Quote from: 321 on 12/19/2025 03:10 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 12/07/2025 05:22 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/07/2025 04:38 pmI was under the impression that the Artemis III HLS-Starship lander wasn't reusable but that the Artemis IV HLS-Starship lander might be. But I don't think that we know for sure.Where did you get this (possibly correct) impression? From a purely technical perspective, I see no reason that the Artemis III Starship cannot be reused. After all, it ends up at NRHO, just like the later one. The only additional requirement would be the ability to remain minimally functional for longer as it waits for reprovisioning. SpaceX may choose (personal speculation, nothing from SpaceX) to use a single design for all three landers (demo, A-III, A-IV). If they did decide to implement reusability, then reusing demo to also do A-III would make the most sense since there is no need to reprovision crew consumables.As long as NASA is paying for landing as a service, reusability is a simple matter of cost. If it's cheaper to expend an HLS that is to refill and reprovision it, then expend. Reprovisioning may be expensive. reprovisioning and refill require multiple launches for fuel. Reprovisioning probably requires something more than the IDSS docking port. Expendable is only as expensive as one additional HLS, which may not cost much, since it is just a variant of the Ship, which will be in high production. In addition, just landing the "expended" HLS back on the Moon after its mission would allow it to be repurposed, just for the stainless steel if nothing else.Just for fun checked SS HLS in NRHO reuse scenario. SS HLS with dry mass 120t need 600t of fuel to run NRHO>LL>NRHO.The depot with 100t dry mass and total mass of 1800t will be able to deliver 300t to NRHO and still have propellent to return empty to LEO. 2 flights of depot LEO>NRHO>LEO will refuel the SS HLS in NRHO for moon landing mission. Delivery of 1700t of propellent to LEO depot will require 17 launches of V3 SH/Tanker SS. Total: 2 launches of depot SS to LEO and 34 launches of V3 SH/Tanker SS to LEO to refuel depot will refuel SS HLS in NRHO for one moon landing mission.Basically, one SS HLS reuse require twice more tanker and depot lunches vs single use. Just a side note: looking at quantity of those launches and amount of refueling (what can go wrong, right?! ) just to put 4 guys on the moon, even though everything expected to be reusable, looks like quite an overkill.If tanker flights are really cheap (likely) and HLS is really expensive (less likely), it might still be cheaper to reuse. However, you have not accounted for the cost of reprovisioning, and especially the cost of transport of any heavy cargo in the garage.The Depot is reusable, so you need not launch it twice.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 12/07/2025 05:22 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/07/2025 04:38 pmI was under the impression that the Artemis III HLS-Starship lander wasn't reusable but that the Artemis IV HLS-Starship lander might be. But I don't think that we know for sure.Where did you get this (possibly correct) impression? From a purely technical perspective, I see no reason that the Artemis III Starship cannot be reused. After all, it ends up at NRHO, just like the later one. The only additional requirement would be the ability to remain minimally functional for longer as it waits for reprovisioning. SpaceX may choose (personal speculation, nothing from SpaceX) to use a single design for all three landers (demo, A-III, A-IV). If they did decide to implement reusability, then reusing demo to also do A-III would make the most sense since there is no need to reprovision crew consumables.As long as NASA is paying for landing as a service, reusability is a simple matter of cost. If it's cheaper to expend an HLS that is to refill and reprovision it, then expend. Reprovisioning may be expensive. reprovisioning and refill require multiple launches for fuel. Reprovisioning probably requires something more than the IDSS docking port. Expendable is only as expensive as one additional HLS, which may not cost much, since it is just a variant of the Ship, which will be in high production. In addition, just landing the "expended" HLS back on the Moon after its mission would allow it to be repurposed, just for the stainless steel if nothing else.Just for fun checked SS HLS in NRHO reuse scenario. SS HLS with dry mass 120t need 600t of fuel to run NRHO>LL>NRHO.The depot with 100t dry mass and total mass of 1800t will be able to deliver 300t to NRHO and still have propellent to return empty to LEO. 2 flights of depot LEO>NRHO>LEO will refuel the SS HLS in NRHO for moon landing mission. Delivery of 1700t of propellent to LEO depot will require 17 launches of V3 SH/Tanker SS. Total: 2 launches of depot SS to LEO and 34 launches of V3 SH/Tanker SS to LEO to refuel depot will refuel SS HLS in NRHO for one moon landing mission.Basically, one SS HLS reuse require twice more tanker and depot lunches vs single use. Just a side note: looking at quantity of those launches and amount of refueling (what can go wrong, right?! ) just to put 4 guys on the moon, even though everything expected to be reusable, looks like quite an overkill.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/07/2025 04:38 pmI was under the impression that the Artemis III HLS-Starship lander wasn't reusable but that the Artemis IV HLS-Starship lander might be. But I don't think that we know for sure.Where did you get this (possibly correct) impression? From a purely technical perspective, I see no reason that the Artemis III Starship cannot be reused. After all, it ends up at NRHO, just like the later one. The only additional requirement would be the ability to remain minimally functional for longer as it waits for reprovisioning. SpaceX may choose (personal speculation, nothing from SpaceX) to use a single design for all three landers (demo, A-III, A-IV). If they did decide to implement reusability, then reusing demo to also do A-III would make the most sense since there is no need to reprovision crew consumables.As long as NASA is paying for landing as a service, reusability is a simple matter of cost. If it's cheaper to expend an HLS that is to refill and reprovision it, then expend. Reprovisioning may be expensive. reprovisioning and refill require multiple launches for fuel. Reprovisioning probably requires something more than the IDSS docking port. Expendable is only as expensive as one additional HLS, which may not cost much, since it is just a variant of the Ship, which will be in high production. In addition, just landing the "expended" HLS back on the Moon after its mission would allow it to be repurposed, just for the stainless steel if nothing else.
I was under the impression that the Artemis III HLS-Starship lander wasn't reusable but that the Artemis IV HLS-Starship lander might be. But I don't think that we know for sure.
Mr. Paul Hill provided a detailed account of the August 7, 2025 visit. The team received briefings from SpaceX leadership including Mr. Bill Riley (VP of Starship Engineering), Ms. Aarti Matthews (Starship Human Landing System (HLS) Program Manager), and Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier (VP of Build and Flight Reliability). Mr. Hill noted that the HLS schedule appears significantly challenged, with Artemis III’s target date of 2027 likely to slip by years. He emphasized that on-orbit cryogenic propellant transfer is a critical enabler for Artemis III but remains threatened by multiple dependencies: development and reliable demonstration of Starship Version 3, tanker and depot configurations, and improvements in Raptor engine reliability. The Panel also observed that an alternative mission orbit could reduce overall risk, but this has not yet been adopted.[...]By contrast, Artemis III and later missions face significant uncertainty. The Panel reiterated concerns that had been raised in prior annual reports and quarterly meetings that Artemis III carries too many “firsts” (new spacecraft systems, new operational concepts, South Pole landing site, and new suits) and each of these first objectives has a risk associated with it. Those risks compounded, create an increased safety risk posture. The Panel urged NASA to consider redistributing objectives across missions, following the Apollo approach, to achieve a more balanced cadence and reduce risk exposure.Mr. Bray emphasized that HLS and new surface suits remain on the critical path. Their aggressive schedules leave little margin to meet the proposed schedule, and any slippage could postpone the lunar landing indefinitely. Uncertainties in configuration and budget for Artemis IV and beyond further complicate planning. The Panel intends to conduct further fact-finding on SpaceX’s cryogenic refueling approach, HLS design, and Artemis architecture in upcoming sessions.
“The panel recommends that NASA reexamine the mission objectives and potentially the architecture for Artemis 3 and subsequent missions to establish a more balanced approach to risk, prioritize objectives that have driven planning and maintain a consistent cadence of flight missions,” said Bill Bray, a panel member.The panel did not recommend specific changes to the Artemis architecture but again highlighted the number of activities that would be conducted for the first time on Artemis 3, including crewed operations of SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander, docking with Orion in lunar orbit and landing on the challenging terrain of the moon’s south polar region. ASAP concluded at its previous public meeting in September that development of the Starship lunar lander was “years late.”“Each of these mission objectives poses significant challenges, and their combined complexity introduces substantial technical and safety risk to the mission as a whole,” Bray said. “At present, the panel has not observed a comprehensive plan to address these objectives or fully mitigate the related risk.”
I was just trying to point out what a logistics nigtmare Starship HLS reuse is only regarding refuling. Adding reprovisionig and cargo makes it total nonsense due to complexity and associated risk.I think SpaceX HLS in it currently planed shape will never be reused.The dry mass is just way too high from practically reusable moon lander.
Quarter in Review: A cloudy "what's next" forecast for NASA after Artemis II - December 28, 2025Timestamp:16:41 Artemis III status
NASA's site has been (quietly) updated to show a "by 2028" launch date for this mission, hampered by HLS availability.IMO they should carry it out anyway without it, either by advancing Gateway's core or by just flying a more ambitious variant of Artemis II with LOI, low-orbit descent, or even NRHO insertion, which will be needed for subsequent missions to the surface or Gateway.
Quote from: eeergo on 01/16/2026 09:43 amNASA's site has been (quietly) updated to show a "by 2028" launch date for this mission, hampered by HLS availability.IMO they should carry it out anyway without it, either by advancing Gateway's core or by just flying a more ambitious variant of Artemis II with LOI, low-orbit descent, or even NRHO insertion, which will be needed for subsequent missions to the surface or Gateway.If HLS is not available in NRHO for a docking (even without a descent to the surface) then yes, a visit to Gateway makes more sense than waiting for HLS.I can more or less convince myself that, so long as Gateway CMV is in space somewhere, Orion has the propulsion needed for a return from that trajectory to Earth. (But it's easy to convince myself of things I want to be true. Can anyone positively confirm this?)
I do think a low lunar orbit mission would be a good idea if HLS is not available.
Eric Berger@SciGuySpace·17mI’m hearing that, internally, Blue Origin is moving aggressively toward an interim Artemis landing solution that does not require refueling (Blue Moon Mk-1.5).
