NASA paid for the promise of a super cheap, high-availability, super heavy lift vehicle that could land on the moon and on Mars.
Rapidly reusable boosters and ships for refueling in orbit is the most important part of that promise, the landing on the moon and Mars part is relatively easy in comparison and has all been demonstrated by NASA themselves in the past.
Of course that’s all just why they pretend to develop such systems, the true reason being American military presence anywhere on the planet within minutes.
True, but not exclusively because of SpaceX. The lunar suits are delayed, and the Orion heatshield has issues which need to be fixed before flying Artemis II and III.
The booster catch is not what NASA paid for.
NASA paid for the promise of a super cheap, high-availability, super heavy lift vehicle that could land on the moon and on Mars.
Rapidly reusable boosters and ships for refueling in orbit is the most important part of that promise, the landing on the moon and Mars part is relatively easy in comparison and has all been demonstrated by NASA themselves in the past.
Of course that’s all just why they pretend to develop such systems, the true reason being American military presence anywhere on the planet within minutes.
I agree mostly, even without reusability Starship would be pretty cheap, though. Mass production techniques and cheap materials.
They also paid for and agreed a timeline that included SpaceX landing humans on the moon in late 2025. There’s no way that’s happening anytime soon.
Super cheap reusable boosters are great, but they are worthless unless they help lift something of value, and right now Starship is an empty shell.
Late 2025 could easily become early 2030s.
True, but not exclusively because of SpaceX. The lunar suits are delayed, and the Orion heatshield has issues which need to be fixed before flying Artemis II and III.
NASA selected Starship for the moon landing, so this is exactly what they paid for.