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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nicely done, sir.

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.

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.

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.

Now, when empty they could be laid over.
Think Flip Ship.

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.

@Dick Eagleson. I did a post on the idea 8 years ago with the difference being a Falcon tanker instead of Starship.

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. :)

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 ALWAYS link to my sources. Always. Comes from my training as a historian writing books that need to be documented and footnoted.

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.

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.

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.

Have an exit plan for each step if it doesn’t work. Don’t chase bad money if it doesn’t.

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.

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.

But I promise, I will refrain from using it in the future here.

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.

Like many Americans, we are thankful for Mr. Bridenstine’s service leading NASA at one point. He deserves credit for spearheading the creation of the Artemis Program.

After departing NASA, he created a lobbying firm called the Artemis Group, representing a host of aerospace companies vying for NASA business → https://opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/firms/reports?cycle=2025&id=F331199

Mr. Bridenstine’s current campaign against Starship is either misguided or intentionally misleading.

SpaceX was selected to design and develop a Human Landing System for Artemis along with Blue Origin and Dynetics during Mr. Bridenstine’s tenure as NASA Administrator . . .

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.

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.

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.

Bridenstine has gone down greatly in my estimation.

Those college tuition bills ain’t gonna pay themselves, mate.

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.