NASA’s bold bet on Starship for the Moon may change spaceflight forever

When NASA astronauts return to the Moon in a few years, they will do so inside a lander that dwarfs that of the Apollo era. SpaceX's Starship vehicle measures 50 meters from its nose cone to landing legs. By contrast, the cramped Lunar Module that carried Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin down to the Moon in 1969 stood just 7 meters tall.


This is but one of many genuinely shocking aspects of NASA's decision a week ago to award SpaceX—and only SpaceX—a contract to develop, test, and fly two missions to the lunar surface. The second flight, which will carry astronauts to the Moon, could launch as early as 2024.


NASA awarded SpaceX $2.89 billion for these two missions. But this contract would balloon in amount should NASA select SpaceX to fly recurring lunar missions later in the 2020s. And it has value to SpaceX and NASA in myriad other ways. Perhaps most significantly, with this contract NASA has bet on a bold future of exploration. Until now, the plans NASA had contemplated for human exploration in deep space all had echoes of the Apollo program. NASA talked about "sustainable" missions and plans in terms of cost, but they were sustainable in name only.


By betting on Starship, which entails a host of development risks, NASA is taking a chance on what would be a much brighter future. One in which not a handful of astronauts go to the Moon or Mars, but dozens and then hundreds. In this sense, Starship represents a radical departure for NASA and human exploration.


"If Starship meets the goals Elon Musk has set for it, Starship getting this contract is like the US government supporting the railroads in the old west here on Earth," said Rick Tumlinson, a proponent of human settlement of the Solar System. "It is transformational to degrees no one today can understand."


We will nonetheless try to understand some of the ways in which Starship could prove transformational.

jirqoadai wrote:they are saying the earths second moon is splattered on the dark side of the moon

2cent wrote:Fascinating and exciting times ahead.  Imagine, man landing on Mars within 10 year's time!  

Elon Musk - and mankind - would be far better off concentrating his/their efforts on this program, rather than attempting to eliminate that which sustains our very life here on earth.
(Do we dare mention the screaming contradiction?)

The article states, too, that government involvement will be necessary in order to build nuclear-based power for Mars.  Okay, but WHY?
And of course it will take government to provide "planetary protection."  Again, why?  (Note that they didn't mention HUMAN protection.)

Apologies for the Debbie Downer insert.  

Here's hoping we're all around in 10 years to see it!   :drinks2:



Urr.