data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ba74d/ba74dcd1aafec5e1c810375bdf4f14b67af62e0c" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f2f93/f2f939022ffae29e4decb326a98f4493d0a2e13e" alt=""
Terribly sorry, arguments are over in room 3B.
Terribly sorry, arguments are over in room 3B.
Switching to Starship, which is designed to get to space as fast as possible to beat their competition, is not better. Even if there weren’t a conflict of interest the size of Jupiter.
The NASA moonshot has been choosing hardware that will do what is asked of it every time and has known failure modes and fixes. Not the shiny new thing. That’s a good thing.
Starship or it’s successors may in the future be a good option. For the first experimental mission(s) it’s a ship designed for LEO and should not be pointed at the moon just because it is also rocket shaped.
Going to the moon should use technology that is tried and tested.
Another “Apollo 13” happening because the new strategy is “move fast and break things” won’t have the same happy ending.
You shouldn’t throw out all your hammers just because they were designed a “too long” ago. Some tools are fit for purpose.
Cans are actually recyclable. That’s the benefit. The rest is marketing.
Red Bull doesn’t give you wings either.