SpaceX's Starship: Two down, Mons Huygens to climb
(2025/10/16)
- Reference: 1760605267
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/10/16/spacexs_starship_two_down_a/
- Source link:
Comment SpaceX is celebrating two consecutive Starship launches without unplanned explosions, yet the business faces a daunting path forward before the spacecraft can deliver astronauts to the lunar surface.
Former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine [1]didn't mince words in September when he questioned the use of Starship to return boots to the Moon. "This is an architecture that no NASA administrator that I'm aware of would have selected had they had the choice."
NASA panel fears a Starship lunar touchdown is more fantasy than flight plan [2]READ MORE
The contrast with Apollo is stark. The Saturn V accomplished Moon missions with a single launch, carrying everything needed for the journey. Today's approach requires one Space Launch System rocket plus an undetermined number of Starship launches — some estimates suggest ten or more refueling flights, though the actual figure could be considerably higher.
NASA's ambitions extend well beyond Apollo's goals. The agency plans a technically challenging south pole landing to access suspected water ice deposits. [3]Apollo , by contrast, aimed primarily to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon — a simpler objective that demanded less sophisticated hardware.
But nostalgia won't solve today's problems. The Saturn V and its supporting infrastructure are long retired, and even if resurrection were possible, the system couldn't meet NASA's current needs. Budget constraints — far tighter than during Apollo's heyday — further limit options.
[4]
These realities explain [5]SpaceX's 2021 selection for the Human Landing System contract . The company's proposal envisions launching an HLS variant of Starship uncrewed, refueling it in orbit through multiple tanker flights, then sending it to lunar orbit. Astronauts launched aboard SLS in an Orion capsule would rendezvous with the waiting Starship, transfer aboard, and descend to the surface.
[6]
[7]
After completing surface operations, they would return to Starship, launch back to Orion, and ride home to Earth.
If you think this sounds somewhat convoluted, you'd be correct. It's small wonder that Bridenstine made the assessment he did.
[8]
SpaceX's track record includes many impressive feats, including successfully landing its rockets and catching a returning Super Heavy Booster. However, Yet critical capabilities remain undemonstrated to meet NASA's requirements.
Despite the two successful suborbital lobs of a Starship prototype, SpaceX has yet to reach orbit, let alone transfer fuel. There is very little detail on how the HLS variant of the Starship will land on the lunar surface. And the rate at which the fuel will boil off in space is also unknown, a critical factor if delays occur in other parts of the mission.
[9]NASA administrator says US should have 'village' on Moon in a decade
[10]Brit scientists over the Moon after growing tea in lunar soil
[11]NASA finds best evidence of life on Mars so far
[12]Reckon you can put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?
One observer that asked to remain anonymous told The Register that SpaceX's approach is to deal with each problem as it arises, explaining why there is still very little information on key technical challenges, such as landing a tall vehicle on potentially rough terrain.
<SpaceX has yet to respond to requests for comment. NASA remains silent due to the ongoing US government shutdown.
The clock is ticking. SpaceX deserves credit for Starship's continued development, however, works remains before astronauts can safely travel to the Moon and back aboard the vehicle. A less complex architecture — perhaps one building more directly on Apollo's proven concepts — might have offered a clearer path forward.
[13]
Nevertheless, NASA has commited to the current approach and officials will hope SpaceX accelerates Starship testing in 2026. Failure to do so means that returning to the Moon before 2030 appears a distant challenge.
As for the original 2027 target? It now looks completely implausible. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/jim_bridenstine_nasa_moon/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/nasa_starship_artemis_doubts/
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/nasa_spacex_moon/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/29/nasa_moon_prediction_iac_2025/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/moon_tea/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/10/nasa_best_evidence_life_on_mars/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/nuclear_moon/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine [1]didn't mince words in September when he questioned the use of Starship to return boots to the Moon. "This is an architecture that no NASA administrator that I'm aware of would have selected had they had the choice."
NASA panel fears a Starship lunar touchdown is more fantasy than flight plan [2]READ MORE
The contrast with Apollo is stark. The Saturn V accomplished Moon missions with a single launch, carrying everything needed for the journey. Today's approach requires one Space Launch System rocket plus an undetermined number of Starship launches — some estimates suggest ten or more refueling flights, though the actual figure could be considerably higher.
NASA's ambitions extend well beyond Apollo's goals. The agency plans a technically challenging south pole landing to access suspected water ice deposits. [3]Apollo , by contrast, aimed primarily to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon — a simpler objective that demanded less sophisticated hardware.
But nostalgia won't solve today's problems. The Saturn V and its supporting infrastructure are long retired, and even if resurrection were possible, the system couldn't meet NASA's current needs. Budget constraints — far tighter than during Apollo's heyday — further limit options.
[4]
These realities explain [5]SpaceX's 2021 selection for the Human Landing System contract . The company's proposal envisions launching an HLS variant of Starship uncrewed, refueling it in orbit through multiple tanker flights, then sending it to lunar orbit. Astronauts launched aboard SLS in an Orion capsule would rendezvous with the waiting Starship, transfer aboard, and descend to the surface.
[6]
[7]
After completing surface operations, they would return to Starship, launch back to Orion, and ride home to Earth.
If you think this sounds somewhat convoluted, you'd be correct. It's small wonder that Bridenstine made the assessment he did.
[8]
SpaceX's track record includes many impressive feats, including successfully landing its rockets and catching a returning Super Heavy Booster. However, Yet critical capabilities remain undemonstrated to meet NASA's requirements.
Despite the two successful suborbital lobs of a Starship prototype, SpaceX has yet to reach orbit, let alone transfer fuel. There is very little detail on how the HLS variant of the Starship will land on the lunar surface. And the rate at which the fuel will boil off in space is also unknown, a critical factor if delays occur in other parts of the mission.
[9]NASA administrator says US should have 'village' on Moon in a decade
[10]Brit scientists over the Moon after growing tea in lunar soil
[11]NASA finds best evidence of life on Mars so far
[12]Reckon you can put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?
One observer that asked to remain anonymous told The Register that SpaceX's approach is to deal with each problem as it arises, explaining why there is still very little information on key technical challenges, such as landing a tall vehicle on potentially rough terrain.
<SpaceX has yet to respond to requests for comment. NASA remains silent due to the ongoing US government shutdown.
The clock is ticking. SpaceX deserves credit for Starship's continued development, however, works remains before astronauts can safely travel to the Moon and back aboard the vehicle. A less complex architecture — perhaps one building more directly on Apollo's proven concepts — might have offered a clearer path forward.
[13]
Nevertheless, NASA has commited to the current approach and officials will hope SpaceX accelerates Starship testing in 2026. Failure to do so means that returning to the Moon before 2030 appears a distant challenge.
As for the original 2027 target? It now looks completely implausible. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/04/jim_bridenstine_nasa_moon/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/nasa_starship_artemis_doubts/
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/the-apollo-program/
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/nasa_spacex_moon/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/29/nasa_moon_prediction_iac_2025/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/moon_tea/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/10/nasa_best_evidence_life_on_mars/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/nuclear_moon/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPDCNvI6YXjCHBB7pfT6iwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Gerry Anderson - space visionary
STOP_FORTH
Fireball XL5 solved this problem in 1962 (or was it 2062?).
The only remaining issue is supplying long enough string.
I ain't Spartacus
A Non e-mouse,
Unlike with Apollo, where we were at the edge of both engineering and science, we now know a lot more about the Moon. We've got the surface mostly very well mapped - and we won't be committing astronauts to land on the strength of slightly dodgy ground radar - so we shouldn't have the issue where the lander gets aimed at a boulder-field - as happened with Apollo 11. Also, if that does go wrong, we're not going to be so tight on fuel that we've only got 30 seconds margin - forcing Armstrong to deliberately drift the spacecraft along looking for somewhere flat to put it down in a hurry - which he managed with just a few seconds before he'd have to hit the abort to orbit button and end the mission in failure, for lack of spare fuel.
The height does worry me a bit. But NASA approved it. And I'm sure those calculations are very basic and easy. With the engines and fuel at the bottom of the spacecraft it should be absolutely fine. It's not like there are high winds to worry about on the Moon. It's a bit late Bridenstine to be worrying about it now he's left the job - rather than saying this when he actually was responsible for the decision. Although I guess his digs are as much aimed at Congress as they are at SpaceX.
there is still very little information on key technical challenges, such as landing a tall vehicle on potentially rough terrain.
I'm not rocket scientist, but that sounds scary as hell. Add in their crazy plan to use a winch to get astronauts to/from the surface due to the height of vehicle and I wonder why anyone signed off on it.