U.S. will not get back to the Moon before China does

[stormhelm]

NASA put it`s eggs in one basket figuratively with Space X and Blue origin..
SpaceX too complex: Multiple Vehicles, One Mission: A single lunar landing requires three different Starship variants—a crewed lander,, a propellant depot in Earth orbit,, and several tankers to refuel the lander before it even heads to the Moon..

Orbital Refueling: This is a major technical hurdle.. Starship HLS must be refueled in Earth orbit via multiple tanker launches,, a maneuver never done at this scale before.'

Lunar Orbit Rendezvous: The lander will dock with NASA’s Orion spacecraft in a near-rectilinear halo orbit around the Moon..

Massive Scale: Starship is far larger than traditional lunar landers.. Although size brings advantages more cargo and crew space but  adds complexity in landing and ascent from the Moon’s surface..

Tight Timelines: NASA’s Artemis III mission aims for a crewed landing no earlier than 2027 ( Not going to happen with failures) schedule too ambitious and potentially unrealistic due to the compressed development timeline!! Should have implemented Apollo era Brute force and kept developing Ares moon lander.. Musk too much influence and political/ commercial bullcrap tainted NASA and America`s fading leadership will pay the price along with proposed cuts.. will lose even to Mars.. Blue origin not even worth mentioning..

[Jim]

meh

[spacenut]

Been there, done that.  So, it takes a little longer, but with bigger ships and more cargo.  Mars is the ultimate goal for human habitation.  The moon will probably only be used to mine for minerals.  14 days of sunlight, 14 days of darkness, no atmosphere.  SpaceX will get Starship working.  Docking they have done.  Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  A fuel depot is only a tanker Starship left in orbit with the right insulation.  A lunar landing Starship might be easier to build since it is not coming back through the atmosphere.  Getting rid of the vibration and harmonics to get to orbit hopefully shouldn't take much longer to solve.   

[thespacecow]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

[Coastal Ron]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

Weird statement, since the U.S. has done that already - back in the 1960's.

The U.S. could use the same approach today that they used in the 1960's, IF returning to the Moon was important. However IT IS NOT IMPORTANT, in any way. If anything the Artemis program took a vanity project of Donald Trump and turned it into a way to continue to shovel money to the right companies and congressional districts. Progress is not required to be successful with Artemis, just look at the SLS and Orion programs for confirmation about that.

As to China, who cares if they reach the Moon next? Their space capabilities are far behind what the U.S. has, so it's not like they would be able to build a colony on the Moon and somehow lock us out of... whatever people are hysterical about.

Fake priorities lead to spending too much money for poor outcomes, and that is what we are seeing with Artemis. I'd rather just cancel everything about it, and wait a few years to see if anyone cares...

[Steven Pietrobon]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

A dual launch SLS architecture would have worked, but it would have cost more which the US did not want to spend.

[Jim]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

typical nonsense.  The US has experience with landers other than them.

[Robotbeat]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

A dual launch SLS architecture would have worked, but it would have cost more which the US did not want to spend.

The fundamental problem is THERE WAS NO MONEY FOR A LANDER. HLS was only affordable because it was about a fifth the cost. An actual lander, conventionally developed, would be about $20-30B for an NHRO capability and would take as long to develop as SLS or Orion.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170008893/downloads/20170008893.pdf

SLS was a distraction, and it ate the budget that should’ve been for the lander. NASA should’ve developed the lander first and launched it on commercial/natsec launch vehicles and not bothered with their own launch vehicle unless they got a huge budget increase.

[Robotbeat]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

typical nonsense.  The US has experience with landers other than them.

Yes, but not the money. SpaceX and Blue enabled NASA to get away with keep pouring money into SLS, Orion, and ISS.

[yg1968]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

typical nonsense.  The US has experience with landers other than them.

Yes, but not the money. SpaceX and Blue enabled NASA to get away with keep pouring money into SLS, Orion, and ISS.

From what I recall, the estimates were that a government lander would cost NASA about $15B.

[DanClemmensen]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

typical nonsense.  The US has experience with landers other than them.

Yes, but not the money. SpaceX and Blue enabled NASA to get away with keep pouring money into SLS, Orion, and ISS.

From what I recall, the estimates were that a government lander would cost NASA about $15B.

Recall that the Starship HLS bid was ~$3B, while the initial BO bid was ~$6B and the Dynetics bid was ~9B. Starship HLS was low only because the design was a variant of the ongoing Starship development project.

[Robotbeat]

Without SpaceX or Blue Origin the US wouldn't even be able to participate in this race.

typical nonsense.  The US has experience with landers other than them.

Yes, but not the money. SpaceX and Blue enabled NASA to get away with keep pouring money into SLS, Orion, and ISS.

From what I recall, the estimates were that a government lander would cost NASA about $15B.

Maybe in 2009, which is $23B in today’s dollars.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170008893/downloads/20170008893.pdf

[jarmumd]

... Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  ...

Never ceases to amaze me, the things that folks on this board think "shouldn't be that hard". 

[Robotbeat]

... Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  ...

Never ceases to amaze me, the things that folks on this board think "shouldn't be that hard".

Everything in space is hard. But I think this is easier than landing Starship on the Moon.

[mlindner]

... Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  ...

Never ceases to amaze me, the things that folks on this board think "shouldn't be that hard".

I've never heard anyone anywhere describe any reasons why it "should be hard". That's including X and Reddit and these forums. The only arguments I get are "well NASA hasn't done it before", but that's not really a reason on why it's hard.

If you disagree you should present your reasons on why you think it is hard.

[D_Dom]

What were we talking about?

[jarmumd]

... Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  ...

Never ceases to amaze me, the things that folks on this board think "shouldn't be that hard".

I've never heard anyone anywhere describe any reasons why it "should be hard". That's including X and Reddit and these forums. The only arguments I get are "well NASA hasn't done it before", but that's not really a reason on why it's hard.

If you disagree you should present your reasons on why you think it is hard.

-Aligning and sealing large propellant transfer connections in space.  This hasn't even been done by airplanes on the scale that Starship will need.
-Ensuring the connections maintain sealing and mating hardware maintains preloads in a cryogenic environment.  At this scale, thermal CTE can have major effects on sealing (including the mechanism that maintains the sealing preload).
-Settling propellants and ensuring a consistent transfer of fluid.  This cannot be tested unless in space, and cannot be tested at partial scale since it's unclear how such a large amount of fluid will act.
-Even the mating (it's not really docking) has potential show stoppers since for the first time ever, the percentage of fluid mass is larger than the structural mass.  This could cause unintended motion during mating that is hard to keep stable, and leads to a failure to mate.  Also it's a new system that's never been tried before (4 probes spaced widely apart).  You can't even test the mating system on the ground, there's no facility big enough.

None of those things have been done before on this scale.  Yet "it shouldn't be too hard".  This while the part that has been done for decades (ie rocket ascent), which is well known and has been done before, has continued to be an issue.

[JohnFornaro]

... Transferring fuel, shouldn't be that hard.  ...

Never ceases to amaze me, the things that folks on this board think "shouldn't be that hard".

It shouldn't be that hard to get to Mars...

[catdlr]

Eric Berger@SciGuySpace

I went there. Because at this point, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion.

Eric Berger@SciGuySpace
·
NASA (and the Trump Administration) will beat their chests about Artemis II in the coming months. But even if that mission is a success the suits, landers, and complexity required for Artemis III are all giant leaps.

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
·
Yes, the space race goes beyond just who gets back there first. What matters more is who reaches permanence and sustainability first. But the point of this story is that getting back first is a big, big deal regardless.

Article: After recent tests, China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1957495041544364338

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1957496127315407092

[catdlr]

Jared Isaacman@rookisaacman

I agree--it is not the end of American exceptionalism, but if China gets there before our return a domino will have fallen--and there will be a hell of a reckoning. Sure, we pulled off that incredible feat more than 50 years ago--and at great expense. I am admittedly biased, but it was a very worthwhile endeavor that inspired millions about what is possible--and an achievement we parlayed into countless technological advancements. If we had ended after Apollo and said, as a nation, that we were moving on to bigger and bolder objectives in space, that would be one thing. But we didn’t. Every President since 1989 has declared we are going back to the Moon and taxpayers have put up more than $100 billion to make it happen. If we fail to see that commitment through, it won’t just be a missed milestone--it will be a symptom of a much deeper and more troubling problem within our system.
11:08 AM · Aug 18, 2025

https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1957504924155027571