SpaceX's new Starship Option to Save NASA’s $93 Moon Mission Revealed: Launching from Orbit.
"SpaceX's new Starship Option to Save NASA’s $93 Moon Mission Revealed: Launching from Orbit.
===
Intro 0:00
A vendor-driven program 57:22
Starboat 3:53
“Stubby” HLS 7:24
Different applications but same purpose 11:28
===
#techmap #techmaps #elonmusk #starshipspacex
===
1) SOURCES OF THUMBNAIL:
2) SOURCES OF VIDEO AND IMAGES:
TijnM : https://twitter.com/m_tijn
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDA8yz_nQY-0Uxd96-qxYjA
Evan Karen: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDN1X8Fz1oAXX-rBcOWjzmg
Spacex 3D Creation Eccentric: https://t.co/QGbEwDwv7j
Everyday Astronaut: https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
https://www.youtube.com/c/EverydayAstronaut
PRØXIMA ⁂ (sushifox studios cũ)
https://x.com/pr0ximacentaura
PROXI Ch.2426 △
https://www.youtube.com/@Proxima_Channel.2426/videos
===
SpaceX's new Starship Option to Save NASA’s $93 Moon Mission Revealed: Launching from Orbit.
""some people observing you know for instance what a mess the Artemis program is have said if we're going to get humans to Mars it can't be NASA give the program to SpaceX"" .
For many of us who watched the Apollo missions unfold on black-and-white television, NASA has always stood for bold, unified purpose.
A single mission. A single goal. A nation pulling together to put human footprints on another world.
But today… not everyone sees that same clarity in NASA's Artemis.
Critics call it a mess—more about politics than purpose—even with modern marvels like SpaceX’s Starship in the mix.
That’s why some voices, from respected engineers to space advocates, are urging reform.
They believe NASA must streamline its mission—because if Starship is used the right way, it could truly change everything.
SpaceX's new Starship Option to Save NASA’s $93 Moon Mission Revealed: Launching from Orbit.
Dr. Robert Zubrin, founder of the Mars Society, has been one of the most outspoken critics of NASA’s Artemis program. And in an interview with the YouTube channel Mars Society in early March, he doesn’t mince words. He calls Artemis a mess.
According to him, NASA has two modes of operation: one is purpose-driven, the other is vendor-driven. And Apollo was certainly the first.
""it its purpose was not scientific but it definitely had a purpose it was uh to astonish the world with that free people could do the NASA science mission directorate for the most part is purpose-- driven""
In Apollo, every dollar had a destination. The Saturn 5. The Command Module. The Lunar Module. All designed as one, seamless system, with one mission in mind: to reach the Moon, and to bring the crew safely home.
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, for instance, doesn’t land rovers on Mars just to give business to airbag companies; every project has a clear goal. This purpose-driven approach means money is spent to achieve real results.
SpaceX's new Starship Option to Save NASA’s $93 Moon Mission Revealed: Launching from Orbit.
Today, Artemis looks very different. Zubrin argues it has become “vendor-driven.”
""the vendor driven program does things in order to spend money and so that's why you have this incoherent"".
That means, instead of designing a system to meet a mission, the program is shaped by contracts, politics, and the need to keep companies funded. The result? Five major pieces — SLS, Orion, Gateway, Starship, and the National Lander.
But unlike Apollo, these parts were never conceived as one whole.
And too often… they simply don’t fit together.
Take the Gateway station. Former NASA administrator Charlie Bolden once suggested Gateway as an alternative to landing on the Moon. Now, it has become mandatory. But it makes missions harder, not easier. With Gateway in the picture, a lunar mission could require as many as 14 Starship launches. Without it? Just 10.
===
Subcribe TechMap: http://tinyurl.com/3z5ysrtf"