Moon AND Mars?

[Lumina]

For many years now, there's been a tension between "Mars first" and "Moon first" (or "Mars via the Moon") tendencies among space stakeholders. This thread is hoping to hear from space community people who've experienced this Mars vs. Moon tug-of-war first hand and to explore whether SpaceX' ITS system can eventually lead to a replacement of this zero-sum game by a "Moon AND Mars" (and other places) mental model.

Was this Mars-or-Moon zero-sum game mentality a product of the reality of limited resources, high costs per flight and restricted access to space?

Are we, thanks largely to SpaceX, at the dawn of an era when access to space will gradually become cheaper and more easy to come by?

Will Mars-or-Moon be replaced by Moon AND Mars?

Can the ITS fly regularly to the Moon, spreading the capital development costs of the Spaceship over many more flights?

Is there an opportunity for SpaceX to use profits from higher-frequency Moon flights to subsidize lower-frequency Mars flights?

[Coastal Ron]

Was this Mars-or-Moon zero-sum game mentality a product of the reality of limited resources, high costs per flight and restricted access to space?

I'd say yes, since NASA's budget is too small really to do anything beyond LEO with humans in the near future.

Are we, thanks largely to SpaceX, at the dawn of an era when access to space will gradually become cheaper and more easy to come by?

I think we'll have to be crediting Blue Origin too pretty soon, if their plans for New Glenn materialize.

Lowering the cost to access and travel through space has been the major barrier to expanding humanity out into space.  And because of that government programs have had to limit the scope of what they want to do, since any destination is likely a multi-decade long effort.

Will Mars-or-Moon be replaced by Moon AND Mars?

I have always felt that the priorities were backwards.  Instead of picking a destination and then designing a transportation specifically for it, that instead we should build a reusable transportation system that can help us reach ANY destination.

But Elon Musk is shortcutting the conversation on this because he has decided to place his bet on Mars, and SpaceX is in a much more capable position of going to Mars than the U.S. Government is.  Mainly because Elon Musk has identified a "need" that others believe in, whereas the U.S. Government really doesn't have a "need" to return to our Moon or go to Mars.

Can the ITS fly regularly to the Moon, spreading the capital development costs of the Spaceship over many more flights?

It could, but Musk is going to be focused on using SpaceX owned ITS vessels to go to Mars.  However, if someone were to buy or build one of their own (Musk alluded to that possibility) then they could use it any way they like - our Moon, or anywhere else in the solar system.

Is there an opportunity for SpaceX to use profits from higher-frequency Moon flights to subsidize lower-frequency Mars flights?

I'd say no.  I don't see any business model for doing things in space in the next few decades.

[TomH]

There are two things I would not be surprised to see happen:

1. An ITS test landing on Luna. Obviously it is not a perfect practice run, however it does offer an opportunity to do some systems tests and generate interest.

2. NASA contracting with SpaceX for some Lunar landings for scientific research and private corporations doing the same for tourism.

[DreamyPickle]

The Moon and Mars are so different that many of the technologies required only apply to one or the other. This means that treating it as a zero-sum game is not really irrational. Among the important differences:

- Efficient landing on Mars needs to use some aerobraking while on the Moon everything is propulsive. Research in EDL or supersonic retropropulsion not relevant for the Moon.
- The day/night cycle on the moon is much longer. A base that relies on solar panels would need enormous batteries to last two weeks through the night.
- On Mars you can extract carbon and oxygen from the atmosphere, on the Moon you need to extract it from rocks.
- On Mars you can extract water from various minerals. The availability of water on the Moon is not as clear. If useful ice is found in a permanently shadowed crater you would need to transport it to the base without solar power.

The ITS in particular is built around the idea of generating methane on Mars and SpaceX will have to develop and operate the ISRU infrastructure themselves. Would they really invest in doing the same on the Moon, using different processes?

[guckyfan]

Landing on the moon needs no aerobraking. It needs proulsive landing. Spacex are becoming very good at this. Landing on Mars uses the same.

Day/night cycle. True, but I don't think anyone should expect SpaceX to design a moon base or settlement. Whoever purchases transport to the moon will need to do it.

Same for ISRU. Moon is different and whoever wants to go there will have to tackle that problem, not SpaceX.

For transport it seems fuel ISRU will not be needed. Some calculations I have seen indicate that a significant payload can be delivered and BFS return to earth without refueling. For very heavy single pieces of infrastructure unlike Mars refuelling flights to lunar orbit are quite doable.

[JasonAW3]

There are two things I would not be surprised to see happen:

1. An ITS test landing on Luna. Obviously it is not a perfect practice run, however it does offer an opportunity to do some systems tests and generate interest.

2. NASA contracting with SpaceX for some Lunar landings for scientific research and private corporations doing the same for tourism.

Your second point would be a fairly good idea, as this would generate additional income for SpaceX during the two and a half years between flights.

[CraigLieb]

I would gladly pay to be a passenger on an "Apollo 8" style trip around the Moon.  For me that would be an achievement of a lifetime dream.  Assuming a short trip could hold 200 passengers since there is reduced payload needs. If each could be charged $250k = $50 Million. SpaceX gains risk reduction for longer trips, experience with on orbit refueling, etc.     I made a previous posting about this in another thread some time ago, so enough said.

[envy887]

Space Adventures is trying to book lunar free return tourist flights using Soyuz for $100 million per each of 3 passengers. And LEO tourists are paying $20 million each, so there might be a lot more possible revenue there... as long as people are willing to fly with no LAS.

[TomH]

The Moon and Mars are so different that many of the technologies required only apply to one or the other. This means that treating it as a zero-sum game is not really irrational. Among the important differences:

- Efficient landing on Mars needs to use some aerobraking while on the Moon everything is propulsive. Research in EDL or supersonic retropropulsion not relevant for the Moon.
- The day/night cycle on the moon is much longer. A base that relies on solar panels would need enormous batteries to last two weeks through the night.
- On Mars you can extract carbon and oxygen from the atmosphere, on the Moon you need to extract it from rocks.
- On Mars you can extract water from various minerals. The availability of water on the Moon is not as clear. If useful ice is found in a permanently shadowed crater you would need to transport it to the base without solar power.

The ITS in particular is built around the idea of generating methane on Mars and SpaceX will have to develop and operate the ISRU infrastructure themselves. Would they really invest in doing the same on the Moon, using different processes?

We already know this. Nevertheless, Mars is around 6 months away. When ITS flies, they are going to do a lot of initial testing in LEO, then they will take it to HEO, and likely sis-lunar space for maneuvering practice. And there is a place to test landing, egress, ingress that is only 3 days from home. It is called LUNA. No, it is not exactly like Mars, but it is a place very close by where many systems can be checked. Can all of them? Obviously not. But saying that it differs from Mars and therefore there is nothing to learn or validate and that it should be completely ignored is total folly.

Do you know why Elon changed the name from Mars Colonial Transport to Interplanetary Transport System? Because he wants it to be able to go places OTHER than Mars. ITS is designed to be big, simple (in terms of components), and versatile. It will not be necessary to design a completely different architecture for every celestial target. Well, if you are going to fly it to places other than Mars, and you are able to do it with what you have, where is the closest place, other than just Earth EDL, to start testing the thing?

[Negan]

But saying that it differs from Mars and therefore there is nothing to learn or validate and that it should be completely ignored is total folly.

I would say not acknowledging that testing on the Moon compared to simulated testing on Earth increases risk greatly is total folly. It's a totally unnecessary risk to take when the goal is Mars at least as far as testing goes.

[mikelepage]

I would go further, and say it will be exploration of the Moon, Mars, AND asteroids happening largely simultaneously.  Although they will all have different particular requirements, will also have significant industrial synergies.  I'm thinking less in terms of whether the whole ITS ship (or some variant on it) goes to the moon than that there will be whole groups of companies that have sections dedicated to the Moon project, the Mars project, and/or whichever NEO they have the supply contract for.

Which one happens first is so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.  I even made some youtube videos a few years back called "Settling the Incliptic" (= inner ecliptic), because I think the main limitations on current tech are access to solar power, access to water/minerals, and that the relatively small amount of resources in high inclination orbits around the sun are not going to be mined cost-effectively for some time.

[TomH]

testing on the Moon compared to simulated testing on Earth increases risk greatly is total folly. It's a totally unnecessary risk to take when the goal is Mars at least as far as testing goes.

Firstly, I did not say testing should not be done on Earth. Secondly, landing on Luna mitigates risk in relation to landing on Mars. Landing on Mars is extremely difficult due to the nature of its atmosphere. The atmospheric density on Mars is 0.0059 that of Earth. That is just enough to burn up an inbound craft with no TPS, but low enough that you cannot parachute land. You have to get close to the surface and fly parallel to it to ablate velocity, changing the angle of attack to maintain just enough lift to counteract weight. The majority of Mars landers fail.

Lunar landings offer an opportunity to test SOME of the ITS landing systems in a more benign environment and to work out some possible bugs prior to attempting the far more difficult Mars landing. If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

[Negan]

testing on the Moon compared to simulated testing on Earth increases risk greatly is total folly. It's a totally unnecessary risk to take when the goal is Mars at least as far as testing goes.

Firstly, I did not say testing should not be done on Earth. Secondly, landing on Luna mitigates risk in relation to landing on Mars. Landing on Mars is extremely difficult due to the nature of its atmosphere. The atmospheric density on Mars is 0.0059 that of Earth. That is just enough to burn up an inbound craft with no TPS, but low enough that you cannot parachute land. You have to get close to the surface and fly parallel to it to ablate velocity, changing the angle of attack to maintain just enough lift to counteract weight. The majority of Mars landers fail.

Lunar landings offer an opportunity to test SOME of the ITS landing systems in a more benign environment and to work out some possible bugs prior to attempting the far more difficult Mars landing. If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

What landing systems are included in your testing and why can't these tests not be simulated on earth?

[Negan]

Landing on Mars is extremely difficult due to the nature of its atmosphere. The atmospheric density on Mars is 0.0059 that of Earth. That is just enough to burn up an inbound craft with no TPS, but low enough that you cannot parachute land. You have to get close to the surface and fly parallel to it to ablate velocity, changing the angle of attack to maintain just enough lift to counteract weight. The majority of Mars landers fail.

How does landing on the moon remotely equate to testing for what you described above?

Edit: I'll answer my own question. It doesn't. That's what the Red Dragons are for.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I agree with you that the Moon should be a target too.

Let's tackle the problem from a different angle: SX is sending out ITS-crafts to Mars. That happens once every 26 months. So there will be two really busy months and then 24 months with the ITS first stage and the tankers sitting around. Even if Musk is interested in a few other places than just Mars, there will always be the situation with the launch windows and the empty space in between. So if there is another group prepared to go to LEO, Moon or one of the Earth-Moon-Lagrange-points, and if they are paying... why not.

Maybe they develop their own second stage or order a second stage that is better suited to land on atmosphere-less bodies, or they just develop a lander that does the route LLO-surface, with ITS as a supplier of either a LEO-spacestation or a LLO-spacestation (there needs to be another transfer-vehicle for LEO-LLO).

It's just that the worst thing for Musk is: having his fleet sitting around without doing anything, and subsequently not earning any money.

[meberbs]

testing on the Moon compared to simulated testing on Earth increases risk greatly is total folly. It's a totally unnecessary risk to take when the goal is Mars at least as far as testing goes.

Firstly, I did not say testing should not be done on Earth. Secondly, landing on Luna mitigates risk in relation to landing on Mars. Landing on Mars is extremely difficult due to the nature of its atmosphere. The atmospheric density on Mars is 0.0059 that of Earth. That is just enough to burn up an inbound craft with no TPS, but low enough that you cannot parachute land. You have to get close to the surface and fly parallel to it to ablate velocity, changing the angle of attack to maintain just enough lift to counteract weight. The majority of Mars landers fail.

Lunar landings offer an opportunity to test SOME of the ITS landing systems in a more benign environment and to work out some possible bugs prior to attempting the far more difficult Mars landing. If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

What landing systems are included in your testing and why can't these tests not be simulated on earth?

Everything but the heat shield, the few aerodynamic controls and certain software segments would be tested by landing on the moon. Most of those would be at least partially tested by the return to earth from the moon.

Simulations are always deficient tests in a variety of ways, especially for a system the scale of ITS. A moon landing would test out the integrated system in a way no simulation on earth could. The only reason to not do such a test would be cost, and the cost would not be all that large relative to the project scale and they could almost certainly find a space agency willing to pick up part of the tab in exchange for delivering a science payload. I will be very surprised if they do not do one at some point before the first Mars mission (or at least before the first human to Mars mission)

[MATTBLAK]

Space Adventures is trying to book lunar free return tourist flights using Soyuz for $100 million per each of 3 passengers. And LEO tourists are paying $20 million each, so there might be a lot more possible revenue there... as long as people are willing to fly with no LAS.

For what it's worth (not much) I think $100 million is too much for a circumlunar flight. There haven't been many takers for the Earth orbital $30 million missions. If they priced the Lunar flight at $60 million per seat, they might get more takers. A circumlunar mission would be my life's greatest wish - next to World Peace! At $60 million, you could get somebody like Tom Hanks and James Cameron, who could probably afford such a mission and they could go together; on the pioneering flight with a Cosmonaut. But Cameron might be a bit too tall and a smidgin too old for that flight - not to mention a bit too busy. And Mr Hanks might not pass the physical.

[sdsds]

For many years now, there's been a tension between "Mars first" and "Moon first"[...]

Will Mars-or-Moon be replaced by Moon AND Mars?

Your thinking up to this point is really good!

Is there an opportunity for SpaceX to use profits from higher-frequency Moon flights to subsidize lower-frequency Mars flights?

Uh, did you just fall into the trap you so eloquently described, i.e. did you (essentially) suggest, "Moon first?"

[redliox]

Small problem with debating "Moon and Mars" here: Space X or Elon Musk hasn't really declared an intention to fly to the Moon.  It's the the same problem we have with predicting Donald Trump's space policy, which he hasn't declared either.  Hypothetically, either the Falcon Heavy or ITS could place decent payloads (and eventually people) on the Moon; this may be the case if an International Moon Base (on the Moon itself, not just CisLunar space) is put as a goal.

Probably the only bias Elon might have against the Moon is with fuel production, which is an integral part of ITS reusability.  The Moon has no atmosphere like Mars, and whatever resources you require have to be dug up.  He took much of his Martian ambitions from Mars Direct and Rober Zubrin, who pointed out, in an straightforward-engineering sense, that the Moon is a distraction from Mars.  You could argue his "foundation" inherently leans away from the Moon for better or worse.

I doubt Elon would be against supporting Lunar activity with his rockets, but he isn't likely to spearhead it.  That's all we can deduce.  Of course...Bigelow could arrange a team-up as one scenario...

[envy887]

For what it's worth (not much) I think $100 million is too much for a circumlunar flight. There haven't been many takers for the Earth orbital $30 million missions. If they priced the Lunar flight at $60 million per seat, they might get more takers...

At $100M there isn't much of a market, perhaps a few 10s of people once the viability is demonstrated; but at $10M there are probably a few hundred people who would go, and at $1m several thousand. That's a lot more profit and less risk than $250k per.

Earlier flights would be higher cost and higher risk, if both are high enough then launching on F9R and Dragon 2 might be viable.

[Negan]

Everything but the heat shield, the few aerodynamic controls and certain software segments would be tested by landing on the moon. Most of those would be at least partially tested by the return to earth from the moon.

Simulations are always deficient tests in a variety of ways, especially for a system the scale of ITS. A moon landing would test out the integrated system in a way no simulation on earth could. The only reason to not do such a test would be cost, and the cost would not be all that large relative to the project scale and they could almost certainly find a space agency willing to pick up part of the tab in exchange for delivering a science payload. I will be very surprised if they do not do one at some point before the first Mars mission (or at least before the first human to Mars mission)

I guess I need to spell it out more. What specific tests can't be done in orbit? What specific tests can't be done landing on earth from orbit or from cis-lunar?

So let's say they do decide to test the landing system on the moon. What if it fails on landing or takeoff? All that hardware is now on the moon.  Maybe it's wreckage (which can still be very useful to find out what went wrong) or the whole ship, but it's still on the moon so how do you get to it? You can't! Not without risking another valuable prototype and probably a crew. You could say the same for Mars, but at least Mars is where SpaceX actually wants to go.

[meberbs]

I guess I need to spell it out more. What specific tests can't be done in orbit? What specific tests can't be done landing on earth from orbit or from cis-lunar?

You previously said "simulated on earth" in this context that would mean something like hardware in the loop testing on the ground, not orbital testing. Also, landing on the moon would provide tests for landing in a low gravity environment, in vacuum (Mars is effectively vacuum on final approach), on an unprepared surface, with no GPS support. They would likely always use GPS support landing on earth, to make sure they don't land in a populated area. For various reasons, they would also probably only land on prepared infrastructure as well.

So let's say they do decide to test the landing system on the moon. What if it fails on landing or takeoff? All that hardware is now on the moon.  Maybe it's wreckage (which can still be very useful to find out what went wrong) or the whole ship, but it's still on the moon so how do you get to it? You can't! Not without risking another valuable prototype and probably a crew. You could say the same for Mars, but at least Mars is where SpaceX actually wants to go.

In that case it almost certainly would have failed on Mars as well, but the test cost less, and doesn't delay you by a whole synod. While having access to the failed hardware is nice, it is not necessary, as diagnostic data would be being broadcast back to earth, which could be done on Mars as well, but the data rate might be restricted.

I can't answer "specific tests" in more detail than what I just presented, because that requires knowledge of the ITS subsystem details possibly in more depth than has even been designed yet. It is possible SpaceX will decide that they can test all the relevant parts sufficiently integrated, and in sufficient detail without a moon landing. Considering:
-The marginal cost of a moon landing is low, especially compared to orbital testing
-The unique lunar environment that is closer to parts of a Mars landing than an Earth landing is
-The possibility to do iterative testing if needed without a 2 year delay
-Their plan to send people on the 2nd ITS launched to Mars (desiring proving high reliability, which cooperating space agencies may force on them by this point)
-Their stated willingness to do whatever helps them pay for development (even suborbital transport, which is much more of a tangent)

A moon landing looks like a very probable test.

Edit: I just saw the "MCT tests on the moon" thread in this section, it would probably be best if we continue this discussion to do it there, since we are drifting from the main point of this thread (Does ITS/general low cost access to space allow humanity to pursue the moon and Mars in parallel?)

[Negan]

Also, landing on the moon would provide tests for landing in a low gravity environment, in vacuum (Mars is effectively vacuum on final approach), on an unprepared surface, with no GPS support.

As far as no GPS support goes, they will already need to have tested this with Red Dragon missions since they've said these will have a hand in landing site selection for ITS. Also considering anyplace on earth is better than the moon, I'm sure they could find somewhere to do this.

Landing on unprepared surfaces can certainly be done on earth with the bigger benefit of having easy access to the testing vehicle afterward. Again anyplace on earth is better than the moon.

Not sure why landing on the moon's gravity environment is useful considering it was done successfully almost 50 years ago. Supersonic retro-propulsion is the real difficult part and that can't be tested with a moon landing.

NASA doesn't seem to feel the need to involve moon landing tests with it's Mars systems.

Edit: Also any talk of outside parties dictating testing at this point is just pure speculation. NASA is the only one that has come close with the Red Dragon mission.

[DOCinCT]

To me there is a big difference between designing a spaceship to land on Mars and build an outpost  and then saying let's test this out in cis-lunar space and with a lunar landing
VS
Let's build stuff to go to and stay in cis-lunar space then land on the moon and build a small habitat before we build something to land on Mars and then return.

[Negan]

To me there is a big difference between designing a spaceship to land on Mars and build an outpost  and then saying let's test this out in cis-lunar space and with a lunar landing

The big question for me is has there been any Mars Mission architectures that have proposed a lunar landing test when going the direction above?

[meberbs]

As far as no GPS support goes, they will already need to have tested this with Red Dragon missions since they've said these will have a hand in landing site selection for ITS. Also considering anyplace on earth is better than the moon, I'm sure they could find somewhere to do this.

I don't know why you think "anyplace on earth is better than the moon" logistics of the landing site would be a significant issue. Also, while Red Dragon is a test that will provide useful data for developing ITS, it is not a test of ITS, and that is a huge difference.

Landing on unprepared surfaces can certainly be done on earth with the bigger benefit of having easy access to the testing vehicle afterward. Again anyplace on earth is better than the moon.

Again logistics is an issue, and it still wouldn't be as good of a test without the vacuum conditions etc. They would have access to the moon landed one after it returns to earth at a nice, convenient location. This reminds me that I didn't mention the relaunching from lunar surface which will also be a useful part of the test.

Not sure why landing on the moon's gravity environment is useful considering it was done successfully almost 50 years ago. Supersonic retro-propulsion is the real difficult part and that can't be tested with a moon landing.

Apollo has effectively zero commonality with ITS. It seems like you don't understand the purpose of testing. If you want/need, I can write a short essay in my next post providing a systems engineering 101 for system verification.

NASA doesn't seem to feel the need to involve moon landing tests with it's Mars systems.

It would have been absurdly expensive for NASA to do it for any of the missions they have done, whereas due to its architecture, and doing orbital testing anyway, it is a small marginal cost for ITS.

Edit: Also any talk of outside parties dictating testing at this point is just pure speculation. NASA is the only one that has come close with the Red Dragon mission.

Almost everything on this topic is speculation, you will note that in my last post I stated that it is possible that they skip a lunar landing test, I just don't find that likely given the apparent cost/benefit value.

[Negan]

They would have access to the moon landed one after it returns to earth at a nice, convenient location. This reminds me that I didn't mention the relaunching from lunar surface which will also be a useful part of the test.

So the assumption is ITS will never have any major issues taking off or landing on the moon even in the testing phase of vehicle development, but if it does, such a failure would be inconsequential cost wise and would still benefit the program. Pretty rosy assumptions, but everybody has a right to their opinion.

[meberbs]

They would have access to the moon landed one after it returns to earth at a nice, convenient location. This reminds me that I didn't mention the relaunching from lunar surface which will also be a useful part of the test.

So the assumption is ITS will never have any major issues taking off or landing on the moon even in the testing phase of vehicle development, but if it does, such a failure would be inconsequential cost wise and would benefit the program. Pretty rosy assumptions, but everybody has a right to their opinion.

"No issues" is the exact opposite of the assumption, or there wouldn't be any reason to test. Should I make that intro to systems verification post I mentioned? I won't have time to write it until tomorrow at the earliest.

The cost of a failure (assuming catastrophic failure, which should be relatively low probability) would be less than finding out about that failure on Mars, because finding out about the failure on Mars would have larger delays in the program due to launch window restrictions.

[whitelancer64]

The problem is that while landing on and then launching from the Moon may be a good test run for the ITS rocket engine systems, doing so doesn't really prepare them for landing on Mars. The landing sequences will be very different due to the different environments, particularly Mars' atmosphere, which is about 1/100th that of earth's atmosphere - not "effectively a vaccuum," by any means. Gliding through the air to bleed off speed after atmospheric entry will be a major part of their landing sequence. Testing that would be much easier and cheaper to do here on Earth, for example, they could do a suborbital test flight where they reenter and then glide through the Mars-relevant section of the upper atmosphere.

[guckyfan]

Gliding through the air to bleed off speed after atmospheric entry will be a major part of their landing sequence. Testing that would be much easier and cheaper to do here on Earth, for example, they could do a suborbital test flight where they reenter and then glide through the Mars-relevant section of the upper atmosphere.

It could be very well tested here on earth, I fully agree. But coming in from an orbitals speed to make it more realistic. Probably even looping around the moon for better emulating the Mars entry speed.

But the final descent under engine thrust could be tested slightly more realistic on the moon because the powered phase on earth landing is much shorter. Emphasis on slightly.

[Negan]

The cost of a failure (assuming catastrophic failure, which should be relatively low probability) would be less than finding out about that failure on Mars, because finding out about the failure on Mars would have larger delays in the program due to launch window restrictions.

Are you assuming that successful Moon tests will take the place or lessen Mars ITS testing?

[meberbs]

Gliding through the air to bleed off speed after atmospheric entry will be a major part of their landing sequence. Testing that would be much easier and cheaper to do here on Earth, for example, they could do a suborbital test flight where they reenter and then glide through the Mars-relevant section of the upper atmosphere.

It could be very well tested here on earth, I fully agree. But coming in from an orbitals speed to make it more realistic. Probably even looping around the moon for better emulating the Mars entry speed.

But the final descent under engine thrust could be tested slightly more realistic on the moon because the powered phase on earth landing is much shorter. Emphasis on slightly.

I'd say a bit more than slightly, there are multiple ways that the lunar landing (and relaunch) is a more similar environment to Mars than a similar test on Earth. Of course the aerodynamic aspects have to be tested during the earth return portion.

Since there is definitely some benefit (none of us are in a position to actually quantify this) I think SpaceX is likely to do it. They actually seem to have a tendency to want to test things thoroughly, though the speed they move through iterations makes people think otherwise. For example, they imposed the max drag launch abort test for Dragon on themselves, CST-100's lack of a similar test shows that this was optional.

The cost of a failure (assuming catastrophic failure, which should be relatively low probability) would be less than finding out about that failure on Mars, because finding out about the failure on Mars would have larger delays in the program due to launch window restrictions.

Are you assuming that successful Moon tests will take the place or lessen Mars ITS testing?

What Mars ITS testing? SpaceX's plan for the "Heart of Gold," the first ITS to go to Mars, is for it to be an operational mission delivering the first round of fuel generation equipment for the base. While they will certainly plan for the chance of a loss of mission, it doesn't seem right to consider that part of the test phase of the program.

[guckyfan]

What Mars ITS testing? SpaceX's plan for the "Heart of Gold," the first ITS to go to Mars, is for it to be an operational mission delivering the first round of fuel generation equipment for the base. While they will certainly plan for the chance of a loss of mission, it doesn't seem right to consider that part of the test phase of the program.

It is testing as well as operational. I assume they will fly the first mission fast like they do the crew mission to have similar EDL to test it for the manned flight. If it were purely operational they could do a slow transfer with much higher payload. This ship is not coming back anytime soon, so that reason for a fast trajectory is not relevant.

I want to note that it has been expressed by some, that it is irresponsible of SpaceX if they don't do an earth return unmanned first, before they send crew. Nobody would expect the same from NASA.

[Negan]

While they will certainly plan for the chance of a loss of mission, it doesn't seem right to consider that part of the test phase of the program.

It will be a test the landing system for the first time on Mars, and the next step, sending crew, doesn't happen without it being successful. No amount of Moon landing tests changes this.

[Negan]

If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

Actually thanks to Steven Pietrobon, we now know Lunar direct is not within ITS capabilities.

[guckyfan]

If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

Actually thanks to Steven Pietrobon, we now know Lunar direct is not within ITS capabilities.

I am not sure I agree. Steven Pietroban sensibly calculated with the weight of ITS. The tanker version is much lighter and probably can do it without payload. It is of little use for a lunar service but would do quite well for a test.

[Negan]

If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

Actually thanks to Steven Pietrobon, we now know Lunar direct is not within ITS capabilities.

I am not sure I agree. Steven Pietroban sensibly calculated with the weight of ITS. The tanker version is much lighter and probably can do it without payload. It is of little use for a lunar service but would do quite well for a test.

The tanker is an LEO spacecraft not meant for long duration spaceflight. If the test would only be "slightly" better than what could be done on earth, what's the point of the modifications?

Edit: This also makes the test even more irrelevant due to the fact you're not even testing an accurate copy of the hardware going to Mars.

[meberbs]

While they will certainly plan for the chance of a loss of mission, it doesn't seem right to consider that part of the test phase of the program.

It will be a test the landing system for the first time on Mars, and the next step, sending crew, doesn't happen without it being successful. No amount of Moon landing tests changes this.

It may change whether it lands on Mars successfully the first time, or everything gets delayed an extra synod. I honestly expect they will not send people on the second synod anyway to get more pre-placed hardware and system confidence, but sending people on the 2nd synod is more plausible if they have done moon landing and relaunch tests that give them more confidence in the system.

If ITS did not have the capability for Lunar landing, I would not suggest this. As it is, lunar landing is quite within the robust capabilities of ITS and this would be a prudent test.

Actually thanks to Steven Pietrobon, we now know Lunar direct is not within ITS capabilities.

I am not sure I agree. Steven Pietroban sensibly calculated with the weight of ITS. The tanker version is much lighter and probably can do it without payload. It is of little use for a lunar service but would do quite well for a test.

The tanker is an LEO spacecraft not meant for long duration spaceflight. If the test would only be "slightly" better than what could be done on earth, what's the point of the modifications?

Edit: This also makes the test even more irrelevant due to the fact you're not even testing an accurate copy of the hardware going to Mars.

Actually, as I understand what he did, he just showed doing it requires coordinating 2 ITS, maybe using a tanker as the second one. Also, the tanker should have enough commonality with the ship that a week or 2 going around the moon shouldn't be much of an issue, though it may need large batteries or some added solar panels.

If you went with the use a tanker for landing option, it wouldn't make the test any less valuable. None of the differences are relevant to the test except in a structural sense, and landing on the moon doesn't really add to the structural testing, since it is lower stress than Earth return.

[Negan]

Adding a second spacecraft in a moon test increases more ways that the mission can fail including some that have nothing to do with the Mars mission. It adds more complexity, risk, and cost that can't be hand waved away. Risking one ITS for a test with minimal utility doesn't make sense. Risking two spacecraft makes even less. I totally understand why Musk didn't include it when he presented the development plans.

[Rocket Science]

I guess the could launch a simulated mission with a 9 month deep space and land on the Tibetan Plateau (approx 15,000' Alt.) with optimized TPS and engines for Earth. Stay for a period to test surface ops and lift off from there for return to the launch site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Plateau

[meberbs]

Adding a second spacecraft in a moon test increases more ways that the mission can fail including some that have nothing to do with the Mars mission. It adds more complexity, risk, and cost that can't be hand waved away. Risking one ITS for a test with minimal utility doesn't make sense. Risking two spacecraft makes even less. I totally understand why Musk didn't include it when he presented the development plans.

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run, and since as I said before, I doubt SpaceX is far enough in the design to know if this test is worth doing or not, he wouldn't want to mention it, because if he mentions it and then doesn't do it, their would be problems with public opinion (which matters when you are trying to send members of the public to Mars.)

You can't just hand wave in the complexity and risk you are claiming either. They are going to be doing multiple orbital tests anyway, this gets them some data from 2 ITS at once. Since they already will be doing orbital refueling, this doesn't add significant complexity. You seem to have forgotten some of my original points, such as the fact this might not cost anything, since it is not unlikely for some space agency or group of scientists to pay SpaceX to fly their stuff to the moon. (With the scientists accepting any risk of loss of their payloads.)

[Negan]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

[meberbs]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[JamesH65]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

The minimum would be launch to orbit, then land. Whether they do that first or loop round the moon? Who knows, but I'd keep it simple first.

[meberbs]

He did not provide an exhaustive list of what tests they will run

No but he did present where those tests would take place.

Huh? There was a piece of the timeline labelled "orbital testing" that could include any number of things, which at the minimum will probably include looping around the moon. I already put in my last post that he wouldn't have wanted to mention a lunar landing without being 100% certain they would do it. If you are just going to ignore parts of my post, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

The minimum would be launch to orbit, then land. Whether they do that first or loop round the moon? Who knows, but I'd keep it simple first.

Yes of course, I should have been more clear. I meant it in the sense that they will basically have to fly a loop around the moon at some point to test the heat shield and structures in an environment closer to interplanetary re-entry, I don't think there can be much argument that they won't do that.

[Negan]

You seem to have forgotten some of my original points, such as the fact this might not cost anything, since it is not unlikely for some space agency or group of scientists to pay SpaceX to fly their stuff to the moon. (With the scientists accepting any risk of loss of their payloads.)

Jim has explained many times why it doesn't work this way along with the fact that scientists don't pay for missions or payloads.

As far as your "public opinion" theory, you have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Public opinion has never guided Musk's ideas or what he's divulged to the public. He made that abundantly clear when he started talking about the likeness of death with this venture.

There's both technical and historical evidence that makes a moon landing test very unlikely. Technically the ITS system isn't capable of such a test, and expending an ITS to make it happen isn't even in the realm of possibility. Historically successful Mars missions have taken place without even orbital testing so going beyond that is not supported by precedence. Sure you can add in a bunch of speculation to try discredit these facts, but they are still facts.

[meberbs]

Jim has explained many times why it doesn't work this way along with the fact that scientists don't pay for missions or payloads.

Of course, but someone pays the scientists, and pays for the hardware, the financial details of this is irrelevant nitpicking, and does not change my point.

As far as your "public opinion" theory, you have absolutely no evidence to prove it. Public opinion has never guided Musk's ideas or what he's divulged to the public. He made that abundantly clear when he started talking about the likeness of death with this venture.

He cares about public opinion because he is planning to send 1 million people from the public to Mars, and if he said "we'll test it on the moon" and didn't this would make people question the validity of the system, and possibly cause people to pressure NASA to not support it (If you don't think NASA would be supporting it before it gets to Mars, I don't know what world you are living in). The possibility of death for early astronauts thing was never going to go away, so addressing that early is much better than not addressing it and having all support pulled later when something goes wrong.

There's both technical and historical evidence that makes a moon landing test very unlikely. Technically the ITS system isn't capable of such a test, and expending an ITS to make it happen isn't even in the realm of possibility. Historically successful Mars missions have taken place without even orbital testing so going beyond that is not supported by precedence. Sure you can add in a bunch of speculation to try discredit these facts, but they are still facts.

The technical isn't an issue as I already described, and the historical is an argument of "this is how it has always been done," which is a bad argument to begin with (you need to ask "why", which is a question I have already answered for this), and applying it to SpaceX, which has been rewriting the rulebooks, is so silly, it sounds like a joke.

[Negan]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

[meberbs]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

[Negan]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

What BEO spacecraft have you designed?

[meberbs]

The technical isn't an issue as I already described

Do you design spacecraft?

Yes.

What BEO spacecraft have you designed?

None yet, not that many people have. Though I have worked on verification for reports for one (I don't want to share more detail about who I work for at this point though) While there is still a lot for me to learn, I do know a lot about testing methodologies for various scale systems. Your initial arguments against ITS testing on the moon seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of testing in large systems.

You now seem to be trying to discredit me rather than find any flaws in the technical statements I made previously. If you continue down this path, don't expect more replies from me.

Edit: grammar

[Chris Bergin]

Hey, calm it down. Getting way too rowdy in here.

[Negan]

You now seem to be trying to discredit me rather than find any flaws in the technical statements I made previously. If you continue down this path, don't expect more replies from me.

Jim has reminded us many times that LEO and BEO spacecraft are not the same. It would seem to me that a unique spacecraft like a tanker would be even more so. I was just trying to gauge your expertise compared to his.

[Negan]

He cares about public opinion because he is planning to send 1 million people from the public to Mars, and if he said "we'll test it on the moon" and didn't this would make people question the validity of the system, and possibly cause people to pressure NASA to not support it.

Well if the consequences would be so dire for canceling a test, failing that test would be even more devastating so it better be very important an absolutely necessary.

[JulesVerneATV]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html


Mars a much different off-world site, an atmosphere, you can fly aircraft, possible signs of life unlike the Lunar landscape, much easier access to water, a near 24 hour day, it is much closer to the asteroid belt than Earth, it would take less Delta-v to get to the Asteroid belt and return minerals to Mars, no micrometeorite worries like the Moon.

[steveleach]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html

Is there anything more to that than Zubrin banging the Zubrin drum again?

[Greg Hullender]

SpaceX Mars Mission Comes Under Fire From The World’s Top Mars Scholar
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinholdenplatt/2025/09/29/spacex-mars-mission-comes-under-fire-from-the-worlds-top-mars-scholar/

NASA Eyes 2026 Mars Launch as Musk Pushes to Skip the Moon
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-2026-mars-launch-183922168.html

Way to wake up a 9-year-old thread!

Sadly, the first link is just Zubrin lamenting that Elon's test mission to Mars in 2028 is missing a big opportunity to deploy lots of scientific equipment. Assuming anyone could develop such in the next two years and be willing to risk it on a test flight.

And the second dates from five months ago, which makes it hopelessly out-of-date.

Anyway, we now know (as we did not 9 years ago), that NASA is paying SpaceX to go to the moon, so the original question this thread asked has been answered.

[JulesVerneATV]

To clear things up Elon Musk has politically backed Mars many times, however not to say that he would refuse money and contract to go to the Moon but he was a 'Mars First' type at the 2006 Mars Society conference. Today there is a risk of Bezos Blue catching up and Elon Musk's Space-X Starship has not delivered a payload to orbit, I believe he has radically transformed the industry but some of those deadlines he set himself have been a little slow or overly ambitious.  Elon Musk has also donated to the Mars analog Desert Research Station with many having the belief that it is a lot easier and cheaper and reliable to do analog testing on Planet Earth rather than testing a 'Mars Base' on the Moon. Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.


Bill Nelson, Retired in Name Only


He’s been to space, ran NASA and can do 40 pushups at IHOP. Here’s why Bill Nelson thinks Musk must rethink his Mars plan
https://www.independent.co.uk/space/nasa-mars-musk-bill-nelson-spacex-b2844667.html

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

[steveleach]

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

Is there any merit to that argument?

I'd have thought that landing on Earth would be a much closer analogue to a Mars landing than a lunar landing would be.

[meekGee]

Nelson says you can’t have Mars without the moon. Scientists need the research from the first phases of the Artemis program to get us to Mars.

“But the fact that he has a contract to do this lunar lander — he can’t land on Mars if he doesn’t have a lander. And so, he’s going to try to develop that lander and what he learns on a lunar lander will help him with the Mars lander,” he added.

Is there any merit to that argument?

I'd have thought that landing on Earth would be a much closer analogue to a Mars landing than a lunar landing would be.

Of course there isn't.  He's throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

To say we should go to the moon is one thing.
To say we should go to the moon before going to Mars is another.
To say we can't (technically/scientifically) go to Mars without going to the moon is just plain rubbish.
To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

[SpaceLizard]

Edit:
Just realized my comment turned into a whole new thread somehow?! Attempting to alter title to suit topic...

I did that and got sidetracked; it's being merged to the moon/Mars thread.  Something for the future to consider, this section is for today.

[Jim]

Too early for that.

[CoolScience]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

[meekGee]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

Both statements make sense in the same context.

The USG will remain interested in the moon for a variety of reasons.

It might be a permanently manned base.

SpaceX, due to its capabilities will end up doing most of the work.

--

And concurrently:

The base will not be a colony, and will be heavily reliant on supplies from Earth. If they do ISRU it'll be very limited. "Permanently manned base" is exactly right, similar to how ISS is.

The moon program will not be able to contribute capabilities to SpaceX's Mars colony program, except for helping to pay for it in the beginning.

There's a fair chance the first landings will be on the moon, and this was always true.

The purpose of the SpaceX program, Starship, and all the infrastructure around it, is Musk's desire to colonize Mars.  He's about as interested in the moonnbase as he is in providing Internet connectivity from orbit.

[DigitalMan]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

It would be great have 12 or more person crews on these missions. 2 or 4 people isn’t enough to get much science done.

[Twark_Main]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

"We're happy to take people the Moon. If somebody wants to go to the Moon, we can definitely do it. But as far as making life multi-planetary, you know, tautologically one must have a second planet and the Moon, it's a small rock orbiting the Earth with no atmosphere, 28 day period, very little water, lacking in a lot of the key elements one needs for creating a civilization.

"It's analogous, I think, to the arctic. The arctic is close to Britain but it kinda sucks over there. So that's why America is not there, and it's where it is. Even though it's a lot harder to cross the Atlantic! I mean from Norway you can practically row to the arctic, in fact I think they did. So it's really because it's the place where one can establish a self-sustaining civilization and really grow to something significant.

"In a worst case scenario, if something were to happen to Earth you have redundancy on Mars, whereas that would be much harder to do on the Moon. Plus if something calamitous has just happened on Earth, it is very close, so it might affect the Moon too."  -- Elon Musk



Distraction? No, that phrasing would be too harsh. However it's clear the Moon is not Elon Musk's primary motivating goal.


Note that Musk has literally said the words "the Moon is a distraction," but this was in reply to a post about bootstrapping with lunar propellant. However, at least it means we do have an idea of "where people get this nonsense." 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324

[CoolScience]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

Both statements make sense in the same context.

Both of which statements? Both of the quotes I provided are consistent, both of your and JulesVerneATV's posts reference things way out of context to claim Musk's opinion is completely different. (See above post from Twark_Main)

The purpose of the SpaceX program, Starship, and all the infrastructure around it, is Musk's desire to colonize Mars.  He's about as interested in the moonnbase as he is in providing Internet connectivity from orbit.

Luckily, he is quite serious about providing global internet connectivity. Lines up well with his stated desire to do things that help humanity as a whole. Moon base obviously doesn't fulfill his goal of an independent foothold for civilization, but it definitely contributes to his goal of creating an inspiring future for people to look to.

So again, please take bake the claims about a moon base being a distraction that Musk advocates against.

[CoolScience]

Distraction? No, that phrasing would be too harsh. However it's clear the Moon is not Elon Musk's primary motivating goal.


Note that Musk has literally said the words "the Moon is a distraction," but this was in reply to a post about bootstrapping with lunar propellant. However, at least it means we do have an idea of "where people get this nonsense." 

Thanks, I remembered there was something, but forgot the specifics. It is quite clear that the context was using the moon as a source of fuel to get to Mars, and people taking that statement out of context to argue against things Musk publicly and clearly supports is a form of lying. Media outlets do stuff like that all the time, I think better is expected of posters here.

[meekGee]

Both of which statements? Both of the quotes I provided are consistent, both of your and JulesVerneATV's posts reference things way out of context to claim Musk's opinion is completely different. (See above post from Twark_Main)

Both your posted quotes are valid but don't contradict what we said, that Musk will go to the moon if paid to, and of course it has value, but he wouldn't be there as part of his Mars program, and has no interest in settling it - for all the reasons laid out in TM's post.

[Robotbeat]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

"We're happy to take people the Moon. If somebody wants to go to the Moon, we can definitely do it. But as far as making life multi-planetary, you know, tautologically one must have a second planet and the Moon, it's a small rock orbiting the Earth with no atmosphere, 28 day period, very little water, lacking in a lot of the key elements one needs for creating a civilization.

"It's analogous, I think, to the arctic. The arctic is close to Britain but it kinda sucks over there. So that's why America is not there, and it's where it is. Even though it's a lot harder to cross the Atlantic! I mean from Norway you can practically row to the arctic, in fact I think they did. So it's really because it's the place where one can establish a self-sustaining civilization and really grow to something significant.

"In a worst case scenario, if something were to happen to Earth you have redundancy on Mars, whereas that would be much harder to do on the Moon. Plus if something calamitous has just happened on Earth, it is very close, so it might affect the Moon too."  -- Elon Musk



Distraction? No, that phrasing would be too harsh. However it's clear the Moon is not Elon Musk's primary motivating goal.


Note that Musk has literally said the words "the Moon is a distraction," but this was in reply to a post about bootstrapping with lunar propellant. However, at least it means we do have an idea of "where people get this nonsense." 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324

The Moon is a distraction *in the context of going to Mars*, not in the context of setting up a lunar science base for the sake of studying the Moon.

And he’s right. If you’re on your way to Mars, stopping at the Moon isn’t going to help you get there faster. Lunar propellant is not plentiful enough to really be worth it either.

[CoolScience]

Both of which statements? Both of the quotes I provided are consistent, both of your and JulesVerneATV's posts reference things way out of context to claim Musk's opinion is completely different. (See above post from Twark_Main)

Both your posted quotes are valid but don't contradict what we said, that Musk will go to the moon if paid to, and of course it has value, but he wouldn't be there as part of his Mars program, and has no interest in settling it - for all the reasons laid out in TM's post.

The plain English of what I quoted from what you previously said is contradicted by the quotes from Musk I posted. Both posts up thread were claiming that Moon missions are a complete distraction, that interferes with Mars.

To highlight a couple specific phrases you said (see above for context)
"is a hell of a detour." "why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?"
Neither is true, it is a side objective that can be spun off the same development, and Musk is not advocating to skip the moon, just to not include it as a required step. He still wants stuff done on the moon, just not the exact same set of goals as he has for Mars.

If you miscommunicated and forgot to clarify with caveats that is fine, you can say so. Jules' post was even more direct in talking about "interference" and "overall interruption" (again check above for context) And those statements simply are not consistent with Musk's rather clear views on the moon. As you now seem to be agreeing, he sees value in doing things on the moon, and wants them done, but he does not see anything on the moon as a required pre-requisite, especially propellant manufacturing.

[Robotbeat]

You got to think in the context of Starship for Musk. SpaceX is dead set against expendable launch for Starship. They’re insistent on developing full reuse, in spite of a nominal goal of like 100-1000 ships per year.

They’re preparing the capacity to send literally millions of tons to orbit every year. In that context, lunar propellant at $1000/kg just doesn’t matter (except maybe on the Moon?). Earth launched propellant will still be vastly cheaper in Earth orbit. And it doesn’t meaningfully detract from Mars to spend 0.1% of that launch mass on a Moon base.

[yg1968]

Elon Musk has repeated and update statements saying the Lunar missions are a diversion or interference for building Mars colonies, he sees it as an overall interruption on the colonization vision and recently saying that he wants to skip the Moon as it is a ‘distraction’.

To say SpaceX is using the moon to develop their Mars lander is outright lying. The HLS lander came very late in the program and is a hell of a detour.  Also, if that was the case, why would Musk be advocating to skip the moon?

Where do people get this nonsense? Musk has repeatedly advocated for a lunar base. All of this talk of it being a diversion or distraction requires a fundamental misunderstanding of what SpaceX is doing and the scale they are preparing for.

Some quotes from today on what he wants to happen on the moon:

"Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.”

"A permanently crewed lunar science base would be far more impressive than a repeat of what was already done incredibly well by Apollo in 1969."

Please stop making arguments assuming Musk has an opinion contrary to what he has actually stated.

"We're happy to take people the Moon. If somebody wants to go to the Moon, we can definitely do it. But as far as making life multi-planetary, you know, tautologically one must have a second planet and the Moon, it's a small rock orbiting the Earth with no atmosphere, 28 day period, very little water, lacking in a lot of the key elements one needs for creating a civilization.

"It's analogous, I think, to the arctic. The arctic is close to Britain but it kinda sucks over there. So that's why America is not there, and it's where it is. Even though it's a lot harder to cross the Atlantic! I mean from Norway you can practically row to the arctic, in fact I think they did. So it's really because it's the place where one can establish a self-sustaining civilization and really grow to something significant.

"In a worst case scenario, if something were to happen to Earth you have redundancy on Mars, whereas that would be much harder to do on the Moon. Plus if something calamitous has just happened on Earth, it is very close, so it might affect the Moon too."  -- Elon Musk



Distraction? No, that phrasing would be too harsh. However it's clear the Moon is not Elon Musk's primary motivating goal.


Note that Musk has literally said the words "the Moon is a distraction," but this was in reply to a post about bootstrapping with lunar propellant. However, at least it means we do have an idea of "where people get this nonsense." 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1875023335891026324

The Moon is a distraction *in the context of going to Mars*, not in the context of setting up a lunar science base for the sake of studying the Moon.

And he’s right. If you’re on your way to Mars, stopping at the Moon isn’t going to help you get there faster. Lunar propellant is not plentiful enough to really be worth it either.

It's possible that is what I meant but I wish that he had been clearer on this. I guess that he clarified this now:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1980378337618063732

[DanClemmensen]

You got to think in the context of Starship for Musk. SpaceX is dead set against expendable launch for Starship. They’re insistent on developing full reuse, in spite of a nominal goal of like 100-1000 ships per year.

They’re preparing the capacity to send literally millions of tons to orbit every year. In that context, lunar propellant at $1000/kg just doesn’t matter (except maybe on the Moon?). Earth launched propellant will still be vastly cheaper in Earth orbit. And it doesn’t meaningfully detract from Mars to spend 0.1% of that launch mass on a Moon base.

I don't think he is dead set against it. He is strongly committed to developing full and rapid reuse as soon humanly possible and will not be distracted from this, but I'm almost certain that SpaceX will do an expendable launch if a unique mission requires it. That's what they do with F9 boosters, which have had a total of two expendables in 2025.

[Robotbeat]

I mean in the context of Starship. SpaceX has expended like half a dozen starships primarily to get ship recovery nailed down. Elon is pushing hard to get SpaceX out of the partial reuse rut and make Starship fully reusable from the very beginning of its orbital operations (and other upgrades).

It’s the difference between like 10,000t to orbit per year (only a factor of 3 higher than Falcon’s 3000-4000t/y, but much more than enough for Artemis) and 1 million tons to orbit per year.

[DanClemmensen]

I mean in the context of Starship. SpaceX has expended like half a dozen starships primarily to get ship recovery nailed down. Elon is pushing hard to get SpaceX out of the partial reuse rut and make Starship fully reusable from the very beginning of its orbital operations (and other upgrades).

It’s the difference between like 10,000t to orbit per year (only a factor of 3 higher than Falcon’s 3000-4000t/y, but much more than enough for Artemis) and 1 million tons to orbit per year.

Certainly. Reusable for almost all launches just as soon as SpaceX can do it, and SpaceX will expend maximum effort on this. But there may be a few strange cases where an expendable launch is the most cost-effective way to complete the mission. One specific case under discussion is use of expended tanker to support Artemis III in 2028 or before if reuse is not all the way solved. I know they want to have reuse solved by then, so reuse in this case is a backup plan. Yes, very expensive, but cheaper than any feasible alternative.

Most other non-reuse cases are simply custom Ships that are never intended to EDL. They are neither reusable nor expendable, but are in a different category. Depot and HLS are in this category, as is the potential Starship CLD.

There may even be some strange situation where some bizarre over-mass custom Starship requires an expended Booster. Somebody with a lot of money would have to want it very badly.

[Robotbeat]

I don’t think SpaceX will do that until after they’ve done reuse.

Remember another reason they need reentry to work is using Starship to launch crew and to land stuff on Mars.

It’s all kind of the same problem. So it’s an incredibly high priority to SpaceX. They will struggle to build enough expendable tankers to keep up with an Artemis launch rate.

[SpaceLizard]

They will struggle to build enough expendable tankers to keep up with an Artemis launch rate.

Will they? I thought SLS could only launch once every 2 years and SpaceX was on the cusp of being able to build at least a dozen ships a year ramping up to hundreds in just a few more years? Where's the struggle?

[Robotbeat]

They’re currently building about 10 ships per year, and testing each one takes time. & they will have boiloff constraints. Reusable ships will reduce this bottleneck even if they just reuse a few times.

[MickQ]

Just reusing each tanker once cuts the number of ships in half.

[DanClemmensen]

I don’t think SpaceX will do that until after they’ve done reuse.

Remember another reason they need reentry to work is using Starship to launch crew and to land stuff on Mars.

It’s all kind of the same problem. So it’s an incredibly high priority to SpaceX. They will struggle to build enough expendable tankers to keep up with an Artemis launch rate.

The fundamental short-term driver for reuse is Pez. There is a very high ROI for Starlink V3 and for replacing F9 launches with Pez launches. Their internal demand is likely in excess of 24 Pez in 2026, ideally using only a single Pex Ship, but I don't think they can achieve it. This is however more than enough re-entry attempts to rapidly refine reuse.

By contrast, The first Artemis campaign is the uncrewed demo, which needs only a few Tankers and one Depot, and all can be expended if absolutely necessary. Tanker reuse requires not just full reuse, but rapid reuse, and that is a lot harder.

[Robotbeat]

Starlink would want about 100, maybe 200 Starship flights per year.

Tankers don’t require rapid reuse. Refurb heavy reuse still helps a lot.

Note, the V3 ships seem to all have both a Pez slot and docking ports to enable refueling/tanker duty. In basically all scenarios, these are the high flight rate tasks, and it appears they’re standardizing The ships to do both. Very interesting to me.

I suppose it really helps for Mars. Most of the time, the ships can be used for Starlink launches, but near the windows, they can be used for tanker flights. Or for Artemis missions, which occur on a similar timescale, once every year or two.

[meekGee]

The plain English...

Ok, let's reset.

What RB said.

Nobody has anything against also going to the moon.

Musk doesn't think there's any value in a colony there, for all aforementioned reasons, and a colony is a couple OOMs beyond a permanently manned base.

Also, no value in using the moon to get to Mars, in terms of resources or development (in the sense of being a stepping stone)

SpaceX's goal is the colony. The moon is a USG goal.

SpaceX will be happy to do work for the USG, especially since there's commonality so why not.

If NASA's moon program didn't exist, SpaceX would not be designing a moon lander without someone else being the customer.

Ok so far?

[DanClemmensen]

They’re currently building about 10 ships per year, and testing each one takes time. & they will have boiloff constraints. Reusable ships will reduce this bottleneck even if they just reuse a few times.

Reusing a tanker during the same refilling campaign requires very rapid reuse. I think they will achieve full reuse before they achieve rapid reuse.

Depending on how bad the boiloff situation is, they may need to build all those tankers anyway.

[Robotbeat]

They’re currently building about 10 ships per year, and testing each one takes time. & they will have boiloff constraints. Reusable ships will reduce this bottleneck even if they just reuse a few times.

Reusing a tanker during the same refilling campaign requires very rapid reuse. I think they will achieve full reuse before they achieve rapid reuse.

Depending on how bad the boiloff situation is, they may need to build all those tankers anyway.

two week refurb time is not rapid but still enough to be useful for refueling.

[meekGee]

They’re currently building about 10 ships per year, and testing each one takes time. & they will have boiloff constraints. Reusable ships will reduce this bottleneck even if they just reuse a few times.

Reusing a tanker during the same refilling campaign requires very rapid reuse. I think they will achieve full reuse before they achieve rapid reuse.

Depending on how bad the boiloff situation is, they may need to build all those tankers anyway.

two week refurb time is not rapid but still enough to be useful for refueling.

Yup and it also means the tankers of campaign 1 are immediately available for campaign 2, a few weeks later.

[CoolScience]

If NASA's moon program didn't exist, SpaceX would not be designing a moon lander without someone else being the customer.

Ok so far?

Generally in agreement with everything, except this last statement, Starships for a lunar base were proposed by Musk before HLS was a thing. If HLS didn't happen, I think SpaceX would have built a moon lander anyway, though less prioritized. Actual human missions past probably an unmanned demo would wait until someone else is the customer probably, but SpaceX is perfectly happy to start working something to sell to others later. It is hard to imagine a scenario of NASA ignoring a demonstrated large human lander on the moon, so the only real difference is timing.

This is of course just my opinion of a hypothetical that is already moot.

[Robotbeat]

In an alternate scenario, I can see SpaceX using a Mars lander on the Moon for private customers.

[Kazioo]

Musk's 2017 BFR presentation at IAC had renders showing BFR on the moon and a whole section on Lunar missions:

Based on calculations we've done we can actually do lunar surface missions with no propellant production on the surface of the Moon so if we do a high elliptic parking orbit for the ship and retank in high elliptic orbit we can go all the way to the moon and back with no local propellant production on the moon so I think that would enable the creation of moon base alpha or some sort of lunar base

2 years later Jim Bridenstine announced Artemis program and I remember how he admitted in an interview that the only way NASA (at that time) interpreted the "permanent presence" was because of Lunar Gateway permanently orbiting it, but not anything being permanent on the actual surface of the moon (ie. no outpost/base).

[meekGee]

If NASA's moon program didn't exist, SpaceX would not be designing a moon lander without someone else being the customer.

Ok so far?

Generally in agreement with everything, except this last statement, Starships for a lunar base were proposed by Musk before HLS was a thing. If HLS didn't happen, I think SpaceX would have built a moon lander anyway, though less prioritized. Actual human missions past probably an unmanned demo would wait until someone else is the customer probably, but SpaceX is perfectly happy to start working something to sell to others later. It is hard to imagine a scenario of NASA ignoring a demonstrated large human lander on the moon, so the only real difference is timing.

This is of course just my opinion of a hypothetical that is already moot.

I remember that.

However, even back then, there was a lot of reaction to the idea of going to Mars without even paying the basic courtesy of landing on the moon first.

It's almost insulting, since it's so much nearer.  It's like if I have a conference in my home town and then I'm in and out without stopping at my family's.  It's an affront...

And personally, there's plenty of science to be done on the moon, so I'm all for it.

It's just not why Musk is doing any of this, and doesn't factor into the Mars plan.

[InterestedEngineer]

It's almost insulting, since it's so much nearer.  It's like if I have a conference in my home town and then I'm in and out without stopping at my family's.  It's an affront...

From rocket exhaust deltaV perspective, Mars is closer than the Moon.

[meekGee]

It's almost insulting, since it's so much nearer.  It's like if I have a conference in my home town and then I'm in and out without stopping at my family's.  It's an affront...

From rocket exhaust deltaV perspective, Mars is closer than the Moon.

Insulted people often do not abide by logic or physics.

I'm talking about my family of course.

[spacenut]

The moon may not be colonized so much as being used for mining.  I think the first thing NASA, Blue Origin, or SpaceX should do is establish a lox production facility on the moon.  A lot of moon regolith is about 40% oxygen.  Oxygen is heavy and if a facility on the moon can be built to make, store, and launch Oxygen to say an L1 fuel depot it would be much easier in the long run to do so. 

Methane and hydrogen can be brought from Earth since their mass is less so more can be brought to an L1 fuel depot.  L2 would probably be better for a Mars bound ship.  Top of their oxygen and methane on the way to Mars.  A ship getting to L2 would take less refueling in LEO, and topping off at L2 would possibly allow a ship to have more fuel left when getting to Mars. 

Then once a well established lox facility on the moon and at L2 is fully operational, Mars bound becomes somewhat easier since the moon gravity is less launching lox would be even easier than from Earth. 

I also think a fuel depot should be built it Mars orbit for incoming and out going ships.

All this unless a large nuclear powered mother ship could be built to carry Starships to and from Earth orbit to Mars orbit. 

To pay for all this would require retiring the ISS, SLS, and Orion, and NASA concentrating on building a large mother ship for anyone to use to go to and from Mars.  This mother ship could be built by all launchers with large modules by Starships, and smaller parts and internal construction by the other launchers.  Either plan would require a lot of refocusing by all parties involved and a long term commitment by NASA. 

[meekGee]

The moon may not be colonized so much as being used for mining.  I think the first thing NASA, Blue Origin, or SpaceX should do is establish a lox production facility on the moon.  A lot of moon regolith is about 40% oxygen.  Oxygen is heavy and if a facility on the moon can be built to make, store, and launch Oxygen to say an L1 fuel depot it would be much easier in the long run to do so. 

Methane and hydrogen can be brought from Earth since their mass is less so more can be brought to an L1 fuel depot.  L2 would probably be better for a Mars bound ship.  Top of their oxygen and methane on the way to Mars.  A ship getting to L2 would take less refueling in LEO, and topping off at L2 would possibly allow a ship to have more fuel left when getting to Mars. 

Then once a well established lox facility on the moon and at L2 is fully operational, Mars bound becomes somewhat easier since the moon gravity is less launching lox would be even easier than from Earth. 

I also think a fuel depot should be built it Mars orbit for incoming and out going ships.

All this unless a large nuclear powered mother ship could be built to carry Starships to and from Earth orbit to Mars orbit. 

To pay for all this would require retiring the ISS, SLS, and Orion, and NASA concentrating on building a large mother ship for anyone to use to go to and from Mars.  This mother ship could be built by all launchers with large modules by Starships, and smaller parts and internal construction by the other launchers.  Either plan would require a lot of refocusing by all parties involved and a long term commitment by NASA.

Yes in principle, but the mass investment to make that happen is very large, so break-even is tough.

Oxygen on Earth, while it has to be launched to orbit, available right around any corner, and still a liquification plant is a big deal.  Imagine a rock-cruncher that can fill a Starship, the PV to support it and its maintenance crew.

If they find water and it's actually extractable (cryogenic traps are no picnic!) then it's easier  since water is not 40% but more like 90% Oxygen, and the byproduct is hydrogen which is less likely to gum up the equipment.  The chemical energy might be higher (is it?) but I bet the extra PV weighs less than the rock handling equipment.

[InterestedEngineer]

The moon may not be colonized so much as being used for mining.  I think the first thing NASA, Blue Origin, or SpaceX should do is establish a lox production facility on the moon.  A lot of moon regolith is about 40% oxygen.  Oxygen is heavy and if a facility on the moon can be built to make, store, and launch Oxygen to say an L1 fuel depot it would be much easier in the long run to do so. 

The deltaV to get to L1 from LEO is about 9/10 of that to Mars, this doesn't solve anything.

Methane and hydrogen can be brought from Earth since their mass is less so more can be brought to an L1 fuel depot.  L2 would probably be better for a Mars bound ship.  Top of their oxygen and methane on the way to Mars.  A ship getting to L2 would take less refueling in LEO, and topping off at L2 would possibly allow a ship to have more fuel left when getting to Mars.

Methane maybe, but Hydrogen has such a low density that you'll only be launching about 60t or so on StarshipV4.  That's assuming a lot about refrigeration plants too. 

Then once a well established lox facility on the moon and at L2 is fully operational, Mars bound becomes somewhat easier since the moon gravity is less launching lox would be even easier than from Earth. 

Where are you going to get fuel for the Moon?  Biggest problem with the moon is little or no carbon.  See note above about "well just use hydrogen".

I also think a fuel depot should be built it Mars orbit for incoming and out going ships.

No real objection, if it makes economic sense (for outgoing, not for incoming).

All this unless a large nuclear powered mother ship could be built to carry Starships to and from Earth orbit to Mars orbit.


To pay for all this would require retiring the ISS, SLS, and Orion, and NASA concentrating on building a large mother ship for anyone to use to go to and from Mars.  This mother ship could be built by all launchers with large modules by Starships, and smaller parts and internal construction by the other launchers.  Either plan would require a lot of refocusing by all parties involved and a long term commitment by NASA.

As discussed in other threads, the economics of this never pan out.

[Oersted]

The moon may not be colonized so much as being used for mining.  I think the first thing NASA, Blue Origin, or SpaceX should do is establish a lox production facility on the moon.  A lot of moon regolith is about 40% oxygen.  Oxygen is heavy and if a facility on the moon can be built to make, store, and launch Oxygen to say an L1 fuel depot it would be much easier in the long run to do so. 

I really don't think the words "lunar LOX mining" and "much easier" go well together.

[catdlr]

SpaceX just made an Update article on there website

SpaceX@SpaceX
·
For the first time in our existence, we possess the means, technology, and, for the moment, the will to establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth. Starship is designed to make this future a reality →

To the Moon and Beyond

October 30, 2025
To the Moon and Beyond

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1983926856504971268


https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1983921001717997728

Humanity is at an inflection point. For the first time in our existence, we possess the means, technology, and, for the moment, the will to establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth. Starship is designed to make this future a reality and is singularly capable of carrying unparalleled numbers of explorers and the building blocks they’ll need to establish the first outposts on lunar and other planetary surfaces. For these reasons and more, it was chosen to fulfill the key role of landing the first astronauts on the Moon in more than 50 years. It will be a central enabler that will fulfill the vision of NASA’s Artemis program, which seeks to establish a lasting presence on the lunar surface, not just flags and footprints, and ultimately forge the path to land the first humans on Mars.

With the scale of Starship and the technological breakthroughs it is engineered to achieve, SpaceX is moving at a historically rapid pace. Starship provides unmatched capability to explore the Moon, thanks to its large size and ability to refill propellant in space. One single Starship has a pressurized habitable volume of more than 600 cubic meters, which is roughly two-thirds the pressurized volume of the entire International Space Station, and is complete with a cabin that can be scaled for large numbers of explorers and dual airlocks for surface exploration. For comparison: each of Starship’s two airlocks have a habitable volume of approximately 13 cubic meters, which is more than double the space that was available in the Apollo lander. Cargo variants of the Starship lander will be capable of landing up to 100 metric tons directly on the surface, including large payloads like unpressurized rovers, pressurized rovers, nuclear reactors, and lunar habitats.

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.

PATH 1: CORE STARSHIP SYSTEM

Since Starship Flight 1 in April 2023, SpaceX has rapidly advanced vehicle development through an active flight test campaign. In line with past vehicle development, SpaceX maximizes real-world testing throughout this process to quickly and safely demonstrate capabilities, identify areas for improvement, and prove out solutions. This campaign has quickly matured the core Starship and has produced numerous feats, including multiple successful ascents of the world’s most powerful rocket; the launch, return, catch, and reuse of that rocket to unlock the high launch rate cadence needed for lunar missions; the transfer of approximately five metric tons of cryogenic propellant between tanks while in space, a first of its kind operation that provides key data for future full-scale propellant transfer operations; successful in-space relights of the Raptor engines that are critical for the maneuvers that will send Starship to the Moon; and multiple controlled reentries through Earth’s atmosphere.

To date, SpaceX has produced more than three dozen Starships and 600 Raptor rocket engines, with more than 226,000 seconds of run time on the Raptor 2 engine and more than 40,000 seconds of run time on the next-generation Raptor 3 engine. There have been 11 Starship-only flight tests and 11 integrated flight tests of Starship and Super Heavy. In parallel, SpaceX has constructed, and continues to construct, new Starship launch, production, integration, and test facilities in Texas, Florida, and California. This private investment of billions of dollars is creating more than five million square feet of manufacturing and integration space, five launch pads across Texas and Florida, and multiple Raptor test stands, all engineered to ramp Starship’s launch cadence above and beyond the paradigm-redefining rate achieved by SpaceX’s Falcon program.

PATH 2: THE LANDER

In parallel to the development of the core Starship vehicle, SpaceX’s HLS team has completed 49 milestones tied to developing the subsystems, infrastructure, and operations needed to land astronauts on the Moon. SpaceX has received money only on contractual milestones that have been successfully completed, the vast majority of which have been achieved on time or ahead of schedule. Highlights of completed milestones include:

Lunar environmental control and life support and thermal control system demonstrations, using a full-scale cabin module inhabited by multiple people to test the capability to inject oxygen and nitrogen into the cabin environment and accurately manage air distribution and sanitation, along with humidity and thermal control. The test series also measured the acoustic environments inside the cabin

Docking adapter qualification of the docking system that will link Starship and Orion in space, an androgynous SpaceX docking system capable of serving as the active system or passive system and based on the flight-proven Dragon 2 active docking system

Landing leg drop test of a full-scale article at flight energies onto simulated lunar regolith to verify system performance and to study foot-to-regolith interaction

Raptor lunar landing throttle test demonstrating a representative thrust profile that would allow Starship to land on the lunar surface

Micrometeoroid and orbital debris testing of shielding, insulation, and window panels, analyzing different material stackups that will be used to protect Starship from impact hazards and harsh thermal conditions

Landing software, sensor, and radar demonstrations testing navigation and sensing hardware and software that will be used by Starship to locate and safely descend to a precise landing site on the Moon

Software architecture review to define the schematic of major vehicle control processes, what physical computers they will run on, and software functions for critical systems like fault detection, caution and warning alerts, and command and telemetry control

Raptor cold start demonstrations using both sea-level and vacuum-optimized Raptor engines that are pre-chilled prior to startup to simulate the thermal conditions experienced after an extended time in space

Integrated lunar mission operations plan review, covering how SpaceX and NASA will conduct integrated operations, develop flight rules and crew procedures, and the high-level mission operation plan

Depot power module demonstration, testing prototype electrical power generation and distribution systems planned to be used on the propellant depot variant of Starship

Ground segment and radio frequency (RF) communications demonstration, testing the capability to send and receive RF communications between a flight-equivalent ground station and a flight-equivalent vehicle RF system
Elevator and airlock demonstration, which was conducted in concert with Axiom to utilize flight-representative pressurized EVA suits, to practice full operation of the crew elevator which will be used to transfer crew and cargo between Starship and the lunar surface

Medical system demonstration covering the crew medical system on Starship and the telemedicine capability between the ground and crew

Hardware in the loop testbed activation for the propellant transfer flight test, which uses a testbed with flight-representative hardware to run simulations for the upcoming propellant transfer flight test

NEXT STEPS

While many of SpaceX’s remaining HLS contract milestones are tied to flight tests, such as a ship-to-ship propellant transfer demonstration, SpaceX has started fabricating a flight-article Starship HLS cabin that will include functional avionics and power systems, crew systems and mechanisms, environmental control and life support systems, cabin and crew communications systems, and a cabin thermal control system. This flight-capable cabin will enable engineers to demonstrate high design maturity of the various systems required to support a human landing on the Moon, enable integrated system-level hardware testing, and provide a highly realistic training experience for future lunar explorers.

The next major flight milestones tied specifically to HLS 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 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.

Starship V3 vehicles come equipped with docking ports and can be configured to act as tanker vehicles with the addition of docking probes. Starship also has a connection point where propellants are loaded onto the vehicle in preparation for launch that has been updated to enable on-orbit propellant transfer. For rendezvous, Starships will be equipped with DragonEye navigation sensors, which have extensive flight heritage from their use on SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft during dozens of dockings to the International Space Station. These sensors have undergone separate testing to characterize their performance for use on Starship. SpaceX has also been flying experimental propellant gauging sensors on every recent Starship flight test which use radio frequency measurements to accurately measure propellant levels while in microgravity.

A PERMANENT RETURN

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 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.

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. In response to the latest calls, we’ve shared and are formally assessing 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.

NASA’s Artemis program was born out of a visionary goal: to truly explore the Moon and place the first footprints on Mars. Not to repeat the accomplishments of Apollo — not to be another entry in the long list of short-lived exploration initiatives — but to be the opportunity to finally build a sustainable presence on another planet. SpaceX was founded to make life multiplanetary, and Starship has been designed from the very beginning to enable the exploration of other worlds. With it, and alongside NASA, we look forward to inspiring all of humanity as that first permanent foothold is placed among the stars.

[DanClemmensen]

SpaceX just made an Update article on there website

SpaceX@SpaceX
·
For the first time in our existence, we possess the means, technology, and, for the moment, the will to establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth. Starship is designed to make this future a reality →

To the Moon and Beyond

Wow. Apparently Duffy got their attention. This is in effect a comprehensive response to Duffy's vague assertions that SpaceX is late. It's also the clearest declaration yet that SpaceX has a "Moon first" focus right now. More, it's not explictly written as a response to Duffy. Instead, it's a clear and fairly detailed overview for the general public of the current status and ongoing plan for Starship. For example, it does not explicitly say that an interim kludge lander would be too tiny to be meaningful. Instead, it says that Starshjip HLS will be very large in pressurized volume and mass and will fully support a serious lunar effort.

...and that's just the first two pages. I will go read the rest of it and I urge you all to do so also.

[Oersted]

I made a dedicated thread about this rather momentous SpaceX update:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=63788.0

[StraumliBlight]

More renders:

[catdlr]

 Seems the elevator and door are now redesigned.  File cabinet style.

[Twark_Main]

This update has the old Spacex.com/updates.php written all over it (IYKYK).  No way this update wasn't written directly by Elon Musk.

Nice to see this focus on SpaceX at such a critical time. Any remaining worries about not paying attention to SpaceX just evaporated IMO.

[catdlr]

ChromeKiwi@AshleyKillip
Thanks to @SpaceX for some new HLS render's i have added some labels to help with what we are looking at on these variants. As moon only ships will not be returning to earth they will not need header tanks so the nose can be for the docking adaptor and creates a larger enclosed area, so a second air lock would likely be needed it seems a lot to depress the full crew volume. Also with no thermal protection system and the flaps being deleted (used only for Earth reentry) will save a lot of weight. I wonder if anything will be added to prevent boil off of the main tanks or if they move that protection internal ? Many questions still about HLS i have been fascinated by human habitats in space since BFR.

https://twitter.com/AshleyKillip/status/1984036095999586448

[catdlr]

Jay Keegan@_jaykeegan_
·

In a statement to NSF, NASA confirms that both SpaceX and Blue Origin submitted accelerated approaches for an HLS lander. On the Request For Information from the broader industry, this will come after the government shutdown is over.

https://twitter.com/_jaykeegan_/status/1984047947513000163

[JIS]

SpaceX just made an Update article on there website

SpaceX@SpaceX
·
For the first time in our existence, we possess the means, technology, and, for the moment, the will to establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth. Starship is designed to make this future a reality →

To the Moon and Beyond

Wow. Apparently Duffy got their attention. This is in effect a comprehensive response to Duffy's vague assertions that SpaceX is late. It's also the clearest declaration yet that SpaceX has a "Moon first" focus right now. More, it's not explictly written as a response to Duffy. Instead, it's a clear and fairly detailed overview for the general public of the current status and ongoing plan for Starship. For example, it does not explicitly say that an interim kludge lander would be too tiny to be meaningful. Instead, it says that Starshjip HLS will be very large in pressurized volume and mass and will fully support a serious lunar effort.

...and that's just the first two pages. I will go read the rest of it and I urge you all to do so also.

I'm not sure about the Moon first focus. When HLS was contracted in 2021 the Artemis 3 mission was delayed to mid 2025. Now, 2027 is increasingly unrealistic. And SpaceX in October 2025 tells us that they will start manufacturing the first functional mockup of HLS cabin soon? I don't think this is example of "Moon first" approach. Looks like minimum effort to me.

Moreover, the cabin mockup SpaceX shown us is clearly the old footage of converted early starship nosecone. The layout makes no sense for the Moon landing. In my opinion they go for "battle star" type of cabin for Mars and make minimum effort to convert it for the Moon. Mars needs TPS, flaps, big volume, low dV, stainless steel. Moon needs high dV --> low mass --> god forbid stainless, very little in space operation, no flaps etc.           

[envy887]

SpaceX just made an Update article on there website

SpaceX@SpaceX
·
For the first time in our existence, we possess the means, technology, and, for the moment, the will to establish a permanent human presence beyond Earth. Starship is designed to make this future a reality →

To the Moon and Beyond

Wow. Apparently Duffy got their attention. This is in effect a comprehensive response to Duffy's vague assertions that SpaceX is late. It's also the clearest declaration yet that SpaceX has a "Moon first" focus right now. More, it's not explictly written as a response to Duffy. Instead, it's a clear and fairly detailed overview for the general public of the current status and ongoing plan for Starship. For example, it does not explicitly say that an interim kludge lander would be too tiny to be meaningful. Instead, it says that Starshjip HLS will be very large in pressurized volume and mass and will fully support a serious lunar effort.

...and that's just the first two pages. I will go read the rest of it and I urge you all to do so also.

I'm not sure about the Moon first focus. When HLS was contracted in 2021 the Artemis 3 mission was delayed to mid 2025. Now, 2027 is increasingly unrealistic. And SpaceX in October 2025 tells us that they will start manufacturing the first functional mockup of HLS cabin soon? I don't think this is example of "Moon first" approach. Looks like minimum effort to me.

Moreover, the cabin mockup SpaceX shown us is clearly the old footage of converted early starship nosecone. The layout makes no sense for the Moon landing. In my opinion they go for "battle star" type of cabin for Mars and make minimum effort to convert it for the Moon. Mars needs TPS, flaps, big volume, low dV, stainless steel. Moon needs high dV --> low mass --> god forbid stainless, very little in space operation, no flaps etc.           

SpaceX says they have already started building a flight article HLS crew cabin. The functional mockup was completed a long time ago.

SpaceX has started fabricating a flight-article Starship HLS cabin that will include functional avionics and power systems, crew systems and mechanisms, environmental control and life support systems, cabin and crew communications systems, and a cabin thermal control system. This flight-capable cabin will enable engineers to demonstrate high design maturity of the various systems required to support a human landing on the Moon, enable integrated system-level hardware testing, and provide a highly realistic training experience for future lunar explorers.

They don't say what flight it's for, or even if they plan to fly it. It could be for the demo mission, or just for ground qualification. But they are pretty insistent that it's not just a mockup or prototype.

[wannamoonbase]

ChromeKiwi@AshleyKillip
Thanks to @SpaceX for some new HLS render's i have added some labels to help with what we are looking at on these variants. As moon only ships will not be returning to earth they will not need header tanks so the nose can be for the docking adaptor and creates a larger enclosed area, so a second air lock would likely be needed it seems a lot to depress the full crew volume. Also with no thermal protection system and the flaps being deleted (used only for Earth reentry) will save a lot of weight. I wonder if anything will be added to prevent boil off of the main tanks or if they move that protection internal ? Many questions still about HLS i have been fascinated by human habitats in space since BFR.

https://twitter.com/AshleyKillip/status/1984036095999586448

I love the new renders.  The 10 windows are great, however, wouldn't crews prefer to spread a few of them around the perimeter of the vehicle so they can see out other sides of the ship both in space and on the moon?

Maybe at 60 or 90 degree spacing.

[Twark_Main]

ChromeKiwi@AshleyKillip
Thanks to @SpaceX for some new HLS render's i have added some labels to help with what we are looking at on these variants. As moon only ships will not be returning to earth they will not need header tanks so the nose can be for the docking adaptor and creates a larger enclosed area, so a second air lock would likely be needed it seems a lot to depress the full crew volume. Also with no thermal protection system and the flaps being deleted (used only for Earth reentry) will save a lot of weight. I wonder if anything will be added to prevent boil off of the main tanks or if they move that protection internal ? Many questions still about HLS i have been fascinated by human habitats in space since BFR.

https://twitter.com/AshleyKillip/status/1984036095999586448

I expect "Food storage?" is the HVAC cabinet for replacing scrubbers, (and filters, and maintenance), and the duct shown is actually running up from there.

If the duct were being fed from above, I'd expect it to end above the work area (where the lowest vent is), to avoid unnecessary mass and to encroach less on the workspace. Alternatively, maybe it's feeding the room below? Still it seems like odd 3D "packaging," to have the duct run right through the center of an unrelated subsystem like that.