Who will land on the Moon first, the Moonship or the Blue Moon?

[envy887]

From the article quoted above:

some industry officials believe Blue Origin now has a realistic chance to compete with SpaceX in the effort to land NASA astronauts on the Moon as part of the Artemis Program.

The quote above is just proof that you can find industry officials that will say just about anything, as long as their name isn't attached. That's still a pretty rosy view of Blue's progress, especially considering that Berger's sources are also indicating a H1 2026 launch for Blue Moon Mk1 rather than later this year.

Comparing the two programs:

1) Blue Origin started receiving HLS payments later and is scheduled to fly later per NASA. Not insurmountable, but it puts them behind right out of the gate.

2) Blue needs New Glenn booster reuse to plausibly complete the crew mission, but has yet to demonstrate any of the EDL sequence for the booster, or recovery, refurbishment, or relaunch. SpaceX also needs booster reuse, but has already demonstrated all those things with the SuperHeavy booster, not to mention hundreds of times with F9.

3) Blue needs to develop the CLT, or their architecture doesn't work for a crewed mission. SpaceX's plan has them develop the Depot/Tanker ship variants, but could plausibly skip that and fill the HLS ship directly from standard ships before departing.

4) Blue needs to develop LH2/LOX orbital refueling, which they have not demoed. SpaceX needs to develop LCH4/LOX orbital refueling, but has already demoed tank to tank transfer in space.

5) Blue needs to develop long term LH2 management. SpaceX only needs LCH4/LOX management, both of which are "space storable" rather than deep cryogens.

6) Blue has yet to demonstrate orbital rendezvous and docking. SpaceX has done both dozens of times.

7) Blue hasn't flown any variants of their primary propulsion engines/tanks/structures/avionics for the transfer and landing systems. SpaceX has.

The theory that Blue could realistically beat SpaceX is being entirely hung on New Glenn reaching orbit (which is just a demonstration of willful obtuseness, as Starship effectively did the same multiple times), and on 5 months worth of setbacks with Starship testing - testing that Blue's architecture is still years away from even beginning. If you don't think Blue will have comparable setbacks, just consider the 2 GS2s that they lost in ground handling. Even if Mk1 is successful next year, that only checks #7 and maybe #5, which is much less than they need to catch up to where SpaceX is right now, much less where SpaceX will be next year. It doesn't demonstrate critical technologies like booster reuse, or refueling, or rendezvous.

[catdlr]

This discussion should be renamed to "What human-rated vehicle will land on the moon NEXT?"

The Apollo Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was the inaugural craft; any subsequent developments merely represent progress.

[deltaV]

https://twitter.com/DrChrisCombs/status/1939780754352775544

It's better to cite the original Eric Berger article rather than a tweet quoting it: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/06/the-second-launch-of-new-glenn-will-aim-for-mars/.

[sdsds]

I'm with Berger's sources on this not because Starship HLS will face insurmountable technical hurdles but rather because:
 (a) the nation has no need to rush back to the Moon, and
 (b) SpaceX will quite likely encounter non-technical obstacles, and
 (c) SpaceX has tasks better than HLS for early Starship missions.

[laszlo]

...

2) Blue needs New Glenn booster reuse to plausibly complete the crew mission ...

Why? If it's a fixed-price contract, does NASA care? If Blue has enough boosters on hand (or can order them off Amazon) and is willing to eat the cost, who needs re-use?

[saturnsky]

Afraid the third choice should be China,,and Im afraid they may be the winner....New Glenn and Blue moon will be more successful then Starship,,and hopefully will put the next Americans on the Moon...Space X,,Starship,,too many problems, and political side is a mess...it all matters.

[envy887]

...

2) Blue needs New Glenn booster reuse to plausibly complete the crew mission ...

Why? If it's a fixed-price contract, does NASA care? If Blue has enough boosters on hand (or can order them off Amazon) and is willing to eat the cost, who needs re-use?

NASA doesn't care, but Blue Origin definitely does. It's an issue of flight rate, not money.

They need booster reuse to accumulate propellant in LEO for the CLT in a reasonable timespan. The New Glenn booster is complex and slow to build, and Blue is only planning to build 4 a year (and has demonstrated less than 1 per year so far). They could perhaps stock up and then launch a salvo expended on refueling missions, but that would essentially zero their flight rate for all other customers for a year or more, which is almost certainly completely unacceptable due to impact to those customers. Kuiper, for example, can't take an additional year+ delay.

[Tywin]

Artemis III or IV...

https://twitter.com/ThePrimalDino/status/1969825360952090957

[DanClemmensen]

Artemis III or IV...

https://x.com/ThePrimalDino/status/1969825360952090957

I don't understand. The recent "concern" about Starship HLS schedule uncertainty is related to fuel transfer. But Blue Moon HLS also requires fuel transfer, and their system involves transfer between dissimilar spacecraft from separate companies, and requires transfer of liquid hydrogen.

[StraumliBlight]

[...] and their system involves transfer between dissimilar spacecraft from separate companies, and requires transfer of liquid hydrogen.

That's no longer true, Blue Origin took over construction of the Cislunar Transporter.

[DanClemmensen]

[...] and their system involves transfer between dissimilar spacecraft from separate companies, and requires transfer of liquid hydrogen.

That's no longer true, Blue Origin took over construction of the Cislunar Transporter.

Thanks! It's clear from that that most of the responsibility for the cislunar transport must now be a Blue Origin, but it appears that there is still some LockMart involvement. Do you have a link to some announcement or other about this situation?

I any event, the BO HLS still involves at least three dissimilar spacecraft: NG, Cislunar Transport, and BO MK 2, and the mission includes multiple fuel transfers of different types. Anyone who has concerns about SpaceX' fuel transfer should also have concerns about BO's fuel transfer.

[Vultur]

 Yeah. if I understand correctly (please correct me if I don't; it's confusing) Blue Moon Mk1 doesn't require orbital propellant transfer, but Blue Moon HLS does.

So Blue Moon Mk1 is very likely to land on the Moon before anything Starship-derived (I don't believe the theoretical schedule at all, but summer 2026 seems possible if it's New Glenn flight 4) but that doesn't mean Blue Moon HLS will.

[Tywin]

Its official, SpaceX is behind, and out of Artemis III...

https://twitter.com/SecDuffyNASA/status/1980257227760955637

[Robotbeat]

Its official, SpaceX is behind, and out of Artemis III...

https://twitter.com/SecDuffyNASA/status/1980257227760955637

the part I italicized is absolutely not what he said.

[envy887]

Its official, SpaceX is behind, and out of Artemis III...

https://twitter.com/SecDuffyNASA/status/1980257227760955637

That isn't at all what Duffy said.

This is no different than Bridenstine's comments about needing SpaceX to focus on delivering Dragon for Commercial Crew. It's creating a sense of competition and urgency to push them forward.

And who knows, Blue might actually deliver something for once.

[JulesVerneATV]

NASA Seeks Backup Plan for Carrying Astronauts to the Moon
https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/11/01/1737240/nasa-seeks-backup-plan-for-carrying-astronauts-to-the-moon#comments

report from CNN, also Fox, BBC, Yahoo News, Reuters running similar stories