[carlosdp]

Idk how you took away that he was criticizing the Starship program at all. SpaceX pivots designs on a swivel, conducts tons of incremental tests, and ends up succeeding at the claimed impossible time and time again. If anything, NASA should be taking a cue from them.

He’s being directly critical of Artemis and Orion/SLS, which is not at all built that way, was basically architected by politics, and will probably not end up actually going to the moon unless there’s a major change.

[dmillar]

In-orbit refueling, etc. Those are Starships not SLS being counted: 29:45

Talking about methane, in situ refueling (not just spacex, but they've been the most vocal): 41:25

Complexity/redundancy: 46:28 (looong pause and laughter)

Comments on engine design: ~48:00 (you have to be aware of Raptor/SS booster design to get the criticism)

[avmich]

Raptors right now look very nightmarish if used for landing crew on anything - the Earth or the Moon alike. The most advanced liquid fuel engine with tons of feedback loops looks suspiciously like a catastrophe waiting to happen at a worst possible moment.

Landing on the Moon is supposed to use some other engines as well at the time, so that may help. As soon as we'll know more about design, we can say things more confidently.

[imtringued]

The Starship program is the big unknown in the whole mission. The SLS is boring and expensive and underperforming but it somewhat works. They should have given it more power to avoid the NRO, which appears to be a source of complexity due to the underperformance of the SLS. It makes things harder than it needs to be, but it isn't a death knell.

He clearly argued against flashy technology demonstrations like orbital refueling, which if you have paid attention, doesn't apply to the SLS but Starship. Orbital refueling adds an insane amount of uncertainty to the entire mission due to the boiling off of cryogenic fuels. He clearly pointed out that despite the plan of sending six Starships to LEO, nobody actually knows how many rocket flights are necessary. Fancy technology has been put on a pedestal, while the actual mission is being neglected. This is a common theme I have seen on HN and Reddit. SpaceX enthusiasts think the moon mission is some irrelevant symbolic political boondoggle to keep NASA facilities open. They all want to go on the promised 100 people trip to mars.

>will probably not end up actually going to the moon unless there’s a major change.

I don't know if you have paid attention lately, but currently Starship is significantly behind schedule. I'm not sure what to call this interpretation except "biased". Maybe this will refresh your memory: The Starship "Propellant Transfer Test" was supposed to happen in 2022 Q4.

EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/qujnsi/propos...

[panick21_]

> He clearly argued against flashy technology demonstrations like orbital refueling, which if you have paid attention, doesn't apply to the SLS but Starship.

I think this ignores that a lander of significant size would need newly designed hypergolic engines and would need very complex orbital refueling of hypergolics as well.

> Fancy technology has been put on a pedestal, while the actual mission is being neglected.

I think this is just a misunderstanding of the long term vision for the program. I its not about Artemis 3 only.

> SpaceX enthusiasts think the moon mission is some irrelevant symbolic political boondoggle to keep NASA facilities open. They all want to go on the promised 100 people trip to mars.

That's unfair. SpaceX enthusiast for the most part are simply happy money flows into the Starship program. The real win here is the Starship program itself, not any individual mission.

And I think that is the most impactful thing about this, having impact all future deep space missions. So call me a SpaceX enthusiasts.

So unless you go to a tiny lander, its just a reality. Its in the critical path.

[namlem]

He's specifically criticizing the orbital refueling timeline and the use of methane+LOX instead of hypergolic propellant for the lander. The timeline will probably get pushed back and the lander development seems to still be in a very early stage and it may well be worth it to consider hypergolic fuel. Also the systems of the starship lander must be accessible for repair.