucks … oops:

And no you don’t need Star Trek shields, but you do more materials and some genuine innovation and more money and testing and … 

 

You should send him your resume/CV.  He's always looking for good people.

Just a hint:  properly differentiate between singular/plural of datum/data.

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

rushing thru the process without sufficient datum

You don't have to like your boss, the owner of the company, or even a business partner.  Think of all the mistakes you can keep him from making.  Surely that's more important.

 

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Not if you looking weight to strength ratio, it’s a horrible choice.  Carbon fiber or aluminum is a far better option.  SS has terrible heat dissipation compared to aluminum.  Musk solution is to make it thin but cold roll it, to recover strength … but still it’s losing structural integrity.  He’s going down road already travelled that failed.  300-series SS cold rolled isn’t “new” technology nor his idea.

 

You are commenting on something you know little about.  

Starship will be fully reusable and has to be mass produced, and importantly, affordable. Carbon fiber or other composites are far to expensive for a gigantic vehicle that will haul a huge 150 tons to orbit. It just wouldn't be financially viable. Below is why stainless teel was the right choice...

 

Performance advantages

• High heat resistance: Stainless steel can withstand the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry, reducing the need for a complex and heavy heat shield. 
   
• Strength at cryogenic temperatures: Its strength increases at the extremely cold temperatures of rocket fuel, unlike materials that become brittle at these temperatures. 
   
• Corrosion resistance: The 304L alloy used is highly resistant to corrosion and degradation. 
   

Manufacturing and cost advantages

• Low cost: 

  Stainless steel is significantly cheaper to produce than carbon fiber composites. 

   
• Ease of manufacturing: 

  It is a well-understood material that is easier and faster to manufacture, which is a major advantage for frequent launches and production volume. 

   

  Other considerations

  • Weight: 

    While heavier than aluminum or carbon fiber, stainless steel's high strength-to-weight ratio allows for thinner sections. Additionally, the overall cost and complexity savings of using stainless steel are more significant for a fully reusable vehicle.

     

    Versatility: 

    The material's durability and resilience at both high and low temperatures are critical for the mission profile of Starship. 

     

     

    5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

    Musk is rushing thru the process without sufficient datum or confirmed 100% accuracy of failure cause/analysis because the testing and equipment necessary just aren’t there … primary due to his attempt to accelerate timelines and cutting corners.

     

    Made up nonsense. Again, NASA's required timeline is very tight. Hence why they might not make the deadline. Hence why its now open to other teams as well. You know nothing about the testing and equipment that's available at SpaceX. Rapid progress has been made on what is a revolutionary vehicle that will lift 150 tons+ into orbit and make possible that which wasn't possible before, and be fully reusable. Numerous issues have been found and corrected by the current strategy.

     

    Quote

     

    Rapid progress and achievements

    Successful late-2025 flights: Following a series of setbacks and failures during the first half of 2025, the Starship program got back on track with its tenth and eleventh test flights in August and October. These flights were considered successful in achieving their primary objectives. First payload deployment: For the first time, Flights 10 and 11 successfully deployed Starlink satellite mass simulators into space. This demonstrated a key capability for future missions. Engine relight in space: The tenth and eleventh flights also achieved a successful relight of a Raptor engine in space. This is a critical capability for future deorbit burns and on-orbit maneuvers. Consistent booster catches: The Super Heavy booster demonstrated consistent reusability by performing successful splashdowns and achieving multiple successful "catches" by the launch tower, proving the viability of this innovative recovery method. New hardware versions: Throughout 2025, SpaceX progressed through the Block 2 prototypes and began preparing for the upcoming Block 3 and Block 4 versions, which feature significant design upgrades to increase payload capacity and perform

     

     

 

 

Edited October 23, 2025Oct 23 by martin-w

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

I know you want to believe this guy is a super genius

 

I'm going to use that word again... Huh! You have had enough conversations with me lately, both in the forum and privately to know that's not the case. No, I do not think he's a super genius, far from it. What I do believe is that the 5,563 engineers that work at SpaceX on these systems, plus scientists, know what they are doing.

 

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

My comments were primarily aimed at missions to Mars

 

Mars is estimated to be  late 2030s to late 2040s. Probably 20 years away. The current Starship version is not intended for such a mission, and when that decades away Mars manned landing happens, all of the necessary hardware will have been included and tested. Your criticisms are out of context. 

 

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Musk’s real objective that he wants to achieve in his lifetime.

 

So that's "lifetime" so stop suggesting the current Starship version, which is a test item, still in testing, and current Moon lander version, is in some way not up to your perceived requirements. Its not a Mars lander, its a vehicle intended for the Moon and some other nearby tasks. Come back in 10 to 20 years and maybe you will have something relevant to say about a specific Mars lander version.

 

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

What’s the rush?

 

🙄 Did you read what I typed? NASAs timeline manned for as moon landing is 2027. Prior to that, an unmanned landing is required in 2026.

Having said the above, its not necessarily rushing. If a company can afford the "fail fast learn fast" method it can be very advantageous. 

5 hours ago, SayAgain said:

aluminum is a far better option

 

I need one of those face palm things. 🙄

 

Aluminum's limitations for Starship

• Weakens at high temperatures: Reentering Earth's atmosphere generates extreme heat that can exceed 1,600°C (2,900°F). Aluminum alloys, like those used on the Space Shuttle, begin to lose structural strength and risk melting at much lower temperatures, requiring complex and expensive heat shielding. Even with extensive protection, a single tile loss can expose the weak aluminum structure and lead to disaster, as happened with the Space Shuttle Columbia.
• Becomes brittle at cryogenic temperatures: Starship's propellants, liquid oxygen and liquid methane, are stored at extremely cold, or cryogenic, temperatures. Unlike steel, aluminum becomes brittle at these temperatures, which increases the risk of fracture in the fuel tanks.
• Poor thermal cycling performance: The reusability goals for Starship require the vehicle to survive repeated heating and cooling cycles. The constant expansion and contraction from the temperature changes would place an immense strain on aluminum's structure, increasing the risk of fatigue.
• Manufacturing and scaling challenges: The sheer 9-meter diameter of Starship makes building it from carbon fiber or aluminum difficult and expensive. Large autoclaves are required to manufacture large composite structures, while large-scale aluminum friction stir welding is both complex and challenging to scale. 

 

You a Rocket Scientist or good at AI copy and paste? 🙂

From what I've read, the NASA Artemis program was again funded by legislation passed earlier this year.  The crewed lunar landing mission is scheduled for mid-2027, but I can easily see that being delayed by a year or more.  

SpaceX still has the contract to develop their Human Landing System, and recently Blue Origin was awarded a contract to develop their lander, likely a plan B in case SpaceX can't get theirs completed on schedule.

It's easy to criticize NASA and private companies when tests fail and/or projects aren't completed on time, but in reality failures and delays are normal and expected for such a complex and dangerous undertaking.

It's interesting that lately Musk has been so vilified and has become the target for much criticism, when just a short while ago he was hailed as a visionary and lauded by many.  It's sad that his accomplishments have been dismissed and all but forgotten by some.

Dave

Edited October 23, 2025Oct 23 by dave2013

13 hours ago, SayAgain said:

I know you want to believe this guy is a super genius, but he really isn’t … he’s the kinda person that knows a little, just enough to get himself into trouble … but he IS NOT ground level engineer nor material scientist.

I'm not sure what relevance this has? The age of Edison and Brunel is long over.

I am not really interested in Elon Musk’s personality or his politics but the fact of the matter is grand visions require a commitment of capital and risk that shareholders and fund managers would never contemplate today.

In my opinion what makes him interesting is his willingness to give his engineers and designers their head and go with their ideas.

Is it working? They certainly seem to have come a long way in a short time.

 

I can see it now:

"Call me a N* and a fascist ONE MORE TIME and I'm turning on Skynet!!"

Hmmm.  This might make a good movie.

I recently heard a theory that Skynet was like Gort in "The Day the Earth Stood Still".  Gort's purpose was to prevent war, and well, you don't prevent war by just asking nicely.  Skynet could have wiped out all of humanity with no harm to itself with biological weapons.  So why didn't it?

EDIT:  Google 'a theory that Skynet was like Gort in "The Day the Earth Stood Still".'  Let the AI overview make the argument.

Hook

Edited October 23, 2025Oct 23 by LHookins