- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Artemis II Mission - GO for launch, April 1st at 5:24 CST - 80% weather favorability
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:35 pm to ActusHumanus
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:35 pm to ActusHumanus
quote:
Falcon Heavy could put men on the Moon within the week.
they could not. Not gonna get a rocket to the VAB, let alone roll it out on the crawler-transporter, nor do preflight anything... on top of 39a being currently occupied. In a week, no less. I needed that laugh. 
1
Posted on 2/3/26 at 12:46 pm to The Pirate King
I wouldnt be going up in that if I was an astronaut
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:27 pm to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Yeah, but see that number below the H. It makes it super useful for spaceflight. There is nothing in the universe that is more energetic for the weight...
It comes with problems, namely Hydrogen's amazing ability to leak.
Leak + energetic for the weight = Boom
We are well on our way, that once in space, we will not need to rely on chemical rockets. There is no solve yet for not needing chemical reactions to get out of our atmosphere, but that can be done with methalox a lot easier than hydrolox.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:31 pm to DarthRebel
The part that is leaking isn’t flight hardware, it’s on the mobile launcher. It is a concern for combustion during liftoff, that’s why it’s monitored and controlled, but the vehicle is in great shape.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:36 pm to Lonnie Utah
I chuckle every time I see that meme. I call it the Van Halen belt all the time.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:39 pm to Auburn1968
quote:
Cost per Launch Artemis II $2–4+ billion (very high due to expendable nature & program structure) Starship: Current estimates $100M+; long-term goal <$10M
You are comparing empirical numbers to projections. That never pans out. Plus you are comparing apples and potatoes.
Cost per launch isn’t a valid metric. Cost per mission is the metric.
A moon mission currently takes 1 SLS launch plus some number of Starship Launches. SpaceX originally estimated 7 starship launches to get to the moon. I think their official number is now 10-12. Some estimates have it at 20+ launches (that is not a joke).
Let’s split the difference…
Moon mission cost:
1x SLS+Orion at $2B
Plus
15x Staships at 100million each or $1.5B
Total cost = $3.5B
SpaceX is great, but let’s not pretend that the ship that was promised to us 2 years ago that has blown up time and time again and has yet to reach orbit is our savior just yet. Remember this, Starship hasn’t gotten to the hard part of their mission yet.
This post was edited on 2/3/26 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:42 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
wet dress rehearsal
Wasn’t there a 1980’s movie based on a group of kids that were at a space camp and they got to sit in the space shuttle while it was going through testing on the launch pad and something went wrong and flight controllers initiated lift off and the shuttle took off with the kids and an instructor aboard.
One issue they had was that there wasn’t enough oxygen pumped on board yet so they had to do a space walk and put in a spare canister.
They also had to land at White Sands New Mexico instead of Florida.
If I find it, I will post a trailer or YouTube upload. The movie was called Space Camp.
This post was edited on 2/3/26 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:50 pm to Tarps99
Space Camp. And I went to Space one summer. But it was in Alabama and we didn't have any launches there. Brit i did get to crash A shuttle on a simulator. The coolest thing was getting to put on a smaller space suit. Though I was in the younger group and didn't do the underwater stuff.
This post was edited on 2/3/26 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 2/3/26 at 1:50 pm to Tarps99
Yes! It was called Space Camp lol.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 2:09 pm to DarthRebel
quote:What are they moving to?
Hydrogen is a bitch, glad SpaceX and others are moving away from it.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 2:54 pm to need2no
And that kid on the cover is Joaquin Phoenix
Posted on 2/3/26 at 4:12 pm to LSU Jonno
quote:
The part that is leaking isn’t flight hardware, it’s on the mobile launcher. It is a concern for combustion during liftoff, that’s why it’s monitored and controlled, but the vehicle is in great shape.
Hydrolox has been used successfully on many launches, it is just problematic to use. Once the rocket is launched, the pounding of that can create leaks.
Hydrogen leaks easily, that is why you see every new rocket company moving away from it.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 4:27 pm to Drank
quote:
kid on the cover is Joaquin Phoenix
I think that was his feature film debut, and was back when he went by Leaf. Story was he was upset he was the only sibling not named after something in nature (River, Rain, Summer).
Posted on 2/3/26 at 6:21 pm to ActusHumanus
quote:
Falcon Heavy could put men on the Moon within the week.
I don't think it's man-rated. Pretty sure it can get to the moon but they have no way of getting onto the lunar surface and back.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 6:26 pm to TigerTatorTots
quote:
What are they moving to?
SpaceX Raptors and Blue Origin's BE-4 run off methane and LOX I think.
Posted on 2/3/26 at 6:46 pm to AlwysATgr
It’s not about “getting to the moon” it’s about “delivering payload to the moon”.
You have to deliver a crew, plus life support systems, plus food, plus fuel to get back.
Falcon Heavy’s payload capability to the moon is low. It certainly can’t push Orion to the moon.
There is one operational machine that can complete this mission and that’s SLS plus Orion. As soon as a better machine is available I’m sure the others will be phased out.
You have to deliver a crew, plus life support systems, plus food, plus fuel to get back.
Falcon Heavy’s payload capability to the moon is low. It certainly can’t push Orion to the moon.
There is one operational machine that can complete this mission and that’s SLS plus Orion. As soon as a better machine is available I’m sure the others will be phased out.
Posted on 2/6/26 at 10:52 am to LSU Jonno
Second dress rehearsal attempt tentatively coming next Friday, which if successful, could point to a daytime launch attempt on March 3rd.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 2/6/26 at 10:55 am to The Pirate King
quote:
This mission will go further than any person has gone before, surpassing Apollo 13.
Better watch out!! That VH radiation belt gonna get ya!!!
Posted on 2/6/26 at 4:00 pm to ActusHumanus
quote:
Falcon Heavy could put men on the Moon within the week. That is not the point of Starship. Rapid reusability is not easy.
As I recall, Apollo took five F1 engines to get to orbit and one to get to the moon and back.
Posted on 2/6/26 at 4:16 pm to LSU Jonno
quote:
Let’s split the difference…
Moon mission cost:
1x SLS+Orion at $2B
Plus
15x Staships at 100million each or $1.5B
Total cost = $3.5B
Yet, the lift capacity of Starship is greater than the SLS and it has undergone a lot of actual launch tests including the famous "chopstick catch." The SLS was obsolete before it left the drawing board because it is not reusable.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News