NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[spacenut]

Why not just build several Lunar Starships and leave one or two on the surface for the habitat.  Bottom cargo bays can carry rovers. They may be able to actually shorten the fuel tanks for the one way trip to have a larger habitat in the upper part.  Maybe even have two elevators on it for redundancy.  Then have another Starship with stretched tanks for take off and return of crews.  Eventually a crane could be taken to the moon and assembled on the surface in order to unload very large cargo from a cargo Starship (clamper shell style). 

With Starships there are a lot of possibilities.  Not just a lunar Starship.  SpaceX could bid habitats (as mentioned above), rovers (from Tesla), solar/battery power systems (from Tesla/Solar City), or any other thing NASA needs.  I would like to see Bigelow modules on the surface to keep them in business with some NASA contracts. 

[Khadgars]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

[electricdawn]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

[RanulfC]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

And then there's how well ANY monopoly has worked out so well any time in history Thanks for noting the 'parallel' with the Shuttle as in order to be economical as well Starship pretty much has to eat the rest of the market. If Starship doesn't fly often it won't work economically which is why you see the various 'side-tracks' (even though they are "supposed" to be concentrating on Mars ) like Point-to-Point and now the Lunar Starship.

In truth it's doubtful that anything will get spent on "Lunar Starship" after all there's the perfect excuse that you need a Starship before you can have a Lunar version, right?

At this point the main driver is cost as the lander program has very little money to work with and SpaceX is "promising" to stay within a budget that NASA can afford to spend.

I doubt there will actually be any 'variants' of Starship beyond the required/planned three; Cargo, tanker and mixed (passenger/cargo) because SpaceX has no use for any other variants.

Randy

[rakaydos]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

The big thing is orbital refueling. If the Saturn 5 had orbital refueling, Saturn-Skylab could have done almost everything Starship is planned to do.

Starship is just a bit more specialized for Mars, is designed and built with 21st century technology, and is designed to be both affordable and reusable, making a lot of things it's kinda overbuilt for, worth doing anyway.

[Coopman0]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

The big thing is orbital refueling. If the Saturn 5 had orbital refueling, Saturn-Skylab could have done almost everything Starship is planned to do.

Starship is just a bit more specialized for Mars, has more advanced engines, and is designed to be both affordable and reusable, making a lot of things it's kinda overbuilt for, worth doing anyway.

 Other than reusability and engines what else does Starship have that make it specialized to Mars and not, say the Moon?

[rakaydos]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

The big thing is orbital refueling. If the Saturn 5 had orbital refueling, Saturn-Skylab could have done almost everything Starship is planned to do.

Starship is just a bit more specialized for Mars, has more advanced engines, and is designed to be both affordable and reusable, making a lot of things it's kinda overbuilt for, worth doing anyway.

 Other than reusability and engines what else does Starship have that make it specialized to Mars and not, say the Moon?

More specialized for mars than Saturn-Skylab? Id say flaps and a heat shield would cover it. :p But you're right that a lot of the mars optimizations also apply to reuse on earth.

Edit: as I understand it, the main thing that makes it a mars specilized vehical is it's ability to manage the more difficult leg of the mars journy, return, in a single stage. This involves having just the right combination of TWR and DV, that coincidently makes it useful for a lot of less demanding tasks as well.

[RanulfC]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

Starship (mixed crew/cargo or the 'standard' Starship), Tanker and Cargo. The "Lunar lander" makes zero sense for SpaceX to build as it would be a vastly inferior vehicle, and wasted effort when they could just 'sell' flights on a regular Starship. A 'deep space' version also doesn't make much sense given SpaceX's goals and ambitions. It significantly detracts from using the "basic 3" Starships for any and all missions and thereby supporting the economics of Starship.

Keep in mind that those three 'models' consist of an intertwined 'ecosystem' of spacecraft that are designed and planned to support each other and the basic business and economic model of the whole. "Variants" throw off that model and require more resources, time, effort and finances to accomplish and get into service but do NOT contribute directly to the overall 'system'.

SpaceX's primary 'goal' at the moment is to get Starship flying as a viable launch system, "variants" at this stage make pretty much no sense BUT if you can pitch such and have a prospective customer pay for it while working to convince the customer they really don't 'need' a custom variant....

Randy

[rakaydos]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

Starship (mixed crew/cargo or the 'standard' Starship), Tanker and Cargo. The "Lunar lander" makes zero sense for SpaceX to build as it would be a vastly inferior vehicle, and wasted effort when they could just 'sell' flights on a regular Starship. A 'deep space' version also doesn't make much sense given SpaceX's goals and ambitions. It significantly detracts from using the "basic 3" Starships for any and all missions and thereby supporting the economics of Starship.

Elon: "You're right. Everything we wanted the falcon heavy to do, the Falcon 9 can do. Lets just cut our losses and cancel it."
Gwynn: "You cant cancel it, we have contracts!"

[electricdawn]

Uhm... Lunar Starship is required for the HLS contract? And I can also see a use as a pioneer Starship that lands on planets where there is no infrastructure and creates this infrastructure (ISRU, landing pad) for "regular" Starships to use.

So, IMHO, this is a necessary step for Musk's dreams about Mars. At least IMHO.

[RanulfC]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

Starship (mixed crew/cargo or the 'standard' Starship), Tanker and Cargo. The "Lunar lander" makes zero sense for SpaceX to build as it would be a vastly inferior vehicle, and wasted effort when they could just 'sell' flights on a regular Starship. A 'deep space' version also doesn't make much sense given SpaceX's goals and ambitions. It significantly detracts from using the "basic 3" Starships for any and all missions and thereby supporting the economics of Starship.

Elon: "You're right. Everything we wanted the falcon heavy to do, the Falcon 9 can do. Lets just cut our losses and cancel it."
Gwynn: "You cant cancel it, we have contracts!"

Just going to ignore the little fact that Falcon Heavy was not less capable than Falcon 9 then? And specifically that it COULD do more than the Falcon 9 which Lunar Starship can't? You are literally trying to use a totally different situation to illustrate a point that doesn't exist.

A "better", or at least more applicable argument would be that SpaceX up and decided to abandon the Falcon 9/Dragon for an as of yet un-flown "Heavy Falcon" with a totally reusable Super-Dragon upper stage and then accepted development funding towards that LV with the stipulation that it would have an expendable upper stage that was based on the reusable design. You still have to design and develop the booster(s) and upper-stage as a prerequisite to deploying the system and meanwhile you can work on the customers 'requirement' that it be expendable and single use. There is literally NO conflict here.

As for contracts, well see below...

Uhm... Lunar Starship is required for the HLS contract? And I can also see a use as a pioneer Starship that lands on planets where there is no infrastructure and creates this infrastructure (ISRU, landing pad) for "regular" Starships to use.

So, IMHO, this is a necessary step for Musk's dreams about Mars. At least IMHO.

"Development" of the suggested Lunar Starship is part of the HLS contract, let me repeat, you need a "Starship" to develop the "Lunar Starship" there is literally no conflict at this point as ANY development of Starship itself can be shown to be progress towards Lunar Starship. The only point where 'contractual' issues might be brought up is if by 2024 SpaceX has yet to fly a Starshp of any kind to orbit. (Possible) At which point questions may be asked but we've been here before and the 'answer' is going to be the same, keep slogging forward, especially if there is no 'alternative' available.

Once SpaceX has a "Starship" on orbit they can demonstrate on-orbit propellant transfer and at that point it is pretty much a "Lunar Starship". Unless NASA wants to demand that it be expendable and of limited utility at which point SpaceX has the choice of agreeing to build a couple "one-off-really-bad-Starships" or making the argument that Starship itself fulfills the "Lunar Starship" requirements. (Which btw was their initial argument for proposing Starship for HLS)

I'd tend to agree with you about the utility of an 'expendable' Starship that could be broken apart at the destination to provide the nexus of an outpost but that's not really something that SpaceX has embraced. They would much rather than reusable Starships than one-off designs and frankly given their proposed 'economics' expendable doesn't make all that much sense. Yes this is VERY much a 'necessary' step in Musk's plans. With government money he can greatly advance his efforts towards getting Starship/Superheavy operational and the 'government' now has a lot more incentive to clear any obstacles in the "way" of that effort.
If you have no issues with a government supported, unbreakable launch monopoly run by one person JUST because they say they want to get people to Mars "real soon now" then this is obviously going to sound like paradise. Those of us who know out history, have a healthy skepticism of a certain CEO due to his past and current activities and therefore have doubts about his 'altruism' and stated long-range plans have some well grounded reasons for pointing out the issues involved.

And lastly let me point out that reuse of at least SOME parts of the HLS is implicit in the requirements as every design incorporated it to some extent. The Lunar Starship is to be 'reusable' if you can get it to the Gateway or somewhere it can be refilled with propellant. The ONLY difference is that "Lunar Starship" is not "planned" to be 'returnable' to Earth for reuse whereas Starship is. Again, feel free to try and point out a REAL conflict here

Randy

[Khadgars]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

I think we are quite a ways away from understanding exactly what Starship will require in-order to land on Mars so I don't see how it would be simpler/easier and or cheaper. 

[trimeta]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

Starship (mixed crew/cargo or the 'standard' Starship), Tanker and Cargo. The "Lunar lander" makes zero sense for SpaceX to build as it would be a vastly inferior vehicle, and wasted effort when they could just 'sell' flights on a regular Starship. A 'deep space' version also doesn't make much sense given SpaceX's goals and ambitions. It significantly detracts from using the "basic 3" Starships for any and all missions and thereby supporting the economics of Starship.

Elon: "You're right. Everything we wanted the falcon heavy to do, the Falcon 9 can do. Lets just cut our losses and cancel it."
Gwynn: "You cant cancel it, we have contracts!"

Just going to ignore the little fact that Falcon Heavy was not less capable than Falcon 9 then? And specifically that it COULD do more than the Falcon 9 which Lunar Starship can't? You are literally trying to use a totally different situation to illustrate a point that doesn't exist.

A "better", or at least more applicable argument would be that SpaceX up and decided to abandon the Falcon 9/Dragon for an as of yet un-flown "Heavy Falcon" with a totally reusable Super-Dragon upper stage and then accepted development funding towards that LV with the stipulation that it would have an expendable upper stage that was based on the reusable design. You still have to design and develop the booster(s) and upper-stage as a prerequisite to deploying the system and meanwhile you can work on the customers 'requirement' that it be expendable and single use. There is literally NO conflict here.

As for contracts, well see below...

Uhm... Lunar Starship is required for the HLS contract? And I can also see a use as a pioneer Starship that lands on planets where there is no infrastructure and creates this infrastructure (ISRU, landing pad) for "regular" Starships to use.

So, IMHO, this is a necessary step for Musk's dreams about Mars. At least IMHO.

"Development" of the suggested Lunar Starship is part of the HLS contract, let me repeat, you need a "Starship" to develop the "Lunar Starship" there is literally no conflict at this point as ANY development of Starship itself can be shown to be progress towards Lunar Starship. The only point where 'contractual' issues might be brought up is if by 2024 SpaceX has yet to fly a Starshp of any kind to orbit. (Possible) At which point questions may be asked but we've been here before and the 'answer' is going to be the same, keep slogging forward, especially if there is no 'alternative' available.

Once SpaceX has a "Starship" on orbit they can demonstrate on-orbit propellant transfer and at that point it is pretty much a "Lunar Starship". Unless NASA wants to demand that it be expendable and of limited utility at which point SpaceX has the choice of agreeing to build a couple "one-off-really-bad-Starships" or making the argument that Starship itself fulfills the "Lunar Starship" requirements. (Which btw was their initial argument for proposing Starship for HLS)

I'd tend to agree with you about the utility of an 'expendable' Starship that could be broken apart at the destination to provide the nexus of an outpost but that's not really something that SpaceX has embraced. They would much rather than reusable Starships than one-off designs and frankly given their proposed 'economics' expendable doesn't make all that much sense. Yes this is VERY much a 'necessary' step in Musk's plans. With government money he can greatly advance his efforts towards getting Starship/Superheavy operational and the 'government' now has a lot more incentive to clear any obstacles in the "way" of that effort.
If you have no issues with a government supported, unbreakable launch monopoly run by one person JUST because they say they want to get people to Mars "real soon now" then this is obviously going to sound like paradise. Those of us who know out history, have a healthy skepticism of a certain CEO due to his past and current activities and therefore have doubts about his 'altruism' and stated long-range plans have some well grounded reasons for pointing out the issues involved.

And lastly let me point out that reuse of at least SOME parts of the HLS is implicit in the requirements as every design incorporated it to some extent. The Lunar Starship is to be 'reusable' if you can get it to the Gateway or somewhere it can be refilled with propellant. The ONLY difference is that "Lunar Starship" is not "planned" to be 'returnable' to Earth for reuse whereas Starship is. Again, feel free to try and point out a REAL conflict here

Randy

So you're basically suggesting that the "Lunar Starship" will be indistinguishable from the "Passenger Starship," that any and all features needed for completing the HLS contract will be made into standard features that all passenger Starships include. That's plausible at least, but depends on whether a single solar panel design is appropriate for both "sitting on the lunar surface for a week" and "interplanetary journeys," whether adding interplanetary-only features (like increased life support, a hardened solar flare shelter, etc.) to HLS Starship is worth it, and whether they can get away with leaving the flaps on HLS Starship which will never be used. It may turn out that Starship has so much extra mass margin, they might as well just do everything. But I think if they could deliver an extra 10 tons to the lunar surface by making some minor modifications, they totally would do that.

[guckyfan]

I have to admit, I am concerned with the nearly unlimited roles people are proscribing to Starship.  Each variant would have to be tested extensively and you introduce a whole gambit of failure modes.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

SpaceX does not need to do everything. They can deliver a Starship cargo section to NASA. NASA builds a habitat to their own specs into it and SpaceX plants it on a propulsion section and sends it off.

[electricdawn]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

I think we are quite a ways away from understanding exactly what Starship will require in-order to land on Mars so I don't see how it would be simpler/easier and or cheaper.

Why are you swapping deep space with lunar lander? And I still do not see an issue with having a basic Starship and developing different versions from it that use the same basic frame.

[rakaydos]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

Starship (mixed crew/cargo or the 'standard' Starship), Tanker and Cargo. The "Lunar lander" makes zero sense for SpaceX to build as it would be a vastly inferior vehicle, and wasted effort when they could just 'sell' flights on a regular Starship. A 'deep space' version also doesn't make much sense given SpaceX's goals and ambitions. It significantly detracts from using the "basic 3" Starships for any and all missions and thereby supporting the economics of Starship.

Elon: "You're right. Everything we wanted the falcon heavy to do, the Falcon 9 can do. Lets just cut our losses and cancel it."
Gwynn: "You cant cancel it, we have contracts!"

Just going to ignore the little fact that Falcon Heavy was not less capable than Falcon 9 then? And specifically that it COULD do more than the Falcon 9 which Lunar Starship can't? You are literally trying to use a totally different situation to illustrate a point that doesn't exist.

A "better", or at least more applicable argument would be that SpaceX up and decided to abandon the Falcon 9/Dragon for an as of yet un-flown "Heavy Falcon" with a totally reusable Super-Dragon upper stage and then accepted development funding towards that LV with the stipulation that it would have an expendable upper stage that was based on the reusable design. You still have to design and develop the booster(s) and upper-stage as a prerequisite to deploying the system and meanwhile you can work on the customers 'requirement' that it be expendable and single use. There is literally NO conflict here.

As for contracts, well see below...

Uhm... Lunar Starship is required for the HLS contract? And I can also see a use as a pioneer Starship that lands on planets where there is no infrastructure and creates this infrastructure (ISRU, landing pad) for "regular" Starships to use.

So, IMHO, this is a necessary step for Musk's dreams about Mars. At least IMHO.

"Development" of the suggested Lunar Starship is part of the HLS contract, let me repeat, you need a "Starship" to develop the "Lunar Starship" there is literally no conflict at this point as ANY development of Starship itself can be shown to be progress towards Lunar Starship. The only point where 'contractual' issues might be brought up is if by 2024 SpaceX has yet to fly a Starshp of any kind to orbit. (Possible) At which point questions may be asked but we've been here before and the 'answer' is going to be the same, keep slogging forward, especially if there is no 'alternative' available.

Once SpaceX has a "Starship" on orbit they can demonstrate on-orbit propellant transfer and at that point it is pretty much a "Lunar Starship". Unless NASA wants to demand that it be expendable and of limited utility at which point SpaceX has the choice of agreeing to build a couple "one-off-really-bad-Starships" or making the argument that Starship itself fulfills the "Lunar Starship" requirements. (Which btw was their initial argument for proposing Starship for HLS)
Randy

That's exactly what my comparison is about. The base model is plenty from an engineering standpoint for anything the customers wanted to do... but SpaceX has a piece of paper that requires them to ALSO build specialized one-off hardware or forfit a bunch of money. SpaceX will build at least 2 specialized lunar starships because they told NASA they would. After those two are built, it's fair game for base starship.

[DigitalMan]

I don't think anyone can say just yet with 100% certainty that the landing burn on Mars after the flip won't need to be done with the same or similar engines as the Lunar Starship landing burn.

Damage from debris being kicked up isn't helpful.

[VSECOTSPE]

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

STS tried to do too much in one (very expensive) design.  SS is developing variants on one (relatively cheap) design to address different uses/markets.

Like every LV, SS will have problems.  But it’s not repeating that particular STS mistake.

[trimeta]

That's exactly what my comparison is about. The base model is plenty from an engineering standpoint for anything the customers wanted to do... but SpaceX has a piece of paper that requires them to ALSO build specialized one-off hardware or forfit a bunch of money. SpaceX will build at least 2 specialized lunar starships because they told NASA they would. After those two are built, it's fair game for base starship.

RanulfC's argument is that they don't need to build a specialized, one-off piece of hardware for the HLS contract, they just need to build some piece of hardware which meets the requirements of the contract. So they could build a generic "Passenger Starship" which happens to do everything necessary for the HLS mission...in addition to also being appropriate for carrying colonists to Mars, for example. Whether it's cheaper to design separate "Lunar" and "Mars colonization" Starships, or design a single "Passenger" Starship that has all the features of both and which you'll use for all passenger missions, is a separate question. Designing two versions is inherently more expensive than one, but if you end up building an unnecessarily-complex vehicle with features you don't need but still are paying to include, that's also more expensive.

[RanulfC]

I know of crew starship, tanker, cargo, lunar lander and maybe a deep space version (which is just a completely stripped down version, so very simple and very cheap).

I see no reason why SpaceX would be unable to follow through with these.

I think we are quite a ways away from understanding exactly what Starship will require in-order to land on Mars so I don't see how it would be simpler/easier and or cheaper.

"Technically" (playing a sort-of-devils-advocate role ) you'd need vastly less complexity to land on the Moon than a trip-to and landing on Mars. You can 'kind-of' argue that it wouldn't take much more than the non-prototypes that are flying now with some solar panels and a knocked up hab module. (Actual landing legs would be a bonus of course )

The problem is that in order to get from where SpaceX is now to even a "Lunar Starship" is going in the direction they were going to go anyway. The other problem is folks don't seem to understand that SpaceX is NOT going to be 'punished' if they (technically) over-deliver so they have about zero incentive not to go that direction.

Why are you swapping deep space with lunar lander? And I still do not see an issue with having a basic Starship and developing different versions from it that use the same basic frame.

They are: Tanker, Cargo and mixed Passenger/Cargo. Developing anything ELSE gets expensive and as I said even if the customer demands it there's actually not a lot of incentive to go that way. Contracts or no, (and keep in mind the HLS is NOT as specific as people tend to think it is otherwise Starship, no matter how cheap, would not have even been considered) the monetary penalties are likely be trivial for 'over-performance' than 'under-performance'. Especially as there is likely to be no 'backup plan' in place.

The 'reason' you are not seeing an issue is because you are not thinking like a manufacture who finds it more efficient to make a 'single' base model,(airframe) and then IF the customer is willing to pay enough can then 'fit' out the frame as a specialized construction.  That 'fitting out' can get expensive quickly the more specialization is required.

So you're basically suggesting that the "Lunar Starship" will be indistinguishable from the "Passenger Starship," that any and all features needed for completing the HLS contract will be made into standard features that all passenger Starships include. That's plausible at least, but depends on whether a single solar panel design is appropriate for both "sitting on the lunar surface for a week" and "interplanetary journeys," whether adding interplanetary-only features (like increased life support, a hardened solar flare shelter, etc.) to HLS Starship is worth it, and whether they can get away with leaving the flaps on HLS Starship which will never be used. It may turn out that Starship has so much extra mass margin, they might as well just do everything. But I think if they could deliver an extra 10 tons to the lunar surface by making some minor modifications, they totally would do that.

Not really that it "will" be but that there is zero incentive for it NOT to be and likely very little resistance from the 'customer' as long as it meets the minimum requirements. Why would there be? And your main point of worry is simply having 'something' ready by the required time-table, everything else gets spent on further development of the "Starship" itself. It's 'free-money' for SpaceX as long as they can keep the contract.

I'd argue that what we'll see for "HLS" will simply be a "Starship" prototype, (and actual one) with a lot of low-complexity systems packed in to meet the minimum requirements. i don't know if people have been paying attention but SpaceX illustrations have already dumped the 'lunar landing engines' and I fully expect that SpaceX will argue they aren't needed so they won't have to 'compromise' the Starship design. I won't be at all surprised if SpaceX uses the NASA money to finally get serious about a actual working landing leg system but it will be 'compatible' with the "standard" Starship not something specific for the Moon.

Less 'modifications' and more 'omissions' really IF they feel they are running short of time.

That's exactly what my comparison is about. The base model is plenty from an engineering standpoint for anything the customers wanted to do... but SpaceX has a piece of paper that requires them to ALSO build specialized one-off hardware or forfeit a bunch of money. SpaceX will build at least 2 specialized lunar starships because they told NASA they would. After those two are built, it's fair game for base starship.

Actually no the 'piece-of-paper' does NOT in fact 'require' them to build a "one-off hardware" or "specialized Starships" and specifically so. What it requires is that they build something that meets minimum HLS contract requirements and that's pretty much it. SpaceX has always maintained that Starship is 'inefficient' in a Lunar role and it is but that arguably still meets most if not all the requirements. And if they DO end up having to try and build a couple of 'expendable' (and keep in mind you can 'technically' game this to be one 'Lunar Starship' per planned mission) then those can very easily be pre-prototype "Starships" not vastly different externally from what they currently have. Again there is ZERO "conflict" here and no real danger of penalties or really much risk for SpaceX. This is the direct they would have had to go in any case and they can get NASA to pay for it so why not?

That's exactly what my comparison is about. The base model is plenty from an engineering standpoint for anything the customers wanted to do... but SpaceX has a piece of paper that requires them to ALSO build specialized one-off hardware or forfit a bunch of money. SpaceX will build at least 2 specialized lunar starships because they told NASA they would. After those two are built, it's fair game for base starship.

RanulfC's argument is that they don't need to build a specialized, one-off piece of hardware for the HLS contract, they just need to build some piece of hardware which meets the requirements of the contract. So they could build a generic "Passenger Starship" which happens to do everything necessary for the HLS mission...in addition to also being appropriate for carrying colonists to Mars, for example. Whether it's cheaper to design separate "Lunar" and "Mars colonization" Starships, or design a single "Passenger" Starship that has all the features of both and which you'll use for all passenger missions, is a separate question. Designing two versions is inherently more expensive than one, but if you end up building an unnecessarily-complex vehicle with features you don't need but still are paying to include, that's also more expensive.

Kind of My point is mainly that in this case the whole "HLS" contract is not an issue since SpaceX is getting NASA money to essentially do what they were going to do anyway thereby saving them money and infusing "Starship" with it. Pretty much nothing in the HLS contract will preclude any work by SpaceX on Starship and most of it can be 'justified' to include that development so there's no need for SpaceX to design a different version of Starship to go the Moon. It likely won't be able to go to Mars but at this point (and for quite a while yet) that's far beyond anything they would be capable of supporting anyway.

A lot of folks are going to like this progression, and as a "space cadet" I can see the draw. However...

This will essentially infuse a bunch of public money into a singular private space launch system which in and of itself then becomes perilously close to if not in effect a government subsidized monopoly. As such it stifles competition and since it is subsidized by the government there is vastly less incentive to do anything about it. Due to it's size Starship, like the Shuttle, requires a hefty segment if not domination of the overall launch market to be economic. It can't help it and reusability actually encourages this to keep the price down.

Isn't that what doomed Space Shuttle trying to accomplish too many roles?

STS tried to do too much in one (very expensive) design.  SS is developing variants on one (relatively cheap) design to address different uses/markets.

Actually the opposite, SpaceX is developing ONE design, (that I find hard to assume will be 'cheap' when all we have to go by is non-operational, non-prototypes which have very little to do with actually working orbital launch vehicles) that will only have three variants with rather as 'minimal' of design changes as possible. SS has to have just about as many flights as the STS was requiring to meet similar economic goals. As per usual neither Congress nor OMB were willing to buy enough Orbiters to come close to the needed flight rate but in a similar fashion SpaceX has to have a certain 'minimum' number of SS/SH's AND fly them often enough to be economical.

I've seen on these very forums someone 'crow' that ONE cargo/SS could fly off the entire planned annual launch inventory in a single month... And then not understand the follow of question of "Ok, then what?"
The idea that the launch market will expand to fill such capability lacks an understanding of the actual launch market and the economics involved since the "launch costs" will not really come down until AFTER a certain flight rate is achieved to make the LV system economics work.

Like every LV, SS will have problems.  But it’s not repeating that particular STS mistake.

I actually don't see anything to support this view point as SS is based on much the same economic and launch market theory that the STS was with arguably less basis to rest on. STS was expensive primarily because it was a government program spread over a large portion of the United States and a very ambitious first attempt at a reusable space vehicle. It was arguably too large and complex for the launch market it was aimed at, (which can be argued about Starship as well), and aimed at doing too many things with one system but it had a lot of potential that was also unrealized. Starship at first glance does not appear to have similar flaws but in fact it has all the same flaws and is just as dependent on government financing and support rather than the existing launch market and relevant economic factors.

People wonder why there are no 'Starship" competitors but that's like asking why there were originally no STS or EELV "competitors". At the time STS's economics and payload capacity "worked" IF the numbers were correct. They weren't but the assumptions they were based on were valid if misapplied. Similarly Starship is based on a lot of assumptions and numbers that COULD apply as easily as they could not and are just as valid as not.

Randy