HLS Landing in 2023 - What would it take?

[TrueBlueWitt]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??

So, what would that look like?

Assumptions:

1)  Boosters(HLS & Tankers) - Burn to depletion
2)  Ships(HLS & Tankers) - strip the tiles/flaps and basically just launch shells.

How many on orbit refuelings does it take to put enough prop in the HLS to get through TLI, and have enough left to attempt a lunar landing?  Do you skip Lunar orbit altogether and do a direct descent?

[jimbresnahan]

Major milestones required: reach orbit, successful in-orbit refueling, landing engines (maybe can try landing on Raptors), moon-rated, NASA approved landing legs.   I would think it's too much to get through this year, but would love to be wrong.

[wannamoonbase]

Not possible, this is a silly thread.

[alugobi]

What would it take?

Multiple divinities intervening.

[RDMM2081]

Step 0: Get a launch license.  No sign yet, NET/ETA 100% guesswork, assume multiple months. Current launch limits 5/year, assume that means calendar 2023.
Step 1: Launch ANY demo.  Assume it will provide no propellant testing/depot because it's a big fat demo. Consumes 1/5 launches for calendar 2023. Also Assuming it works and provides confidence to try next steps for HLS.
Step 2: Launch an (mostly) empty tanker, leave it up there, launch 2/5 for calendar 2023.
Step 3: Launch two refueling tankers and fuel it up, this takes launch 3&4/5 for calendar 2034, leaving one for:
Step 4: Launch the HLS empty, dock it to the tanker from Launch 2, load the prop from Launches 3&4, YOLO Mun.

Unless something changes, that's as many launches as can be done in calendar 2023, and I'm a amazing people, but call me, um, skeptical.

I think our best guess estimates are that an early generation tanker could get lets say max 100t of prop to a depot, you get two, plus I would be generous and guesstimate that you launched 50t of prop inside the "tanker" version, so my best case is that you could add 250t of prop to the HLS once it is in orbit.  Make more assumptions and hand wave that you get 50t of prop inside the HLS when it launches, so you now have a total of 300t of prop inside an HLS in orbit.  Can that get to Mun and land? I kinda really doubt it. Oh, and absolutely nothing can go wrong of course.

[whitelancer64]

Step 0: Get a launch license.  No sign yet, NET/ETA 100% guesswork, assume multiple months. Current launch limits 5/year, assume that means calendar 2023.
Step 1: Launch ANY demo.  Assume it will provide no propellant testing/depot because it's a big fat demo. Consumes 1/5 launches for calendar 2023. Also Assuming it works and provides confidence to try next steps for HLS.
Step 2: Launch an (mostly) empty tanker, leave it up there, launch 2/5 for calendar 2023.
Step 3: Launch two refueling tankers and fuel it up, this takes launch 3&4/5 for calendar 2034, leaving one for:
Step 4: Launch the HLS empty, dock it to the tanker from Launch 2, load the prop from Launches 3&4, YOLO Mun.

Unless something changes, that's as many launches as can be done in calendar 2023, and I'm a amazing people, but call me, um, skeptical.

I think our best guess estimates are that an early generation tanker could get lets say max 100t of prop to a depot, you get two, plus I would be generous and guesstimate that you launched 50t of prop inside the "tanker" version, so my best case is that you could add 250t of prop to the HLS once it is in orbit.  Make more assumptions and hand wave that you get 50t of prop inside the HLS when it launches, so you now have a total of 300t of prop inside an HLS in orbit.  Can that get to Mun and land? I kinda really doubt it. Oh, and absolutely nothing can go wrong of course.

The emphasis really needs to be on that last point: Everything you mentioned would need to go perfectly on the first try. We all know how unlikely that is.

Because there are so many variables and unknown unknowns, I personally expect in orbit refueling to take a few attempts before it is fully successful.

I would guess that HLS Demo will be the first launch from the Starship pad at LC-39A while the in orbit propellant transfer demonstration / Tankers launch from Boca Chica.

[TomH]

Possible with Herculean effort, but extremely unlikely. Besides, racing towards such an artificial deadline would likely be counterproductive due to design flaws not having time to be ironed out, accidents, RUDs, etc. You do not want to go at BO pace, but you also do not want to be so fast that you are reckless.

Current launch limits 5/year...

That applies to Boca Chica, not to the multiple launch sites being built at and planned for Canaveral.

[edzieba]

The 5 a year "limit" is also easily increased if required, just as it has been for every other launch site SpaceX operates (which have flight rates far above those in their initial EAs).

However, Musk has publicly stated a target for 5 full stacks manufactured this year; given how optimistic Elon Time is, the actual number manufactured to completion (given there will be vehicles not completed due to obsolescence, vehicles converted to test articles, non-recovered vehicles, etc) will likely be lower.

[Starbeam]

When will Pad 39A be ready?

[Lampyridae]

Possible with Herculean effort, but extremely unlikely. Besides, racing towards such an artificial deadline would likely be counterproductive due to design flaws not having time to be ironed out, accidents, RUDs, etc. You do not want to go at BO pace, but you also do not want to be so fast that you are reckless.

Current launch limits 5/year...

That applies to Boca Chica, not to the multiple launch sites being built at and planned for Canaveral.

I read a Bloomberg article (paywalled) suggesting that this Twitter nonsense has taken Musk's attention away from SpaceX, allowing breathers and a steady pace of work.

Even so, I can't see anything other than (at most) an orbital rendezvous test taking place, or else an orbital shakedown test of the HLS vehicle and systems ending with a swim in the Pacific.

[Orbiter]

I'd be impressed if they make it to orbit this year, to be honest. HLS demo in 2025... maybe.

[kevinof]

Not as pessimistic as you - Barring a rud at stage 0 (the launch mount) I think they will make orbit in the 2nd half. As for the HLS demo in 2025 - doable but needs a lot to go right.

I'd be impressed if they make it to orbit this year, to be honest. HLS demo in 2025... maybe.

[greybeardengineer]

Possible with Herculean effort, but extremely unlikely. Besides, racing towards such an artificial deadline would likely be counterproductive due to design flaws not having time to be ironed out, accidents, RUDs, etc. You do not want to go at BO pace, but you also do not want to be so fast that you are reckless.

Current launch limits 5/year...

That applies to Boca Chica, not to the multiple launch sites being built at and planned for Canaveral.

I read a Bloomberg article (paywalled) suggesting that this Twitter nonsense has taken Musk's attention away from SpaceX, allowing breathers and a steady pace of work.

Even so, I can't see anything other than (at most) an orbital rendezvous test taking place, or else an orbital shakedown test of the HLS vehicle and systems ending with a swim in the Pacific.

Starship is still very much an evolving design with ongoing changes large and small as development progresses. Elon is still very much the design prime and IMO the team leads would be very loathe to make non-trivial changes without Elon reviewing them and signing off. To the extent that he is distracted from SpaceX by his self inflicted problems does not make the Starship program run smoother.

[philw1776]

Starship is still very much an evolving design with ongoing changes large and small as development progresses. Elon is still very much the design prime and IMO the team leads would be very loathe to make non-trivial changes without Elon reviewing them and signing off. To the extent that he is distracted from SpaceX by his self inflicted problems does not make the Starship program run smoother.

We were told that Gwynn had assumed operational control of all things Boca. Starship is in incredibly capable hands.

[greybeardengineer]

Starship is still very much an evolving design with ongoing changes large and small as development progresses. Elon is still very much the design prime and IMO the team leads would be very loathe to make non-trivial changes without Elon reviewing them and signing off. To the extent that he is distracted from SpaceX by his self inflicted problems does not make the Starship program run smoother.

We were told that Gwynn had assumed operational control of all things Boca. Starship is in incredibly capable hands.

Operations and design are very distinct divisions in every company I have worked for. And I have worked for a lot of very different companies.

[philw1776]

Starship is still very much an evolving design with ongoing changes large and small as development progresses. Elon is still very much the design prime and IMO the team leads would be very loathe to make non-trivial changes without Elon reviewing them and signing off. To the extent that he is distracted from SpaceX by his self inflicted problems does not make the Starship program run smoother.

We were told that Gwynn had assumed operational control of all things Boca. Starship is in incredibly capable hands.

Operations and design are very distinct divisions in every company I have worked for. And I have worked for a lot of very different companies.

Not saying they aren't as a design guy. But the issue is and has been getting the existing Starship and booster ready to fly. 
We here know that these vehicles are already incompatible with their newer designed successors already in fabrication.
GSE approach has been decided and design flaws are being beaten out via operational testing.

[alastairmayer]

Starship is still very much an evolving design with ongoing changes large and small as development progresses. Elon is still very much the design prime and IMO the team leads would be very loathe to make non-trivial changes without Elon reviewing them and signing off. To the extent that he is distracted from SpaceX by his self inflicted problems does not make the Starship program run smoother.

We were told that Gwynn had assumed operational control of all things Boca. Starship is in incredibly capable hands.

Operations and design are very distinct divisions in every company I have worked for. And I have worked for a lot of very different companies.

Not saying they aren't as a design guy. But the issue is and has been getting the existing Starship and booster ready to fly. 
We here know that these vehicles are already incompatible with their newer designed successors already in fabrication.
GSE approach has been decided and design flaws are being beaten out via operational testing.

DevOps, it's not just for software anymore.

[jcliving]

It is not going to happen during 2023.  A HLS landing can only happen after the following 5 are completed.

* Achieve an orbital launch by starship.
* Mature the fuel transfer technology including depot creation and launch, tanker design, multiple tankers created, and demonstrate orbital fuel transfer.
* Upgrade Florida facility and achieve a launch rate from there of 10 launches within 3 month period.
* Mature HLS design and receive go for launch.
* Mature the starship reuse case - not going to launch and throw away 11 boosters and 10 tankers for the HLS landing mission.

I have serious doubts all of that will be completed by the end of 2024, so no chance for 2023.

[volker2020]

It is not going to happen during 2023.  A HLS landing can only happen after the following 5 are completed.

* Achieve an orbital launch by starship.
* Mature the fuel transfer technology including depot creation and launch, tanker design, multiple tankers created, and demonstrate orbital fuel transfer.
* Upgrade Florida facility and achieve a launch rate from there of 10 launches within 3 month period.
* Mature HLS design and receive go for launch.
* Mature the starship reuse case - not going to launch and throw away 11 boosters and 10 tankers for the HLS landing mission.

I have serious doubts all of that will be completed by the end of 2024, so no chance for 2023.

I think the last point not correct. As long as they land the booster, a throw away starship is conceivable. Not even trying to land it, means they can almost double the load, which would reduce the number of throw away tankers to <= 5 and only having a bare ship without heat shield, elerons, header tanks, ... should reduce the production costs.

[CorvusCorax]

Re: HLS Landing - this year(2023) -What would it take?


It would take a big enough RUD for some debris to accidentally impact the moon.

The chances for Starship to explode in such a way that debris end up both with sufficiently high velocities and hurled unto the right vector for lunar impact are very low. Even though a RUD late in first stage ascend - above the majority of the atmosphere - could significantly improve them to the point of being feasible, the chances of actually hitting the moon are still not good.

The odds would get significantly higher if you consider that debris on earth escape trajectories orbiting the sun have a decent chance of eventually getting recaptured and impacting the far side of the moon, but this would take thousands of years and wouldn't count if the actual "landing" has to happen 2023, not just the launch, so probably only direct impact trajectories count.

Still, however low the chances of such a lunar impact is higher than an actual planned HLS landing this year, considering

1. High likelihood of a Starship test launch this year
2. High likelihood of RUD on a rocket's first orbital launch in general
3. Propellant energy on board Starship being sufficient to launch debris into trans-lunar-intercept trajectories.

Versus the near impossibility for a planned moon landing in the same timespan.

[woods170]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??
<snip>

Stop right there. Wayne Hale is ill-informed in this case. Probably not his fault, but courtesy of someone at either NASA or SpaceX not updating the schedules.
None of the sources I have spoken at SpaceX deem an uncrewed Moon landing attempt possible this year. 2024 Is out of the question as well. The very earliest they see it happen is 2025, and then only if everything goes OK. Which, needless to say, will probably not be the case.

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing if that happens before 2027.

[DanClemmensen]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??
<snip>

Stop right there. Wayne Hale is ill-informed in this case. Probably not his fault, but courtesy of someone at either NASA or SpaceX not updating the schedules.
None of the sources I have spoken at SpaceX deem an uncrewed Moon landing attempt possible this year. 2024 Is out of the question as well. The very earliest they see it happen is 2025, and then only if everything goes OK. Which, needless to say, will probably not be the case.

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

I am reluctantly forced to agree with you. There is a graph in a post on another thread:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46338.msg2450278#msg2450278
It shows that no modern orbital LV has launched more than 3 times in its first year, and only F9 managed to launch 10 times in less than 5 years. But Starship will need more than 10 launches when you include initial testing.

[alugobi]

Indeed.

The impatience of fandom knows no bounds.

[RDMM2081]

I think we can all agree that the 2023 HLS landing demo is preposterous, given the facts and assumptions above.

Also that graph is a wonderful benchmark of past launcher systems.

Maybe a better question is if Starship/Superheavy has a chance to "beat the record" of 3 launches in its first year?

Pro: The system is supposed to be designed to be fully and rapidly reusable.
Pro: They have been testing "flight grade" hardware on the actual launch pad for some time now

Con: It's huge
Con: It's new
Con: It's still untested (in the sense it has not successfully demonstrated its ability to launch all the way to orbit)
Con: Still no launch license

Based upon absolutely nothing more than that I want it to succeed, I think they do have a good chance to max out their 5 launch attempts from Boca Chica this year and shatter the previous 3 launches in the first year benchmark, and be on their way to a 10-20 launch second year.

[alugobi]

Whoa.

[eric z]

 So, 2028/9 gets us back on the pre-Trump schedule: No harm, no foul!

[oiorionsbelt]

The impatience of fandom knows no bounds.

  given how optimistic Elon Time is,

While probably true the alternative is far, far bleaker.

In July 2010, Boeing stated that the capsule could be operational as early as 2015

[Negan]

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

Where does that put Dear Moon?

[laszlo]

Nobody is mentioning the other things going on in our world that could impact the effort. Even if SpaceX could pull off the technical details perfectly, there's still the war in Ukraine, the general state of the US national economy, the world economy and now the US Congress posturing about the US debt limit.  Toss in the possibilities of natural disasters like massive winter storms disrupting transportation and supply chains, Gulf and Atlantic storms impacting the SH/SS launch sites and a new COVID variant and you don't need any help from SpaceX or Elon at all to delay well beyond 2023.

For example, the current US debt limit impasse is now forcing austerity measures onto US spending to delay the default and shutdown as long as possible (currently estimated to be June). Until that gets resolved, the priority in US spending will be the interest payments on US debt instruments and payments under the federal insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security, not issuing launch licenses, completing environmental impact statements or funding oversight of lunar lander development. Even if SpaceX was ready to go right now, there'd be a delay.

[Oersted]

Thank God Starship is not a state-run effort! 

[Valerij]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??
<snip>

Stop right there. Wayne Hale is ill-informed in this case. Probably not his fault, but courtesy of someone at either NASA or SpaceX not updating the schedules.

   
There is absolutely no chance that SpaceX will be able to send a Starship HLS to the Moon this year. But there is a very good chance that SpaceX will send third-party landers and/or orbiters to the Moon under the CLPS program. Naturally, SpaceX will launch them on Falcon-9 or Falcon Heavy rockets.
   
Furthermore,
The Starship HLS is not designed to return to Earth or Earth orbit, and will not have heat shield tiles or aerodynamic panels.

[Valerij]

[None of the sources I have spoken at SpaceX deem an uncrewed Moon landing attempt possible this year. 2024 Is out of the question as well. The very earliest they see it happen is 2025, and then only if everything goes OK. Which, needless to say, will probably not be the case.

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

   
I won't argue with you, but it seems likely to me that you will have to eat your crow.

[kdhilliard]

Forgetting the 2023 part, hypothetically, how many fully expendable (both Superheavy booster & Starship upper stage) launches would be needed to attempt a lunar landing of a stripped down HLS Starship?

[eriblo]

Forgetting the 2023 part, hypothetically, how many fully expendable (both Superheavy booster & Starship upper stage) launches would be needed to attempt a lunar landing of a stripped down HLS Starship?

Likely 3, 2 if you have really good performance:

Minimum dv from reference LEO to Moon surface is generally set as ~5.7 km/s. Average Isp of 365 s gives a mass ratio of 4.9.

Assuming say a stripped HLS is similar to a reusable tanker (say 120 t) and no payload gives 470 t of propellant. This is  HLS + 4 tankers if nominal payload is 100 t. Expendable payload has been estimated as ~2x reusable which gives HLS + 2 tankers with quite a bit of margin for boiloff and residuals.

If HLS is <100 t empty or nominal payload is 150 t you might get away with a single tanker.

[InterestedEngineer]

]Expendable payload has been estimated as ~2x reusable which gives HLS + 2 tankers with quite a bit of margin for boiloff and residuals.

There's no way it takes an extra 100t of propellant to reuse a Starship.

1.2x I'd believe, but not 2x

[DanClemmensen]

]Expendable payload has been estimated as ~2x reusable which gives HLS + 2 tankers with quite a bit of margin for boiloff and residuals.

There's no way it takes an extra 100t of propellant to reuse a Starship.

1.2x I'd believe, but not 2x

It's not just the propellant. If SS is designed to be expendable it does not have TPS or Elonerons.

[InterestedEngineer]

]Expendable payload has been estimated as ~2x reusable which gives HLS + 2 tankers with quite a bit of margin for boiloff and residuals.

There's no way it takes an extra 100t of propellant to reuse a Starship.

1.2x I'd believe, but not 2x

It's not just the propellant. If SS is designed to be expendable it does not have TPS or Elonerons.

Do the math, you still don't get 2x

[kdhilliard]

...
Do the math, you still don't get 2x

Even with the fully expended Superheavy booster?

(Perhaps not a likely scenario, but was inherent to my question.)

[Vahe231991]

Even if the first Starship launch is successful, the fact that the HLS is the lunar landing component of all Artemis missions starting with Artemis 3 means that SpaceX is most likely to start manufacturing components for the HLS on the eve of the Artemis 2 mission, since Artemis 3 is a long way off. Add to that the fact that SpaceX would also have to manufacture additional Starship/Super Heavy rockets because the Starship would have to be refueled from another Starship while en route to the Moon.

[CorvusCorax]

I see a decent chance that SpaceX will start doing in orbit prop transfer tests in 2024.

Pulling that forward to 2023 might be possible but is very unlikely - depending on SpaceX priorities.

Prio 1 is obviously "Make orbit"

Prio X is "launch Starlinks"

Prio Y is "achieve full reusability"

Prio Z is "in orbit prop transfer ( depot )

SpaceX must Assign 2,3,4 to X,Y,Z

At first it looked like Y=2 X=3 Z=4

Then SpaceX started removing recovery hw from newly built prototypes, suggesting

X=2 Y=3 Z=4

But now they have welded the dispenser slots shut. That might just be to not infer with Prio 1 - make orbit.

Unless Prop Transfer suddenly is more important than both other goals, it likely won't start to happen this year. And there's good reason to get reusability - at least of booster - to work before starting simultaneous multi vehicle operations. You also want decent reliability and reliable engine restart in orbit already demonstrated.

This is a long roadmap. Even at SpaceX speed. ( which wasn't all that fast in 2022 )

[woods170]

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

[woods170]

[None of the sources I have spoken at SpaceX deem an uncrewed Moon landing attempt possible this year. 2024 Is out of the question as well. The very earliest they see it happen is 2025, and then only if everything goes OK. Which, needless to say, will probably not be the case.

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

   
I won't argue with you, but it seems likely to me that you will have to eat your crow.

We'll see. 2026 is just a short 3 years from now. Not a whole lot of time to get the HLS show on the road.

[eriblo]

]Expendable payload has been estimated as ~2x reusable which gives HLS + 2 tankers with quite a bit of margin for boiloff and residuals.

There's no way it takes an extra 100t of propellant to reuse a Starship.

1.2x I'd believe, but not 2x

It's not just the propellant. If SS is designed to be expendable it does not have TPS or Elonerons.

Do the math, you still don't get 2x

Have you done the math? flightclub.io has a Starship profile (120 t payload, 119 t + 250 t dry mass, 1200 t + 2970 t of propellant) that gets to a ~200 km orbit with 12 t of residuals/landing propellant.

Expending the booster gets ~50 t of residuals. Loading the booster fully with 3400 t gets ~87 t of residuals.

If we say that TPS + flaps + actuators + smaller batteries + payload bay is a conservative 23 t that would mean a stripped down tanker would deliver 230 t of propellant even before extending it and launching it heavy.

[pochimax]

perhaps the 2023 date referred only to the anticipated calendar milestone. and spacex is way behind on their schedule

[alugobi]

SpaceX is, generally speaking, way behind on Musk time.  We don't really know the actual schedule.

[Ben Baley]

I see a decent chance that SpaceX will start doing in orbit prop transfer tests in 2024.

Pulling that forward to 2023 might be possible but is very unlikely - depending on SpaceX priorities.

Prio 1 is obviously "Make orbit"

Prio X is "launch Starlinks"

Prio Y is "achieve full reusability"

Prio Z is "in orbit prop transfer ( depot )

SpaceX must Assign 2,3,4 to X,Y,Z

At first it looked like Y=2 X=3 Z=4

Then SpaceX started removing recovery hw from newly built prototypes, suggesting

X=2 Y=3 Z=4

But now they have welded the dispenser slots shut. That might just be to not infer with Prio 1 - make orbit.

Unless Prop Transfer suddenly is more important than both other goals, it likely won't start to happen this year. And there's good reason to get reusability - at least of booster - to work before starting simultaneous multi vehicle operations. You also want decent reliability and reliable engine restart in orbit already demonstrated.

This is a long roadmap. Even at SpaceX speed. ( which wasn't all that fast in 2022 )

I would make achieving booster reuse a seperate goal on par with launching starlink, but I would definitely put refueling ahead of full reuse launching starlink is definitely up there because it means the flights are effectively paying for themselves and you can use the vehicle to test refueling and/or EDL as a freebie. As long as nothing goes wrong on ascent I wouldn't be surprised to see at least some starlinks launched on the second flight with propellant transfer testing possible late this year.

[alugobi]

Another consideration:  as long as there continues to be delay in building the high bays in Florida, the date of anything happening at that site gets pushed out. 

[Ben Baley]

Another consideration:  as long as there continues to be delay in building the high bays in Florida, the date of anything happening at that site gets pushed out.

Not necessarily, according to Elon the first launches from Florida will be with vehicles produced in Boca Chica and barged over, I assume the engines will be installed in Florida, but SpaceX has shown that they are quite able to do that on a stand if required. So all that's really required for a launch from 39A is for the launch mount, tower, and GSE to be completed.

[DanClemmensen]

Another consideration:  as long as there continues to be delay in building the high bays in Florida, the date of anything happening at that site gets pushed out.

Not necessarily, according to Elon the first launches from Florida will be with vehicles produced in Boca Chica and barged over, I assume the engines will be installed in Florida, but SpaceX has shown that they are quite able to do that on a stand if required. So all that's really required for a launch from 39A is for the launch mount, tower, and GSE to be completed.

Is there a good reason to not mount the engines at BC? I guess this may depend on whether SS and SH will be shipped horizontally or vertically.

[alugobi]

Pretty skeptical that they're going to build a lander in BC.

[Ben Baley]

Another consideration:  as long as there continues to be delay in building the high bays in Florida, the date of anything happening at that site gets pushed out.

Not necessarily, according to Elon the first launches from Florida will be with vehicles produced in Boca Chica and barged over, I assume the engines will be installed in Florida, but SpaceX has shown that they are quite able to do that on a stand if required. So all that's really required for a launch from 39A is for the launch mount, tower, and GSE to be completed.

Is there a good reason to not mount the engines at BC? I guess this may depend on whether SS and SH will be shipped horizontally or vertically.

IIRC Elon indicated in a tweet that they would be transported vertically like Falcon boosters on a drone ship.

Transporting without engines installed is what I assumed would be done but on further consideration I'm not sure, two possible reasons to would be: 1 to avoid the risk of losing the vehicle and engines to an accident (sinking, blowing over, rogue wave) 2 to avoid damage to the engines from being exposed to the elements at sea.

Either way the point stands that completion of the high bay is not a launch requirement.

[DanClemmensen]

Pretty skeptical that they're going to build a lander in BC.

Why? HLS is just another SS variant. If they build and ship other variants there is no fundamental difference. HLS uncrewed demo needs at least three SS (one each of depot, tanker, HLS) plus one booster. Artemis III needs another HLS. Why is HLS special?

[lykos]

70 m x 9 m Booster barged vertically like a F9-Booster? Over such a big distance? Plus SS plus HSL?
On which ships?

[edzieba]

70 m x 9 m Booster barged vertically like a F9-Booster? Over such a big distance? Plus SS plus HSL?
On which ships?

Same contractors that move larger and MUCH heavier items around on the regular, e.g. Roll-Lift (who SpaceX already contract with at BC).

[Ben Baley]

70 m x 9 m Booster barged vertically like a F9-Booster? Over such a big distance? Plus SS plus HSL?
On which ships?

Starship and super heavy are big but pretty light for their size, barges can carry a lot of weight. The height does make it a Less stable load but assuming it's firmly tied down an appropriately sized barge with the proper ballast should have no problem transporting a booster vertically.

Some numbers for reference

https://heartlandbarge.com/barge-weight-capacities-chart/

OCEAN DECK BARGES: APPROXIMATE S/T CAPACITY & FREEBOARD
BARGE SIZE   3′ FREEBOARD   5′ FREEBOARD
140’x 40’ x 9’           710 S/T.       385 S/T
155’ X 55’ X 9’   1080 S/T   585 S/T
160’ X 54’ X 12’   1905 S/T   1375 S/T
180’ X 54’ X 12’   2200 S/T   1600 S/T
200’x 50’ x 13’   2500 S/T   1820 S/T
260’ X 72’ X 16’   5692/5780 S/T AT LOADLINE   

[laszlo]

Horizontal would be trivial for a ship and there's be plenty of room for a stretcher frame and cradle. Transport would be faster and safer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Elon change his mind about vertical transport. It's nothing compared to dumping composites and going with stainless steel.

SS - 50m long, 9m diameter, dry mass 100t
SH - 70m long, 9m diameter, dry mass 160t
USS Cole - 154m long, 18m beam, displacement 6,900t

[edzieba]

Upright transport is not an issue: that rig is 215m tall (3 times as tall as Super Heavy) and at nearly 30,000 tonnes is around 150 times heavier than Super Heavy. Super Heavy is a teeny tiny little shrimp in the world of large object transport.

[yg1968]

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

It would be the other way around. If Dear Moon flies before HLS, a lot of people will be questioning SpaceX's commitment to HLS. Their contract says that HLS should be ready in 2025. That should be their priority, not Dear Moon.

In any event, this seems to contradict what Nick Cunnings is saying publicly, he is essentially saying that Starlink and Artemis are the first Starship missions:

On panel abt Moon, Mars and Beyond, SpaceX’s Nick Cummings says first Starship launches will be for Starlink but can think of them as Artemis flights bc they’ll build reliability and reusability needed for HLS and more broadly sustainable exploration.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1623737494054309888

[Oersted]

But surely there will be a circumlunar flight before a landing.

[daedalus1]

A miracle.

[Valerij]

Their realistic assessment is a first uncrewed lunar landing attempt in 2026, with the crewed landing NET late 2027/early 2028.

And yes, I'm willing to eat crow if my sources are wrong and the first uncrewed lunar landing attempt is earlier than 2026. Same for the first crewed landing it that happens before 2027.

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

It would be the other way around. If Dear Moon flies before HLS, a lot of people will be questioning SpaceX's commitment to HLS. Their contract says that HLS should be ready in 2025. That should be their priority, not Dear Moon.

In any event, this seems to contradict what Nick Cunnings is saying publicly, he is essentially saying that Starlink and Artemis are the first Starship missions:

On panel abt Moon, Mars and Beyond, SpaceX’s Nick Cummings says first Starship launches will be for Starlink but can think of them as Artemis flights bc they’ll build reliability and reusability needed for HLS and more broadly sustainable exploration.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1623737494054309888

     
First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.
   

[woods170]

Where does that put Dear Moon?

2025 At the very earliest. But 2026/2027 is more realistic, according to my sources at SpaceX.

The problem consists mainly of 2 things:
1. getting Starship flying operationally.
2. getting lots and lots and lots of flights to build confidence and reliability.

Both things combined will take several years. So much in fact that one of the SpaceX sources suggested that DearMoon might actually fly only AFTER the Artemis III crewed landing. But we'll see what happens. One thing is for sure: if DearMoon flies successfully BEFORE Artemis III, then a lot of people will start questioning the use of the government owned systems for bringing people to the Moon.

It would be the other way around. If Dear Moon flies before HLS, a lot of people will be questioning SpaceX's commitment to HLS. Their contract says that HLS should be ready in 2025. That should be their priority, not Dear Moon.

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

[steveleach]

Do we know that DearMoon and Polaris 3 aren't milestones on the plan that SpaceX and NASA are tracking for Artemis?

The fact that someone else is paying for them shouldn't make any difference with a contract like this should it?

But either way, this is in no way relevant to the question of whether an HLS landing this year is feasible.

[Robotbeat]

Risk reduction exercises & incorporating lessons learned from non-HLS Starship flights are doubtless part of the overall plan for qualifying HLS.

But I don’t think that Dear Moon and Polaris in particular are intentionally before Artemis III.

[lykos]

DearMoon-Starship and Polaris-Starship are very different to the HSL-Starship.
They will be used as "test articles" for HSL or not.
For sure SX will try all to have HSL ready when the NASA will need it.
DearMoon and Polaris III(?), will have to start and land crewed on earth, more difficult than HSL?

[yg1968]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

[yg1968]

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

The protest by Blue Origin pushed the date on the Option A contract from 2024 to 2025. This was indicated in the ending date of the contract on USAspending.gov website before Option B was awarded (see the link below). SpaceX can't be held responsible for the delay from the protest. I don't believe that the dates are aspirational but there is not huge consequences for missing the dates. For commercial cargo, NASA obtained free coolers on Dragon in exchange for the delays.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2430571#msg2430571

[DanClemmensen]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time. Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers. By contrast, Starship HLS will have a crew of two NASA test pilot astronauts and will not launch from Earth with crew or do an Earth EDL. SpaceX and NASA have contractually committed to the crewed HLS flight being the second HLS flight after one uncrewed lunar landing.

[oiorionsbelt]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Edit: But to the title of this thread, no chance of an HLS landing this year.

[DanClemmensen]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shot well says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

I have no proof that 100 flights/yr in 2025 is impossible, and we will not know until the end of 2025. However, I am reasoning from the following:
 *No modern orbital LV has launched more than a total of 10 times in its first four years.
 *The Eastern range that controls flights from KSC+CCSFS is highly unlikely to be able to support more than about 90 flights total in 2025.
 *The FAA announced yesterday that they want to limit the number of launches in the Eastern range because of the disruption they cause to air travel.
 *Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.

FWIW, I personally want to see SpaceX hit that 2 launches/wk rate by mid-2024, but I just don't see it happening.

[Valerij]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

     
But there is an absolute need to refuel Starship HLS to LEO, even for a test unmanned flight to the Moon. And this means that Starship reusable flights must be mastered before the first flight of Starship HLS. And there is good reason to believe that between the first unmanned flight of Starship HLS and the Artemis-3, there will be many Starship flights, which will allow the system to be worked out and manned spacecraft to be launched.
   

[Valerij]

First there will be a test unmanned flight of Starship HLS, then "Dear Moon" and/or "Polaris-3", and only then "Artemis-3". Thus, no one can blame SpaceX for giving the Dear Moon project a higher priority than the Artemis program. And this is a completely logical sequence of missions, given that the Starship HLS needs to demonstrate the reliability of the LEO fueling process.

There is no reason to believe that Polaris and Dear Moon will fly before the first HLS-Starship.

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time.

     
Excuse me, where does it say that?
     

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers.

   
This is true. But before the first unmanned test flight of the Starship HLS, there will be many re-flights of different versions of the Starship. After the first test flight, NASA will study its results for at least a year and require changes to the design of the Starship HLS based on its results. All this time, SpaceX will be launching the reusable Starship at a high pace, so it is highly likely that Polaris-3 and Dear Moon will be launched earlier than Artemis-3.
   
There is one subtlety in the requirements for Starship HLS, which, it seems to me, many underestimate. The thing is,
that when landing on the surface of the moon illuminated by the sun, the Starship HLS must retain the amount of cryogenic fuel necessary for takeoff for a long time. This is a serious problem on the surface of the Moon heated up to 150C, and it may well slow down development.
   

       
 *Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.
     

     
Are you sure about this time frame?
   

[Robotbeat]

Valerij, I completely agree that thermal management of Starship on the surface of the Moon is a *significant* challenge. Not only do you have boiloff to manage (the biggest challenge), but the crew needs to not freeze and the engines might not want to soak at liquid oxygen temperatures, so you have this built-in thermal gradient on both the top and the bottom (so shielding the entire vehicle is not sufficient to stop heat leakage).

[DanClemmensen]

There are compelling reasons to believe that SpaceX will not launch and land a crewed Starship on Earth for a long time.

Excuse me, where does it say that?

"It" did not say that. I said that. Those reasons are compelling to me, and I believe that. I provided my reasoning in an earlier post.

     

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly, and those two mission have civilian passengers.

   
This is true. But before the first unmanned test flight of the Starship HLS, there will be many re-flights of different versions of the Starship. After the first test flight, NASA will study its results for at least a year and require changes to the design of the Starship HLS based on its results. All this time, SpaceX will be launching the reusable Starship at a high pace, so it is highly likely that Polaris-3 and Dear Moon will be launched earlier than Artemis-3.
   
There is one subtlety in the requirements for Starship HLS, which, it seems to me, many underestimate. The thing is,
that when landing on the surface of the moon illuminated by the sun, the Starship HLS must retain the amount of cryogenic fuel necessary for takeoff for a long time. This is a serious problem on the surface of the Moon heated up to 150C, and it may well slow down development.

I was providing my reasons that commercial passenger Earth EDL flights will take a long time. I was not discussing the HLS schedule at all, except to reiterate that there is no NASA or SpaceX requirement that passenger Earth EDL flights must precede HLS. I agree that HLS must handle the conditions you mention, but I think that all of them taken together are less challenging than reducing the risk for commercial passenger Earth EDL flights to an acceptable level.

*Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025.

Are you sure about this time frame?

Yes, I am sure that "Artemis 3 is supposed to fly before the end of 2025". No, I am not confident that this will actually happen. In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

[Valerij]

In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

   
Then why are you arguing, referring to the planned deadline for the Artemis-3 mission, if you yourself do not believe that this deadline will be met?
     
I understand that the "return to the moon" will take place after 2025, and I am sure that Elon Musk will not waste time and will try to achieve the necessary reliability and safety of Starship flights, which will allow passengers to fly on it.
   

   

[DanClemmensen]

In fact, I am fairly sure that it will not happen, because Artemis 2 is projected by NASA OIG to be NET February 2025, and I don't think NASA can evaluate Artemis 2 quickly or that they can refurbish the ML-1 and stack and launch Artemis 3 in ten months.

Then why are you arguing, referring to the planned deadline for the Artemis-3 mission, if you yourself do not believe that this deadline will be met?
     
I understand that the "return to the moon" will take place after 2025, and I am sure that Elon Musk will not waste time and will try to achieve the necessary reliability and safety of Starship flights, which will allow passengers to fly on it.

I'm not arguing at all.
   *I think SLS/Orion for Artemis 3 will slip past 2025.
   *I think SpaceX will not achieve their goal of 100 successful EDL (which they insist is needed for crewed EDL Starship) before 2027.
   *I think SpaceX will prioritize HLS (Depot, tanker, lander) over crewed EDL Starship.

[woods170]

Emphasis mine.

No, that is NOT what their contract says. The HLS contract does NOT contain HARD deadlines, only aspirational target dates. You see, the original Phase A contract held a target date of 2024. But less than a year after contract award, NASA officially delayed Artemis III to 2025. But the target date of 2024 is still in the contract, despite having been officially invalidated.

Target dates given in contracts such as for HLS are NEVER hard deadlines, but always aspirational target dates. And target dates shift a lot in complex development.

In a way this is similar to the target date of 2017 that was in the Core Stage 1 contract for Boeing. It was NOT a hard deadline, but a target date. And that was a good thing too. Because in late 2017 Boeing had only barely begun building the first Core Stage, instead of it being ready for launch.

The protest by Blue Origin pushed the date on the Option A contract from 2024 to 2025. This was indicated in the ending date of the contract on USAspending.gov website before Option B was awarded (see the link below). SpaceX can't be held responsible for the delay from the protest. I don't believe that the dates are aspirational but there is not huge consequences for missing the dates. For commercial cargo, NASA obtained free coolers on Dragon in exchange for the delays.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56067.msg2430571#msg2430571

First off: the phrase "potential end date" in the awards should tell you enough about how "hard" those "deadlines" are. IOW: soft dates and no deadlines, aka target dates only.

Second:
Both SpaceX and Boeing have not compensated NASA in any way for missing the CCP "deadlines". That is the beauty of Milestones Based Firm Fixed Price contracts: the contractors only get paid for a milestone upon completion of that milestone. If the milestone is met a year late, then extra cost (to the contractors) associated with that delay is eaten by the contractor, instead of NASA.

So, it is the contractors that will want to stick to the schedule as much as possible, because any delay eats into their profits.

But despite this fact, SpaceX, Boeing and Northrop-Grumman ate years of delays during COTS and CCP. It won't be any different for HLS. And that is simply because a customer can't force a contractor to fly something at a given date, when that something is not ready to fly. And both the use of Cost-Plus contracts and throwing extra money at Firm Fixed Price contracts don't alter that fact. Just look at SLS and Starliner, where NASA tried both methods to get things moving faster. Both times it failed miserably.

[woods170]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

[steveleach]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

Not arguing one way or the other in the wider debate, but was that particular statement made before the HLS decision?

I can imagine Musk assuming a large number of flights before having people for the full round trip (with its booster and Earth EDL), but not considering a different scenario with people on board just for a moon landing.

[DanClemmensen]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

Not arguing one way or the other in the wider debate, but was that particular statement made before the HLS decision?

I can imagine Musk assuming a large number of flights before having people for the full round trip (with its booster and Earth EDL), but not considering a different scenario with people on board just for a moon landing.

That's the whole point. The statement is about crewed Earth-EDL Sharship. It has nothing to do with HLS. HLS is governed by the HLS contract with NASA.

[steveleach]

Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk have both stated that SpaceX will complete a large number ("hundreds") of Earth launches and EDLs before trying it with crew, and There is no way to achieve the needed flight rate quickly,

You keep repeating this but offer no proof. In contrast Qwynne Shotwell says

“If we can do 100 flights of Falcon this year, I’d love to be able to do 100 flights of Starship next year. I don’t think we will do 100 flights of Starship next year, but maybe 2025 we will do 100 flights.”

Emphasis mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/01/elon-musk-spacex-starship-to-fly-hundreds-of-missions-before-people.html

Not arguing one way or the other in the wider debate, but was that particular statement made before the HLS decision?

I can imagine Musk assuming a large number of flights before having people for the full round trip (with its booster and Earth EDL), but not considering a different scenario with people on board just for a moon landing.

That's the whole point. The statement is about crewed Earth-EDL Sharship. It has nothing to do with HLS. HLS is governed by the HLS contract with NASA.

Ah, right. It could be that people were assuming you were claiming the statement was never made, not that it didn't apply to HLS.

[oiorionsbelt]

Woods170 thanks for the article. However it's not proof that 100 flights of Starship are not possible in 2025.
Shotwell's statement of the possibility 100 flights in 2025 still stands.
 There are a lot of good reasons to have doubts that these milestones will be achieved by the time stated. Dan Clemmensen articulated several. However, Qwynne Shotwell is not prone to making Elon type late night tweets, she is rather measured when talking to reporters, so when she say's it is possible I think it requires proof before stating that it is not possible.
 Shotwell time dilation isn't a thing, is it?
 

 

[RikW]

I think it all depends how succesfull the landing attempts will be. If I did my research correctly they have 94 consecutive succesfull F9 landings in a row currently.

Fastest turnaround time is 21 days.
They still have around 2 years to go until 2025, if they manage to get the same reliability with landing as F9 and the same turnaround time, considering that a low turnaround time is a designgoal for SS, having enough rockets to launch can be doable. They are currently on booster 7/9 and starship 24/25;

Based on the experience SpaceX has with rockets I guess somewhere around booster and starship 30 they should clearly be beyond the testing phase. Those should be reusable at least a couple of times and I'd say at least 10+ times.

If 7&24 en 9&25 aren't epic failures/ cause a lot of delays, having enough rockets to launch won't be the issue. If they both end in a huge explosion during/just after launch, I don't see it happening.

The biggest issue I think they will have is the location they use for launches.

more on-topic; If they manage to launch 7&24 succesfully next month, HLS landing in 2023 still is a theoretic option for me. But everything has to go perfect.

[CorvusCorax]

...
more on-topic; If they manage to launch 7&24 succesfully next month, HLS landing in 2023 still is a theoretic option for me. But everything has to go perfect.

The biggest elephant in the room is a working depot and a working tanker that can refly. The first launch won't even land.

If there was a way to "fudge" the HLS landing with a very barebone ship flying the booster expended - aka send it direct to the moon and have enough fuel not just for TLI but also lunar injection and landing, a 2023 landing would be possible.

I'm trying to do the math. Are there any estimates what's the dry weight of a "barebone" starship (No heat shield, no flaps, like SN 26) ?

[geza]

...
more on-topic; If they manage to launch 7&24 succesfully next month, HLS landing in 2023 still is a theoretic option for me. But everything has to go perfect.

The biggest elephant in the room is a working depot and a working tanker that can refly. The first launch won't even land.

If there was a way to "fudge" the HLS landing with a very barebone ship flying the booster expended - aka send it direct to the moon and have enough fuel not just for TLI but also lunar injection and landing, a 2023 landing would be possible.

I'm trying to do the math. Are there any estimates what's the dry weight of a "barebone" starship (No heat shield, no flaps, like SN 26) ?

Don't forget the landing legs. Maybe, the separate landing engines are not needed.

[CorvusCorax]

...
more on-topic; If they manage to launch 7&24 succesfully next month, HLS landing in 2023 still is a theoretic option for me. But everything has to go perfect.

The biggest elephant in the room is a working depot and a working tanker that can refly. The first launch won't even land.

If there was a way to "fudge" the HLS landing with a very barebone ship flying the booster expended - aka send it direct to the moon and have enough fuel not just for TLI but also lunar injection and landing, a 2023 landing would be possible.

I'm trying to do the math. Are there any estimates what's the dry weight of a "barebone" starship (No heat shield, no flaps, like SN 26) ?

Don't forget the landing legs. Maybe, the separate landing engines are not needed.

Ignore the landing legs. Let's assume the only objective is a soft touchdown to checkout orbital insertion descent and landing approach - equivalent to a "splashdown at sea" - except it's mare tranquilitatis. Who cares if it falls over or explodes it doesn't have fuel to take off again anyway, as long as it transmits telemetry.

[Asteroza]

...
more on-topic; If they manage to launch 7&24 succesfully next month, HLS landing in 2023 still is a theoretic option for me. But everything has to go perfect.

The biggest elephant in the room is a working depot and a working tanker that can refly. The first launch won't even land.

If there was a way to "fudge" the HLS landing with a very barebone ship flying the booster expended - aka send it direct to the moon and have enough fuel not just for TLI but also lunar injection and landing, a 2023 landing would be possible.

I'm trying to do the math. Are there any estimates what's the dry weight of a "barebone" starship (No heat shield, no flaps, like SN 26) ?

Don't forget the landing legs. Maybe, the separate landing engines are not needed.

Ignore the landing legs. Let's assume the only objective is a soft touchdown to checkout orbital insertion descent and landing approach - equivalent to a "splashdown at sea" - except it's mare tranquilitatis. Who cares if it falls over or explodes it doesn't have fuel to take off again anyway, as long as it transmits telemetry.

I dunno, that seems attractive from a test heavily approach, but NASA may want something a little more like the final product. For me, a test lander should for all practical purposes be mostly a fully up HLS but operate as a shelter packed with nonperishable supplies, and an elevator retrievable rover that can come back in for recharge/heating during the lunar night.

[Reynold]

Ignore the landing legs. Let's assume the only objective is a soft touchdown to checkout orbital insertion descent and landing approach - equivalent to a "splashdown at sea" - except it's mare tranquilitatis. Who cares if it falls over or explodes it doesn't have fuel to take off again anyway, as long as it transmits telemetry.

I dunno, that seems attractive from a test heavily approach, but NASA may want something a little more like the final product. For me, a test lander should for all practical purposes be mostly a fully up HLS but operate as a shelter packed with nonperishable supplies, and an elevator retrievable rover that can come back in for recharge/heating during the lunar night.

I would be surprised if SpaceX is willing to build a rover for their unmanned HLS test landing, and I don't know if anyone else could get one ready in time using standard NASA type construction methods.  I think SpaceX (and NASA) WOULD want to include landing legs to test that out before landing people, but they might skip life support, which would take a while to install, in favor of testing out the Starship life support system in deep space with one of the Polaris Dawn missions. 

I think Jared and his folks will definitely be ready to ride in the Starship (note I'm not saying launch in it) before NASA would be, and that would give a lot of reassurance to NASA that it is ready for their use.

I also suspect SpaceX will want to demonstrate re-launch from the lunar surface for their unmanned demo, even if it is not a formal program requirement, as that retires a lot of risk as well, even if they don't have the fuel to bring it all the way back to Earth.  Obviously landing legs are needed for this. 

[alhenry1231]

Don't forget the landing legs. Maybe, the separate landing engines are not needed.

If the current Falcon 9 landing legs can operate in vacuum, and they can land around 1 m/s velocity it would be a similar load to the Falcon 9 landing.

[Valerij]

Don't forget the landing legs. Maybe, the separate landing engines are not needed.

If the current Falcon 9 landing legs can operate in vacuum, and they can land around 1 m/s velocity it would be a similar load to the Falcon 9 landing.
   

       

   
The problem is that when landing on the moon, the Starship HLS must have on board, in addition to the payload, fuel to enter the circumlunar orbit. The mass of this fuel is not included in your table.
     
Of course, you can reduce the speed of descent to the moon to 0 to reduce the load on the landing legs. This requires Starship to be able to hover over the Moon for a short time.
   

[TomH]

Well, with all the delays we have seen, and Elon's tweets re. probabilities, both of which may be explained by this:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58288.msg2468653#msg2468653

I think we can safely say it isn't going to happen and a better question would be whether or not a SS makes it to LEO in 2023.

[TomH]

After the events of today, the answer is definitively no. It may not happen in 2024 either.

[Kansan52]

They will launch 3 times in 2023 with the 2nd launch will be LEO. The launch pad will be the limiting factor.

[sanman]

After the events of today, the answer is definitively no. It may not happen in 2024 either.

Yeah, but non-completion of today's mission was not unexpected. Musk himself was going around trying to lower expectations just ahead of launch date.

So surely the downstream timeline expectations have not been badly affected by today's events.

[deadman1204]

After the events of today, the answer is definitively no. It may not happen in 2024 either.

Yeah, but non-completion of today's mission was not unexpected. Musk himself was going around trying to lower expectations just ahead of launch date.

So surely the downstream timeline expectations have not been badly affected by today's events.

It would've been a hard job. The internet kinda expectd a flawless launch. Must've been hard to tell everyone that you're rocket probably won't work all the way.

[sanman]

It would've been a hard job. The internet kinda expectd a flawless launch. Must've been hard to tell everyone that you're rocket probably won't work all the way.

He's realistic and sanguine about that. After all, he gets to see "how the sausage is made" and sees all the problematic stuff the rest of us don't get to see. But the data obtained from this flight is Gold. They'll now be able to pour through it and figure out what the heck happened to cause the Raptors to fail. I think the consensus verdict from everyone is that those failed Raptors at liftoff really penalized the flight performance, so that the rocket couldn't get high enough fast enough.

[gaballard]

What would a 2023 Moon landing take? A miracle, after today.

[alugobi]

A miracle before today. 

[Vultur]

Yeah, it was never plausible, but now that they can't launch B9/S26 in say a few weeks, definitely not.

[sanman]

Well, there could still be HLS Starship landing attempt this year -- but it would be a dunk into the Pacific Ocean, like OFT-1 was trying to achieve. My understanding is that OFT-2 will involve the flapless HLS version of Starship.

[Zed_Noir]

Well, there could still be HLS Starship landing attempt this year -- but it would be a dunk into the Pacific Ocean, like OFT-1 was trying to achieve. My understanding is that OFT-2 will involve the flapless HLS version of Starship.

AIUI the next 2 Starship in the launch queue are spoiler airfoils less and have no thermal protection. Which means they will not survive atmospheric reentry. So a Pacific dunking will have to be some other Starship in the launch queue.

[baddux]

What it would take:
- Starship can be launched next time in July
- Next launch will be a perfect success
- They decide they need to do refueling demo as early as possible, so the next launch is refueling Starship, also success
- The third launch will be the target ship of a refueling test. Now they have a fueled ship and they decide to test going to the Moon as well.
They have one refueling to go from LEO to TLI and to LLO and also to the lunar surface, or at least very close before they would start the small landing engines.

[TomH]

Well, Starship didn't even make it to orbit this year. So the answer must be, It was simply beyond a reasonable ability. In that the specified time period has passed, I am recommending mods close thread.

[sdsds]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??

This serves to demonstrate the reliability of reports about what the NAC is seriously contemplating.

[steveleach]

According to Wayne Hale in the NAC, they think SpaceX could even attempt a Moon landing this year??

This serves to demonstrate the reliability of reports about what the NAC is seriously contemplating.

If someone tosses a coin, I seriously contemplate the possibility of it coming up heads. I don't then consider myself unreliable if it comes up tails though.

[Eric Hedman]

The answer to the question in this thread is time travel.

I think this thread has run its course.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator:

Welcome 2024! 🎊

Thread locked.  🔒