Hacker Neue

Preferences
sandworm101 parent
>> The top-heavy design didn't help things either

Just wait for SpaceX to start trying to land starships on the moon. Also vertically. Also doomed to tip over whenever the surface is slightly out of spec.

https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/moon/

oceanplexian
Why does this even have to be a problem?

We can send small probes to image the moon in incredibly high resolution. It's a big place I'm sure there is a perfectly flat rock somewhere they can use.

sandworm101 OP
Have you ever seen a perfectly flat rock anywhere on earth? One capable of supporting a large rocket? Also, the moon doesn't have the various navigation systems (GPS/radar) that is used when bringing rocket stages back the pad.
JumpCrisscross
> Just wait for SpaceX to start trying to land starships on the moon. Also vertically

SpaceX has done it. To date, other nation-states have tried and failed to replicate their achievements in this domain.

IM’s design is wrongly optimised and probably requires a rethink. That the CEO won’t contemplate this isn’t a great sign for the company.

CamperBob2
SpaceX has done it.

SpaceX has landed Starship on the moon?!

JumpCrisscross
SpaceX has repeatedly and reliably landed vertical stacks. On any body. Out of the engineering problems inherent to HLS, sticking the landing isn’t material because for them, for that team, it isn't as novel a problem as e.g. in-orbit refuelling or getting Raptors to relight on the Moon.

Put another way, just because SpaceX has done it doesn't mean the same problem carries the same risk for a team like IM's.

MegaButts
Has SpaceX ever landed their rocket on a surface that isn't purposefully engineered to be flat?
Seanambers
Multiple sea landings, but I guess you'd argue those don't count since the vehicles tip over in water and explode.

Moving barges in the sea should qualify though.

6 More Comments →
sandworm101 OP
Lol. SpaceX has landed on prepared surfaces, concrete pads on land or on large barges. They literally have a big X to mark the target. Let's see them land on some random beach, an uneven surface that may or may not subside. But that is still peanuts comparted to the moon's surface.
JumpCrisscross
> that is still peanuts comparted to the moon's surface

Sure. I'm not trivialising the problem in an absolute sense. Just going from floating barge or chopsticks to Moon is a simpler set of problems than reïnventing the sort of translational velocity and attitude control needed to get to first base.

sandworm101 OP
For selecting and touching down on an unprepared surface, rockets are not the stepping stone. Start with helicopters. It is the same problem: can I land there and what will happen when I put weight on the surface. Try programing a large helicopter to identify and land on a random chunk of rocky terrain. It is not easy. And the bigger/taller the craft, the more difficult it becomes. Then add a 10-second time limit.
Kye
Are the sky cranes of Mars viable without an atmosphere?
ted_dunning
You say this based on your history of landing rockets on the moon?

And on your history of dealing with the lunar regolith near the poles?

JumpCrisscross
> You say this based on your history of landing rockets on the moon?

Actually, mini propulsive landers in lunar regolith stimulant. Yes. In atmosphere and with Earth gravity, both of which make it more annoying and more difficult.

nomel
For any of these landings, it's a problem of 3d positional/velocity precision. SpaceX has prove that they can reliably land on a target, usually within meters, with negligibly delta velocity on contact.

In other words, they've proven they have the control systems in place for placing a craft at a precise location, with a precise velocity. What requirement do you see outside of this that are far outside of placement and velocity? Autonomous mapping and adjustments for approach maybe?

Let's not assume they're going to try to use their current earthly landing legs.

> land on some random beach,

They did this I believe two starships ago, when they landed in the ocean. Came to zero xyz velocity some target distance above the water, and hovered for a bit. Unfortunately, the surface tension of the sea couldn't support the weight once they lowered for touchdown.

literalAardvark
> 3d positional/velocity precision. SpaceX has prove that they can reliably land on a target, usually within meters

On Earth, which has GPS. On a very highly engineered landing surface.

Landing on inertial guidance on soft regolith is a whole different ballgame.

nomel
> Landing on inertial guidance

Which is not the future. Optical/lidar/positioning radio is the future, to make it closed loop (NASA’s Laser Retroreflector Array for high, lidar/optical for low altitudes).

> On a very highly engineered landing surface.

As I mentioned, we shouldn't assume the earthy landing legs are used. That would be a very silly assumption.

From what I can extract from your comment, you believe that the positioning system and landing legs are the issue, rather than the control systems. I suspect both are somewhat related: positioning system to place it over predictable regolith with some, yet-undeveloped, landing legs that need to work at 1/6th gravity.

I'm of the opinion that it's possible/solvable, as is NASA. It would be helpful if you would answer why you think it's not possible: what requirement do you see that make positioning and landing on regolith unachievable for SpaceX?

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/nasas-la...

literalAardvark
It may be possible. It may also be that the regolith is too fluffy in that area to support such a large structure without a pad. I don't believe we know.

Athena had multiple laser altimeters on board: they failed to get a fix, perhaps because of the weird surface.

It's my opinion that this isn't something that's easy to do, even for a company that has landed on Earth.

Frederation
Keep that Musk copium going, man!

This item has no comments currently.