>>20044412>refuelling bad because its never been done beforein the words of JFK
>We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; SpaceX are already doing in orbit tank transfer tests, and the 30 ship figure is also wrong, its half that and thats still high but its not impossible, nor that hard. They do a flight almost every 2 days with Falcon 9 at this point, trust me that part may be something never done before but thats something SpaceX was going to do anyways, even if it is hard.
>orion and SLSPicrel is how its going to go. They can infact get an return burn going, and if they dont have enough fuel you can load up Gateway with some fuel for when you dock
>midway point space stationare you talking about gateway? yeah thats the plan. not sure why that would be such a concern, sending things to lunar orbit isnt impossible
>tippingThats why landing legs and gimballing engines exist.
>complex engineSpaceX is already optimizing their engines in that one, theres V1, V2 and V3 Raptors and in a recent presentation given about Starship you can see the complexity issue has already been addressed
>elevatorThat is again, still the plan of SpaceX to have an elevator.
>lack of redundanciesSpaceX operates different from NASA, where NASA requires 5 years of preflight testing to make sure everything goes perfectly on the flight, SpaceX just sends them up and keeps failing until they get it down basically perfectly to send the real crew/payload. If you look at F9 theyve had a 200+ streak of fully succesful launches and landings with no explosions, and before that they tested the living shit out of that rocket. Starship will govthe same route of sending rockets to the moon over and over until they get landing and liftoff correct along with everything else. If the redundancies are in regards to SpaceX, then thats handled beforehand like I said, but if its in regards to NASA then I got nothing for ya.
