SpaceX: Starship will be going to the Moon, with or without NASA
SpaceX’s artist’s rending of Starships on the Moon.
Click for original.
In what appears to be a direct response to the claim by NASA’s interim administrator Sean Duffy that SpaceX is “behind” in developing a manned lunar lander version of Starship, SpaceX today posted a detailed update of the status that project, noting pointedly the following in the update’s conclusion:
NASA selected Starship in 2021 to serve as the lander for the Artemis III mission and return humans to the Moon for the first time since Apollo. That selection was made through fair and open competition which determined that SpaceX’s bid utilizing Starship had the highest technical and management ratings while being the lowest cost by a wide margin. This was followed by a second selection [Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander] to serve as the lander for Artemis IV, moving beyond initial demonstrations to lay the groundwork that will ensure that humanity’s return to the Moon is permanent.
Starship continues to simultaneously be the fastest path to returning humans to the surface of the Moon and a core enabler of the Artemis program’s goal to establish a permanent, sustainable presence on the lunar surface. SpaceX shares the goal of returning to the Moon as expeditiously as possible, approaching the mission with the same alacrity and commitment that returned human spaceflight capability to America under NASA’s Commercial Crew program.
The update then provides a list of the testing and engineering work that SpaceX has been doing on the Starship lunar lander, including full scale drop tests simulating lunar gravity, qualification of the docking ports, and the construction of a full scale mock-up of the Starship cabin to test its systems.
A close list of the work done is actually not that impressive, but at the same time this is not surprising. SpaceX is now mostly focused on getting Starship into orbit, proving it can be refueled there, and proving it can fly for long enough to get to the Moon. This part of the update was most exciting, as it confirms what I have suspected for next year’s flight program:
Screen capture from animation showing two Starships
about to dock for refueling. Click for original video.
The next major flight milestones tied specifically to HLS [Human Landing System] will be a long-duration flight test and the in-space propellant transfer flight test. The exact timing will be driven by how upcoming flight tests debuting the new Starship V3 [version 3] architecture progress, but both of these tests are targeted to take place in 2026. On-orbit refilling enables Starship to complete the Artemis lunar mission architecture and carry up to 100 tons directly to the lunar surface, providing the capability to carry rovers, habitats, and other payloads needed to establish a permanent, and sustainable, presence on the Moon.
It will start with a Starship launched from Starbase to spend an extended time on orbit, gathering data on vehicle propulsion and thermal behavior on an extended duration mission, including long duration propellant storage and boil-off characterization. A second Starship will then launch to rendezvous with the first to demonstrate ship-to-ship propellant transfer in Earth orbit.
If all goes well, expect that long two-week two-launch mission to occur sometime in the middle or second half of next year.
Once these milestones are achieved expect SpaceX to quickly ramp up its work on the Starship Moon lander. Based on this update, that ramp up will not be hard, because most of the preparatory work has begun.
The most important take-away from SpaceX’s update however is this: The company made it clear that it sees Starship and Superheavy as its own space effort, irrelevant of NASA.
To return Americans to the Moon, SpaceX aligned Starship development along two paths: development of the core Starship system and supporting infrastructure, including production facilities, test facilities, and launch sites — which SpaceX is self-funding representing over 90% of system costs — and development of the HLS-specific Starship configuration, which leverages and modifies the core vehicle capability to support NASA’s requirements for landing crew on and returning them from the Moon. SpaceX is working under a fixed-price contract with NASA, ensuring that the company is only paid after the successful completion of progress milestones, and American taxpayers are not on the hook for increased SpaceX costs. SpaceX provides significant insight to NASA at every stage of the development process along both paths, including access to flight data from missions not funded under the HLS contract.
Both pathways are necessary and made possible by SpaceX’s substantial self-investments to enable the high-rate production, launch, and test of Starship for missions to the Moon and other purposes. Starship will bring the United States back to the Moon before any other nation and it will enable sustainable lunar operations by being fully and rapidly reusable, cost-effective, and capable of high frequency lunar missions with more than 100 tons of cargo capacity.
In other words, SpaceX is going to land this spaceship manned on the Moon, whether or not NASA’s SLS and Orion are ready. And even if those expensive, cumbersome, and poorly designed boondoggles are ready for those first two Artemis landings, SpaceX is likely to quickly outmatch them with numerous other private missions to the Moon, outside of NASA. It has the funds to do it, and it knows it has the customers willing to buy the flights.
All hail the American dream!
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
There’s another bit of a jab at NASA in there, too, if you look at the end of the press release:
“Since the contract was awarded, we have been consistently responsive to NASA as requirements for Artemis III have changed and have shared ideas on how to simplify the mission to align with national priorities.”
Wondering now just exactly what all those requirement changes NASA made were.
And I agree, Bob: “In other words, SpaceX is going to land this spaceship manned on the Moon, whether or not NASA’s SLS and Orion are ready. ” I think it’s a point of pride for Elon now.
The usual suspects in congress and the bureaucracy will have hissy fit claiming that SpaceX needs a ‘license’ to go/land on the moon. They might even say the UN needs to give permission.
In a related development, former NASA administrators Charlie Bolden and Jim Bridenstine showed up at the AAU symposium yesterday to criticize the reliance on Starship, because they don’t think it can get there before the Chinese.
Bridenstine concedes that Starship has potential in the long run, is in full freak out mode over beating China back. He even one-up’s what Duffy is trying to do, urging that the administration invoke the Defense Production Act, to go “all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible.” Jim, of course, is now a lobbyist for United Launch Alliance as well as the National Security Space Association, which basically networks DoD with Old Space contractors. Fair to ask the old question, “cui bono?”
OTOH, it’s a little hard to make out what Bolden, who was skeptical of Kathy Lueders awarding the HLS contract to SpaceX in 2021, thinks of Starship HLS *now*, but he did say something more sensible than Bridenstine did: “We may not make 2030 and that’s ok with me, as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have there.” Bolden appears to be fully retired, not lobbying for anyone.
https://spacenews.com/former-nasa-administrators-call-for-changes-in-artemis-lunar-lander-architecture/
NASA is for constituent service. SpaceX is for delivering cargo.
This is a move by SpaceX toward the Pentagon and away from whatever it is Duffy, Isaacson, and Cruz are futzing around with.
If they need a license to land on the Moon, I’ll grant them one, ala Ron Swanson.
The stretch LM from MOON ZERO TWO is one of the more realistic of fictional Lunar Landers.
http://www.tobor2.com/MoonZeroTwo/MZ2.htm
http://www.davidsissonmodels.co.uk/Moon%20Zero%20Two%20Part%201.htm
Hypergolics can keep for years—something very like this with modern tech is needed.
Elon should not be required to have a license–he just needs a Starship to not come apart on landing.
“This was followed by a second selection [Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander] to serve as the lander for Artemis IV, moving beyond initial demonstrations to lay the groundwork that will ensure that humanity’s return to the Moon is permanent.”
I think they are referring to the Option B (new&improved! upgraded) Starship lander here, not the BO lander. But I could be wrong.
Question:
-I’m unclear on how this will physically land on the Moon and deal with all the blow-back. Is that a concern or what?
-And, what happens if it tips over?
Bugs Bunny
“Haredevil Hare” (1948)
https://youtu.be/FD79Bb1F6X8
( intro clip; 2:28)
Richard M: I would love to read the SpaceNews article, but I just refuse to play their little game. It’s okay; was already tiring of their slant.
Patrick Underwood: FYI, Space News stopped forcing people to register to read its stuff about a month ago. I suspect they discovered it only drove all their traffic away.
That was all right with me. I have seen a corresponding increase of traffic here. I think their foolishness helped me. :)
Hmm, I’m still getting the wall on at least some articles. But like I said, that’s okay!
“I’m unclear on how this will physically land on the Moon and deal with all the blow-back. Is that a concern or what?”
Regolith plumes are a legitimate concern, well documented now by researchers like Phil Metzger.
SpaceX even received a NASA tech contract to look into it a few years ago. They appeared to be settling on employing rows of small hot gas thrusters high up on the Starship HLS fuselage to handle final descent and takeoff when closest to the surface. But, oddly, today’s big update doesn’t discuss this at all, and it’s not clear from the renders if they are still pursuing this.
So it’s hard to say what they’re planning on that now.
Your screen name brought forth a smile and a chuckle. thanks
Rocket J Squirrel
October 30, 2025 at 12:49 pm
Bridenstine has gone down greatly in my estimation.
If they put a simple lunar GPS satellite style system around the moon they could use that to direct the landing with little input from any ground radar on the lander. Rogolith might just be able to be worked around.
Richard M,
I share your curiosity about NASA requirements changes. I’d also like to know more about “…a simplified mission architecture and concept of operations that we believe will result in a faster return to the Moon while simultaneously improving crew safety.” Likely quite a bit packed in behind those few words.
One has to wonder what Bridenstine thinks invoking the Defense Production Act could actually accomplish. I suspect he knows better and is merely publicly apple-polishing for his current paymasters.
Bolden has always been skeptical of SpaceX in general and Starship in particular. His background and life experience seriously compromise his ability to understand either one. He also seems, by implication anyway, to buy into all of the craptastic conventional wisdom anent the PRC.
I’ll also second your curiosity about the details of HLS’s descent and landing profile. The included HLS-on-the-lunar-surface renders still show the ring of “high-pockets” landing thrusters, but I’ll admit that the bullet point “Raptor lunar landing throttle test demonstrating a representative thrust profile that would allow Starship to land on the lunar surface” is, at best, confusing.
I very much like that SpaceX is already building flight hardware for the upper third of HLS. The rest can be fabricated later based on latest flight-proven refinements to V3 ship tech, then joined to the waiting upper section.
Robert Zimmerman,
The bracketed insertion “[Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lander]” is incorrect. The “second selection” SpaceX’s text refers to is the separate selection of an improved Starship HLS for use on the notional Artemis 4 mission following the first use of Starship HLS on Artemis 3, not to the second lander contract that went to Blue Origin. Blue Moon Mk. 2 isn’t currently slated to do a crewed landing until Artemis 5.
I think you are correct that the SpaceNews paywall has driven traffic your way. Well before the paywall went up, I lost the ability to comment over there because their website doesn’t like the smell of my newest computer for some reason. Even if the computer issue was resolved and the paywall torn down, I’m not sure I’d go back there in any major way. Your readership is definitely several cuts above theirs and also includes no Russian or Chinese bots/trolls.
Rocket J Squirrel,
SpaceX does, of course, need a launch license from the FAA to go to the Moon. I don’t anticipate any difficulty on that score when the time comes.
There are certainly still people in Congress and the bureaucracy that hate Elon Musk, but fewer by the day in the latter as the RIFs to government payrolls continue during the “shutdown.”
Anent Congress, with the likely invalidation of parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by SCOTUS, redistricting in several red states and even the prospect of an interim census that excludes illegals, Dems don’t look to be regaining any significant power there anytime soon – if ever again.
The UN is a non-issue.
David Ross,
Good summation of the respective roles of NASA and SpaceX, though you might have included crew as well as cargo under SpaceX’s ambit.
But this new response by SpaceX anent the Moon has zero to do with anything military. SpaceX is already significantly involved with the military in other ways. And, if the Trump administration and Sec’y. Hegseth are actually serious about getting Golden Dome up while they are still in office, SpaceX should shortly be awarded the prime contract for that project and turned loose to do its inimitable thing. SpaceX, having long-since amply demonstrated the ability to walk and chew gum while also juggling running chainsaws, will have no trouble opening the Moon and Mars to exploitation and settlement while simultaneously walling us off from the potential depredations of the Russkies and the PRC – for as much longer as either manages to last.
Timberwind,
Add some more signature lines to that and we’ll all sign.
Jeff Wright,
Dedicated antiquarians, such as yourself, should be put in charge of preserving the Apollo landing sites once we return to the Moon to stay. Finding the remains of any of the golf balls Alan Shepard used for his lunar chip shots ought to be a particular priority. But you, and any others of similar mind, should avoid giving silly advice to up-to-date engineers who are going to enable the whole project.
Patrick Underwood,
As they like to say in Oz, you’re not wrong.
Mike Borgelt,
Bridenstine has certainly blighted his escutcheon with his recent public flop-sweaty panics over the Yellow Peril. He both seriously underestimates the US and overestimates the PRC.
Dick Eagleson, thanks for the confirmation. Anent (had to use it! Correctly, I hope) Bridenstine, I doubt his stated concerns are real—he’s just earning his paycheck. :)
This is too much 4 D chess, but I almost wonder if all the recent trash talking of Musk and Starship was to goad SpaceX into this kind of move to get him a motivated for the Moon as he is in Mars.
Dick Eagleson wrote, “I’d also like to know more about ‘…a simplified mission architecture and concept of operations that we believe will result in a faster return to the Moon while simultaneously improving crew safety.’ Likely quite a bit packed in behind those few words.”
My gosh yes. Even though this fits perfectly with the general thesis of my essay, the implications of this one sentence slipped past me. SpaceX is essentially telling everyone here that the present mission architecture created by NASA, that requires SLS to launch the astronauts in Orion and take them to lunar orbit where Starship will rendezvous and take them down and then back up so that Orion can bring them back to Earth, is crazy.
Why not simply launch the astronauts on Starship, have them spend a week or so in Earth orbit while SpaceX refuels the ship, and then take that all the way to the Moon and back? Or some variation of this.
SLS and Orion are in the way, and actually make this journey harder and more dangerous. And in that one sentence, SpaceX is basically telling everyone that fact.
It is also predicting the future. This sentence is the first shot across the bow. Expect Musk and SpaceX to begin to be more blunt and loud about this issue.
I, just now, tried to read articles at Space News. I could read the first article I tried. Second attempt to read an article sent me to the subscription block. Seems the paywall is still up.
Patrick Underwood,
Perfect usage of ‘anent,’ sir. It’s a term that, for some completely mysterious reason, fell out of use, replaced by the longer and clunkier construction ‘with respect to.’ The evolution of English has tended to see longer and/or multi-worded linguistic constructions replaced by shorter and punchier single-word equivalents. With ‘anent,’ things unaccountably went in the opposite direction.
And, yes, anent Bridenstine, you’re not wrong for a second time.
Gary,
That was my initial reaction too. But it’s getting harder and harder to square that thesis with Duffy’s evidently abject belief that the PRC will be able to back its brags about the Moon and his goofball notion of pulling NASA into the Dept. of Transportation. That is a particularly silly thing to suggest given NASA’s decidedly checkered record running the “Space Truck” Shuttle and the fact that it will be entirely out of the transportation business as soon as SLS and Orion fly for the last time.
What we have here, I now strongly suspect, is simply a case of Duffy having done exactly the right thing for a whole bunch of wrong reasons. I believe any previous doubts about SpaceX’s lunar intentions have now been rendered moot by Duffy’s panicky and hostile incaution and Musk’s response to same.
Robert Zimmerman,
SpaceX might have any of several things in mind at the detail level, but the one thing that seems certain is that a completely SpaceX-built lunar logistics architecture – whatever it looks like and however it works – is now a certainty.
I have always wondered if Musk were Delos D. Harriman or Daniel B. Davis. I may have to embrace the concept of and. Honestly, I’d rather see China do two or three Apollo class landings, and then some US representative (be it NASA cum SpaceX or SpaceX alone, though I prefer the latter) land and start establishing actual exploration beyond sticking a flag in the ground, dropping a plaque or two, and doing (albeit very interesting) limited science experiments.
Getting to the moon at all requires heavy lift vehicle. Even the Saturn V could only put ~48 tons in lunar orbit with ~16 tons to the surface. The (planned) Long March 10 will top out at 35 tons to TLI with the later Long March 10-b hitting maybe 70 tones (notional). That’s just a slightly heavier Apollo at best, Let the taikonauts amuse themselves, maybe they’ll find something interesting. But until you can move freight at least comparable to early 17th century ships (ala Speedwell and Mayflower) you can’t move enough stuff to do long term exploration or colonize.
The original Space race proved useful ONLY because it (along with cold war production) exhausted the USSR’s production before it exhausted us and provided some (albeit mostly ignored) modicum of proof of capitalism’s combined with freedom’s superiority. I’m all for China wasting their time, money and prestige on Apollo like enterprises, it means they either greatly restrict their people (the elites of whom can see the general wealth outside China) or they restrict military research. If they try to do it all at once they’ll tank their system, and they’re right on schedule for the mean 80 year failure time of an established communist government.
Should (rather when) Starship completes it’s testing, a refueled Starship can put 100T (I presume this is besides its own ~100T mass) on the lunar surface vs 16T for the LEM( which included the 3-4 tons for the ascent stage). We need to get 2-3 Lunar Starships cycling from Lunar surface to earth orbit refueling and loading materials to build a base or at least do the investigation for base building. Lunar Starships are space bound vehicles they can not reenter so we need a way to get cargo onto them while in orbit and are refueling. I really think some LEO station might be the start to this. The hardest part is Starships LOX/CH4 cycle is not really meant for Lunar work. There isn’t a good way to create methane from Lunar resources (until we get mid scale farming going and have waste to compost). Blue Origin was originally moon focused so the LOX/LH2 cycle was what they went for. My preference is to this time go the the stars and stay, not say been there, did that, got the T shirt like we did in the 70’s . So the orbital Hilton and Lunar base will be 50 years late, lets go for that.
Those college tuition bills ain’t gonna pay themselves, mate.
Hi Dick,
1. There’s so much speculation online already (because. of course), but most of it seems to read this passage as suggesting a different mission profile rather than much difference in actual hardware (i.e., we are not talking about a “stubby” Starship lander or anything like that). This naturally suggests a purely mission using solely SpaceX hardware….probably, at this early stage, using a modified Crew Dragon to handle the transport to and from Earth orbit, and Starship(s) to so all the rest of it, with no mucking about with Gateway or Near-Rectilinear Orbit.
But it remains speculation. We’ll just have to wait and see.
2. I am not intimately familiar with the DPA, but I guess that Bridenstine is assuming that if you can use it to fast track a large scale mRNA vaccine development program, you can use it for a $25-30 billion crash lunar lander program. I’m not so sure about that, but even if it’s legally possible, my concern is that Donald Trump has higher priorities for whipping out the DPA.
I don’t think Jimbo’s paymasters at ULA, Lockheed et al are fools about any of this. They surely know that there’s no fast way for them to develop and deliver even a simple lunar lander no matter how much money you throw at them or how much bureaucratic folderol you bulldoze. But they’d probably be happy with getting a few billion on some sort of pilot program basis before the whole thing drifts into desuetude once SpaceX beats ’em to the Moon anyway.
Shots fired: SpaceX’s official X account took aim at Jim Bridenstine a few minutes ago (12:57 EDT):
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1984303647241441296
Well. There’s more, and it’s already a 5 post thread, and clearly has more to go. Go read it all at the link.
Elon woke up and chose violence again today.
Richard M: Please don’t use the word “violence” to describe what Musk and SpaceX are doing. They are simply exercising their right to free speech to counter the foolishness of Bridenstine’s recent anti-SpaceX statements.
That tactic is a favorite of the left: “Your speech is violence! Our violence is speech!” If blunt talk is labeled such then free speech will surely die.
Sorry, Bob: It’s just a meme I can’t help using sometimes! (It originated from a line in Game of Thrones a few years back.)
But I promise, I will refrain from using it in the future here.
Jim Bridenstine: Once a politician (spit), always a politician (haaaaaaaaaaawkspit).
Of course he took a “position” with the firms he was in bed with.
Elon posts another comment today at least implying that SpaceX is actively planning to do the entire mission with SpaceX hardware:
Luke Leisher: “They’re going to do the entire mission themselves aren’t they?”
@elonmusk: “It’s the only way to build Moonbase Alpha.”
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1984250349436416234
Perhaps he means it’s just the long-term solution (which of course it is), but I tend to think he means they’re proposing it for the first landing.
By the way, getting back to the regolith plume problem: Sharp eyed people took a closer look at the console touch screen shown in one of the photos SpaceX released yesterday. We actually see what appears to be the Engine Diagram on the GUI. You can see the 3 sea-level engines, 3 vacuum engines, and the 6 packs of upper-landing engines. 4 of these packs have 4 engines, while the 2 others (opposite of each other) have 5.
So, it looks like the hot gas thrusters high up on the fuselage for final landing and initial launch burns are still part of the design. Or at least, they were when that photo of the GUI was taken.
And I think something like that is going to be necessary. The Raptors are simply way too powerful for use that close to the lunar surface. They’d blast regolith and rocks miles high.
Fastest way I see to do an all SpaceX lunar mission. Launch a Dragon and leave it attached to the Falcon second stage. Launch a Starship tanker to refuel that Falcon second stage. Falcon/Dragon TLI. Falcon/Dragon to Lunar surface with Falcon second programed for hoverslam. A couple of cargo missions first to see if it works and if the falcon second has enough bite left to reach TEI. See if Dragon heatshield actually is good enough for Lunar return as some claim.
Have an exit plan for each step if it doesn’t work. Don’t chase bad money if it doesn’t.
Tregonsee314,
Not sure who Daniel B. Davis is/was, but Elon has been Delos D. Harriman during this entire century. Generally agree with the rest of what you had to say, but I would note that the PRC Lunar Farside sample return evidently found carbonaceous chondrite material there so the Moon may have more carbon than the Nearside samples have indicated.
Richard M,
I think you are right that Elon now intends to ninja SLS-Orion for the Artemis 3 job. It certainly looks possible. Given that flight hardware for the crew portion of the HLS Starship lander is already under construction, building a Starship SLS-Orion replacement should be pretty easy. All the life support and other required-for-crew bits already seem to be in-hand. Just install them in a Starship with TPS and flaps for direct Earth-return EDL – and maybe add a few of those big windows slated for the Mars ships – and there you go. A pity it can’t be ready in time to scupper SLS-Orion for Artemis 2.
Good news also about the landing thrusters still being part of the plan.
john hare,
With all due respect, I don’t think your spitballed plan would be faster than simply proceeding at flank speed along the already-established path to an all-Starship lunar logistics architecture. The F9 2nd stage doesn’t burn methalox and the refilling hardware on Starship tankers will be scaled for refilling other starships, not something as teensy as an F9 2nd stage. It’d be easier for a Blue Whale to mate with a Chihuahua. Then there’s the matter of jury-rigging legs for the F9 2nd stage to land on and a ton of other engineering man-hour sucks to make this whole kluge work. Steady on and stay the course will get the job done faster with no wastage and distractions.
Robert,
Thank you for the link to the press release. It contained an informative list of milestone achievements. It seems that SpaceX has been making progress that Duffy hasn’t seen. SpaceX seems to make a lot of progress that is not out in the open for everyone to see. We can only learn so much from NASASpaceFlight and the other industry watchers.
____________
Gary pondered: “This is too much 4 D chess, but I almost wonder if all the recent trash talking of Musk and Starship was to goad SpaceX into this kind of move to get him a motivated for the Moon as he is in Mars.”
I’m not sure that Musk or SpaceX need goading into motivation for missions to the Moon. They bid on the Human Landing System because it was profitable both monetarily and for development of many aspects of landing man on Mars. NASA and government have expressed eagerness in a sustained lunar outpost or settlement, which can be a lucrative area for profit for SpaceX without distracting from the Mars colony goal. In addition, many commercial companies are expressing interest in lunar exploration and exploitation, giving SpaceX another path for lunar profits.
ad astra lucrum
SpaceX won the contract because they already were paying for the development of the spacecraft, all they really need to change are slowing from orbital speed to landing speed without atmospheric reentry and getting back to orbit without refilling the propellant tanks.
_____________
Saville wrote: “I, just now, tried to read articles at Space News. I could read the first article I tried. Second attempt to read an article sent me to the subscription block. Seems the paywall is still up.”
My interpretation of the Space News site is that we get to read one article per month without subscription. Therefore we must choose carefully.
_____________
Tregonsee314 wrote: “Lunar Starships are space bound vehicles they can not reenter so we need a way to get cargo onto them while in orbit and are refueling. I really think some LEO station might be the start to this.”
The earthbound shipping companies have invented cargo containers in order to greatly reduce the workload and time needed to move cargo from one shipping device to another (e.g. ship to train to truck). I envision a similar concept in space, possibly with a space station-based freight/passenger depot that stores cargo and passengers until the next Starship arrives for pickup.
Edward: I ALWAYS link to my sources. Always. Comes from my training as a historian writing books that need to be documented and footnoted.
Would SpaceX land their own manned lunar mission before their customer’s Artemis III?
I was under the impression that SpaceX had waited for the super heavy SLS test flight before launching their own super heavy Starship test flight, just so that they would not step on NASA’s toes and get them upset for upstaging their Greatest Show on Earth (or above Earth). If this is the case, would SpaceX want to upstage NASA’s great return to the Moon?
1) Maybe so, if the Chinese were about to beat NASA to the Moon.
2) Maybe so, if they could do it before Trump leaves office.
3) Certainly so, if Artemis is cancelled before NASA’s manned lunar landing.
____________
Robert,
I guess I meant thank you for the post and the topic, which led to the link.
Edward: I realize you were just thanking me. I just wanted to make it very clear to everyone that my sources are always available, not sometimes. And my readers should avail them of those sources, as you routinely do, as often they can get a lot of questions answered before asking them. :)
https://selenianboondocks.com/2017/11/lunar-hoverslam/
@Dick Eagleson. I did a post on the idea 8 years ago with the difference being a Falcon tanker instead of Starship.
It’s really quite stunning how much SpaceX has progressed on their moon and beyond endeavors. All of this while essentially building and owning the entire launch capacity for America via the Falcon 9 system.
https://www.spacex.com/updates#moon-and-beyond
The “Starship V3 vehicles come equipped with docking ports” … “androgynous SpaceX docking system”….
With this addition Starship becomes a space station able to orbit/transit between earth, moon, or mars. The smaller Falcon sized capsules could dock and be used as a life boat between stations if needed – an added layer of safety already used on the ISS.
Just remember that standard containers were not meant to be stacked on their ends. Starship would need something vertically oriented.
Now, when empty they could be laid over.
Think Flip Ship.
Am I alone in my estimation that Starship is not a great choice for lunar lander? Starship will likely be great at a lot of things, but I don’t see planetary landing as one of them. Sure, you can land, but then you have to unload as the stevedores of old. And 1/6g makes life easier, but why take unnecessary risk (like the ship on the left off-kilter)? It seems there needs to be a re-think on getting cargo to the Moon. Perhaps shipping containers shoved by tugs into trans-lunar orbit, then decelerated to lunar orbit. Tugs come back with empties, or Moon-manufactured cargo. Getting cargo from orbit to surface could be done by private contractors. People have been moving stuff by cargo ship for millenia; we know this. Different tech; familiar process. Even for initial colony set-up, Starship doesn’t seem like the ideal vehicle for the landing job.
You are not alone Blair. Starship in this context is more “Run what you brung” than a dedicated Lunar transportation vehicle. At some point, economics permitting, there will be dedicated orbit to surface and back vehicles specific to location. For Flags and Footprints just use what’s available in the near term. Long term Lunar surface and back will look very different.. As will that for Mars or any other body of interest as DeltaV and Aerobraking requirements change.
Contrary to many, I think the Starship series will be primarily and Earth to orbit vehicle. When ECONOMICS demand, there will be other dedicated vehicles. A Mars surface delivery and back vehicle may well use a Carbon Monoxide/Oxygen engines.
Seems to me that a cut down starship is essentially like any other proposed lander. Maybe something like that for supplies.
Fly more than one per booster, with a TLI/lunar orbit burn stage or something like that. Or a series of stacked pods that can be attached to landing stages while in lunar orbit. Let the imagination flow. Not saying any of the above is practical, but there are out of the box solutions to be thought of, I believe.
Two Things:
1. I DID know who DD Harriman was (Heinlein: The Man Who Sold the Moon & Requiem). It took some looking but if you all want to know: DB Davis is Heinlein’s time traveling protagonist in The Door Into Summer. Here is link (2007) as to why it is relevant to this conversation: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/951/1
2. Regarding SpaceX getting to moon independently of NASA Artemis. I’m for it. Unlike our host, I would like to return before any other nation and as I said I would like to see the US get there before I depart the world myself. I see it as a net good that should be a priority.
I indicated many months back that I thought that are highly modified Starship with one complete refuel cycle in LEO could get a small crew and payload to moon and back to Earth, barely. Friends have convinced me that I might be cutting in way closer than anyone would do, even if they were of the mindset of a stuntman.
Don’t know. I am absolutely convinced that a partially reusable Starship (SH recovery) with a third stage as TLI – LOI – TEI – EOI (propulsive) could get an integrated lander / earth return system back and forth to the moon. Similar to Apollo Direct concept of early 1960’s with the NOVA launcher. Leave the launch and return of the crew to Earth for F9 Crew Dragon.
I will be interested in seeing what SpaceX comes up with.
Doubting Thomas wrote:” . . . even if they were of the mindset of a stuntman.”
Nicely done, sir.
Why does the crew have to return on the very same ship they landed on the moon with?
They do not have to.. If the second stage does not need to leave the moon it does not need any more fuel than enough to land.
They could modify one to just return the crew to the earth with some room for returning cargo/science.
I would like to see a modified second stage lay down sideways on the moon using air bags. If a totally empty ship can be layed down then they can make them able to be fully modified into living quarters.
@Pzatchok,
A hundred foot stage falling over on the moon hits just over 30 ft/sec of nose velocity. All the lower sections less. Airbag, 1/2 second burn from horizontal engine, moon pixies. Whatever works would get the airlocks down to jump distance.
“Why does the crew have to return on the very same ship they landed on the moon with?” They don’t
But I found when I assumed that a stripped-down Starship (no fins, flaps, heatshield) would launch (ignore abort systems for the moment) with 10 tons payload – meaning crew, life support, control systems, exploration equipment, EVERYTHING that I faced a problem.
Ship fully refueled in LEO and set out for the moon. The crew could LOI into low lunar orbit, land and get back into LLO. But it was dicey having enough propellant to TEI and then EOI (propulsively) into LEO for pickup by Crew Dragon. I needed to do that because I had no heat shields to reenter or even aerobrake and slow down. I found that I could deterministically do it with 1 to 2% margin.
When I ran even tight Monte Carlos, my mission success rate was around 40%. Friends finally had to do an intervention.
If I had TWO Starships on the moon, I am not quite sure how that helps my return success.
To do the mission solidly, I needed to have 1 to 3 tankers (assumption dependent) in lunar orbit to tank me up just a bit more to have enough fuel to get my deterministic margin up to about 10% and my Monte Carlo up to around 80%.
Not saying lunar tankers are impossible just that I can hear NASA yelling about complexity. Now I need up to 40 tanking missions to get my lunar starship and 1 to 3 lunar tankers into LLO for refueling for return to Earth.
I have started to fall in love with a partially expended Starship with a third stage and landing/earth return cabin. It is a lot like the 1963 NOVA 8L Apollo Direct concept.
Really interested in seeing what SpaceX comes up with.
I like the idea of the third stage assent vehicle.
I like idea of an unmanned second stage cargo vehicle. Just leave it behind. It could bring everything for a three month stay including a vehicle., large power systems, housing, extra food and water. Everything needed for the next manned mission or at least enough to support the next mission.
There is no use even going unless you plan to stay.
Space X would be using all its Moon missions as practice for Mars. Other companies should be smart and dovetail with their work. Find a way to build off of SX’s work. partnerships.
Blair Ivey asked: “Am I alone in my estimation that Starship is not a great choice for lunar lander?”
I’ve been making this argument for a long time, here on BTB. Even those who have commented on this thread suggesting a different lander are assuming a variant of Starship. Something with less structural mass likely would do better for lunar landings. Something with less structural mass likely would do better for shuttling between low Earth orbit (LEO) and a low lunar orbit that is high enough to be stable.
Starship is designed to get out of the Earth’s atmosphere on top of a Super Heavy booster, during which it passes through a max Q and may reach an acceleration of around 4 G while holding a full load of propellants. Lower accelerations may be allowable or desirable for different phases of the voyage to the Moon, allowing for a lower structural mass.
However, until various transit craft can be optimized for each phase of that voyage, john hare is correct that we have what we have, and we can make it work as best we can, for now, just to get us started until we innovaye better optimizations. This is the problem we have with Artemis, that NASA has an SLS that cannot lift its heavy Orion to be able to enter and then leave a reasonable lunar orbit, much less bring along a lander or any hardware to use to build a lunar base.
Just as SLS and Orion were designed specifically for a mission to … um …, Starship was designed for a mission to Mars, not to the Moon. SLS-Orion are not optimized for their mission to the Moon, and neither is Starship, although Starship seems better able to adapt to this unplanned lunar mission, where retanking/refilling in a geostationary transfer orbit rather than LEO gives much more flexibility with cargo returned from the Moon. Orion carries four people, not three, so it was built a little larger than the Apollo capsule, but how did Orion get to be too heavy for the mission? SLS does not lift as much mass as the Saturn V, so the mission was doomed from the moment SLS was chosen as the launch vehicle, or it was doomed from the moment the rocket scientists in Congress made the SLS design.
Starship is intended to be adapted to a variety of missions, from payload lofting — such as taking Starlink satellites and dispensing them like Pez candies or taking larger satellites or space stations and releasing them through a clamshell nosecone — to tanker service in order to refill spacecraft or propellant depots, to passenger service to LEO and beyond.
Blue Origin’s Blue Moon may be a better choice than Starship for lunar lander. However, Blue Moon was intended to descend from a lower orbit than that high Gateway halo pseudo-orbit.
“SLS-Orion are not optimized for their mission to the Moon”
SLS-Orion is not, alas, optimized for *anything*.
Well, other than transferring vast amounts of federal funds to legacy contractors, and the former NASA managers they end up employing.