Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

GW Johnson · 2025-11-03 12:00:26

I see in the news that NASA finally threw open the lunar lander thing to all of industry, seeking a "plan B". So far, there have been 2 responses, one from SpaceX, the other from Blue Origin, the same original HLS contractors NASA selected, then finally downselected to SpaceX. The news reports provide no clue as to what SpaceX and Blue Origin "plan B" items really are.

You can pretty much bet that the SpaceX "plan B" is still some variant of its Starship modified to land on the moon, which is exactly what they were contracted to do in the first place. You can also bet that the Blue Origin "plan B" will be based on the "Blue Moon" lander they were designing right up until the downselect. They both have too much effort invested in those ideas to switch horses now. Simple as that!

Both are too tall to be stable for rough field landings on the moon (they violate the "stance wider than the cg is tall" criterion that was successful with Surveyor and the Apollo LM). And, you have to worry also about landing pads sinking deep into the lunar regolith, because it is no stronger than an Earthly sand dune! I do not know how loaded the Blue Origin pads would have been, but as of yet I have seen nothing out of any SpaceX designs that take dynamic (transient) bearing pressures during touchdown into account. They only have touchdown experiences on a hard pad or steel deck.

NASA needs somebody else to respond with a different idea from either of these two. But, with the landing scheduled for only 1 or 2 years way, there is no reality to NASA's plans, either! The Apollo LM took 4 years paper to flight, and that was a crash program where money was secondary. This is not. The downselect was driven by insufficient money in the first place. This lander cannot be done "from scratch" in 1-2 years, even if it were a crash program.

The original SpaceX and Blue Origin ideas have about 2 years under their belts now. Some variants of those are the only feasible things that might get done in another 2 years. And that could ONLY happen if NASA funded both contractors at a crash program level, from now until then. That's the only way to have a viable option AND a viable backup option! Common sense says so!

But it ain't going to happen that way, people!

All you need do is look at what is happening to JPL to understand what has already been happening at the rest of NASA. So far, 25% of workforce laid off, and they were by far NASA's most capable people! Demonstrably so! THAT is what this government is really doing!

Just as I have always recommended: "look ONLY at what they really do; do NOT listen to what they say or promise!"

GW

SpaceNut · 2025-11-19 15:36:02

Leaked Document Shows Elon Musk’s SpaceX Will Miss Moon Landing Deadline. Here's What To Know

AA1QL02G.img?w=768&h=432&m=6

According to the original Artemis plan, we should have already put people on the Moon. Artemis III should have gone and come back by now. Instead, it is currently tentatively scheduled for no earlier than mid-2027. However, the mission is almost certain to be delayed again. The reason for the delay lies with SpaceX's Starship rocket: a leaked memo states that the vehicle won’t be ready until mid-2028, at least.
During the first Trump administration, the mission to bring humans back to the Moon was christened Artemis. It was going to involve the already-in-construction Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule, as well as a privately built Human Landing System. Orion and SLS were tested with Artemis I in 2022.
The original selection for the Human Landing System spacecraft was SpaceX's then-planned Starship. This actually created legal troubles for NASA. Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, a rival space company, filed a complaint in federal court against NASA, escalating its original complaint that NASA unfairly awarded the lunar lander contract to Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
At the time, the legal trouble seemed to be a major delaying factor. Issues with the spacesuit designs and problems with the heatshield of Orion added to the delays of both crewed missions: Artemis II, which will launch next year and travel around the Moon, and Artemis III, the mission that is going to bring the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon. The next Moon landing was first envisioned to happen in 2024, then this year, and then it was postponed to next year. At the end of 2024, a mid-2027 date was put down, which remains the currently agreed target.
Before that agreement, an analysis published over a year ago by the US Government Accountability Office was skeptical that it would be possible to make that date, and posited it would be pushed to 2028. The major delaying factor now is Starship. The vehicle suffered multiple explosions this year. Despite the most recent successes, the vehicle is well behind schedule to safely carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the Moon's surface and back.
A few weeks ago, acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy went on TV to announce that the space agency was open to other companies to provide a lunar landing system. “[SpaceX and Musk] push their timelines out, and we’re in a race against China,” Duffy told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” at the time. “So, I’m going to open up the contract. I’m going to let other space companies compete with SpaceX.”
The only company that is ready to compete is Blue Origin. The company has not been advertising what they have been doing with their Blue Moon human lander, but it is expected that an actual space test will happen in the first half of next year. Blue Moon is supposed to be delivered in 2030 for Artemis V
Elon Musk did not take the news of NASA shopping around well. He turned to social media to post school-yard insults regarding Duffy (called him “Sean Dummy”) and wrote that: “The person responsible for America's space program can't have a 2-digit IQ.” Duffy retorted that “great companies shouldn’t be afraid of a challenge.”
In the leaked memo reported by Audrey Decker at Politico, SpaceX will be ready to land humans on the Moon in September 2028, more than a year after the mid-2027 goal of NASA. Before that, Starship needs to demonstrate in-space refueling, currently scheduled for June 2026, and an uncrewed landing on the Moon in June 2027.
To make that schedule work, nothing can go wrong. While Starship has achieved certain success as defined by the specific tests from SpaceX, it has yet to demonstrate the capabilities of flying to space and landing back on Earth safely. To state the obvious, a safe landing is the crucial part of a Lunar Human landing system.
NASA’s plans for the Moon missions continue to shift. The Trump administration’s budget has proposed canceling SLS, Orion, and the Lunar Gateway – the next-gen international space station currently under construction to replace the ISS – that is supposed to orbit the Moon to help facilitate both Moon landings nd further space travel. The administration's goal is to rely more on commercial partners, but it's an ever-changing race which ones they will be.

RGClark · 2025-11-24 19:52:26

Blue Origin is rapidly advancing in its space capabilities. It plans in first quarter 2026 to test land a cargo lunar lander in the Blue Moon Mk1, capable of transporting 3 tons payload to the lunar surface. Because of its large cargo capacity, Blue Origin is investigating it as a crewed lander to do Artemis III.

If it succeeds at this test landing in 2026 it will be a watershed moment. Not only is the landing important, but the lander uses hydrolox. In order for this to work the Mk1 will have to employ low boiloff tech. Others have speculated on accomplishing this, notably ULA with their proposed ACES hydrolox upper stage. Blue Origin having a stage with this tech would open up cryogenic stages being used as propellant depots and even for longer missions such as to Mars.

Beyond that, Blue Origin has announced a larger version of the New Glenn capable of 70 tons to LEO. I’m trying to find out if this is with partial reusability, i.e., recovering the booster. If it is, then its expendable payload would be ca. 100 tons. This is important because this is the range commonly thought needed for a “Moon rocket”, one capable of single launch manned Moon missions, a la the Saturn V. Eric Berger has written the upgraded new Glenn might cost only ca. $200 million and be ready by 2027:

Blue Origin revealed some massively cool plans for its New Glenn rocket
“The iterative design from our current 7×2 vehicle means we can build this rocket quickly.”
ERIC BERGER – NOV 20, 2025 1:06

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/11/b … nn-rocket/

If Blue succeeds at this, it again would be a game changer. This is scarcely more than what we spend just sending astronauts to the ISS. If manned Moon missions could be launched at costs this low it would finally open up the Moon to sustainable habitation and development.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2025-11-25 08:45:44)

Void · 2025-11-25 10:59:35

It is so good to see results for Blue Origin. They seem to have a working relationship with Rocket Lab as well. In the current situation they both do not have reusable 2nd stages, (Yet).

An interesting thing would if rocket Lab eventually size up their Neutron, if it works well.

So, it may be interesting to see if two cores SpaceX and Blue Origin, may gather others to their "Sphere of Influence".

I am fairly sure that NASA does not want just one major player.

If I am wrong, then perhaps a Blue Origin moon lander could be hosted by Starship.

If I am right, then I think that perhaps Stoke Space will enter the sphere of influence of SpaceX, and Starship/Superheavy might host a Starboat sized version of the 2nd Stage of Stoke Space, or Superheavy might lift a supersized Hydro-Lox, 2nd Stage of Stoke Space.

So, I am wondering about "In-Flight-Hot-Staging":

By working with Stoke Space, SpaceX might get a Hydro-Lox 2nd Stage into their tool kit. And possibly with that different heat shield method. Although there is a question about if that heat shield could cope with speeds from the Moon, it perhaps would do OK with coming back from LEO.

And a Stoke Space 2nd Stage might work OK on the Moon. perhaps even landing into a cradle the shape of its heat shield.

I think it is possible that Blue Origin may create a Jarvis being a bit like the Stoke Space 2nd Stage as well.

https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

Stoke Space Second Stage: High Performance and Reusable within 24 Hours of Landing
YouTube
Space Startup News
5.4K views

Just a wish. With all the water which supposedly is not said to exist on the Moon, the 2nd stage might work rather well on the Moon and might support efforts with Starship itself.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-03 09:11:36)

GW Johnson · 2025-12-02 15:45:19

I am glad to see Blue Origin entering the orbital launch fray. They do have an impressive design in New Glenn. It's smaller than Starship/Superheavy, so it fills a different payload mass niche.

Meanwhile, SpaceX has been proving out the "rideshare" concept with its Falcon-9. That is to be the technique by which the giant Starship/Superheavy can address the market for smaller payloads.

A rocket sized about right for a given payload offers the possibility of a sooner date to launch, but at a somewhat higher price. The "rideshare" option offers the lowest price, but at a longer wait time before launching, trying to fill the "seats".

I think both are good approaches, and actually the two companies will offer services that are as much complimentary as they are competitive.

Being so much bigger with an upper stage that is also a fully-qualified entry vehicle, I think SpaceX has the longer row to hoe, before their vehicle is considered safe and reliable. Blue Origin still has a similar row to hoe with New Glenn, but not one quite as long as Spacex's, because Blue Origin's upper stage is not reusable.

It's apples and oranges. I did the best I could to compare in a realistic way.

GW

Void · 2025-12-03 09:16:44

I like your evaluation Dr Johnson.

I think that Starships that land and stay on the Moon may have value, and those the loiter in orbit of the Moon may have value.

If it is true that the Moon has lots of water from ancient volcanism, then if Starship stopped off in orbit of the Moon and Carbon might be supplied by some efficient freighter, then a Hydro-Lox, Moon vehicle could act as a tanker to bring water to Lunar Orbit, where a space station might generate propellants for the Starship.

The Starship could bring freight to Lunar orbit and get refilled to either return to Earth, or go to another destination.

The Tanker could bring water up and freight down.

Ending Pending

GW Johnson · 2025-12-03 10:19:19

Copied from my post 26 above:

"NASA needs somebody else to respond with a different idea from either of these two. But, with the landing scheduled for only 1 or 2 years way, there is no reality to NASA's plans, either! The Apollo LM took 4 years paper to flight, and that was a crash program where money was secondary. This is not. The downselect was driven by insufficient money in the first place. This lander cannot be done "from scratch" in 1-2 years, even if it were a crash program."

Now see this from the Wednesday 12-3-2025 issue of AIAA's "Daily Launch" email newsletter:

"Ars Technica

NASA seeks a “warm backup” option as key decision on lunar rover nears

By the time the second group of NASA astronauts reach the Moon later this decade, the space agency would like to have a lunar rover waiting for them. But as the space agency nears a key selection, some government officials are seeking an insurance policy of sorts to increase the program’s chance of success.

-----

My take on it:

Told ya so, didn't I? No reality at all to the Artemis plan and schedule.

They announced a landing date without a working prototype for a lunar lander, and no fruitful effort at all toward a rover. What kind of "planning" is that? What kind of "management" is that? None, I would say!

And just how are they going to address these needs while laying off 25-50% of their workforces? Answer -- they cannot!

All of which proves my point here: the NASA we knew and loved no longer exists.

It was slowly being destroyed by Congress using it for porkbarrel politics the last several decades, and here in the last several months, the destruction has been sped up enormously by this administration, which is demonstrably anti-science, and also apparently only interested in warfighting technologies it can purchase more over-the-counter than by developing them.

GW

GW Johnson · 2025-12-03 10:27:24

There may or may not be large quantities of easily-recoverable ice on the moon near its poles. We still do not know with real ground truth. Remote sensing still often lies to you, precisely because too many inferences have to be made.

But if easily recoverable ice exists, then LOX-LH2 should be producible powered by a mix of solar and nuclear electricity (remember, the day/night cycle is a month long!). All it takes is electricity to do purification, electrolysis, and liquifaction.

If you have a single stage, reusable lander rigged to use LOX-LH2 propellant, you can use it to ferry some of that same LOX-LH2 propellant to orbit. You refuel the lander on the surface. It uses less propellant to launch cargo into lunar orbit and return, done that way.

That being the case, what purpose does a lunar space station serve? Why build 2 propellant production plants? Just use the one you need on the surface, and ship product to orbit for transit elsewhere.

That approach makes more sense to me, because you get the same effect while building less infrastructure.

Now, if you intend to use LOX-LCH4 propellants, you will have to ship carbon from Earth or elsewhere, and it needs to be pure, and in powder form. There is no easily recoverable carbon on the moon.

Extremely dilute concentrations of anything are not easily-recovered resources. That is why sea water has never been "mined" for the uranium that is there, in extremely dilute concentrations.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-12-03 10:30:39)

Void · 2025-12-03 12:32:51

Yes, what I suggested is contingent on there being large amounts of ice and very little CO2.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/ice- … tion-water
Quote:

Space
Ancient volcanoes may have left ice at the moon’s poles
The eruptions may have produced several temporary atmospheres that held water vapor

So we have a bit of a logic tree.

If Ice and No CO2, then lift H20 to Moon orbit refill station, and bring Carbon to Lunar orbit. (Starship needs Methane).

If Ice and CO2 (Dry Ice) on the Moon, make O2 and Methane and bring to orbit of the Moon to refill Starship.

An alternative would be to have a Hydro-Lox Booster that might give Starship a kick from the Moon.

We need to have facts about available resources as I know you have always maintained.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-03 12:37:43)

GW Johnson · 2025-12-05 11:55:37

Regarding post 32 above, more "I-told-you-so" stuff showed up in today's (5 Dec 25) "Daily Launch" from AIAA:

Ars Technica

Congress warned that NASA’s current plan for Artemis “cannot work”

In recent months, it has begun dawning on US lawmakers that, absent significant intervention, China will land humans on the Moon before the United States can return there with the Artemis Program. So far, legislators have yet to take meaningful action on this—a $10 billion infusion into NASA’s budget this summer essentially provided zero funding for efforts needed to land humans on the Moon this decade. But now a subcommittee of the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology has begun reviewing the space agency’s policy, expressing concerns about Chinese competition in civil spaceflight.

-----
My take:

Finally, it is just beginning to dawn on the politicians running NASA's show that they have been seriously miss-running it! About time! Actually, far too late! Announcing an expected landing date without a lander (and a rover) almost done with development, was just UTTERLY STUPID! But that's EXACTLY what you get when you let incompetent politicians be the top managers. Always has been, always will be.

This return-to-the-moon thing should not be another space race in the first place. The US put boots on the moon 56-53 years ago. It should no longer be about "who does something first". It should actually be about going there to do something significant and perhaps even useful.

Congress took over managing NASA by the end of Apollo. We have spent the last half a century puttering around with men in orbit (WITHOUT doing artificial spin gravity work !!!), while sending probes to other planets from the one part of NASA not so badly micromanaged by Congress until recently. Before Nixon killed all manned spaceflight outside LEO (not just Apollo!!!), the plan was US boots on Mars in the 1980's!!!

EDIT UPDATE same day: NASA killed NERVA just as it was ready to fly as an alternate 3rd stage on Saturn-5, when Nixon forbade manned flight outside LEO, based on the reasoning "who needs the rocket if we aren't going to go?" They learned that kind of "reasoning" from Congress!

See what Congress micromanaging NASA REALLY did?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-12-05 15:47:31)

GW Johnson · 2025-12-08 10:41:13

from the Monday 12-8-2025 "Daily Launch" email newsletter, there was a link to a longer article at Space.com, the text of which I copied and reproduced here:

TITLE 'We have lost a lot of time.' Former NASA chief says US needs to start over with moon landing plans or risk losing to China

AUTHORSHIP By Brett Tingley published 3 days ago

SUBTITLE "We have stuck to a plan that does not make sense."

TEXT Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin pulled no punches about where he sees America's current Artemis moon landing program in Congressional testimony today.

Griffin testified alongside other witnesses at a hearing held in Washington D.C. on Thursday (Dec. 4) by the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing, titled "Strategic Trajectories Assessing China’s Space Rise and the Risks to U.S. Leadership," was held to discuss the rapid development of China's space program and what that means for America's long-held dominance when it comes to space exploration.

And according to Griffin and the witnesses at the hearing, that dominance might soon cede to China due to policy decisions that continue to plague the Artemis program, NASA's current planned campaign of moon missions. "Sticking to a plan is important when the plan makes sense. China is sticking to a plan that makes sense. It looks a lot, in fact, like what the United States did for Apollo," Griffin said. "We have stuck to a plan that does not make sense."

Griffin said NASA and two consecutive presidential administrations have stuck to an Artemis moon landing architecture that "cannot work" and "poses a level of crew risk that should be considered unacceptable." The former NASA administrator reiterated a previous recommendation he made to Congress, arguing that NASA's Artemis 3 mission, currently planned for 2027, should be canceled — along with every other Artemis mission — so NASA and the U.S. government can rethink the whole plan for America's return to the moon.

"We should start over, proceeding with all deliberate speed," Griffin said. "We have lost a lot of time, and we may not be able to return to the moon before the Chinese execute their own first landing. Or we may; space is hard and despite the progress that China is making, mission success is guaranteed to no one. But though we may not win at this first step, we cannot cede the pursuit and leave the playing field to others."

NASA and SpaceX's current plan for Artemis 3 and other moon missions in the program relies on a complicated in-orbit refueling system. The current moon landing architecture requires a high number of SpaceX Starship launches in order to refuel the lander that would take NASA astronauts to the moon. The exact number still isn't even known, though SpaceX estimates it could require 12 Starship launches to fully refuel the lander. The concept also remains unproven; SpaceX intends to test Starship's in-flight refueling system on an upcoming launch.

Furthermore, Griffin added, the length of time the lander would need to remain in orbit while the refueling flights launch and rendezvous with it would "almost guarantee" the propellant loaded into the lunar lander would boil off before the mission proceeds. "I do not see a way with the current technology we have to overcome those problems, and therefore we should not pursue that line of approach," Griffin said.

Even SpaceX appears to doubt the current Artemis moon landing architecture. In internal company documents obtained by Politico, SpaceX estimates that September 2028 is the earliest timeline for a first crewed lunar landing attempt; however, according to publicly available information, NASA is still aiming for 2027 for that mission.

If Artemis 3 is delayed to late 2028, there will have been an average of two years between the first three Artemis program missions. The Apollo program, by comparison, launched each of its 11 missions an average of once every 4.5 months between 1968 and 1972.

NASA's current acting administrator has even criticized SpaceX for being "behind" on its lunar lander and Starship development. In remarks made in October 2025, acting NASA chief Sean Duffy suggested the Trump administration might be looking for other companies to compete to build and launch NASA's next moon lander. "The president and I want to get to the moon in this president's term, so I'm gonna open up the contract," Duffy told CNBC. "I'm gonna let other space companies compete with SpaceX, like Blue Origin."

But it could be that such programmatic instability is what is holding the United States back from committing to a moon landing program in the long-term, according to Dean Cheng, a China expert at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Cheng told House representatives during the hearing that the bureaucratic structures of the Chinese government allow the nation to stick to plans over longer timelines than the U.S. government system allows. "China sticks to a plan. It creates a plan that sticks to it for decades," Cheng said. "And the benefit there is programmatic stability, budgetary stability, staff stability."

NASA, meanwhile, has been in a period of turmoil that has seen key science facilities lose capabilities, many flagship science missions put at risk of cancellation due to budget cuts, and thousands of personnel lost due to federal workforce reductions.

But whether or not the United States returns to the moon before China, former NASA chief Griffin said that the real risk is "failing to commit to what winning really means in the long run." Many U.S. government officials have stressed that whichever nation is able to establish a sustained presence on the moon first will have the privilege of establishing norms for how other nations can access and use lunar resources. If China manages to get a foothold on the moon ahead of the United States, it may be able to dictate who uses certain areas of the moon going forward, and how.

"I am confident that China fully understands this," Griffin said.

-----
My take:

Here are some high-level people saying essentially the same things I have been saying: how ridiculous our still-evolving mission architecture has been for returning to the moon, and how stupid it was to project a landing date without a lander leaving development testing already in-hand. The only item missing from this article is my comment that this should not be a race to see who is "first" about anything, because we already put boots on the moon over half a century ago! However, to get the politicians to do anything, I guess it has to be some sort of race, because of the technically-incompetent idiots that the politicians usually are. Another stupid race, just like with Apollo.

GW

GW Johnson · 2025-12-08 11:07:53

I would also add to the previous post that I think the concerns about in-space refueling are overblown. SpaceX is evolving toward accelerating the docked pair of vehicles at very low gee with thrusters of one type or another, slowly settling the propellants into the bottoms of the tanks. That will work.

Whether this can be done robotically is the real question here, especially since the AI stuff is already proving to be problematical in self-driving vehicles. If the programmers actually address all the possible contingencies, it will work. If they do not, sooner or later there will be a catastrophe. Simple as that. The track record with self driving cars is not promising, as regards programmers anticipating all possible contingencies.

As for the number of tanker flights, I think it is far too soon to be saying that it will take this or that number of flights. This thing is still in experimental flight test, and the final vehicle layout and configuration is still unknown at the detail level required to determine how much propellant payload could be delivered on-orbit. Even the propellant capacity of the vehicle is still evolving. For a full refill, could be anywhere from 6+ to 12+ flights. No one knows for sure yet! Claims "to know" this number are still BS.

And there is the long-term boil-off problem. Most anything they are doing will get you days of "stage life", but not weeks. They might get to weeks if the propellant tankage has the header tanks nested inside the main tanks, but only for the small quantities that the header tanks hold. To make it work, they will have to empty and vent the outer main tank, so that the vacuum between makes the tank system into a thermos bottle. The outer tank shell is also the sun shield that stops solar heating of the header tank, but only if there is vacuum between them.

One header tank is nested right now in the flight test configuration up to this point, the other is not. That will have to be rectified for the real mission. But as I said, we are still in experimental flight test with experimental configuration, and these configurations are still evolving. Claiming to already know the final "stage life" is also BS at this stage of the game.

But, what those considerations just discussed prove, is that this vehicle design is NOWHERE NEAR done with very experimental flight test, much less any final development prove-out testing! Precisely because of that, projecting mission schedules using it are still near-100% BS! That's the real effect of the factor-3-ish ratio between "Musk time" and real-world time that we have seen, ever since SpaceX first started flying Falcon-1's expendably out of Kwajalein.

That time ratio is different with each contractor, but all contractors have always had such time ratios. Long ago, that was taken into account by the government when planning military aircraft and space programs, and also for the civilian space program (same crowd of contractors back then). The details have shifted some since then, especially since there are now different pools of contractors for the various military and civil programs that only overlap some now. But it would seem that nobody at today's version of NASA (or DOD for that matter) remembers anything about evaluating and taking into account these time ratios.

That lack shows in how slow (and concomittantly expensive) it has become to actually do anything anymore. The P-51 Mustang went from a sketch on a napkin to a flying prototype in about 100 days. It took another year to re-engine the plane to make it the success that it finally became. And another year or three before they went to the bubble canopy on P-51D, solving the pilot combat visibility issue. That's about 3.5 years from an idea to a fully-successful combat design truly worthy of mass production.

Today that's now running about 25+ years (!!!) for airplanes and giant rockets. I think SpaceX is doing fairly well; their half-reusable Falcon-9 was ready in about a decade from idea to reality, which is way better than the industry usual. I think Starship/Superheavy is going to take them about that same decade to make ready. They are still a tad less than halfway done doing that.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2025-12-08 11:31:27)

Void · 2025-12-08 11:56:48

I hope you don't mind the intrusion.

It looks like China and Blue Origin will be able to "Top" Falcon 9 within a period of time. Just knowing something can be done allows them to skip many of the mistakes that SpaceX had to endure.

I am wondering if when the HLS is satisfied, SpaceX could adapt its reentry methods to the 2nd Stage of Falcon 9.

It would be a diversion. And Merlin Engines are not as good. But there may be many more Spaceports that an upgraded Falcon 9 could operate from. And if they had landing barges for Starship/Superheavy, they also could use them for the Falcon 9.

Not all payloads are Starship sized anyway.

They have the Heat Shield almost figured out and the flaps are pretty much understood. But I expect that a Falcon 9 2nd Stage would have to do a "Hover Slam" landing like the 1st stage does.

Maybe they could upgrade the 2nd stage to Metha-Lox???

Granted, it is a diversion but the competitors don't have these skills yet.

Ending Pending

If they made is correctly then it could also be lofted to orbit by Starship itself at times and be a 3rd Stage "Starboat".

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-12-08 12:03:22)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2025-11-03 12:00:26

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#27 2025-11-19 15:36:02

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#28 2025-11-24 19:52:26

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#29 2025-11-25 10:59:35

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#30 2025-12-02 15:45:19

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#31 2025-12-03 09:16:44

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#32 2025-12-03 10:19:19

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#33 2025-12-03 10:27:24

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#34 2025-12-03 12:32:51

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#35 2025-12-05 11:55:37

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#36 2025-12-08 10:41:13

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#37 2025-12-08 11:07:53

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

#38 2025-12-08 11:56:48

Re: Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.

Board footer