SpaceX will try satellite deployment on next Starship test

SpaceX is pressing ahead with the next Starship test and has outlined the mission's goals, including deploying ten Starlink simulators. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has already given the company the green light for the operation, and SpaceX last week outlined the changes made to the rocket as well as what it …

[TheMaskedMan]

"Or perhaps less of the Moon bit. Company boss Elon Musk described the Moon as "a distraction" in a post on X last week. His Christmas gift for NASA was to call the architecture of the agency's Artemis program "extremely inefficient" and a "jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program.""

Well, I can't say he's wrong about that. But not, perhaps, the most sensible thing for him to say of spaceX's biggest customer. Unless, of course, he knows something we don't.

[Doctor Syntax]

Was launching a Tesla as a "pay"load a results maximising program?

[Francis Boyle]

It was

an awareness maximising program i.e. (free) advertising.

[Alan Brown]

Re: It was

They did offer to carry a "real" payload, but there were no takers and if you have to carry a "mass simulator" why not make it iconic instead of just a lump of steel?

[DS999]

The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

Is because we've been to the Moon already and we wants to go down in history for something other than helping get a felon re-elected as president. If we hadn't been to the Moon he never would have been talking about a Mars colony but a Moon colony instead. A Mars colony is stupid in so many ways. It has zero advantages over a Moon colony and many disadvantages.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

The Moon is good at light metals but poor for hydrogen and worse for carbon. A Moon colony will always be dependent on external resources. Mars has the distant possibility of being self-sustaining. Bezos went for giant space stations because those are marginally more credible than a Moon colony: worse local resources but easier deliveries.

[DS999]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

The Earth is close to provide the materials the Moon lacks at any colony size we're likely to have within the lifetime of anyone currently alive. In the longer term asteroids have a wide variety of compositions and have been impacting the Moon's surface for billions of years. Everything we need is there. Maybe not in a single convenient spot (though maybe so) but it's there.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

If your supply is from Earth or Asteroids then space stations are an easier delivery address than the Moon. That might change if you can defend a space elevator from impacts. So far, hydrogen from the Moon is questionable and carbon is not available. Perhaps they will be found in significant quantities when we explore more thoroughly but that puts the Moon seriously behind Mars based on the information available today. I am all for the Moon as a place to study, a tourist destination and an opportunity to discover how to live in low gravity. I am sure it will have permanent residents before Mars but I think Mars will be self sustaining before the Moon.

[DS999]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

Obviously a space station is easier to deliver to than the Moon, but since we are talking Lunar colony vs Martian colony and a space station is neither of those I don't see how that's at all relevant.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

Bezos has talked about moving all polluting industry off Earth into giant space stations. Those space stations would effectively be colonies. I think it is just talk with no real intent. Even if the intent is genuine it would be a massively long duration project from a company that would struggle in a mountain climbing race against a kipper. Bezos chose space station colonies over Moon colonies for his attempt at an inspirational fantasy because that is marginally more credible.

(Normaly I would include a link to something this unbelievable. There are plenty stories if you search for "Bezos move pollution off earth" and don't mention space station which takes you to orbital reef. The links are all to main stream news sites. I assume this is because the space specialised sites did not take it seriously. Even main stream news was not particularly convinced. The search verifies Bezos has proposed this fantasy but the content is barely worth clicking through the cookie disabling switches.)

[DS999]

Re: The only reason Musk has a hardon for Mars

Bezos' fantasy of all industry being in orbit will come true around the same time as Musk's fantasy of a million humans living off earth. I doubt either happens in the next 500 years, if ever.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Moon distraction bit

The comment was a reply for a very specific context: Going to Mars.

There has been a NASA plan for decades about doing the departure to Mars from Luna Orbit. Very optimistically 20 years from now there will be a Moon base that might be able to supply liquid oxygen and light metals to orbit cheaper than materials from Earth. Until then the way to Mars is direct from Earth without stopping near the Moon.

Missing out the context and letting people assume the Moon is a distraction quote refers to Artemis makes much better click-bait.

[ydroneaud]

"extremely inefficient" you say

https://youtu.be/OoJsPvmFixU "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" reckons it"s inefficient, but Elon might be surprised of the conclusion ...

https://youtu.be/nxG0WAwwrGk "Smarter Every Day BOOST-ED!" could be of interest for people who want to emit critics on Artemis program based on Space X designs ...

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: "extremely inefficient" you say

I recognised the first link, which I have sat through before. It huge. Most of it is Destin establishing his credibility has an engineer. Clearly this was for a different audience from me because I go far more by what is said with what supporting evidence than by who is speaking. Destin's main points were that there is a huge leap between Artemis 2 and 3, NASA do not know the number of re-tanking flights and the whole system is complicated.

There is a huge leap between Artemis 2 and 3. Destin showed no evidence he was even aware of the HLS contract milestones when he made the video. Those milestones fit in the gaps between Artemis 2 and 3. Putting Artemis and HLS together means the gaps are big - possibly still too big - but not the ridiculously huge gap Destin rightly complains about.

The number of re-tanking flights changes wildly depending on who you ask. Anywhere between 3 and 19. The big unknown is propellant boil off. No-one knows what it is going to be. You can make it worse by slowing the launch rate to a crawl allowing more time for it to have an impact. (The HLS contract includes Starship waiting for up to 90 days near the Moon because of SLS launch delays.) Destin was upset that NASA did not know the number of required re-tanking and that they did not seem to care. NASA do not care. It is a firm fixed price contract so tax payers pay the same for 3 or 19 flights.

The whole system is complicated, certainly compared to Apollo, which is the comparison Destin made. He talked about the minimal sufficient solution. That solution depends on what problem you are trying to solve. Destin was thinking of flags and foot prints 2, for which Starship is overkill. NASA are thinking sustainable presence on the Moon for which Apollo is insufficient and SLS is a barrier.

I was really hoping for an update from Destin who is a smart guy talking on a subject he had clearly not gone into into detail back when he made that video. That second link is not it. It is someone else using Destin's ancient video to deliberately use the mistakes. I skimmed it briefly. The first two thirds seam to be about history and the final third repeats the same drivel many people have de-bunked repeatedly before. The only thing I would agree with is the Elon time scales are very optimistic.

[John Robson]

As ever

Excitement guaranteed.

Be good to see the deployment test and the catch point tests...

[Zolko]

Suborbital

It's the 7th-flight and still doesn't go to orbit ... I think Starship is the only rocket that doesn't even attempt to go to orbit, it just pops up and down. What do they learn by now ?

[Inventor of the Marmite Laser]

Re: Suborbital

They learn about the difficult bits: launch, separation, relighting and landing

[Zolko]

Re: Suborbital

don't they train those operations every week or so with their Falcon rocket ? After hundreds of successful missions are those really difficult tasks for SpaceX ?

[anothercynic]

Re: Suborbital

You seem to fail to understand that Falcon and Starship are two different animals. They may have a lot of the same components, but Starship is a factor more complex. Just because something worked with Falcon or Falcon Heavy does not automatically translate to it working with Starship. Validation flights are the best way to work out the kinks and make sure you have all the bases covered.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Suborbital

i understand very well, starship is useless junk. can't even take a banana to orbit nevermind a proper payload.

[John Robson]

Re: Suborbital

There is a difference between can't and didn't.

Of course there is also a difference between a prototype test vehicle and a finished rocket, but you already know that - you just can't stand to see people get excited by developments in space access.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Suborbital

In relatable terms, it's the difference between an aeroplane and a helicopter - the aerodynamics and control systems are completely different.

They're experimenting with other materials too.

Being able to take off and land a 'plane regularly doesn't mean that you should go straight for trans-Atlantic in your radical new helicopter!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Suborbital

wait until you read about the apollo program and how few test flights they did! you'll be amazed.

compared to them in the 60's musktwat startship is amatuer at best, stupidly useless

[John Robson]

Re: Suborbital

Wait until you hear how much the Apollo program cost... you'd be amazed

[Spherical Cow]

Re: Suborbital

You have forgotten that three people died in Apollo 1 and three more people nearly died in Apollo 13. Space is more than just hard, it is also dangerous. Caution is to be commended.

[LogicGate]

Re: Suborbital

Not going into orbit has been a feature, not a bug for ships 1 to 6. Should a problem occur that renders the vehicle uncontrollable, then there is close to zero chance of having a huge hulk of hardware left in uncontrollable orbit. The amount of delta-v required to convert flight 6 to orbital flight was very small, and most likely available in the tanks when the engines were shut down.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Suborbital

"The amount of delta-v required to convert flight 6 to orbital flight was very small"

Technical nitpick: The trajectory _IS_ orbital. It's just that perigee is well inside the atmosphere, with obvious results for continued flight, if things stop working

All that's needed is a circularisation burn to remedy that issue...

[Zolko]

Re: Suborbital

The amount of delta-v required to convert flight 6 to orbital flight was very small

fully loaded with ... a banana. And when they load it with some real 50t to LOE does that still hold ?

The trajectory IS orbital : it's just that perigee is well inside the atmosphere

it's even inside the ocean. Funny "orbit" that is. With a banana.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Suborbital

You have massively under-estimated the difficulty of the objective. This is hardly surprising as many space enthusiasts have also done the same.

Falcon 9 is 17t to LEO for an internal cost of about $20M. Starship is aiming for >150t to LEO for well under $10M internal cost. More than an order of magnitude improvement over the current world leader. Getting to that price point requires second stage re-use and rapid turn around. Heat shield technology isn't there yet and landing on the launch complex has just barely been demonstrated. Achieving the objective requires iterative development. Getting the performance with a payload and re-use requires a better engine than the ones used on the previous flights. That new engine - raptor 3 - has been demonstrated in tests at McGregor. Right now, SpaceX has a surplus of Raptor 2 engines. You are going to see more fractional orbit heat shield tests until Raptor 3 production ramps up because that is all Raptor 2 is good for.

[Zolko]

Re: Suborbital

Getting the performance with a payload and re-use requires a better engine than the ones used on the previous flights. That new engine - raptor 3 ...

So the current ones are no good, and we'll have to see how the new engines do when they fly, then, don't we ?

[John Robson]

Re: Suborbital

The current ones are excellent, but the engines are just one thing under active development.

The R3 is an awesome looking engine, but so have all the Raptor series been.

You don't wait until you've completely built an engine before you start looking at what vehicle to put it in, the two evolve alongside each other.

I'm excited to see New Glenn, which has been in development about the same time as SS/SH, launch - potentially on the same day as IFT7...

They represent two very different models of development, one being all about the paperwork, and the other about building and learning from experience.

The SS/SH is planned to be very much more capable, but more options in the launch market is a good thing.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Suborbital

For a first stage you want high Thrust/Weight:

Merlin 1D (Falcon): T/W=184, availability: sufficient

Raptor 3 (later Starships): T/W=183.6, availability: RSN

Raptor 2 (current Starship): T/W=144.1, availability: plenty

BE-4 (Vulcan, New Glenn): T/W=not published probably about 100. availability is possibly enough considering the lack of payloads.

Merlin 1C (old Falcon): T/W=90, availability: discontinued

RD-180 (Atlas V): T/W=78.44 availability: while stocks last

RS-25 (SLS): T/W=73.1 availability: NASA recovered some museum pieces to avoid paying $180M each in 2020. The price has gone up.

Rutherford (Electron): T/W=72.8 availability: sufficient for small launch market

RS-68 (Delta IV): T/W=45.3 availability: discontinued

You say "no good" for an engine that beats everything but Merlin 1D. Keep talking and remove any doubt...

[Zolko]

Re: Suborbital

and today, we get that Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket is planning for a first launch, where "the primary goal of the mission is to reach orbit ". With fake payload, but still, not a banana ! We shall see whether they succeed or not

[John Robson]

Re: Suborbital

Today?

That's been their plan for *years*.

[Decay]

Re: Suborbital

By any reasonable metric the Raptor 3 engines are impressive, whether that's overall thrust, specific impulse, weight etc etc.

280 tons of thrust from an engine weighing 1.5 tons at 350 seconds of specific impulse. 183:1 thrust to weight.

Compare that to anything else

The F1 Rocketdyne, was a phenomenal engine for its time, and it is a testament to the engineers and machinists that it still stands up to scrutiny some 60 years later

750 tons of thrust, weighed 9.25 tons at 263 seconds of specific impulse. 94:1 thrust to weight ratio.

Put another way, you could run 6 Raptor 3 engines at once for the same weight as 1 F1, and at 3 times better efficiency.

From a specific impulse perspective the only thing to beat it is the RS-25 at 366 seconds but it's thrust to weight ratio is low at 73:1

The RD-171 and RD-275 are both pretty impressive too.

Great read about the F1 at https://www.enginehistory.org/Rockets/RPE08.11/RPE08.11.shtml

[Gene Cash]

Re: Suborbital

Ask Blue Origin about their New Shepard...

They apparently make a lot of dough from people willing to pay to just pop up and down.

[Irongut]

Re: Suborbital

In a rocket that doesn't even go to space.

Jeff's BO is a bigger con than crypto.

[that one in the corner]

Re: Suborbital

> Jeff's BO is a bigger con than crypto.

People are told they can pay $n and for that they will be lofted to elevation k metres, then returned to the ground.

People have paid $n, have been lofted to elevation k metres, then returned to the ground.

Where is the con?

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Suborbital

You are thinking Virgin Galactic which used to get to just over 80km - which is the NASA and USAF definition of space. New Shepard gets to over 100km, which is a much more international definition of space. Neither gets to orbit, which is a much tougher problem and makes getting back to Earth without being cooked far more difficult and expensive.

The value for the price is a matter of opinion. I would take 100 vomit comet rides over one Shepard even though Shepard's view is far superior. If/when high altitude ballooning becomes a viable tourist option then a combination of balloon rides for the view and parabolic flights for the zero g would make a strong - and much cheaper - competitor to Shepard.

IAVO. I might live long enough for a point-to-point Starship ride to drop into my price range. It would still be sub-orbital but fast enough to stay in zero g for tens of minutes. I know; I am counting chickens before they have evolved from theropods.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Suborbital

only con bigger than crypto is orange turd and musktwats companies

[Gordon 10]

Re: Suborbital

Perhaps they are learning how to avoid pulling a Starliner and having a shitty non-functional piece of crap go to orbit and put astronauts lives at risk?

The point that's completely flying over your head is that SpaceX has a very different mission to Nasa in general and their sub-contractors like Boeing in particular.

SpaceX and Space Karen are about the industrialisation of Space, in particular launch infrastructure because they think they can make a profit and in the longer term own a corporatist dystopian state on Mars. They have done it once with many many iterations of Falcon, now they are doing again but an order of magnitude bigger with Starship/Super Heavy.

Nasa and by extension their subcontractors are Pork Barrel maximisation for the Benefit of All Mankind. They have local political (state level senators and congress critters), scientific and imperialistic goals (federal/international level).

[StrangerHereMyself]

Important

I believe the Moon is still important as a destination. You don't want to leave the Chinese to squat and claim larger and larger pieces of it.

This may not align with Elon's plan of a multi-planetary civilization, but it's important for geopolitical reasons.

[Phones Sheridan]

Re: Important

Is there a treaty governing how much land can be claimed with each landing? Is it like national waters, 12 miles around the ships landing site etc?

If Musk was to make the endeavour privately, could he claim a portion of the moon upon landing? Or even Mars.

[Filippo]

Re: Important

There is an Outer Space Treaty. It says that nobody can claim any part of the Moon as territory. The same goes for everything else that's not Earth. I think everyone who plays in space signed it, but feel free to correct me.

Of course, the main reason everyone has so far respected it is that claiming extraterrestial territory is, at the moment, pretty much pointless.

If we get to the point where extraterrestial territory is actually useful, I expect the Outer Space Treaty to get jettisoned out an airlock PDQ. If we're very lucky, it'll get replaced by another treaty that's designed around the new situation. If we're not, it'll get replaced by a wide variety of fun & games that will inspire book and movie plots for centuries to come.

[Dante Alighieri]

Re: Important

It states no state can claim sovereignty.

Nothing about businesses or individuals. Bit of an oversight. icon---->

UNOOSA summary

[that one in the corner]

Re: Important

> Nothing about businesses or individuals. Bit of an oversight.

Hmm, spot the hand of a Robert Heinlein fan, hoping his books will come true.

"Delos D. Harriman, the last of the Robber Barons" - hang on, look at that name: there is an 'e', an 'l', an 'o', an - not quite. But close, dang close.

[Filippo]

Re: Important

Actually, it's covered:

>States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities

Also, I don't think businesses or individuals can claim sovereignty, generally speaking. It sounds like the kind of action that can only logically be done by states, or that you do as part of the process of trying to become a state (like some nutjobs try to do on some decommissioned oil rig every now and then).

[The Mole]

Re: Important

You might want to brush up on your history - for instance the East India Company and their rule of India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India

[Filippo]

Re: Important

That's kinda the point, though; the EIC was behaving a lot like a state. They had political structures, services and everything.

But I was talking in the context of the OST. Think about it this way... by whatever definition, either you're a state, or you aren't.

If you're a state, either you're a OST signatory or you aren't. If you are, then you can't claim sovereignty on the Moon and if one of your citizens sets up a Moon Company and tries to keep other people away, you have to quash it. If you aren't, you can say whatever you want, but nobody who is in the OST can recognize your sovereignty, or claims made by your citizens.

If you're not a state, then either you're a citizen of a signatory state, or you are a citizen of a non-signatory state, or you are stateless. If you are a citizen of a signatory state, your state is responsible for what you do on the Moon, and it specifically cannot let you keep other people away. If you're a citizen of a non-signatory state or you're stateless, no OST state can recognize your claims.

So, there is no case where an OST signatory can have dealings with anyone, state or not, signatory or not, who behaves like the East India Company in space.

Of course, all of this is moot because the OST has no teeth at all and it only works as long as space territory is worthless. Nobody is going to argue this in an international court, because if that condition falls, every nation that works with space will just withdraw from the Treaty.

[mostly average]

Re: Important

There is such a treaty. But enforcing that treaty is moot. Whoever gets there first with the biggest guns owns it. Treaties be damned. Molon Labe, etc.

[eldakka]

Re: Important

It's also much closer to Earth in terms of flight-time (as opposed to delta-v, I believe the delta-v for Mars isn't a lot larger than for the moon). Therefore it'd be easier to set up research bases on the moon (in the vein of Antartic research stations) with personnel rotations to build up experience with operating for extended periods on foreign bodies. If there are problems, help is only a few days flight-time away (plus whatever the launch-prep time is) rather than the 9+ months away it'd be on Mars.

So I do think the moon is a reasonable goal from a 'training grounds' perspective.

[Killing Time]

Re: Important

I think it's reasonable to assume he is aware of geopolitical reasons given his recent hobby of jumping 'two booted' into western countries national politics.

Given that he appears to have gained significant influence over US politics he seems to believe he can achieve it elsewhere.

The reason why? I can only assume it feeds into his grand vision regarding Mars. I can't see that there is no ulterior motive for this. Like him or not, he is too smart for there not to be a specific driver behind it.

[John Sager]

Re: Important

I guess he's entitled to his opinion just like all those outside the US who have or still do criticise & insult DJT.

He certainly got TTK's attention judging by his response today. Winding up politicians should be an international sport anyway to keep them on their toes.

As for the CCP, I'm half expecting a large red CCP flag to cover much of the face of the moon before I pop my clogs.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Important

"Winding up politicians should be an international sport anyway to keep them on their toes."

Absolutely! It's part of the job. Having Trump and Musk running the USA is going to be explosive as they both seem to have wet tissue paper for skin!

[Killing Time]

Re: Important

'I guess he's entitled to his opinion just like all those outside the US who have or still do criticise & insult DJT.'

Interesting view but not really what I was alluding to. I was referring to his championing of AfD in Germany and Reform in the UK. Both parties which could be considered to the right in politics.

I credit him with being far more than DJT's attack dog (DJT has shown he is more than capable there). I believe Musk knows he has DJT in his pocket and is now pushing out to further his business goals and Mars ambitions.

The new Computer Misuse act and similar legislation in Europe appears to have him rattled.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Important

According to Musk's delusions Disney is turning us all LGBTQ thus causing population decline. He genuinely believes that nothing is more important than his crusade to save the human race from extinction. His old long term plan was to make humans a multi-planet species. Although that plan remains his homophobia has become the dominant personality trait.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Important

The moon is likely to prove one of the absolute toughest places to try and establish a presence, vastly more difficult than an asteroid or mars despite the proximity - all thanks to that dust

Apollo's Lunar surface suits were _destroyed_ by the dust in a matter of hours. Both joints and the fabric itself proved susceptible to its abrasiveness - and then there's the issue of silicosis to consider in humans tracking it in from outdoors. There's billions being spent on trying to engineer something that will work - reliably - for extended periods

[ukgnome]

I used to care more

Then Musk turned into a prick and so it's all a bit meh

[xyz]

Re: I used to care more

I presume the professionals at Space X feel the same. These people are good at what they do despite being associated with HIM.

[Decay]

Re: I used to care more

Agreed and Gwynne Shotwell is the person everyone should be looking at. As president and Chief Operating Officer, she's running the day to day and I think doesn't get half enough credit.

[Dan 55]

Re: I used to care more

I hope it's a resounding success and Musk ends up as captain of the B Ark, er, Starship.

[John Robson]

Re: I used to care more

So celebrate SpaceX and Blue Origin rather than either of the two people heading up those companies.

Though I have to say Bezos position has been marginally improved after the Tim Dodd interview and walkaround - I mean he's still clearly stamping on the fingers of Amazon employees and the faces of any competitors... but there is a human element there occasionally.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't care, don't want to know

unless BOTH Trump and Musk are on board with a one-way ticket to Mars.

Then the world would be a much safer and better place.

[Andy 73]

The climb down starts here..

There have been plenty of criticisms that the architecture of the moon mission that was dictated by Starship's design (e.g. insane numbers of launches to fuel up the transfer rocket) was impossible for SpaceX to deliver.

There are also conflicting accounts of how much money NASA has already given SpaceX for stages of the Starship programme related to Artemis - but the suggestion that billions have been paid.

Now, the Starship programme is fairly clearly behind where it needs to be to meet the Artemis project schedule, should we be surprised if Musk is conveniently supporting the one big orange guy who might do something when he says "We didn't want to go to the moon anyway"?

It would be massively beneficial to SpaceX not to have their heavily government subsidised organisation tested against the hard requirements of a government space mission. As demonstrated by this launches objectives, throwing up more Starlink satellites is a higher priority. Musk will continue to make excuses for not delivering ("they're holding me back with regulations!", "We decided not to make that product after all!", "The next version will blow your mind!"), and is sufficiently influential right now not to be challenged.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: The climb down starts here..

I cannot quickly find information on what milestones Starship HLS has passed and been payed for. I can easily poor tar and feathers over the idea that NASA has already paid billions. The entire firm fixed price contract is for $2.9B - including a demonstration moon landing and two crewed return trips. The payments were structured with only small amounts at the beginning because NASA does not have the funding. I think if any of the big ticket milestones had happened it might have reached the main stream news let alone the more specialist sources I follow. If NASA had received an SLS scale budget increase (for anything other than SLS) people would have been noisily expressing their complete shock that congress had agreed a new budget at all, let alone an increase for (non-SLS) NASA.

[Andy 73]

Re: The climb down starts here..

From what I understand, SpaceX have been awarded a range of additional projects since the 2021 announcement (totalling billions), and have certainly received some of the milestone payments. However, both NASA and SpaceX are being extremely coy over the precise structure and value of the milestones, and remarkably little information is available online.

That does not mean SpaceX has failed to deliver a single milestone in the four years since the contract was awarded, or that they have not been paid for some or all of the work done to validate Starship as HLS ready. It would be ridiculous to claim otherwise. Furthermore, SpaceX's involvement in this and many other NASA projects is great validation for bringing in external financing - that Musk has made clear has been needed.

If Artemis III is cancelled, it would hurt SpaceX - but not nearly as much as being forced to admit they are not going to be capable of the mission within any required timeframe. The promise of Jam tomorrow is always there with Musk's companies.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: The climb down starts here..

I laugh hysterically at your original contention that SpaceX has already received multiple billions for Starship HLS and note you shift of goal posts. For non-HLS (or for HLS) take a look at what SpaceX charged and what it would cost to get the same thing done by someone else. SpaceX has done well out of government contracts. US tax payers have saved far more from SpaceX contracts. A cost for not putting SpaceX's CEO in prison for securities fraud years ago will be falling due over the next few years. That could easily reverse the balance.

[Andy 73]

Re: The climb down starts here..

Your desire to protect Musk from any sort of criticism is noted.

[John Robson]

Re: The climb down starts here..

Your inability to asses SpaceX as SpaceX is noted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk has become a parody

His musings are becoming more and more ridiculous.

[NickHolland]

are humans on Mars even a good idea?

Let's pretend it is practical to set up a self-sufficient Mars colony, and it is basically free to do so. Let's also pretend it is reasonably safe.

Is it a good idea? I'm thinking ... environmental impact and scientific impact.

As I understand it, we are still looking to rule out the possibility of both extinct AND current life on Mars. If Mars is confirmed "dead", both now and in the past, fine. Go ahead, no harm, no foul. But I don't think we've done that yet. If we put humans on Mars, we are going to be making ecological changes, and nothing we discover afterwards will become simple (as if the search for life has been "simple" on Mars so far). I'd assume any microbial life we introduce might well mutate/evolve fairly quickly to a point that we might not be sure if it is recent transplants from earth-to-Mars, or long-time inhabitants.

I'm suspicious I might be missing something, as I'm just not seeing this discussed much in the "colonize Mars" stories, so please tell me what I'm missing.