Pity there's no lander, Gateway or Exploration Upper Stage. SpaceX is going nowhere fast and its ridiculously tall lander would probably tip over even if they could develop the LEO refueling technology and launch all the rockets required just to get it to Gateway. I think China will beat the US in putting men on the Moon again. Whether they'll bother to stay remains to be seen. I'm not sure it's worth sending anything other than AI and robots to explore and exploit the Solar System.

Pity there's no lander, Gateway or Exploration Upper Stage. SpaceX is going nowhere fast and its ridiculously tall lander would probably tip over even if they could develop the LEO refueling technology and launch all the rockets required just to get it to Gateway.

That's funny; I had an argument about this very same thing with some sheep on Reddit. I even used the last two Intuitive Machines landers as examples of spacecraft that are too tall to be able to land correctly on the lunar surface without the very high probability that they will tip over. Said sheep didn't think I knew what I was talking about despite the absolute proof I gave that this was problematic.

I think China will beat the US in putting men on the Moon again. Whether they'll bother to stay remains to be seen. I'm not sure it's worth sending anything other than AI and robots to explore and exploit the Solar System.

The thing most people don't understand about the CLEP is that China is not in a 'race' to see who gets to the Moon first. They could care less if the US gets there before them either with Blue Moon or Stupidship. But yes, I agree that China will most likely get there first.

Preventing something from tipping over in a gravitational field is hardly a difficult problem in control theory. It's surprising that it becomes a matter of controversy.

Congress demands answers from SpaceX and Blue Origin, apparently:

Preventing something from tipping over in a gravitational field is hardly a difficult problem in control theory. It's surprising that it becomes a matter of controversy.

Delta Clipper X managed it almost 30 years ago. I think we can land tall stuff just fine, especially when there are no crosswinds to deal with. OTOH the ejecta at an unprepared landing sight would be extreme, and it would take a great deal of time, and dealing with unknowns to prepare a proper landing pad. I don't know enough about current vaporware plans to know if they intend to send some kind of pad infrastructure ahead of the first starship landers in this scenario. And there still have to be abort landing possibilities in case it can't land directly on the pad for whatever reason.

Delta Clipper X managed it almost 30 years ago. I think we can land tall stuff just fine, especially when there are no crosswinds to deal with. OTOH the ejecta at an unprepared landing sight would be extreme, and it would take a great deal of time, and dealing with unknowns to prepare a proper landing pad. I don't know enough about current vaporware plans to know if they intend to send some kind of pad infrastructure ahead of the first starship landers in this scenario. And there still have to be abort landing possibilities in case it can't land directly on the pad for whatever reason.

A DC-X landed on the Moon? News to me...

A couple of unmanned Intuitive Machines landers tipped over in recent years. They weren't anything like as ridiculously tall as the SpaceX concept. That one is never getting there in any case for numerous other reasons - one being a ketamine-addled brain prone to wishful thinking.

A DC-X landed on the Moon? News to me...

A couple of unmanned Intuitive Machines landers tipped over in recent years. They weren't anything like as ridiculously tall as the SpaceX concept. That one is never getting there in any case for numerous other reasons - one being a ketamine-addled brain prone to wishful thinking.

You know it didn't, but one can wish.

But landing vertically on the moon is in many ways easier than landing vertical on earth. Lower gravity, zero weather, and long day-night cycles. In fairness to SpaceX, they've been vertically landing seriously tall rocket stages for awhile now, mostly at sea.

Depends on where the centre of mass is. For a nearly spent booster with heavy engines, it's near the base. For a Lunar Lander carrying a crew complement, equipment and enough remaining fuel and oxidiser to take off again, it's likely not. It just takes a small unevenness in the surface and over she goes.

Meanwhile, what are China up to? It seems they might well beat the US. I know it's not a race - but embarrassing all the same.

I'd rather see Gateway funded and operating before anything else. But at the same time, any kind of international cooperation on space is going to be impossible with the current asswipe in charge of my country. It's going to take a long time to repair the damage done both in terms to our space program (recent loss of Sample Return mission) and international partnerships.

I tend to agree with Buzz Aldrin that Gateway is completely unnecessary. The Chinese seem to be going for lunar orbit rendezvous with two launches. That might also be possible with two Artemis block 1B launches, which would require both the Exploration Upper Stage and a suitable HLS such as the rejected ALPACA or some yet to be approved man-rated design by Blue Origin. I'm not envisioning a landing by the US anytime this decade. I'm not a USAian, so I don't really care. It would be a relief to see a return from idiocracy, chaos and churn to relative stability.

I tend to agree with Buzz Aldrin that Gateway is completely unnecessary. The Chinese seem to be going for lunar orbit rendezvous with two launches. That might also be possible with two Artemis block 1B launches, which would require both the Exploration Upper Stage and a suitable HLS such as the rejected ALPACA or some yet to be approved man-rated design by Blue Origin. I'm not envisioning a landing by the US anytime this decade. I'm not a USAian, so I don't really care. It would be a relief to see a return from idiocracy, chaos and churn to relative stability.

Buzz knows more about orbital rendevous on his pinky than I will in a lifetime. I mean he invented the Mars Cycler orbit. But I think part of the problem for Gateway is where it was decided to put it. If Gateway were actually placed in a proper lagrange point it would make a great docking/refueling base for flights to more interesting targets like NEA's. I know that's not the baseline mission right now but I think we'll have to rethink that before long anyway.

Ultimately, if all this hardware is just allowed to rot and nothing be done with it, I hope we finally build a nuclear thermal rocket that works, and start seriously exploring the solar system.

There'd be a serious amount of station-keeping required to position Gateway at the Earth-Moon system's L1 or L2 because of the gravitational influence of the Sun (a tricky 3-body problem).