SpaceX

Somewhat more realistic, I’d say. As speculative as that is things like Starpath Space or TransAstra. While both have talked about Starship, neither will be cutting metal to fly on it time soon.
 
Dit you know that McGregor has Raptor graveyard ?
source NSF via X
GzjH-uiXAAAeI0V
 
You should have saved that for Halloween...
"They're coming to get you Tory..."

Next thing you know, they'll put on William Shatner masks and stalk teenagers...not that there is anything wrong with that, of course... somebody call Svengoolie.

Being an SLS fan--I'll be dreaming I can't run fast enough to get away...

The latest
 
Last edited:
No, Starship’s latest success doesn’t favor the US over China in landing humans on Luna | Moon Monday #240
Plus mission updates.
Jatan Mehta
01 Sep 2025 — 6 min read

No, Starship’s latest success doesn’t favor the US over China in landing humans on Luna | Moon Monday #240

Plus mission updates.
jatan.space jatan.space

However, the fact is no other system involved in either Artemis or China’s architecture is nearly as complex as Starship. While the Artemis Moonsuits from Axiom Space have been facing its own delays, the technological advances needed there over existing spacesuits aren’t as wide as Starship’s would be compared to traditional rockets. It’s only now that SpaceX has managed to get the upper stage heat shield to perform well enough. It’s no doubt a challenging task but nevertheless only one of the many key milestones needed to achieve the goal of landing humans on the Moon. Next up, SpaceX also needs to be able to:
Click to expand...

That’s why Lunar Starship needs a high launch cadence for adequate in-orbit refueling. But it will take several more Starship test launches before we can even get a baseline demonstration of in-orbit fuel transfer, a milestone already delayed by a year since its previously intended target. In July 2024, Jeff Foust had reported that an internal confirmation review conducted by NASA on Lunar Starship’s readiness gave Artemis III a 70% chance of launch by February 2028. It’s been over a year since, and with the earlier failures of Starship this year, the launch target has already moved to the right even if NASA may stick to calling 2027 as the official year. In fact, we don’t even have a firm launch target for the uncrewed Starship lunar landing demonstration, which needs to be successful before SpaceX is allowed to carry Artemis astronauts. Simply put, NASA’s road to the Moon has been inching through Starship.

In the meanwhile, China has bagged a quicker succession of milestones in 2025 than expected across its Moon rocket, the crew capsule, the lander, and supporting navigation and communications infrastructure. China’s track record this century of nearly no failures despite undertaking increasingly complex lunar missions has been exceptional. Barring a major failure or technical holdup in any of China’s crewed lunar landing components, there’s little reason to doubt a Sino success.
Click to expand...
 
It seems likely the Trump admin scraps SLS anyway. I think China will easily get to the moon before the U.S. manages to again; the U.S. plan was far more intricate and long term. The PRC landing looks to be Apollo-esque in scope, just split between two launches instead of a single rocket.
 
Falcon Heavy and SLS might be enough to allow a Dynetics lander --but that would mean more money to NASA, not less.

SuperHeavy might allow a direct ascent like what Von Braun wanted in the first place.
 
Josh_TN said:
It seems likely the Trump admin scraps SLS anyway. I think China will easily get to the moon before the U.S. manages to again; the U.S. plan was far more intricate and long term. The PRC landing looks to be Apollo-esque in scope, just split between two launches instead of a single rocket.
Click to expand...
A bit less than Apollo for their first landing, last I read, but they also have long-term plans. LM-9 is still in flux, with the fully reusable Starship-esque version for now not planned to debut until the 2040s.

As for scrapping the SLS, maybe. It will give a fair number of people some short-term pain, but I think it would be healthier for the American public space sector over the long term, as NASA won't be tied down operating a rocket with exorbitant costs and limited capabilities. Starship will be a much larger part of Artemis no matter what happens to the SLS, regardless.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
A bit less than Apollo for their first landing, last I read, but they also have long-term plans. LM-9 is still in flux, with the fully reusable Starship-esque version for now not planned to debut until the 2040s.
Click to expand...

The NASA plan is (or rather was) going to employ four different types of heavy and superheavy lifters to fulfill a semi permanent lunar presence. It was a rather rubegoldbergian plan, but it does underline the fact that the U.S. has access to a lot more lift than the PRC. The setbacks with Starship and the cancellation of SLS almost certainly push that plan back by years, but nevertheless the plan calls for a much more robust lunar presence and NASA has a lot more heavy-superheavy lifters options, even if SLS is cancelled (IMO a mistake at this stage - it should be phased out once there is a replacement on hand).
 
Josh_TN said:
(IMO a mistake at this stage - it should be phased out once there is a replacement on hand).
Click to expand...
I can, to a degree, sympathize with this argument, but I think it misses the point of why people like me want to see cancelation ASAP. Every year the SLS continues is $2+ billion and thousands of careers devoted to a program with very little payoff (I hold the opinion that we will never get a return equal or better to what we have invested into the SLS), and further delays in NASA focusing on its unique talents instead of poorly competing with the private sector. Starship has a much higher rate of improvement already, and dramatically greater potential rewards.

NASA already has a hard time coming up with payloads that can take advantage of F9 and FH. It will only get worse when Starship becomes operational and provides an order of magnitude more flight opportunities and payload as it matures. The design heuristics the agency uses are all still largely focused on a world where mass is dear, launch is expensive, and they have to sustain a large workforce to please politicians. What happens to NASA when SpaceX has a bigger budget than the agency?

FYI, I am not a ‘SpaceX vs. NASA type,’ nor do I think SpaceX should completely dominate the industry and suck up all resources and support. I want an industry that is so competitive and large that SpaceX is a fraction of it, and has to work very hard to compete and win business. SpaceX alumni are founding dozens of companies in multiple parts of the space sector, so the SpaceX ethos is spreading and, I think, gradually displacing the older paradigm.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
NASA already has a hard time coming up with payloads that can take advantage of F9 and FH.
Click to expand...
no, they don't. They fly small payloads on F9 all the time.
BlueAbyssal said:
The design heuristics the agency uses are all still largely focused on a world where mass is dear,'
Click to expand...
Because it is.
A. not going to fly a mass inefficient payload on FH when it can fly on F9. but Psyche was a hugely mass inefficient spacecraft.
b. NASA doesn't need FH for mass, it needs it for velocity.
BlueAbyssal said:
Tand they have to sustain a large workforce to please politicians.
Click to expand...
That doesn't apply to non human spaceflight.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
No, Von Braun want EOR in the first place for sustained presence in space. Direct ascent was a solution to meet the end of the decade challenge for flags and footprints.
Click to expand...

EOR was kinda "foot in the door" approach. The goal was to anchor LEO operations (and some infrastructure like propellant depots) into the Apollo lunar architecture.
Why LEO ?
-because it was the place easiest to access.
-Because Apollo on Saturn IB went there.
-Because space stations would be there, too.
-Because Saturn C-1 and C-2 (35 mt to orbit) would be less expensive and more sustainable (in theory at least) than any Saturn with F-1 (C-3, C-4, C-5, C-8 : 60 mt to 180 mt to orbit).
One has to imagine the EOR lunar architecture in the 1970's. There would be a small space station linked to a big propellant depot of LOX/LH2. Initially the lunar architecture would be Apollo, LM and TLI stages launched by multiple Saturn C-1 and C-2.
I presume that the next step would be to replace the basic manned ferry - Apollo on Saturn IB - with some kind of reusable transport.
 
Last edited:
I think we’re answering two fundamentally different questions: you, what is; and me, what if.
Byeman said:
no, they don't. They fly small payloads on F9 all the time.
Click to expand...
Different scales. SpaceX averaged about five NASA payloads (not missions) a year over the last decade. The agency isn’t well-equipped to, say, increase that by an order of magnitude.
Byeman said:
Because it is.
A. not going to fly a mass inefficient payload on FH when it can fly on F9. but Psyche was a hugely mass inefficient spacecraft.
b. NASA doesn't need FH for mass, it needs it for velocity.
Click to expand...
It is right now. Will it always be? And when it changes, will NASA be able to adapt? That’s what I’m getting at.
A/B: sure, but that’s tangential to my point. What I’m getting at is total flights available, not the performance of said flights.
Byeman said:
That doesn't apply to non human spaceflight.
Click to expand...
Not relevant. My point is that NASA has to maintain a workforce in alignment with political demands, which are often unreasonable.
 
NMaude said:
It hasn't been definitely cancelled yet as the Senate is pushing back.
Click to expand...
The fact that Space Force headquarters was moved to Alabama probably means it's done.

This was originally floated as a compensation for the loss of the jobs in Huntsville caused by the cancellation. I suspect a similar bone will be thrown at Louisiana soon.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Different scales. SpaceX averaged about five NASA payloads (not missions) a year over the last decade. The agency isn’t well-equipped to, say, increase that by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...
wrong takeaway on many counts.

a. The choice of launch vehicles is not a limiting factor
b. NASA's budget limits the number of science missions
c. since 1998, NASA averages only 4 science missions per year, with the highest being 7.
d. It could do more but the budget isn't there
 
To expand on the above: NASA science missions are not something comparable to a mass produced LEO satellite. They almost always involve deployment past earth orbit with all the complexity that entails, up to and including RTGs, and they are almost all one of a kind missions. There is no economy of scale in that and there’s little scientific research left to be done in LEO.
 
Tuna said:
The fact that Space Force headquarters was moved to Alabama probably means it's done.

This was originally floated as a compensation for the loss of the jobs in Huntsville
Click to expand...
What I expect to happen
SLS--a rocket that works-will be killed.

Once that is done, Space Force will go back to Colorado.

After what was done to ABMA, I trust *nobody*.
 
Both of you are focusing on what I noted before - what is - and not what I am: what can be. Of course what I write will appear wrong when we’re not discussing the same thing.
Byeman said:
wrong takeaway on many counts.

a. The choice of launch vehicles is not a limiting factor
b. NASA's budget limits the number of science missions
c. since 1998, NASA averages only 4 science missions per year, with the highest being 7.
d. It could do more but the budget isn't there
Click to expand...
a) yes it is. Your own comments essentially say this - NASA chose FH instead of F9 to give it a boost.
b) sure. So does how they’re forced to spend their money by Congress, and the design processes they use.
c) there is no law of nature that dictates that must always be the case.
d) doubly so when the design process is so broken that we can afford fewer and fewer proposals every decade.
Josh_TN said:
To expand on the above: NASA science missions are not something comparable to a mass produced LEO satellite. They almost always involve deployment past earth orbit with all the complexity that entails, up to and including RTGs, and they are almost all one of a kind missions. There is no economy of scale in that and there’s little scientific research left to be done in LEO.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m well aware of the differences. There’s more than one kind of complex: complexity alone isn’t enough of a reason for something to be built in small quantities, or to make something exorbitantly expensive. Here’s an example of how telescope design can be different in the future; again, what if, versus the what is that you both are focusing on: JWST’s mirror design and the deployment of its protective sunshield could have been dramatically simpler if its designers had access to a larger fairing, and as with Earth-based telescopes, individual components could be tested before final deployment, with low-cost access to orbit. That we don’t already do that has multiple factors, but part of it is that it’s just not how most designers think.

If you’ll do me a favor: before you respond again, focus on what could be the case in 5, 10, or 15 years, versus on what we are presently doing, and try to think of how we can do things differently. Make it a thought experiment: assume Starship costs $20 million/launch for 100 tons to LEO, can fly a hundred times per year, and how that affects anything from telescope design, to science payload deployment on Mars, and beyond.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
Both of you are focusing on what I noted before - what is - and not what I am: what can be. Of course what I write will appear wrong when we’re not discussing the same thing.

a) yes it is. Your own comments essentially say this - NASA chose FH instead of F9 to give it a boost.
b) sure. So does how they’re forced to spend their money by Congress, and the design processes they use.
c) there is no law of nature that dictates that must always be the case.
d) doubly so when the design process is so broken that we can afford fewer and fewer proposals every decade.

Yes, I’m well aware of the differences. There’s more than one kind of complex: complexity alone isn’t enough of a reason for something to be built in small quantities, or to make something exorbitantly expensive. Here’s an example of how telescope design can be different in the future; again, what if, versus the what is that you both are focusing on: JWST’s mirror design and the deployment of its protective sunshield could have been dramatically simpler if its designers had access to a larger fairing, and as with Earth-based telescopes, individual components could be tested before final deployment, with low-cost access to orbit. That we don’t already do that has multiple factors, but part of it is that it’s just not how most designers think.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

1. The number of NASA missions is not dictated by the type of launch vehicle.
2a. They aren't "forced" to spend money by congress. NASA doesn't have a budget that then Congress decides what spends the money on. The White House and Congress determines what NASA is to do and provides the money to it.
2b. It has nothing to do with NASA's "design processes". NASA get money to do specific projects. It can't use money assigned to one project to use on another. Or in other words, NASA can't take money given to it to buy 2 apples and use it instead to buy 3 oranges.
3. It is a higher law, the law of Congress. NASA has no control of budget given to it. It can't increase it or divide it up differently.
4. Wrong. It isn't broken Where did I say the number of missions is decreasing? Again, it has nothing to do with NASA or design processes. Some years have 1 or 2 missions and other are higher 7 or 6 and which has averaged out to 4 per years. Valleys and peaks are driven by politics. There was lull in planetary missions a few years back due to the Obama admin not funding starts for such missions.


JWST would have still bene complex if it flew on Starship. The sunshield still would have to be flowed. And the need stop in LEO for refueling would have subjected the telescope to contamination.

Same drivel. low-cost access to orbit does not change the space environment and how spacecraft are designed for it.. Being use more mass in the structure doesn't change much.
 
publiusr said:
After what was done to ABMA, I trust *nobody*.
Click to expand...
ABMA wasn't killed or destroyed, it just became Marshall. The Army itself knew it didn't need Von Braun's group. The Army didn't need large rockets once NASA was formed. The Army had no real role in space. Von Braun's group wasn't going to be happy working on Pershing, Nike or battlefield rockets.
 
Byeman said:
Wrong again.

1. The number of NASA missions is not dictated by the type of launch vehicle.
2a. They aren't "forced" to spend money by congress. NASA doesn't have a budget that then Congress decides what spends the money on. The White House and Congress determines what NASA is to do and provides the money to it.
2b. It has nothing to do with NASA's "design processes". NASA get money to do specific projects. It can't use money assigned to one project to use on another. Or in other words, NASA can't take money given to it to buy 2 apples and use it instead to buy 3 oranges.
3. It is a higher law, the law of Congress. NASA has no control of budget given to it. It can't increase it or divide it up differently.
4. Wrong. It isn't broken Where did I say the number of missions is decreasing? Again, it has nothing to do with NASA or design processes. Some years have 1 or 2 missions and other are higher 7 or 6 and which has averaged out to 4 per years. Valleys and peaks are driven by politics. There was lull in planetary missions a few years back due to the Obama admin not funding starts for such missions.


JWST would have still bene complex if it flew on Starship. The sunshield still would have to be flowed. And the need stop in LEO for refueling would have subjected the telescope to contamination.

Same drivel. low-cost access to orbit does not change the space environment and how spacecraft are designed for it.. Being use more mass in the structure doesn't change much.
Click to expand...
1. That’s not what I said.
2a. You’re quibbling about my terminology, not actually disagreeing.
2b. Tangential to what I’m saying.
3. Yes. Tangential to what I’m saying.
4. I’m not referring to anything you said, but what I have observed. If it isn’t broken, then I look forward to MSR coming in under budget and ahead of schedule.

It’s a reasonable supposition to say that it would be less complex in a number of areas. ‘Less complex’ does not equal ‘simple.’ An aircraft carrier and a racing boat are dramatically different in the complexity of their construction, but the latter is still not simple, not as say, a canoe would be.

Lol. If that was an axiom, all efforts at ever reducing cost would be for naught, and our initial performance would be the apex of what we could achieve.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
1. That’s not what I said.
2a. You’re quibbling about my terminology, not actually disagreeing.
2b. Tangential to what I’m saying.
3. Yes. Tangential to what I’m saying.
Click to expand...
What are you saying then? How can different launch vehicles increase the number of missions that NASA does with the same budget?
Mind you, NASA can not preselect a launch vehicle when designing a spacecraft unless there is no other launch vehicle available.
 
It should be possible in principle to stick to a budget and do more, not less, but because of a multitude of factors both inside and outside the agency, NASA instead has ballooning budgets from JWST to MSR to VIPER and beyond, resulting in delays, scalebacks, and cancellations. Those outcomes are not inevitable.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
It should be possible in principle to stick to a budget and do more, not less, but because of a multitude of factors both inside and outside the agency, NASA instead has ballooning budgets from JWST to MSR to VIPER and beyond, resulting in delays, scalebacks, and cancellations. Those outcomes are not inevitable.
Click to expand...
And this is unrelated to SpaceX or the choice of launch vehicles.

also only 3 projects out of dozens.
JWST was going to cost what it cost anyways.
 
Byeman said:
And this is unrelated to SpaceX or the choice of launch vehicles.

also only 3 projects out of dozens.
JWST was going to cost what it cost anyways.
Click to expand...
No, but you remain insistent in discussing what is rather than what can be.

C’mon, only mentioning three doesn’t mean there’s only three, and JWST costing what it costs is a rhetorical tautology. If we expect to keep funding space science with taxpayer dollars, either we figure out how to reduce the price tag per payload, or as time wears on scientists will count themselves lucky to get one telescope every twenty years.
Michel Van said:
new record for SpaceX
https://twitter.com/x/status/1963959998155002032
View: https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1963959998155002032
Click to expand...
This plus the recent milestone of thirty reuses per booster has me curious what the ultimate limits of the Falcon program will be in terms of booster and program lifespan.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
This plus the recent milestone of thirty reuses per booster has me curious what the ultimate limits of the Falcon program will be in terms of booster and program lifespan.
Click to expand...
I remember the Investor presentation of ASTRA (the guys of Rocket 3.2 that launch sideway)
there chief Designer was then not very kind to SpaceX:

to be profitable they need more that 20th re-flights blah blah
Rocket 3.2 is cheaper in that way because mass produce Jaber Jaber

That not age very well
SpaceX Falcon9 fleet enter 20th re-flights, one even manage 30th
ASTRA stop using rocket 3.2 after seven launches, working since on Rocket 4.0
while SpaceX made 539 Falcon9 launches...
 
To the public, Falcon's Starlink flights are at least as invisible as Delta II GPS missions. More so, in that they are more frequent.

This is why SpaceX needs to show what 500 non-Starlink flights could have put up there...a visual aid--like the FH borne Tesla Roadster. Something for Tony Bela to paint.

Even though this is an aviation forum...if I were to ask any one of you...how many times Air Force One flew under Trump or Obama--I trust each one of you would have to look it up.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Walnut shells for cleaning?

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations

Flight 11 (Booster 15-2, Starship 38) pre-flight preparations
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com

On titanium welding

Starship heat shield

Starship heat shield
forum.nasaspaceflight.com forum.nasaspaceflight.com
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom