- 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: NASA unhappy with SpaceX's progress, will open moon lander contract to other companies
Posted on 10/21/25 at 6:10 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Posted on 10/21/25 at 6:10 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
It's that winged thing on top that is supposed to be "almost entirely re-usable". I don't think SpaceX is close yet and certainly with quick turnaround. It may happen. It doesn't look like they are near it yet. Hence the desire by NASA to bring in other contractors which is likely smart.
The Superheavy boosters have already been reused, and Starship ( the winged thing) has demonstrated the ability to vertically land upon return (albeit in the Indian Ocean). The next Starship to be launched is V3. I suspect two of its early milestones (first half of 2026). will be full orbit and return to Starbase. That being said, NASA is right to look at alternatives, since orbital refueling and design/testing of a lander still need to be done.
This post was edited on 10/21/25 at 6:11 am
1
Posted on 10/21/25 at 6:59 am to Free888
quote:
That being said, NASA is right to look at alternatives, since orbital refueling and design/testing of a lander still need to be done.
Yes, because we are in a space race with China and we don't want to lose another space race. We lost to the Russians the first time.
Posted on 10/21/25 at 8:55 am to Diseasefreeforall
lol what? Artemis is years behind schedule. NASA needs to worry about their own house.
Posted on 10/21/25 at 9:03 am to Free888
quote:
It was absolutely a failure on NASA (and the US government’s) part. They had no choice but to deal with Russia since they cancelled the shuttle with no replacement ready. It had nothing to do with being cost effective. They also dropped the Constellation program that set things back years.
Again NASA was working with the budget they were allocated. You think they were happy to not be able to fund a replacement for the shuttle, rely on Russians or that Constellation never got off the ground?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News