Artemis II is competency porn

I assumed you had actual knowledge of how orbital mechanics work. Please, continue playing your kideogames.

A Falcon Heavy can deliver more than 20 tons to GEO and an Orion capsule weigths about 10 tons. GTO is usually about 10 km/s at perigee of 200 km, meaning even with a full payload, a FH can place an Orion at an orbit that coasts above most of the atmosphere at about 90% of the speed of a returning Orion - and that on a stable-ish orbit - a suborbital trajectory would allow a higher apogee and a higher return speed. Now assume my mechanical design skills allow me to mount the capsule with less than 10 tons of material - this would mean we still have enough propellant on the second stage to give the ship a sizable boost if we so wanted. As for the maximum thrust, a high apogee suborbital trajectory would allow plenty of time for that - a good couple hours at least. That's way more than the longest burn the Merlin engine is rated for. I could dig up the exact numbers for these parts, but the margins seem more than ample enough.

> Buddy, I don't have time for Elon fantasies.

I'm not impressed by your insults. Bring in the math.

It's not an insult. You're overestimating SpaceX capabilities and I'm correcting you. There's no shame in that. I do find strange that you're insisting on it though.

> Bring in the math.

Falcon Heavy never carried anything similar to Orion. It never performed a second-stage "second burn trick" [sic]. There has never been a shield test like you described. Those things were never even hypothesized formally.

You made the claim that it can do those things with insufficient evidence. You need to back that up. I'm not going to fall for a reversal of an onus that you, and you alone, should prove.

I told him that it seemed quite absurd and unattainable, at present or near-future levels of technology. I told him, we could probably send a crew, as long as we didn't expect to get them back!

Going to LEO with the ISS has been an amazing achievement, and we (mankind) have proven that it's a sustainable thing: to maintain a crewed station in orbit, and send regular resupply missions up there. It's been a landmark of cooperation, even while USA-Russian relations are frosty.

Now, getting to the Moon and landing on it is also an achievement. Putting a crewed station in permanent orbit around the Moon, or a permanent crewed Moonbase, would be an important milestone, but we must understand that those goals are orders-of-magnitude harder than what the ISS has done.

Humans going to Mars, on the other hand, is absurd, and would be so performative in the first place. You could, hypothetically, send all your cargo up to Mars first, in advance of the crew, and then the crew could utilize the cargo upon arrival. Perhaps.

But we simply couldn't count on the survival of a return-crew mission to Mars. It's a full 6 months in transit, one-way! Anyone who has ever seen an ISS Expedition get dragged out of their capsule, loaded onto gurneys, and wheeled into the hospital, you will know that a 6-month weightless journey will incapacitate each and every person who goes. I once heard an ISS astronaut describe the things they're "not allowed to do" by NASA after arriving home. They need to re-learn many gravity-bound skills. They aren't even allowed to go jogging! They would hit Mars and be utterly useless as human beings, much less scientists or explorers.

The reality of the mythical Mars mission is that it's a pipe-dream which is sold to us by the military-industrial complex in order to fund their current missions and current science, which achieves achievable things, mostly with robots. And I'm fine with sending robots to Mars and Europa and Uranus. Sending humans is counterproductive.