By the end of the decade, NASA’s Artemis program hopes to have placed boots back on the Moon for the first time since 1972. But not for the quick sightseeing jaunts of the Apollo era — the space agency wants to send regular missions made up of international crews down to the lunar surface, where they’ll eventually have permanent living and working facilities.
The goal is to turn the Moon into a scientific outpost, and that requires a payload delivery infrastructure far more capable than the Apollo Lunar Module (LM). NASA asked their commercial partners to design crewed lunar landers that could deliver tens of tons of to the lunar surface, with SpaceX and Blue Origin ultimately being awarded contracts to build and demonstrate their vehicles over the next several years.
At a glance, the two landers would appear to have very little in common. The SpaceX Starship is a sleek, towering rocket that looks like something from a 1950s science fiction film; while the Blue Moon lander utilizes a more conventional design that’s reminiscent of a modernized Apollo LM. The dichotomy is intentional. NASA believes there’s a built-in level of operational redundancy provided by the companies using two very different approaches to solve the same goal. Should one of the landers be delayed or found deficient in some way, the other company’s parallel work would be unaffected.
But despite their differences, both landers do utilize one common technology, and it’s a pretty big one. So big, in fact, that neither lander will be able to touch the Moon until it can be perfected. What’s worse is that, to date, it’s an almost entirely unproven technology that’s never been demonstrated at anywhere near the scale required.
Running on Empty
Logically, the larger a payload you want to put into orbit (or beyond), the larger a rocket you need. Of course, there are limits on what we can do in terms of material science, engine technology, and even economics. So you can quickly get to the point where a rocket simply becomes too large to be practical. Once you hit that point, you need to start looking at other ways of getting your target mass into orbit. For projects like the International Space Station, that meant breaking the structure up into smaller modules that could be launched individually and assembled in orbit.
Both SpaceX and Blue Origin have essentially the same problem: their landers, when you include the propellant they’ll need to land on the Moon and lift back off again, are simply too heavy to launch. Both companies are developing heavyweight boosters to get their respective landers out of Earth’s gravity well and into low Earth orbit, but that’s the best they can do. So how will they get astronauts to the Moon?
While the techniques differ slightly, both companies will need to load their landers with the propellants necessary to complete the missions while they are already in space. And in both cases, the lander’s human crew wouldn’t launch from Earth until their ride to the lunar surface is fueled up and waiting for them.
Blue Moon
According to the current plan, a single New Glenn rocket will be able to lift the Blue Moon lander off from Earth and send it to the Lunar Gateway Station. But once there, the lander won’t have enough propellant to make a powered descent to the lunar surface, much less take back off again.
So once the lander has reached the Lunar Gateway, two more New Glenn rockets will be launched. One will carry a propulsion and navigation module, and the other a propellant storage module. Once in orbit, they will connect to each other to become what Blue Origin is calling the Cislunar Transporter.
At this point, additional New Glenn rockets will be launched, each carrying propellants to be loaded into the Cislunar Transporter. When the Transporter has been filled, it will make its way to the Lunar Gateway, where it can rendezvous with the lander and refuel it. The number of launches required to fill the Cislunar Transporter isn’t publicly known, and it’s entirely possible that even Blue Origin won’t know the exact number until the hardware is more mature.
Starship
Starship is unique in that it actually makes up the upper stage of its booster rocket, the Superheavy. So to reach Earth orbit, Starship will need to expend the vast majority of the propellants it was loaded with on Earth. Once in a stable orbit, the spacecraft will have enough propellant to maneuver, but nowhere near enough to make the journey to the Moon.
To refuel the Moon bound Starship, SpaceX will launch several “tanker” versions of the spacecraft. These tanker craft will be stripped down to the bare essentials to save mass when compared to the lander version, which means they’ll be able to carry more propellants within the same volume. Each reusable tanker will dock with the lander, and transfer over as much propellant as it can while still leaving enough onboard to complete its own landing back on Earth.
In some versions of the plan, these tankers will actually transfer their propellants into a third “Depot” variant of the Starship before the lander itself is launched. While the addition of a third Starship variant would make this approach slightly more expensive and complex, the advantage is that the lander could remain on the ground until the Depot is filled, making the refueling process more resilient against any delays that might arise while launching the tankers.
Just like with the Blue Moon lander, it’s currently unknown how many launches will be required to fully fuel the lander, but estimates put the number somewhere between 10 and 20. The only way this refueling process will be economically viable, or even practical, is if the tankers and Superheavy boosters that launch them can be quickly and affordably reflown.
Highly Motivated Development
Despite the fact that both Blue Origin and SpaceX have hung the success of their respective lunar landers on the ability to quickly and safely refuel them while in orbit, there’s simply no precedent for such an operation. Studies so far have focused on refueling small satellites, using relatively simple monopropellants like hydrazine. But topping off the tanks on Starship or Blue Moon will mean autonomously moving hundreds of tons of cryogenic liquid oxygen, methane, and hydrogen between spacecraft. The couplings, pumps, piping, valves, and insulation required to facilitate that sort of propellant transfer have never been tested in space and could take many iterations to perfect.
If Artemis is going to return astronauts to the Moon, this is a problem that needs to be solved quickly. For their part, NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate awarded several contracts in 2020 designed to study various aspects of orbital propellant transfer. SpaceX specifically was guaranteed $53.2 million if they can demonstrate moving 10 metric tons of liquid oxygen between two tanks onboard an in-flight Starship. While nowhere near as complex as moving liquids between two vehicles, this early test should still provide some critical data, and give SpaceX the chance to test some of the hardware involved.
In a recent presentation detailing the progress of the Artemis program, it was revealed that SpaceX may attempt the propellant transfer demonstration during Starship’s next test flight, though a NASA official later clarified that “no final decisions on timing have been made.” It may be that SpaceX wants to get a full orbital demonstration flight under their belt before moving on to the propellant test, but the clock is ticking. If they can’t demonstrate propellant transfer in 2024, the already fragile Artemis timeline will almost certainly fall apart.
Put simply, there’s no returning to the Moon in the near future without in-orbit propellant transfers. But with billions of dollars in Artemis contracts on the line, both SpaceX and Blue Origin will be highly motivated to overcome this technical hurdle as soon as they can.
“The only way this refueling process will be economically viable,”
I mean… the Starship version’s not intended to be economically viable. That’s the entire reason Blue Origin filed the lawsuit challenging the award – it’s ludicrously obvious that SpaceX is going to take an economic loss on Starship HLS, they’re just going to take *less* of a loss than if they had continued Starship development internally (with no external funding).
The Blue Moon-style mission (which is what NASA had been planning all along) is much more economically viable since it relies on heavy lift (~50t) rockets rather than superheavy lift (~100+t).
Do you work for Blue Origin or has Bozo started paying trolls like HBO?
Starship is meant to be a fully reusable rocket.
The cost of each flight after the first one is basically just fuel.
A Starship launch is estimated to cost 10 million dollars for 100 tons to LEO while the Falcon 9 costs 67 million dollars for 22 tons to LEO. For context, the SLS costs around 2 billion dollars for 70 tons to LEO.
Starship’s cost to travel to the moon including all the refueling trips will be much cheaper than a partially reusable Blue Origin New Glenn rocket or a non-reusable SLS.
NASA got much much more than what they asked for. They are getting the capability to not just land a few people on the moon but also 100 tons of cargo to build a sustainable base.
You’re totally misunderstanding what I’m saying. Launch costs aren’t development costs.
The Starship HLS contract was a loss leader. SpaceX basically said “look, we’re developing this thing anyway, so give us a portion of the costs to help develop and we’ll modify it to meet your needs.” The other HLS contracts were way higher because they included development.
That’s what I meant by not economically viable: SpaceX isn’t trying to make money with HLS. They’re trying to get Starship funded.
“NASA got much much more than what they asked”
Well, you’re using the wrong tense, but yes, this is basically what I’m saying. No reasonable estimate of Starship HLS costs would equal the contract they got, but that doesn’t matter.
In addition to fuel there will be a rather significant cost in maintenance, to ensure that each mission goes well. The cost of failure of one rocket would be very high, both in dollars and in public backlash.
Back in the Land Of Ago it was thought that each Shuttle would be able to fly several times each year. Certainly Starship doesn’t have Shuttle tiles, wings, wheels to worry about, but aside from those, the cleanup and refitting of each Shuttle was still outrageous and far more time-consuming than almost anyone expected. I don’t know how much it will cost to refit these modern vehicles but I expect it to exceed the cost of propellants. And would be totally unsurprised to see it *greatly* exceed that cost.
One nice aspect of Starship, that acts as a “fallback” in case it’s not fast-reusable is the stunning speed at which they are produced. Even if once landed it requires some down time for maintenance-checks-etc., SpaceX is churning enough Starships a year to have them on “stock” while checking/maintenance and launch a different one.
“is the stunning speed at which they are produced.”
Yeah… there’s some confusion in that Starship sometimes refers to just the top vehicle and sometimes refers to the stack (Starship + FSH, or “Ship” and “Booster,” or whatever new name SpaceX is working on this week). Ship (the vehicle) is a quick build since it’s only got 6 engines, which is why people say “look they’ve built 30+ of them already!” and that’s true.
But Booster is a different story, they’ve only built 10 of them in 2 years, and really only 6 complete: for instance, they stacked Ship SN20 with Booster B4, and the two IFTs were SN24/B7 and SN25/B9.
It’s kindof an interesting PR move that SpaceX refers to the stack as “Starship” now but people still keep calling the much simpler Ship vehicle “Starship” as well. SpaceX is definitely churning out Ships, but Boosters are going to be the limiting factor, both in assembly and maintenance/inspection.
To be clear, building 5 superheavy lift rockets/year is still very fast, but not really enough that you could launch them in rapid cadence without quick refurbs in the near future.
This! (All day long)
I for one see nothing wrong on getting portion of the development cost paid by another subject with shared interest.
From the other side, NASA gets more for their money as SpaceX chips in too. Nothing bad on that.
I see a win-win arrangement.
We’re fifty years late on this timeline. Space cargo hauling has to become routine if we don’t want to stay forever stuck on this stupid spinning joke of a rock.
“I for one see nothing wrong on getting portion of the development cost paid by another subject with shared interest.”
It’s the increased risk that’s the issue. It’s not the same thing as a joint government/private undertaking – this is a private company underbidding a contract, so you have to evaluate it at a higher risk level. Which they did. The only reason it got selected is because they had no option cost-wise.
As the GAO pointed out, NASA is extremely unlikely to actually get what SpaceX promised, which is a deliverable in two years. So it’s not exactly “getting development cost paid,” it’s more like a company saying “hey, if you wait a few years we can do it way cheaper,” then saying “okay” but not giving that option to the other vendors.
In fact, Blue Origin’s literally doing the same thing as well in the later contract they were awarded (they’ve estimated that the contract will only cover ~50% of the costs). And yes, Blue Origin lost that lawsuit (which most people expected) – but in the end, their basic argument was correct.
“We’re fifty years late on this timeline.”
The only reason people think we’re late on space operations is because we were stupid *early* in the 60s/70s. It’s a friggin’ engineering miracle (well, plus Vast Amounts of Money) that Apollo worked. Superheavy lift vehicles are *hard*. They’ve always been hard.
“The number of launches required to fill the Cislunar Transporter isn’t publicly known, and it’s entirely possible that even Blue Origin won’t know the exact number until the hardware is more mature.”
From a recent SmarterEveryDay video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU ) that includes a discussion about this starting around time 28:47. There’s a bunch of numbers presented in a talk he gave to NASA (it seems most attendees didn’t know the answer) and then after the talk an article came out (see discussion at time 31:07) that says *15* rockets will be needed to get a single lander to the moon.
Sorry that should’ve read “at *least* *15* …”.
That’s for Starship, not Blue Moon.
Yeah, the main reason Starship HLS has such a huge jump in refueling is because it really doesn’t bear any resemblance to the original HLS design. The original design was basically 3-stage – launcher, transporter and lander – so like any 3-stage design, it uses less fuel because the dry mass of the final stage is way lower. Starship HLS is just 2 stage, so the required fuel is much higher.
You do know that people who half-ass an Everest expedition end up as corpses on the mountain?
Saturn V was a multi stage, single use everything, from stem to stern. Everything was discarded along the way, and the fuel carefully calculated to offer nothing more.
Just like Everest, it’s a trail of trash to the summit.
The SLS is also being discarded. They’re even dumping four of the reusable shuttle engines in the ocean. Only SpaceX’s components are being reused.
“For projects like the International Space Station, that meant breaking the structure up into smaller modules that could be launched individually and assembled in orbit.”
Yeah, I’m picking at a scab here, but in recent Hackaday comments there was discussion about de-orbiting the ISS or boosting it to higher orbit to preserve it.
Well, what if usable components of the ISS were individually boosted to become part of the Gateway?
Usable components might be solar panels, science modules, crew quarters (wastewater recycling, kitchen, etc.), EVA hatches, docking modules…
Some of those components are reaching EOL. Further, they were all designed for LEO where radiation was less of a concern. Solar panels, maybe, but a lot of technical improvements have been made on solar panels since the last ones were launched launched in 2009. NASA has had to launch supplementary solar arrays as late as this year to make up for their degradation.
Like the martian rovers, we’re starting to see more and more problems with the older modules of the ISS as they push well past their original 15 year service life.
“Some of those components are reaching EOL.”
And to be clear, EOL in space means “it’s chock full of chips and holes” not “we want you to buy another one” like it does on Earth.
Unfortunate, I like the creative thinking, but its probably not worth the risk that something you were relying on fails. I’m inclined to believe that something up in space that still works *could* be safer from the perspective of not having to go through max Q again; I wonder if there is anything that could be used, maybe the toilets, or maybe thats the most dangerous thing to break on this trip.
So, the lander will be reused without returning to earth? That seems a major difference to everything done before.
If you think how extensive the maintenance on every other reusable vehicle is.
Id venture a guess that a lot of that maintenance comes from what happens on orbital re-entry, the number of times these vehicles would use during a mission could probably be counted. The ‘gateway’ could provide necessary facilities for servicing the craft for a few trips before they replace it.
“overpriced endeavor”
You’ve got that right. Another stupid, 1960s SPAM in a CAN, penis-waiving, national prestige race to the lifeless dusty ball orbiting us. At least Apollo had the benefit of developing new technologies due to the need to greatly push the technological leading edge in many areas. Not so with modern human spaceflight other than producing $25 million zero-G toilets.
‘I would not want us to be there 2nd’: NASA administrator aims to beat China in the race to the Moon
May 17, 2023
WHY?!
The reason it has been over 50 years since anyone sent humans to the moon is because it was never even remotely worth the science versus cost to do so in the first place. Even President Kennedy, once he heard even the typical low-balled cost to do so, started asking about using robotic missions instead, but didn’t do so in order to get the propaganda value of manned missions.
“In 13 years, the United States spent the equivalent of $283 billion (2020 dollars) to build a human lunar program from scratch. During this period, 3 out of every 5 dollars for the space program went toward Apollo and related programs.”
“Lunar Rocks and Soils from Apollo Missions: [Apollo missions returned] 382 kilograms (842 pounds) of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface.”
$283,000,000,000 / 842 = $336,104,513 per pound (0.45 kg).
Want to defend humanity from extinction, the claimed goal of putting colonies elsewhere? Put more money into planetary defense from asteroids and comets and come up NOW with a damned international agreement to allow the use of nukes in the process instead of sending humans on what are mostly just taxpayer funded joy rides on white elephant projects including space stations which, in the case of the ISS, costs as much just to support annually as the lifetime cost for a nuclear powered Mars rover like Perseverance.
On the typical claim that without human spaceflight NASA couldn’t get funding, the world quickly got bored with Apollo missions and the modern robotic missions have garnered the largest number of internet site hits because the world is eager to see other worlds through robot eyes. If we hadn’t wasted vast sums on human spaceflight, we’d have already been even more places that these:
List of NASA missions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_missions#Robotic_missions
Book: The End of Astronauts: Robots are the Future of Exploration (2022)
LOL, that would be penis-waving, certainly not penis-waiving although that would be better. Damn the lack of editing here.
The problem, of course, being that while that’s an efficient way for experts to perform research, the average joe considers all that worthless and would rather spend money to see a car launched into solar orbit than to hear that a robot has collected another rock sample for analysis. Space missions for a long time were a driving force in interesting people in science in general, but they also seemed to help people to expand their perspective beyond their small corner of Earth. Nowadays it seems like we’re headed towards a future of nothing but orbital billboards and comm sats making sure that nowhere in the world can escape from advertisements and headlines.
The car stunt was a high-visibility low-cost part of the rocket test, which needs a dummy payload anyway. Certainly prettier to watch than a block of concrete. And amusingly irritating to various commenters.
Certainly. It was a *good idea* and in this case probably not a big difference in cost. But it was also a demonstration of accepting a bit of cost in order to get a positive reaction / interest.
let the government put nukes in space, we are only going to use them on astroids, I promise
They intend to use 15 landers and none will land ?
The scale of those astronauts is quite impressive.
I know humans are not all the same size, but I never realized the differences can be that big.
So wait, let me get this straight. One rocket can’t carry enough stuff (using a well-tested design, proven to work), so we’re going to send 10-20 rockets with an entirely new, untested design, to execute a highly complex (and also untested) refuel schedule and moon orbit. Why not just:
A) Send more rockets to the moon? (people will love this, seriously why not)
B) Carry less stuff and build the moon base from moon materials?
Or maybe even:
C) Just re-do Apollo to make sure we can even still pull it off after 50 years with no practice
This seems poorly thought-out.
“so we’re going to send 10-20 rockets”
That’s the Starship variant. And if you’re looking at it and saying “this seems silly,” you’re partly right. The original NASA plan wasn’t “10-20 launches of a superheavy lift” it was “2-3 launches of a heavy lift.” This was because Falcon 9 launches had become practically trivial, and Falcon Heavy launches were *also* looking trivial.
(note that I’m ignoring the SLS launches because they’re functionally free, since they were forced for separate reasons)
If you doubt me on that, go back and look at the original Artemis proposals. Or look at the Blue Moon design which closely mimics it, because, uh, when NASA says “can you build us this reasonable 4-door compact sedan” you, um, propose that, as opposed to SpaceX which said “are you sure you don’t want this ATV battle-truck design?”
Really the entire reason it exploded in scale is basically because SpaceX seems uninterested in expanding Falcon Heavy for some reason in favor of Starship. Just my opinion, but if SpaceX had proposed a smaller lander (either theirs or developed by someone else) + FH-based design, I think they’d basically be meeting the Artemis III original timescale easily. Which I think was the plan!
But that’s the drawback of commercial vendors: if they say “not interested in building your boring thing” you don’t have a choice.
“Carry less stuff”
It’s not just the mass, Artemis’s landing location is way harder to reach than Apollo’s.