Lunar lander discussion

9/6/25:

You know that if you used a much reduced in size Starship, a mini-Starship as you will, you could probably get it refueled with just one refueling trip. This is relevant upon recent news about certain folks' doubts about the Starship's capabilities to fulfill its contract to land a HLS variant on the Moon for the Artemis program.

The Lockheed Martin's X-33 prototype SSTO suborbital test article would've massed out at 285k lbs fully loaded, and would've reached 4.4 km/sec delta-v. A downsized mini-Starship could achieve performance levels and mass requirements that would be similiar, if I'm not mistaken. If such were built, and launched from an expendable booster that could reach similar mach levels, then orbit could be achieved. The amount of fuel it would take to refuel would be less than one load of a Version 3 tanker ship.

But Musk says he could do it in four. Yep, I think he could. Therefore, the show in the Senate with Ted Cruz was probably a PR show for SLS, which is another way of saying that they were full of it.

9/2/23:

Ship 31 nose cone stacked?!





9/2/23: Update to post of 7/11/23:

The markings of this indicate that it's an HLS ( lunar lander) mockup. But what if you made a lander of this size, as opposed to the entire starship? The idea would be to reduce the weight of the lander. It would need less fuel to land, and to return to space. It's still pretty large, though.

Ship 31 as an HLS mockup

Original post of 7/11/23:

How many launches will it take to get the Starship lunar lander to complete its mission? Elon Musk says four. Jeff Bezos says sixteen. Perhaps they are both exaggerating for effect. It does make a certain amount of sense to say that it would take only four.

Musk says that the lunar lander will weigh a lot less. It takes upwards of 50 pounds of fuel for each pound that gets to orbit. That's just fuel. Running the numbers a bit, it take 6000 tons in order to get 150 tons into orbit. That about 4800 for the booster, and 1200 for the Starship. So maybe you can do it for forty pounds instead of fifty.

The Artemis mission doesn't require a full 150 tons to the lunar surface. That helps. The Starship doesn't need fins and a heat tiles because it won't re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. That helps.

The question is how much does this thing weigh? Also, would it be desirable to cut the weight even further? What if it were detachable? What if the cargo and crew section were to be made of a different material, like aluminum? Or carbon fiber? Musk doesn't plan on making hundreds of these. It's a one-off. He may need to make only a few of them.

The Apollo program had only a 15 ton lunar lander. Most of that was hardware and fuel. You can make that a baseline. The Starship may have an empty weight of 110 tons or more. Would it make sense for Musk to shave the weight down a bit more, or a lot more?

We'll see. But it probably won't take fourteen launches. As it stands now, it will probably take more than five.

There are other ways of doing the mission. For instance, let's say that the Starship cargo and crew area were to be used for stowing a separate lander. Perhaps you could use the Dragon variant with a fuel tank attached. The Starship could be refueled enough to get to the Gateway, and back to Earth orbit. It could be reused for future missions. It's role would be a tug. The lunar lander will take the crew and cargo the rest of the way and back to the Gateway. The Orion will get the crew back to Earth.

The Starship can put 150 tons into low orbit. The Artemis mission doesn't require 150 tons on the moon. It would appear to have some extra capacity not being used. The delta-v required would have to be less than what it would take to get to Earth orbit. Therefore, if enough delta v were available, 150 tons could be sent to the Gateway. This would include the lander and all its fuel. If the lander massed out at less than 150 tons, the Starship can get it to Earth orbit. Would 150 tons be enough to get a lander on the surface and back to the Gateway? A hunch would say that this may be feasible.

We'll see how it is done. Musk has a contract, and he wouldn't want to lose money on the deal. If it is worth it, and he can keep it within budget, who knows? It may be a lot simpler to do it the way he seems to be doing it. It doesn't seem very elegant to me though.

Another thought here: it could be in the contract, and therefore, it is already set. There's no chance to make design changes, in other words. Too bad, if that is the case.

Deep dive on what went wrong on IFT-10

 

A deep dive into the explosion onboard the most recent test flight of Starship. It will tide you over if you're experiencing nerdy withdrawal from not seeing enough info about Starship.

Allergy to meat because of a tick bite?

Gonna call bullshit on that one.  Ticks didn't get born yesterday, and neither did I.  If ticks weren't born yesterday, then there have been tick bites for as long as there have been ticks and people in the same biosphere.  No previous allergies precludes the possibility of any current allergies, as far as I am concerned.   I smell a rat.

Starship video

 

In case you haven't been paying attention to SpaceX's Starship, here's some interesting video. The last part about the buoy showed yet another angle of the landing. The other videos make it look like an unusual landing, but this makes it look like it was perfect. Or near perfect. Not much else new, but if you haven't heard yet, there's an explanation for the discoloration.

How China operates

9/2/25, 10:20 AM:

China is the most dangerous country in the world right now. If you look at the pic that YouTube uses, it makes it look like the USA catfish is about to swallow the Chinese fish. But that is not how it works. Watch the video and see.

9:12 PM:

China does some nasty shit to us. Check this out...

Chinese networks use U.S. to launder billions for Mexican cartels

Not poor salesmanship. Not folly.

9/2/25:

It seems that Cracker Barrel has been getting the skin-suit treatment for a long time now.

9/1/25:

Update to post of ....8/27/25

This goes further than the logo. It's a total destruction of a business model, while keeping its "skin" as a trophy. Even if the victims die, the trophy is still there in the destruction of the business. It's not capitalism. It's skin-suit predatory socialism for the rich.







It isn't just the food either. From what I've read, it's the service too. Imagine getting crappy food AND poor service... Guaranteed to make you want to go somewhere else.

8/27/25:

 

What the pinkos just did to Cracker Barrel has been characterized by differing analyses. Hey, I might as well get into this game, since I have such high regard for pinkos. It's definitely not poor salesmanship. A high powered financial guy called it folly. Nope. Not that either. They know what they're up to. They've executed it very, very well for such a long, long time.

Here's what I think: I think they're like the character "Buffalo Bill" in the movie "The Silence of the Lambs". That character was a serial killer, and his trophies from his victims were their skins that he used to make a skin suit out of a woman's skin. He wanted a "woman suit" because he thought he was a tranny.

It turns out that he wasn't a tranny, but something else more "terrifying" that the character "Hannibal Lecter" was dissecting in order to help the character "Clarice Starling" catch him.

Liberals capture their victims, which is something of virtue from our culture, and appropriate for their own use. This capture is their "skin suit". Even if the victim dies, it doesn't matter. Even the death of it would be considered a good thing. Indeed, it may be the main point. The idea here was to kill the Cracker Barrel brand. The same is true of Bud Light. Not only these once great American brands, but many other things have been reduced to skin suits for the political left.

Another casualty from this debacle is the institution of capitalism. The pinkos want us all to blame capitalism for this, but it isn't capitalism, but a tranny socialist who thinks he's a capitalist. It's all based upon deception, you see. Liberals ( or the left ) love to try to fool you.

I'll give another example--- marriage. Marriage has been reserved for the union of a woman and a man. But the liberals destroyed that, and they are also trying to destroy what "gender" actually is. Once you see the concept, you cannot unsee it. There's quite a few "skin suits" out there. The leftist are destroying America one institution at a time, and making a skin suit out of each one.

What they do these leftists? They covet, like Buffalo Bill does.

So Clarice puzzles it out. What do the liberals covet? The covet acceptance, perhaps. They cannot get acceptance honestly, so they appropriate it. Instead of making a new brand of their own, they steal Cracker Barrel's brand. They steal Bud Light's brand. They destroy it and try to make it their own. But the company's brand is destroyed. The left really didn't want the company though. They wanted the trophy, which is its destruction. A quality of covetness is the deprivation of what someone else has, not in its actual possession. Buffalo Bill wants to kill. In his mixed up mind, he thinks he's a tranny, but he actually is just a killer who likes killing, especially women. So it goes with leftists. They want to deprive America of its identity. They want the "skin suit" of being real Americans, but they are not. If real America dies, it doesn't matter. It's their trophy. It's their skin suit.

A non-Catholic has a question

9/1/25:

Update to post of .... 8/31/25:

Seems like the Pope has sided with the liberals on gun-control. Calls for end of pandemic of guns. Is the Pope a Christian? Or a leftist in search of a spiritual skin-suit? No mention of natural law with respect to transgenderism.

Here's a link that discusses so-called "Progressive" Christianity.

Progressive version of Christianity is a sinister deception

8/31/25:

The question:

Which may seem a bit irreligious... First I start with a query on me little 'ol computer...

I entered this question into a search box : "what is this natural law that Pope Leo referred to recently"?

And I will link to the top response, as I have read it, and I consider it as worthy of a post... With Leo XIV, natural law finally returns

A key quote:

‘Natural law,’ continued the Pope, ‘universally valid beyond and above other more debatable convictions, is the compass by which we orient ourselves in legislating and acting, particularly on delicate ethical issues that today arise in a much more compelling way than in the past, touching the sphere of personal intimacy.’

 

Inasmuch as the Pope is said to be the head of the Catholic Church, which is connected to this latest tragedy in Minnesota, and one of its members seems to be connected to this transsexualism, then how is that connection to be considered?

I've already written what I think might have happened in the past. But what about the present? Should these people be members of the Catholic Church since their behavior is not in keeping with Natural Law? If this is not quite the case, then please explain...

Your reaction please

 

So here's Elon Musk giving what appears to be an inspirational pep talk. I've watched a few of these videos, and the start of them seems much different that what he came to at its ending, which is embedded below. Consequently, if you are reading this has already seen part of this, or some video that preceded this, and therefore have already made your mind up about it---what do you think of it?

As for me, I thought I must blog about it. This blog is what I do with regards to anything besides myself. The blog isn't about me per se. There may be some argument about that, but hardly anybody who visits here seems to share their thoughts here on this blog. But there are some folks who come here, or maybe they are very intelligent bots. I never really knew my audience on a personal basis. Or even if I truly have an audience.

But the blog is what I do. I feel no need to change a thing. This is a seeming contradiction to what he is saying in this video. But he also says a lot of other things, too. It's really a matter of choice all along. You are indeed the sum total of your choices. I am, you are, and everyone is. You could care less what Elon Musk says. Or he might seem like a genius to you. To me, he is what he is. He is a very talented entrepreneur. Therefore, what he says is worth listening to.

How do you fight an unseen enemy?

 

Scene from Predator (1987). Billy senses something, as do some of the others. But nobody knows what they are fighting.