Tim Dodd

So they can like use as they don't even have to put landing legs on the thing.

They're trying to strip all the mass down.

So they're trying to get it so they can flip this equation.

So instead of,

eight tons landing on the moon, they're talking about not only is the dry mass of the vehicle 100 tons, so already a lot more, then it needs about 200 tons of propellant to land with it to be able to get it back off the moon.

So we're talking about 300 tons landed on the moon.

300 tons, that's 300,000 kilograms.

That is so much mass on the moon.

I mean, that's like, you know, we're talking 20 fold, 200 fold.

20, a lot more than what the Apollo program.

And not only that, it's about a hundred times the internal volume.

So this- And why so much bigger?

Like, why does it have to be that much bigger?

Because it's the 21st century, baby.

We're dealing, if the only cost is fuel, if you're reusing your hardware, you're only expending fuel.

They can do this.

They only got $3 billion to do this.

That's like nothing, you know, and the Apollo program is almost $300 billion.

So to land Starship multiple times on the moon, they were contracted for only $3 billion.

So we're talking about just, so when people get frustrated that why didn't we go to back to the moon?