Starship Artemis Contract & Lunar Starship

[Chris Huys]

Suppose Blue gets an HLS prototype to Earth orbit before SpaceX, and the Artemis III Orion docks with it there in 2027. Is it reasonable for Starship HLS to do an equivalent docking demo (with the Artemis IV Orion) in "early 2028", except in lunar orbit? And then have Artemis V as the surface mission in "late 2028"?

Before blue, does the artemis III , mk2 docking thing with orion, it will need to do a uncrewed test with its mk2 lander to the moon , it will though stay at the moon.

A lot is written, that this will take only 3 flights of new glenn. But thats with new glenn 9x4 version. Nobody is thinking that new glenn 9x4 version will be ready next year. Thats at least 3 to 4 years out.

So if any, it will be with the 7x2 version, and for that , google ai says, there are 5-7 flights needed, to get that done.

[DanClemmensen]

Suppose Blue gets an HLS prototype to Earth orbit before SpaceX, and the Artemis III Orion docks with it there in 2027. Is it reasonable for Starship HLS to do an equivalent docking demo (with the Artemis IV Orion) in "early 2028", except in lunar orbit? And then have Artemis V as the surface mission in "late 2028"?

Before blue, does the artemis III , mk2 docking thing with orion, it will need to do a uncrewed test with its mk2 lander to the moon.

Why? I thought that one big reason to do LEO docking was to decouple the docking and ECLSS validation from the landing demo.

[Chris Huys]

Suppose Blue gets an HLS prototype to Earth orbit before SpaceX, and the Artemis III Orion docks with it there in 2027. Is it reasonable for Starship HLS to do an equivalent docking demo (with the Artemis IV Orion) in "early 2028", except in lunar orbit? And then have Artemis V as the surface mission in "late 2028"?

Before blue, does the artemis III , mk2 docking thing with orion, it will need to do a uncrewed test with its mk2 lander to the moon.

Why? I thought that one big reason to do LEO docking was to decouple the docking and ECLSS validation from the landing demo.

The uncrewed hls moon landing tests , could also be done after artemis III LEO test. As long as they are done before the first crewed moonlanding tests done by the hls system.

[DanClemmensen]

Suppose Blue gets an HLS prototype to Earth orbit before SpaceX, and the Artemis III Orion docks with it there in 2027. Is it reasonable for Starship HLS to do an equivalent docking demo (with the Artemis IV Orion) in "early 2028", except in lunar orbit? And then have Artemis V as the surface mission in "late 2028"?

Before blue, does the artemis III , mk2 docking thing with orion, it will need to do a uncrewed test with its mk2 lander to the moon.

Why? I thought that one big reason to do LEO docking was to decouple the docking and ECLSS validation from the landing demo.

The uncrewed hls moon landing tests , could also be done after artemis III LEO test. As long as they are done before the first crewed moonlanding tests done by the hls system.

That was my point, and it differs from what you said. The uncrewed demo requires refueling for Starship, and some sort of additional launches for boost for mk2. The LEO docking/ECLSS does not. In theory, you can do the LEO docking demo and then later do the landing demo with the same lander.

[Chris Huys]

I know, I already found it strange, that they would need to do the really hard part, the uncrewed expendable hls moonlanding, that requires 10+ tanker flights, before the "easy" artemis III leo test.

Especially if you consider, it will take still a year, before 2 gigabays, boca chica and the cape 39a, and 2 extra launch towers, boca chica pad 1 and 39a, will come online.

[DanClemmensen]

I know, I already found it strange, that they would need to do the really hard part, the uncrewed expendable hls moonlanding, that requires 10+ tanker flights, before the "easy" artemis III leo test.

Especially if you consider, it will take still a year, before 2 gigabays, boca chica and the cape 39a, and 2 extra launch towers, boca chica pad 1 and 39a, will come online.

SpaceX does not need all that infrastructure for the HLS demo or even the actual crewed landing. If they achieve their rapid reusability goals, they need one pad and one or two boosters, one HLS, one Depot, and a few tankers. For GSE, they need the ASU and possibly a methane liquefaction plant.

[OTV Booster]

I see the general consensus that it is likely that SpaceX HLS will be ready later than Blue due to complexity and scale.

SX supporters say SS HLS delay is acceptable based on presumption that those two HLS serving different ultimate goals: SpaceX is running marathon to moonbase while Blue is in the sprint to boots on the ground before PRC.

This is really interesting that Blue is expected to be fast

On the other side I think SX facing now decisive moment: to stick with original plan and develop and operationally qualify 3 new SS variants on the top of completing development of standard Starlink SS all within 2 years, this sounds... sci fi.
Or simply focus on finalizing SS as new fully reusable STS, a 100-200t to LEO transportation system. And ether cooperate with Blue on HLS and TS or build own 100-200t versions of HLS for 2027 and TS for 2028.

Isn't it four variants? StarLink, tanker, depot and HLS.

Taking StarLink delivery as the base system, the tanker variant is almost trivial. Add docking hardware, remove the pez hardware and stretch the tanks. Add some small thrusters that would also apply to the depot. MAYBE some thermal treatment that would also apply to the depot. We're already seeing early hacks on docking hardware.

The depot is potentially a major set of changes but they don't have to be rolled in all at one time. The first hack needs enough new hardware to do the transfer itself but no more. Testing can be piggybacked on StarLink launches at the cost of reduced payload.

The depot need only be sophisticated enough to fulfill its first mission. It can grow from there but until it does operational complexity (launching more tankers for example) can, in many cases, make up for performance shortfalls.

IMO, the biggest unknown (to us) is keeping a faux depot on orbit long enough to mate up with a faux tanker. Once this nut is cracked every launch can both deliver StarLinks and move the tanker/depot combo forward.

HLS, because it will carry featherless bipeds, will be the most different of all the variants and does not lend itself to piggybacking on StarLink launches. IMO, this is the long pole to watch.

[Robotbeat]

Starlink and tanker might be the same thing. Ship  39 has both starlink pez dispenser and a rudimentary version of the docking hardware points.

[thespacecow]

I doubt Space X will have any hardware before China lands 1st or Blue origin!!
Eventually will but I doubt it as refueling in space just 1 failure and bye bye to mission.. Not worth have Space x landers as of yet but as cargo to LEO better as support collaboration with NASA/Blue origin..

LMAO buddy

Geopolitics affecting the meds supply chain.

I'm very sorry you can't get your meds

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2020915259561869533

Musk himself admitted that SpaceX will likely be outpaced in the race to the Moon by Blue Origin.

He said no such thing, "They might land something on the Moon before SpaceX" clearly is referring to Mk1.

[thespacecow]

I see the general consensus that it is likely that SpaceX HLS will be ready later than Blue due to complexity and scale.

I'm not seeing this general consensus. In fact with the latest news that Blue's new plan needs 3 NG 9x4 launches, I'm more certain than ever that SpaceX will win the race by a large margin.

SX supporters say SS HLS delay is acceptable based on presumption that those two HLS serving different ultimate goals: SpaceX is running marathon to moonbase while Blue is in the sprint to boots on the ground before PRC.

This is really interesting that Blue is expected to be fast

I'm not expecting them to be fast. They're just creating the illusion of being fast by changing their plans constantly.

On the other side I think SX facing now decisive moment: to stick with original plan and develop and operationally qualify 3 new SS variants on the top of completing development of standard Starlink SS all within 2 years, this sounds... sci fi.
Or simply focus on finalizing SS as new fully reusable STS, a 100-200t to LEO transportation system. And ether cooperate with Blue on HLS and TS or build own 100-200t versions of HLS for 2027 and TS for 2028.

I don't see Scifi at all. Standard Starlink SS is already here, it's being tested right now. And the main difference between tanker/depot and Starlink SS is just the refueling/propellant management system, which is not that significant. The lander will add some additional hardware, which they're already building behind closed doors. I think it's all going to come together in the next 12 months.

Cooperating with Blue makes some sense when SpaceX is singularly focused on Mars, with the new lunar focus it makes no sense.

[thespacecow]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-has-shuffled-its-artemis-rockets-but-what-of-the-lunar-landers/

So it should come as no surprise that SpaceX has not proposed significant changes to its Human Landing System hardware. In response to NASA’s desire to accelerate the Artemis timeline, the company has indicated that it will prioritize the Human Landing System more as part of the Starship program. The company also suggested that eliminating the requirement to dock in near-rectilinear halo orbit could open up new mission plans, including potentially docking with Orion in orbit around Earth rather than the Moon.

I'm disappointed they didn't propose lunar Dragon, but looks like we're right that they're considering Earth orbit rendezvous.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I'm disappointed they didn't propose lunar Dragon, but looks like we're right that they're considering Earth orbit rendezvous.

You don't need a deep space D2.  Starship HLS has enough delta-v to be able to do LEO-lunar orbit-LEO propulsive, so there's no need for something that can do a direct EDL.

Blue needs something, though, and it'll require that the Orion do an EOR with something like Cislunar Transporter, which can haul it all the way to LLO.

[321]

I see the general consensus that it is likely that SpaceX HLS will be ready later than Blue due to complexity and scale.

I'm not seeing this general consensus. In fact with the latest news that Blue's new plan needs 3 NG 9x4 launches, I'm more certain than ever that SpaceX will win the race by a large margin.

SX supporters say SS HLS delay is acceptable based on presumption that those two HLS serving different ultimate goals: SpaceX is running marathon to moonbase while Blue is in the sprint to boots on the ground before PRC.

This is really interesting that Blue is expected to be fast

I'm not expecting them to be fast. They're just creating the illusion of being fast by changing their plans constantly.

On the other side I think SX facing now decisive moment: to stick with original plan and develop and operationally qualify 3 new SS variants on the top of completing development of standard Starlink SS all within 2 years, this sounds... sci fi.
Or simply focus on finalizing SS as new fully reusable STS, a 100-200t to LEO transportation system. And ether cooperate with Blue on HLS and TS or build own 100-200t versions of HLS for 2027 and TS for 2028.

I don't see Scifi at all. Standard Starlink SS is already here, it's being tested right now. And the main difference between tanker/depot and Starlink SS is just the refueling/propellant management system, which is not that significant. The lander will add some additional hardware, which they're already building behind closed doors. I think it's all going to come together in the next 12 months.

Cooperating with Blue makes some sense when SpaceX is singularly focused on Mars, with the new lunar focus it makes no sense.

If the NG 9x4 is precondition for Blue HLS moon mission than I agree that Blue will most likely will land on the moon way pater than SX. This will take years.

Regarding Starlink, Tanker and Depot SS variants similarity: why would tanker and depot need all that volume and structural mass above the tanks?

[Chris Huys]

I know, I already found it strange, that they would need to do the really hard part, the uncrewed expendable hls moonlanding, that requires 10+ tanker flights, before the "easy" artemis III leo test.

Especially if you consider, it will take still a year, before 2 gigabays, boca chica and the cape 39a, and 2 extra launch towers, boca chica pad 1 and 39a, will come online.

SpaceX does not need all that infrastructure for the HLS demo or even the actual crewed landing. If they achieve their rapid reusability goals, they need one pad and one or two boosters, one HLS, one Depot, and a few tankers. For GSE, they need the ASU and possibly a methane liquefaction plant.

If spacex wants to iterate fast on their ships, having the "operational" flights done at the cape, vs the "test" flights in boca chica, helps minimize downtime at boca chica.

[bulkmail]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-has-shuffled-its-artemis-rockets-but-what-of-the-lunar-landers/

potentially docking with Orion in orbit around Earth rather than the Moon.

...

If that is selected, then SLS/Orion becomes a LEO crew launch system... which is currently already available faster, cheaper and off-the-shelf in the form of (Starliner and) Dragon.
Let's see if an explanation/"government spending review" addresses the 20 years/billions utilized for SLS/Orion.

[DanClemmensen]

I know, I already found it strange, that they would need to do the really hard part, the uncrewed expendable hls moonlanding, that requires 10+ tanker flights, before the "easy" artemis III leo test.

Especially if you consider, it will take still a year, before 2 gigabays, boca chica and the cape 39a, and 2 extra launch towers, boca chica pad 1 and 39a, will come online.

SpaceX does not need all that infrastructure for the HLS demo or even the actual crewed landing. If they achieve their rapid reusability goals, they need one pad and one or two boosters, one HLS, one Depot, and a few tankers. For GSE, they need the ASU and possibly a methane liquefaction plant.

If spacex wants to iterate fast on their ships, having the "operational" flights done at the cape, vs the "test" flights in boca chica, helps minimize downtime at boca chica.

A complete separate launch site is worthwhile as insurance against a major catastrophe such as a direct hit from a category-5 hurricane. It's not needed to increase the launch rate if SpaceX reaches its crazy stated goals. A single pad plus a catch tower is supposed to exceed 1000 launches/yr. Injecting a few test flights into such an operational flow is negligible. Cadence for test flights is limited by the evaluate/design tweak/implement/refly cycle.

More realistically, in the near term I expect they really will achieve a once-a-week cadence with a burst rate of once a day, per pad. We'll see.

[meekGee]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-has-shuffled-its-artemis-rockets-but-what-of-the-lunar-landers/

potentially docking with Orion in orbit around Earth rather than the Moon.

...

If that is selected, then SLS/Orion becomes a LEO crew launch system... which is currently already available faster, cheaper and off-the-shelf in the form of (Starliner and) Dragon.
Let's see if an explanation/"government spending review" addresses the 20 years/billions utilized for SLS/Orion.

Yeah but that system is what it is. Obsolete. For reasons we all know.

You don't want to structure your program just to find work for it, that's just chasing sunk cost.

It's very hard to kill, politically, and so this minimal use seems to be the least we can get away with.

[DanClemmensen]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-has-shuffled-its-artemis-rockets-but-what-of-the-lunar-landers/

potentially docking with Orion in orbit around Earth rather than the Moon.

...

If that is selected, then SLS/Orion becomes a LEO crew launch system... which is currently already available faster, cheaper and off-the-shelf in the form of (Starliner and) Dragon.
Let's see if an explanation/"government spending review" addresses the 20 years/billions utilized for SLS/Orion.

It's always easy to find faults in hindsight. That review won't really have much of an effect, except as a cautionary tale for Congress. Congress won't read it that way, though. Congress will read it as an example of an effective way to move government money into the appropriate corporate pockets to filter some of it down to their districts.

Sadly, Starliner is not relevant. Not certified yet, no LV, far too expensive per mission. As you point out, Dragon just works cost-effectively, about five times a year since 2020.

[DanClemmensen]

I think the new Artemis III can be used to exercise the Starship HLS' terminal landing sequence, especially the handover from Raptors to landing thrusters. Because there is no atmospheric drag, lunar landing is done entirely in free fall until the lander actually touches the surface. The critical handover can be exercised multiple times. You cannot faithfully exercise the lunar liftoff, but I think it will be a much easier problem anyway.

I have not seen anything about landing thrusters on the BO MK2 HLS. Do they exist?

[Chris Huys]

I know, I already found it strange, that they would need to do the really hard part, the uncrewed expendable hls moonlanding, that requires 10+ tanker flights, before the "easy" artemis III leo test.

Especially if you consider, it will take still a year, before 2 gigabays, boca chica and the cape 39a, and 2 extra launch towers, boca chica pad 1 and 39a, will come online.

SpaceX does not need all that infrastructure for the HLS demo or even the actual crewed landing. If they achieve their rapid reusability goals, they need one pad and one or two boosters, one HLS, one Depot, and a few tankers. For GSE, they need the ASU and possibly a methane liquefaction plant.

If spacex wants to iterate fast on their ships, having the "operational" flights done at the cape, vs the "test" flights in boca chica, helps minimize downtime at boca chica.

A complete separate launch site is worthwhile as insurance against a major catastrophe such as a direct hit from a category-5 hurricane. It's not needed to increase the launch rate if SpaceX reaches its crazy stated goals. A single pad plus a catch tower is supposed to exceed 1000 launches/yr. Injecting a few test flights into such an operational flow is negligible. Cadence for test flights is limited by the evaluate/design tweak/implement/refly cycle.

More realistically, in the near term I expect they really will achieve a once-a-week cadence with a burst rate of once a day, per pad. We'll see.

They just had a 5 month pause in flights, at boca chica, due to reconstruction of both massey's and construction of the second pad, and ongoing refurbishment of the first pad. A seperate "operational/production" site, will prevent such pauses in flights.