Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kog t1_ja51zdd wrote

Reply to comment by ithappenedone234 in NASA's Artemis moon program receives salute from Apollo 11's Buzz Aldrin (video) by kevindavis338

I said Artemis is capable of launching and returning humans.

> You were talking about Starship when you spoke of NASA’s human safety analysis, remember?

Yes, what are you confused about? If Starship were to be NASA's launch vehicle, they will have to meet NASA's safety standards. SpaceX recently did this with Crew Dragon.

The rest of your comment is frankly just nuts.

1

ithappenedone234 t1_ja53voo wrote

> I said Artemis is capable of launching and returning humans.

Well then you sure confused the issue by saying:

> The vehicle is already mission capable.

Because the implication is that it is capable of launching and returning humans during a mission. It is not. Artemis is far from being able to get a person to the Moon and back again.

> Yes, what are you confused about?

Nothing, I’m just pointing out that after talking about Starship not meeting NASA specs, you flipped to saying that Artemis is meeting NASA specs, and now you’ve flopped to talking about Starship again.

You’re not sticking to one topic.

But Starship doesn’t have to meet NASA specs to take people, only if NASA wants their staff to catch a ride. Starship is not beholden to NASA. They don’t even have to launch from the US. It’s quite reasonable to expect Starship to get to lunar orbit from wherever they care to launch from, hem have Starship HLS come get the passengers for the trip to the Moon, and reverse process to get everyone home.

NASA can’t say the same without Starship HLS and Falcon Heavy. And why? Because NASA thought Starship HLS was the best option. Finally, they’ve picked a system not from their cronies and it might actually work in the longterm. NASA needs to get out of the spacecraft game and just pay for rides to where they want to go.

1

kog t1_ja54v12 wrote

> Well then you sure confused the issue by saying:

I said Artemis 2. You're so confused.

> Because the implication is that it is capable of launching and returning humans during a mission. It is not. Artemis is far from being able to get a person to the Moon and back again.

Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.

> you flipped to saying that Artemis is meeting NASA specs, and now you’ve flopped to talking about Starship again.

I haven't flipped at all, you're just extremely confused.

> Starship doesn’t have to meet NASA specs to take people

You're the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:

> As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.

EDIT: LOL he blocked me after realizing that he said NASA would use Starship and I was responding to that.

1

ithappenedone234 t1_ja5c7k5 wrote

You can’t remember what you said.

You said “Starship has literally years of testing to go before NASA will consider it human safe for launch and return”

I then explained that NASA is not the sole arbiter of ‘human safe.’ Then you flipped and said Artemis was. Then you flipped and said Starship will have to comply.

> Artemis 2 is going to be doing that.

But hasn’t. It’s not yet mission capable.

> You’re the one talking about NASA using Starship. You said:

As NASA currently expects Starship to work, Starship can replace Artemis entirely.

Which is an incontrovertible fact that NASA currently expects to Starship to work. That’s why they contracted for the Starship HLS.

A series of non HLS models can replace the rest of the Artemis program. If NASA wanted to be timely and on budget.

1