Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

s1ngular1ty2 t1_ixf1ske wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Realistically speaking When do you think we will land humans on Mars? by EnaGrimm

I'm talking about NASA, who has done far more in Space than SpaceX can ever hope to accomplish...

You need to re-examine your beliefs if you think SpaceX is going to surpass NASA in anything.

5

kindslayer t1_ixf9dkg wrote

We're not saying that NASA is becoming inferior. It's because Musk is envisioning on bringing people there soon. With NASA's budget right now, I think they are being careful about expenditure, funds is certainly what's holding NASA back. Not adding the fact that starship's purpose is for manned missions and high payloads. But then, there's no SpaceX without NASA.

1

fabulousmarco t1_ixgu01o wrote

Musk was also envisioning orbital tests of Starship more than 3 years ago. What he thinks he can achieve and what he can actually achieve are two very different things.

Starship is an ambitious and promising concept, but given its highly experimental nature and Musk's tendency to oversell I wouldn't consider it until we find out whether it can live up to expectations.

0

kindslayer t1_ixgx1kf wrote

I think we're all familliar of Musk being bad at promised deadlines lol. But yeah, even with the recent sucessful high-altitude test, we have yet to see an orbital test anytime soon. So yeah, it is safe to say that there's no definite proof yet that Musk can actually accomplish landing humans on Mars. But then, we also can't say that the starship progress is not going anywhere. Finally, we can just say that NASA and SpaceX have their advancements and pros, SpaceX for effective landing systems for rockets, and NASA for the actual accomplished plans of placing human presence beyond Earth.

2

fabulousmarco t1_ixjnh4c wrote

I'm not debating it, but still for the Starship plan to work there are so many critical points to pass that I simply don't feel we've seen enough at this stage.

Launching and landing the rocket is certainly two of them, which of course they've achieved. But for a Mars mission to work they also need to demonstrate high launch cadence with Starship due to the several orbital refueling launches required for each mission. This in turn means that any reusability strategy (e.g. heat shield, Raptor durability, etc...) and fast construction also need to work as well as envisioned.

And of course landing on Mars on rough terrain, launching from Mars (something which has never been attempted before), habitat and life support for crewed missions on a scale which is simply not required for the ISS and so on.

I'm not saying they won't achieve it, but I find it laughable when people talk about the SpaceX Mars missions as if they were a done deal.

1