• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Musk, SpaceX and future of Tesla II

again, you are making an excellent argument for Right-Sizing the Pentagon until it becomes manageable.
It is clearly too big for this currently, and giving it even more money is going to make the problem worse.
 
Didn't US sales fall by like 8% during Q1 or something? Answer? Yes, but every other EV fell harder:


So I guess kind of a weird flex, but if that's all you got then that's what you flex with.
If RAM sold 54% of all trucks in the USA in the 1st quarter and suffered less of a drop in sales than the rest of truck manufacturers, I would call it a flex. So yeah, it's a flex for Tesla also.
 
Will SpaceX be able to fundamentally alter its approach to research, design and engineering to enable it to use its current experience to design and build the lander?

Starship HLS dry mass: 100,000 Kg

Eagle lander dry mass: 4,500 Kg


I just can't see it. But then again, I'm not a rocket scientist.
 
Starship HLS dry mass: 100,000 Kg

Eagle lander dry mass: 4,500 Kg


I just can't see it. But then again, I'm not a rocket scientist.
The question is whether there would be enough rocket fuel to land and launch. It matters little that HLS lander is 22 times heavier than the Eagle if the HLS lander can perform the same mission. I don't know. But I assume people have done the math.
 
I feel like it shouldn't need a rocket scientist to see this is a garbage take.
3point is correct. The Eagle Lunar was tiny. It wasn't designed to do much more than take two astronauts to the moon and little else. The HLS is a monster compared to the Eagle. Like the difference between a Boeing Airliner and a Sopwith Camel. 22 to 26 times the size of the Eagle lander.

And it is 6 to 8 times the Blue Horizon lander. For the HLS to work there will need to be multiple propositioned fueling craft. I believe the idea is these spacecraft will have to be orbiting the moon and the HLS will rendezvous and fuel up for descent and ascent.
 
Very efficient
And with the absolute minimum of failure points.

I mean. What kind of sissy wants to go, knowing that what you take with you after leaving Earth orbit, is all you need for the return?
Real™ astronauts will only go if they have 3 or 4 extra refueling sessions, all of which have to work in order to even survive the trip, during their mission.
 
Didn't US sales fall by like 8% during Q1 or something? Answer? Yes, but every other EV fell harder:


So I guess kind of a weird flex, but if that's all you got then that's what you flex with.
When the National Party won the NZ election in 2024 they did what they promised to - killed the clean car discount and made EV owners pay road user charges. The result was predictable - EV sales crashed. From 2020 to 2024 EV sales had increased by 5 times and the trajectory looked good. In 2025 it dropped by over 70% and stayed down. Every brand was severely affected. The reaction was way out of proportion to the incentives removed, but that's people for you.

The US removed the federal EV tax credit at the end of 2025. Despite this being a much bigger hit than New Zealand's moderate incentives, Tesla's sales only dropped by a small amount - most of which could be explained by people buying early to get the tax credit before November 2025. The drop was fully expected and does not indicate anything wrong with Tesla.

But of course the haters latched onto it just like they do every time Tesla's sales seem to be dropping - while ignoring the times when they are rising. That's people for you.
 
who is tesla’s biggest competitor in new zealand? who is tesla’s biggest competitor in the us? what is new zealand’s tariff rate on chinese evs?
 
3point is correct. The Eagle Lunar was tiny. It wasn't designed to do much more than take two astronauts to the moon and little else.
Correct, this is not just a repeat of Apollo. The Apollo missions had to fit everything within a single Saturn V launch, so the lander was absolutely minimal. Not so this next time.

For the HLS to work there will need to be multiple propositioned fueling craft. I believe the idea is these spacecraft will have to be orbiting the moon and the HLS will rendezvous and fuel up for descent and ascent.
In either competitor's scenario, the lander will be fueled in Earth orbit. SpaceX HLS needs the lander and at least one tanker, although probably several. The lander is launched dry into LEO where it will be fueled by a series of subsequent tanker launches. Then when full, it flies independently to the Moon and enters lunar orbit. The crew launches in Orion using SLS, flies separately to the Moon, and rendezvouses with the lander in lunar orbit. After landing and then returning to lunar orbit, the lander is discarded to a graveyard orbit and the crew returns home in Orion.

The Blue Moon lander will use the Northrop Grumman Cygnus spacecraft as its LEO tanker and a booster stage being built by Lockheed Martin as its translunar stage. Otherwise the mission profile is essentially identical. Both competitors will need to solve the problem of orbital propellant transfer, which no one has ever done before.

But I assume people have done the math.
The math isn't actually that hard in the mission planning stage. The remaining delta-v capacity of a spaceship is proportional the specific impulse of the fuel and the natural logarithm of the mass ratio—the Tsiolkovsky ideal rocket equation. The mass ratio is the wet mass divided by dry mass. As propellant is expended, the mass ratio changes and therefore the remaining delta-v changes until MR = 1 and ln(MR) = 0. Starship's MR is reported to be about 26. For comparison, the Saturn V mass ratio is 23.1. Obviously in a multistage system you need to carefully consider each stage separately.

What you can't do as easily with simple math is determine whether a crew can operate the ship, land it, and get into and out of the ship when it's on the lunar surface. Apollo conducted extensive studies of this on the ground. A total of 12 LTAs (Lunar Test Articles) were built. As a result, after LM-1 did its uncrewed test flight, the ship configuration did not change materially through the remaining crewed flight tests: LM-3, LM-4, and LM-5. LM-2 was built as the twin for LM-1 and is now in the National Air and Space Museum as its test flight was canceled. Even when the J-type lunar modules were flown starting with LM-10, the configuration did not materially change beyond being heavier and putting the rover in a planned-for but previously unused equipment bay. Because of the extensive forward-looking ground-based work, they did not have to requalify the ship for flight.
 
Last edited:
How tall will Elon's lander be compared to the landing pads and centre of gravity?
The Apollo LM had wide spaced pads compared to its height.
 
You think DOGE required cunning? Did you see him when they gave him a chainsaw? That wasn't cunning, that was bull-in-a-china-shop wanton destruction. Anyway, he didn't personally do a damn thing except pay a bunch of script kiddies to hack things to pieces.
Hey he ended all those investigations into his companies that is a damn big thing. But you are so sure that they wouldn't have found fraud so why bother to investigate?
 
How tall will Elon's lander be compared to the landing pads and centre of gravity?
Dunno, they haven't built one yet.

The Apollo LM had wide spaced pads compared to its height.
The Apollo lunar module was a very conservative design for obvious reasons. It's quite likely that both Starship and Blue Moon will have a narrower footprint and a higher center of gravity and therefore a lower vehicle tripping moment than Apollo. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have experience in landing tall vehicles with narrow footprints on pitching surfaces, so this part of the problem doesn't bother me.

Blue Moon's center of gravity is actually higher than it would seem (in the Mark II design) because its configuration is upended. The crew compartment is at the bottom of the structure, close to the surface, while the propellant tanks and propulsion system is above them. Starship's crew compartment is near the top, above the propulsion system. So they're likely to have comparable landed stability and comparable tripping characteristics. There is some concern that the SpaceX crew will need an elevator to lower them the 30 meters from the crew compartment to the surface. That's a Criticality 1 operational requirement that will need very careful design attention and cannot be addressed by simply flying as many atmospheric Starship flights as possible.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom