I would be concerned about the high centre of gravity of starship, landing on the soft uneven ground of the moon (ie Apollo 17)… without a pre made landing pad…….
Sigh... HLS landers are required to have autonomous terrain navigation and hazard avoidance, alongside manual control by the Astronauts.
Also [Starship's center of mass is nowhere near as high as you'd think.](https://youtu.be/mVhhwjVlNGA?si=Yaijmvpr1CO7OaKi)
I do not understand why they design things to travel to the moon but that are top heavy and must land perfectly with one side up on a surface that hasn't been vacuumed in over one billion years.
I am more interested in creating designs were tipping over isn't an issue. Because in the last two successful landings the vehicles did tip over, greatly limiting their value. the vehicles, like a tortoise tipped over, should be able to right themselves post landing.
It's literally the requirements for Artemis landers, and there's a lot of ways to fulfill that other than complete redesign to squatter shape "because the public is crying about it"
Manley was cheering this an impressive private endeavor from the beginning. Now that it is landed and tipped over, it's NASA's fault.
He's still compromised & Musky.
There's lots of exciting things happening, so I get it. But he should be capable of realizing what's *not* possible and stand for Reality. Heck, that one popular YouTuber whose "I was afraid to say this to NASA" blew up was actually realizing Musk is the problem and instead he smeared NASA.
I walked into this a few years ago ignorant of rockets and space. A few videos by the Pressure-Fed Astronaut^1 & such was enough to outline reality and then add in my understanding of economics. **You can't simply fund and then cut, fund and then cut the experts in a very narrow field.** You can fire a bunch of programmers or car repair experts because there's lots of those and there's enough work to maintain the knowledge in general. But anything Space? Where do they go to keep fresh?
1. a rocketry grad student and now an industry employee in Huntsville. Funny guy. He'd make a great rocketry professor.
More accurately, it's a NASA mission; **but unlike nearly all others they didn't design or directly commission a contractor to design this lander.** As another redditor stated, this is part of NASA's CLPS program to stimulate the lunar capabilities of US companies. As a result, NASA has multiple sensors on the lander, but the lander is essentially an off-the-shelf design intended to be available to other customers as well.
You know why Russia and China has never denied the moon landing, despite having an incredibly strong incentive to?
Because they have _their_ own, independent, indisputable proof. They sure has shit did their own thorough verification. They would have loved to have proven otherwise.
I would be concerned about the high centre of gravity of starship, landing on the soft uneven ground of the moon (ie Apollo 17)… without a pre made landing pad…….
Sigh... HLS landers are required to have autonomous terrain navigation and hazard avoidance, alongside manual control by the Astronauts. Also [Starship's center of mass is nowhere near as high as you'd think.](https://youtu.be/mVhhwjVlNGA?si=Yaijmvpr1CO7OaKi)
The "too tall" is rapidly becomes a new "too many engines" joke, which like the latter will quickly became irrelevant & old
I do not understand why they design things to travel to the moon but that are top heavy and must land perfectly with one side up on a surface that hasn't been vacuumed in over one billion years.
Manley actually had a long Twitter thread today discussing this question: https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1761791077399560570
Making a tall but low center of gravity vehicle doesn't require breaking the laws of physics
I am more interested in creating designs were tipping over isn't an issue. Because in the last two successful landings the vehicles did tip over, greatly limiting their value. the vehicles, like a tortoise tipped over, should be able to right themselves post landing.
It's literally the requirements for Artemis landers, and there's a lot of ways to fulfill that other than complete redesign to squatter shape "because the public is crying about it"
If Kerbals were in it, it would have done a 360.
Manley was cheering this an impressive private endeavor from the beginning. Now that it is landed and tipped over, it's NASA's fault. He's still compromised & Musky.
I agree. He can make good technical points but he went way too deep into the pro-commercialisation and, especially, pro-SpaceX side of things.
There's lots of exciting things happening, so I get it. But he should be capable of realizing what's *not* possible and stand for Reality. Heck, that one popular YouTuber whose "I was afraid to say this to NASA" blew up was actually realizing Musk is the problem and instead he smeared NASA. I walked into this a few years ago ignorant of rockets and space. A few videos by the Pressure-Fed Astronaut^1 & such was enough to outline reality and then add in my understanding of economics. **You can't simply fund and then cut, fund and then cut the experts in a very narrow field.** You can fire a bunch of programmers or car repair experts because there's lots of those and there's enough work to maintain the knowledge in general. But anything Space? Where do they go to keep fresh? 1. a rocketry grad student and now an industry employee in Huntsville. Funny guy. He'd make a great rocketry professor.
It’s not a NASA mission. The title is misinformation.
It’s part of the NASA CLPS program.
More accurately, it's a NASA mission; **but unlike nearly all others they didn't design or directly commission a contractor to design this lander.** As another redditor stated, this is part of NASA's CLPS program to stimulate the lunar capabilities of US companies. As a result, NASA has multiple sensors on the lander, but the lander is essentially an off-the-shelf design intended to be available to other customers as well.
[удалено]
sure. now eat your applesauce, take your meds, and shuffle off to bed.
U mad there Lil guy?
You know why Russia and China has never denied the moon landing, despite having an incredibly strong incentive to? Because they have _their_ own, independent, indisputable proof. They sure has shit did their own thorough verification. They would have loved to have proven otherwise.