News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by jandrese on Friday April 23, 2021 @05:17PM (#26919314)
I don't think the Lunar gateway is so useful for people going to/from the moon, but for future trips to Mars and back. Having a place to stop and refuel would greatly reduce the size of rocket you need to launch from Earth.

The choice of having it in Earth orbit vs. Lunar orbit comes with some tradeoffs. It may make more sense to leave it in Earth orbit, but ultimately having it at all substantially changes the calculus on a Mars trip.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by avhon1 on Friday April 23, 2021 @05:40PM (#26919545)
Unless the fuel is being produced on the Moon, it would be more efficient for Mars-bound spaceships to fuel up in LEO. All Earth-departing mass has to pass through LEO, so it's simpler to rendezvous there rather than enter, and then leave, Lunar orbit.

If launches are cheap, then refueling in LEO makes a lot of sense. Historically, this has not been the case at all, but it's all part of SpaceX's model for Starship.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by inglor_cz on Friday April 23, 2021 @05:42PM (#26919559)
Lunar gravity is actually weak enough to make a space elevator from conventional materials possible. Even Kevlar would suffice.

If fuel for interplanetary missions is produced on the Moon, a space elevator would make a huge sense for refueling of the ships.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by nickik on Friday April 23, 2021 @09:41PM (#26921461)
A lunar space elevator will never happen. First of all the gravity is unstable.

And even if you do so, the main advantage of an elevator can also be had with an accelerator, there is no need to build an elevator. Because there is no atmosphere you can simply fling stuff into orbit for pretty much exactly the same price but far, far, far, far less investment.

The one place elevator actually makes sense is Mars potentially. But that is a very long way off.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by Yizahi on Saturday April 24, 2021 @07:07AM (#26923999)
Even lunar space elevator will cost an insane amount of money (and likely still not possible in this century), and it will be irrational to build it just to get some cheap fuel into orbit.

And even then gas station in Lunar orbit is useless. If there is a need to refuel, you will simply get fuel into orbit directly from whatever container in the elevator to the ship nearby. There is zero point in inserting a proxy station in the middle of this process.

However we juggle the possibilities of space travel, in 99% of all schemes gas station in space is useless.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by jandrese on Friday April 23, 2021 @05:52PM (#26919649)
Doesn't the moon rotate too slowly to make a space elevator work? IIRC you can't take up a ground-stationary orbit around the Moon because the Earth would constantly knock your satellite around with its big gravity well.
Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by zardo on Friday April 23, 2021 @06:42PM (#26920099)
You can have a ground stationary satellite if you tether it to the moon. Though obviously the tether has to deal with that extra load.

The best sites for permanent outposts are the poles though, it would be quite a drive from the equator.

Re:NASA’s bet on Starship for the Moon by inglor_cz on Friday April 23, 2021 @06:04PM (#26919741)
I think this is where the Lagrange points L1 and L2 would help.