You're viewing a single thread.
Ignoring the onvious fact that Starship has been designed from the beginning for going to Mars and SLS only to go to the Moon...
Didn't even the first Starship generation theoretically have a higher payload capacity than the SLS Block 2? And that doesn't even include the further enhancements to the ship design and Raptor updates since.
Didn't even the first Starship generation theoretically have a higher payload capacity than the SLS Block 2?
No? SLS block 2 is 130 tons to LEO. Starship "block 1" did "about 50 tons" according to one of Musk's update videos with SpaceX, promising Starship 2 would do 100 tons.
After years of saying Starship can do 100 tons to LEO... 'Block 1's actual proven payload capacity is 'a banana'... not 50 tons.
Starship has never launched any actual payload to orbit.
Anyway, onto 'Block 2', that'll be able to do what 'Block 1' was aupposed to do, even though none of the contracts Musk's signed to develop Starship have any mention of different Blocks... but its ok because Block 3 will do 150 tons!
Just like how Hyperloop is an idea that makes any sense and will work.
Just like how FSD is will be complete and ready in 2017.
Just like how Solar Roof tiles are totally real and not completely fake.
Just like how Tesla cars will be able to fly with monopropellant thrusters.
Just like how Elon is a free speech absolutist except when people mock or disagree with him.
As with basically all of Musk's promises to shareholders and aspirations presented as facts at publicized events since about 2014... what Musk says is all almost entirely bullshit, and anyone would be a fool to take him at his word.
but its ok because Block 3 will do 150 tons!
When we were on the "4 ships to Mars in 2024" promises, it was 150 tons for the first edition
And knowing that everything Musk says has turned out to be total BS, who knows what the actual number is. So far no Starship has been to LEO and hasn't carried any payload. Sure the last one carried a banana and technically made it to orbital speeds before plunging back into the atmosphere. That's a long way from actually doing the thing and putting 50 tons into LEO.
Wait, are you saying we won't have 4 starships on Mars before 2024 is over?
I intentionally picked the most generous interpretation, and even that isn't great
Could you explain to us how a vehicle capable of getting payload to Mars would not be capable of putting the same or even a greater payload on the moon? What is the obvious difference in design?
As far as I understand it, getting to Mars is harder, requiring more energy to get there, more energy to slow down and having an atmosphere to content with. Sure aerobraking is a thing, but in the big picture having to deal with an atmosphere makes things harder and not easier.
delta v isn't really a issue if you have orbital refueling and frequent+cheap flights figured out (as long as a full tank can complete a trans Martian injection and orbital capture at mars) , so I'd say they're both similarly difficult:
on Mars you have to deal with the atmosphere, higher gravity, etc
on the moon you have to deal with the dusty surface, so you have issues with landing gear and landing engines kicking up dust
I saw a graph of our local gravity wells, the moon and Mars are surprisingly similar. The moon has many extra challenges that Mars does not. Propulsively landing on a dust pile is trickier than slowing down with aerobraking.
And to land on Mars you need both, ideally. The athmosphere is too thin to rely on just aerobreaking and the other would use much more propulsion.
Its current design is very much not designed to go to mars. Right now its designed as a test bed SSTO, thats it.