Charlie: “That Ain’t Very Fun, Is It?”

If humans aren’t meant to travel to other planets then why does my skeleton feel too heavy to exist comfortably in Earth gravity???? Explain that sweaty

Is that in the LM on the surface? I think that's the first video I've seen of inside the LM while on the surface. I was curious to see the effects of the lower gravity.

Charlie Duke during Apollo 16, April 1972

My thoughts on the upcoming IFT-3 flight of Starship-Super Heavy

As of writing (12th of February), IFT-3 is currently scheduled to occur later this month, but it could still easily get delayed.

My prediction is that IFT-3 will probably achieve orbit and will probably conduct an internal propellant-transfer, but that the upper stage (SN28) will probably suffer a failure of some kind during reëntry, either being destroyed or deviating far from its targetted splashdown-zone.

It's safe to say that successful reëntry is unlikely on IFT-3. Here's why:

The Starship upper stage will be the largest reëntry-vehicle ever built.

This reëntry profile (a belly-first reëntry with four fins used for stability) is unique and has never been done before. Starship's belly-first orientation is inherently ærodynamically unstable, which is why it needs constant corrections from the four fins. It could get trapped in a nose-first or tail-first orientation, both of which might be more stable. Else, a loss of control would just result in endless tumbling.

We've already seen heatshield-tiles falling off during IFT-1 and IFT-2. In fact, more fell off the latter than the former due to higher ærodynamic pressures and engine vibrations.

A failure during reëntry would be consistent with the general pattern of testflight-failures established so far. Essentially, each flight is a failure, but less of a failure than the previous one.

Honestly, I don't know what could happen to the first stage booster (B10). SpaceX knows how to do boostback-burns and propulsive landings. It's seemingly just a matter of preventing the vehicle from blowing itself up. Engine reliability will probably determine the booster's success.

It'll be interesting to watch nonetheless.

The fate of the Artemis Programme now depends on the success of these test flights and in SpaceX rapidly developing and utilising this reüsable launch-system. Development has been ongoing for over five years now, and the vehicle has yet to reach orbit. The landing of astronauts on the Moon is scheduled for September 2026. How likely is it that SpaceX will have humans on the Moon in just two and a half years from now?

View of Earth from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe

still a wip

Earth gravity vs Martian gravity vs Lunar gravity

SCP-268-FR - “Dix-Mille Lucioles”

Blue Moon really should go first. It's a more practical, less ambitious design, with better inherent safety. We shouldn't splash out on the towering ambitious megarocket just because we can. That stuff should come later, once we've gained confidence and experience. That should be obvious.

NASA does not need a lander with a dry mass of 100+ tonnes to put 2–8 astronauts on the Moon. The lander's excessive size and mass actually make several problems, such as the hatch being 30 m above the ground and there needing to be a crew elevator system with no current plan for a backup if it fails.

Big spaceship does not equal good spaceship. Don't be fooled by spectacle and awe. Starship HLS is ill-suited to taking humans to the surface of the Moon. The best case for it is as a heavy cargo vehicle, perhaps in service of a Moonbase. Again, that comes later. Skylab after Mercury-Redstone, not before.

It's genuinely possible that Starship HLS might not be ready before Blue Moon MK 2 is.

World map in fish perspective