SpaceX shows off progress on its lunar Starship SpaceX has published an update on its lunar Starship progress, and it still has a long way to go before the impressive-looking renders are translated into reality. Yesterday's briefing followed an announcement earlier this month by acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy who said SpaceX was behind schedule, and the contract to …
"Vonce ze rockets go up, who cares where ze come down?
Und I'm learning Chinese, sings Wernher von Braun."
Seriously, all this faffing about and marketing renders these days makes me seriously impressed with what was put together by quite a few nations back in the early space days.
However, performing a software architecture review and qualifying a docking adaptor based on the existing Dragon 2 docking system remains quite some way from demonstrating long-duration flight and in-space propellant transfer. SpaceX said, "Both of these tests are targeted to take place in 2026."
Sounds like they are retooling the LIDAR-less FSD from Tesla.
This post has been deleted by its author
You were ninja'd by William Shakespeare: "I fear there will a worse come in his place" (the play Julius Caesar)
And after Vance is (at least until the next mid-terms) is House Speaker Michael Johnson, then Senator Grassley, Rubio, Bessent, Hegseth... #12 is Lysenko Jr. It's turtles all the way down.
That’s fine … if Trump can get SCOTUS to legalise 3 terms …Obama can be put on the Dem ticket along with AOC in 2028.
As per his pitches at New Jersey and Virgina over the week Governor rallies … the man still got it. … and is just (amazingly) 64 years old.
This post has been deleted by its author
There was an apocryphal story doing the rounds in the days when computers and very large furniture vans were about the same size.
Apparently the Soviets programmed their most modern machine and asked if how long till we achieve true comunism?
The reply was 58,196 miles.
This stumped everybody until a junior technician stood up with a horrified look on his face. "I think I understand, comrades". On being asked to explain he repled. "Well you know how we are often saying another step on the route to true communism..."
And we know SpaceX is all about iterative improvements, so the first test won't succeed - and when it comes to the testing of human critical stuff that will happen AFTER these tests you want more than ONE successful test before you bet the lives of astronauts just to win Space Race 2.0.
I have a bad feeling that under Trump NASA is going to sacrifice safety to make a pre-ordained timeline, and Musk will push SpaceX to do the same.
"I have a bad feeling that under Trump NASA is going to sacrifice safety to make a pre-ordained timeline, and Musk will push SpaceX to do the same."
The astronauts get a say and they aren't bumpkins with no technical expertise. If they aren't convinced that there's a an almost 100% chance they'll go AND come back, they aren't going. They could get to lunar orbit and if Starship HLS isn't checking out 100%, they can decline. They can't be ordered to assume more risk than they are comfortable with.
SpaceX just gets further and further behind. With a radical change in the HLS variant, they will need to get that built and into testing as rapidly as possible since their first demonstration landing on the moon was scheduled for January of 2024 and they've been seemingly been putting effort into a Pez dispenser variant that isn't relevant for HLS. Super Heavy is now switching to v3 and listed as the one that will be able to carry 100t of payload with charts showing the revised downward aspirational numbers of v1 and v2 that were never tested/proven. It is also sporting a new engine design. Flight 11 imagery that has come out since the splash-crash shows holes through the heat shield into the main propellant tanks and flaming Methane leaking from somewhere on the nose cone.
True the astronauts get a say, but that "say" is to drop out of the mission. Then NASA replaces that one with an alternate, and unless they go full whistleblower and throw away the career they've spent their whole life working towards all we'll hear is whatever story NASA wants to tell. Assuming NASA has even announced the crew before they drop out.
People who join NASA to become astronauts aren't exactly risk averse, and the prestige of a Moon mission versus spending months on the space station running someone else's experiments for them will guarantee some would be willing and eager to take the risk even if they have some doubts they'll get back in one piece.
"If they aren't convinced that there's a an almost 100% chance they'll go AND come back, they aren't going. "
Maybe the Columbia 'nauts had convinced themselves, but the earlier loss of Challenger showed a cavalier attitude to safety across NASA and suppliers, and still 'nauts were happy to climb aboard future launches - noting that the loss of heat shield tiles that took out Columbia had been observed from early launches, and NASA simply crossed their fingers and hoped. Could say the same of Apollo launches, given 1 and 13.
By the time somebody has qualified to be a 'naut, I suggest they're so vested in the programme that they cannot conceive of saying no.
"I've watched the footage a number of times and didn't see any propellant leaking from the nose cone."
Watching the montage again, I believe that it was flight 10 and not 11. My mistake. The leaking was indicated by flames, not white wisps.
I'd love to see SpaceX release footage from the internal Starship cameras while slowing down through the atmosphere. Previous leaked stills show how penetrated the spacecraft was that may not have been obvious to see from an external image. If that has been fixed, there haven't been any images shown of the improvements.
IFT-10 had missing tiles in critical areas so yes, leaks while not planned is was a possibility. IFT-11 was final tile configuration but did fly a profile which exceed stress which standard profile. They still lost some tiles but least so far. From a non-expert eye, I would say it definitely would not have been a candidate for rapid reuse but I don't know how much refurb would have been required.
On the IFT-11 live stream they showed the plan, basically each tile is wrapped in a heatproof fabric which allows for expansion while still maintaining heat integrity.
They aren't building suspension bridges, which these days is pretty much a mature process. Space is hard and building the hardware and testing it is definitely not yet mature. Look at all the other current attempts to go there from Blue Origin down. Lots of Oops, try again stuff going on. SpaceX is currently well ahead of the game with a well ordered process to suss out the gremlins. They'll get there but not on NASA's, Congress's or Trump's timetable.
"They'll get there but not on NASA's, Congress's or Trump's timetable."
This. But since Duffy has reopened the contract, there is a none-zero chance that SpaceX well be displaced in favour of something new and even less mature than HLS. Obviously, Duffy has his own agenda, which has bugger all to do SpaceX delays, but suppose he did actually dump HLS - what would SpaceX do?
On the one hand, they might spin up a few lawyers. On the other, they might gladly move away from the distraction from their Mars ambitions. But it would definitely rub Elons ego up the wroy way. Anyone think SpaceX might try to do a private lunar mission, getting their own boots on the moon long before Artemis III?
The chance may not be zero but it is not far off. Currently in second place is Blue Moon 2, which requires refilling with liquid hydrogen and zero boil off. That is even more ambitious than Starship. Blue started later and do not have anything like the rapid production facilities of Boca Chica and McGregor (which can build a new full stack every month). Anything that does not work first time requires a delay for a do-over. Anything that has to work first time suffers even longer delays ensuring that it does work first time.
Blue mentioned doing HLS with multiple Blue Moon 1 (cargo landers). It is difficult to comment on the plan because I cannot find any details. The good news is that it does not require refueling. It still requires zero boil off. (HLSs have to be able to loiter for over three months to accommodate SLS GSE delays). Cedibility could be enhanced by the Blue Moon 1 cargo mission scheduled for January of next year. That schedule requires the booster from the ESCAPADE mission to return in good condition. If it gets dented there is no spare and a replacement will not be available until late next year.
Also mentioned is a cost plus proposal from traditional aerospace (Lockheed, I think). I cannot find any links to it any more, so the plan struggles to achieve the credibility of the herd of Blue Moon 1s. On top of that, the US has no budget, is not going to get one soon and even if it does golden dome will swallow any funds that might go on a third lander. Anyone who thinks that a cost plus HLS will be delivered on time should check the dosage of their medication.
There should be a fourth option but Lanyue is not currently listed on Alibaba.
"Blue started later and do not have anything like the rapid production facilities of Boca Chica and McGregor (which can build a new full stack every month). "
SLS didn't sacrifice a dozen prototypes to Neptune during development so it didn't need a production assembly line running 24/7. It worked on it's first go. Blue Origin's design isn't an entire new mission architecture, launcher AND lander program. It's not straightforward to compare how long it will take Blue Origin to have a first test article to launch by comparing processes with SpaceX.
I agree with others that a sacrificial decent stage is appropriate with the ascent stage using storeable propellants. Trying for full reuse is an impediment and a big decrease in safety if they are going to stick with cryogenic propellants. A south pole mission with 7 days between windows for astronauts to rendezvous with Gateway or the return capsule is dangerous out of the gate. Any emergency can turn into certain death. Once there's infrastructure in place and reserve consumables stocked up, one train a week might be acceptable if there is also medical service to hand. Appendicitis shouldn't mean a meeting with Death.
"SLS didn't sacrifice a dozen prototypes to Neptune during development so it didn't need a production assembly line running 24/7."
And that is fine if you are happy to throw away $2bn per launch.
"Blue Origin's design isn't an entire new mission architecture, launcher AND lander program."
Have you seen their plan ? Blue 2 which is the planned lander is all new including launcher, lander and refuelling for which they require zero boil off. The mission profile is even worse that SpaceX with multiple docking of different craft. It also has way less capability and its coming from a company with zero orbital, life support, docking experience. SpaceX are already reusing what they have already learnt from Crew Dragan. Blue are years behind SpaceX. And don't even get me started on the 'plan' for B1 landing humans, beyond a joke.
"Once there's infrastructure in place and reserve consumables stocked up, one train a week might be acceptable"
The one train a week is driven by NRHO orbit that NASA selected and there are reasons for it. And without having mass cargo capability any plans to have long duration missions is a non-starter.
"And that is fine if you are happy to throw away $2bn per launch."
Yep. Mainly since that isn't a hard cost per launch figure. It's a program cost divided by the proposed number of launches. SpaceX has received ~$3bn thus far for HLS and hasn't even achieved orbit.
What has to come out of the program costs is all of the technology spin off that should be being generated. If the cadence were to go up, the cost per launch would come down. They can't just furlough a large portion of staff and mothball facilities between each launch.
“Anyone think SpaceX might try to do a private lunar mission, getting their own boots on the moon long before Artemis III?”
Yeah, Elon said he’s got a problem convincing skeptical NASA engineers he’s not a crank and threatened it might be easier to prove by doing. Personally I think that is the most appropriate way to go: make your prototype, land it, return it, and then offer it for sale. That’s the way I buy a car. It’s a complete craft that already works with known operational parameters BEFORE I open my checkbook, or take it for a test drive.
(That last star ship, the one that actually made it back from space, gosh that thing looked like a tin can you might find among camp fire ashes. But then they blew it up anyway..)
“Anyone think SpaceX might try to do a private lunar mission, getting their own boots on the moon long before Artemis III?”
SpaceX was supposed to do a non-crewed lander demonstration in Jan 2024 as part of the milestones of the project.
Elon's whinging about permissions is nonsense. He has it as part of his current NASA contract to put a lander down on the moon.
"there is a none-zero chance that SpaceX well be displaced in favour of something new and even less mature than HLS."
There is no maturity of HLS. SpaceX is still working on a launch vehicle to send HLS to the moon, not the lander itself. The newest CGI renderings are showing a different SpaceX HLS concept (if those are official and not fan art).
I would only look at rendering from SpaceX and I am guessing the ones released last week are close to the final revision as they have started working on a flight capable HLS demo. I believe its either Ship 44 or 45, both of which have been spotted in star factory.
I read that part of the moon mission will be to launch fuel and oxidizer up into orbit, and keep accumulating mass until there’s enough to launch the mission.
Except the oxidizer they are planning to use (pure liquified oxygen) is continuously evaporating into space.
If “it takes as long as it takes,” you may find that after too much dilly-dallying there’s not enough oxidizer to complete the mission.
Aw nuts, and there’s no backup plan either.
"Except the oxidizer they are planning to use (pure liquified oxygen) is continuously evaporating into space."
The fuel is cryogenic liquid Methane, so that's boiling off as well. A few dozen flights for topping up an orbital depot will mean all of those flights to go perfectly with almost no delays. An accident/damage of the launch facility or another explosion will put a delay into the mission with the propellants already delivered boiling off and the whole process needing to be started again. It's not impossible other than asking for something really difficult to do, to be done at a cadence never attempted before. While SpaceX works on getting HLS ready to travel to the moon, SLS/Orion needs to be on the pad and ready to launch the astronauts as soon as the lander is in position in lunar orbit. That rocket, fueling farm and staff will all be online the whole time at a hefty cost. If there is a scrub/delay, rescheduling everything will be an onerous task.
" to be done at a cadence never attempted before. "
I am sure that a few years ago people were saying that about Falcon launches and this year they are on track for 150 launches including all delays. That is a launch nearly every 2 days and likely to increase once second pad on west coast is ready.
Nobody outside of SpaceX and possibly NASA knows what the cadence is. If they have boil off under control then it wouldn't be a mad rush and they will certainly have accounted for some contingency for scrubs and other issues and taking into account launch windows created by orbital mechanics. Plus they will have at least 2 and maybe up to 5 pads working by end of 2026.
Unlike Blue who are counting on zero boil off in order to fit their mission profile, SpaceX haven't said one way or another what their acceptable percentages are for methane, oxygen or nitrogen so anything at the moment is pure speculation.
What has been said is they have power distribution design for the depot and hardware for propellant transfer test so I assume they have some sort of idea of how to manage boil off.
"Unlike Blue who are counting on zero boil off in order to fit their mission profile,"
Blue Origin is working on systems to mitigate boil off while I haven't heard of SpaceX contemplating that. Zero boil-off is probably not likely, but if they can get it down so it's close, that might be good enough. They'll still need to test that and get the TRL up high enough to consider it for a manned (and very expensive) mission.
BO are counting on more than mitigating boil off. they need zero boil off in their plan. SpaceX, we don't know. For sure they are looking at containing it, maybe not zero and maybe they don't need it to be zero as you say. Who knows.
As for expense, I don't know think money has ever been an issue for SpaceX, they have self funded all the Starship development and will be doing HLS regardless of the NASA contract or not.
If they prepared a flat regolith-like testbed and landed on it with Earth gravity, it's very different from landing on a real, uneven and maybe not-so-flat terraing in Moon gravity.
Don't know why they have designed a 1930s Flash Gordon sci-fi lander, maybe because they have to do everything reusing the Starship frame - but a lunar lander has different requirements than a Earrth-launched rocket.
Anyway they didn't have put a Starship in orbit yet. And year 2026 is almost tomorrow.
Reducing the gravity has two effects: the real world is effectively slower so the control system has more time to react. On the other hand, the thrust required to hover can go lower than the minimum thrust of one engine. That second half is already solved two different ways: Falcon 9 already lands with more thrust than weight. HLS carries return propellant and a payload increasing weight above minimum thrust.
The early test Starships landed on Earth with no return propellant, no payload and stubby little legs. HLS has longer legs in the artists's impressions. There have been comments about "self levelling". There has also been a spectacular demonstration of raptor's ability to clear a landing site of any loose material not stronger than heat resistant concrete.
You guessed correctly that the shape of SLS is a minimally modified Starlink launcher - to save time and money. It was also designed as a Mars landing ship. I know this is beyond the ability of anyone but an experienced rocket scientist (or a child that played with Weebles) but putting the return propellant at the bottom of the tanks makes Starship HLS stable but putting an air-filled crew compartment at the bottom of Blue Moon 2 (with the propellant on top) makes Blue's lander top heavy.
The only reason Starship is stopped a few seconds of burn short of orbit is to ensure that it comes back down at a predictable place and time even if the de-orbit burn fails. That criticism is even more silly than the complaint about Starship HLS being tall. Other Moon landers have tipped over because their guidance system failed and they came in with a significant horizontal component of velocity. Cargo landers either land or crash. Monolithic crew landers can abort landing and return to orbit. (A two stage lander + ascent vehicle that requires the crew to get out and reconfigure the system for ascent has more "exciting" abort options.)
2026 is at the same time for Blue Moon, SLS and the space suits.
"There has also been a spectacular demonstration of raptor's ability to clear a landing site of any loose material not stronger than heat resistant concrete."
Elon thought that heat resistant concrete would be adequate for the first launch and a giant hole was dug through it. With no knowledge of what a lunar landing site will be composed of going down several meters, there could be a real chance of digging a hole that the rocket falls into. Straight down or falling over to one side would be equally as bad. The Apollo landers were very lightweight, comically so, and that meant less thrust was needed to set them down. This isn't the same thing as sweeping off the back deck where there's a nice solid surface known to be underneath.
“…putting the return propellant at the bottom of the tanks makes Starship HLS stable…”
That depends on how much the propellant is sloshing around. There are plenty of wrecks at the bottom of the sea for which the only thing that went wrong is the cargo got loose in the hold. (My suggestion: cone-shaped tank, pointy end up.)
Slosh was a real problem for Starship's flip to vertical after bellyflop descent during low altitude testing. It was probably an issue for the early booster flips between separation and boost back. SpaceX have demonstrated the ability to keep slosh down to manageable levels. Perhaps there really is value to the data recovered from many failed test flights.
There are couple of items here,
There is no mention of using the raptor for doing the final landing. Every render shows the landing engines, its the ones you can see just under the windows at the TOP of the ship. Raptor will slow the ship down and let it start the descent but it will not be used for the final touchdown.
Landing legs are self level though no mention of how much deviation they can tolerate. Honestly, people are behaving like SpaceX haven't though of this.
SpaceX are already doing the hardware part and training the software. You can see it in one of the pics.
From what understand they are using tried and tested technology from Dragon plus all the data compiled from 22 test flights.
One thing to note is that its unlikely Starship will has much horizontal velocity unlike LEM. They pick a spot and come down vertically. LEM actually came in more sideways.
They are in the SpaceX renders from last week. NSF and various other sources covered it and all said they will be using landing engines. What isn't know is if they will use Methalox as they already have that on board or go hypergolic for them. Common sense (SpaceX using common sense, lol) would say to use Draco or Super Draco. Both multi-mission proven hypergolic engines designed to relight after 6 months or longer in space. I guess its a question of if they can generate enough thrust.
"The only reason Starship is stopped a few seconds of burn short of orbit is to ensure that it comes back down at a predictable place and time even if the de-orbit burn fails. That criticism is even more silly than the complaint about Starship HLS being tall.”
This, is course is absolutely true, but it doesn’t invalidate ‘kmorrwath'’s point about ‘they haven't yet put a StarShip into LEO' - so why haven’t they? Is it because they aren’t sure about their ability to successfully carry out a controlled de-orbit burn? Maybe? And maybe they are just being wisely cautious, but what is the current plan; launch a StarShip variant fitted out as a propellant store, then anywhere between 6-16 launches or other variants to ‘top it up’ with fuel, before finally launching the HLS itself to rendezvous with the ‘tanker’ and completely fill up so it can depart to the moon?
All of these absolutely require entry into LEO and a safe de-orbit, whether or not they are recovered for reuse. Now although all of this ’should’ be possible, it needs to be tested, to actually have been done, and as far as I know there have never been a demonstration of large scale liquid propellant transfer in orbit, maybe there will be all sorts of unforeseen issues.
“There have been comments about "self levelling". There has also been a spectacular demonstration of raptor's ability to clear a landing site of any loose material not stronger than heat resistant concrete.”
Not sure what is meant by ’self-levelling’, (OK yes I know what the term means, but in this context) again needs to be demonstrated, and yes raptor (well any) rocket engines will remove loose material, it’s not going to make it completely flat though, and also didn't the debris thrown up by the first test launch, damage some of those same engines to the point that they shut down? Not something you probably want to happen when 50m above the lunar surface!
Now I’m going to assume that Space-X does employ people who know about centre of gravity, but with the best will in the world, it just looks prone to falling over, just where is the CoG of that thing, and what sort of tilt can it endure and remain upright?
"2026 is at the same time for Blue Moon, SLS and the space suits.”
Absolutely, yes it is! Blue Moon has to demonstrate that they can solve the boil-off issue with cryogenic propellants, they say thay have a ’new ceramic shield’. again easy to claim it, you have to demonstrate it. I think SLS is now a solved (albeit massively over budget -and we can leave the political, pork-barrel arguments for this out) problem, it works, it’s been shown to work. The Orion capsule, well, presumably we’ll find out in the next four months or so!
But anyway, let’s get back to the original issue, what’s the current timeframe for Artemis III? Mid 2027 - that’s only a little over 19 months away, and the reason for the rush is? To beat the Chinese to the next moon landing, why?
The plans that NASA and Space-X and Blue Origin have put together and what they want to accomplish in terms of payload, duration etc. are much more than a simple ‘boots on the surface and flags’ operartion. So suppose China makes a successful crewed landing on the moon before the US does, So what, why can’t the US simply say something along the lines of ‘well done guys, good achievement, you have now replicated something we did, almost 60 years ago’!
Is there a race? If so is it a race to be second? Having already won first place?
I’m going to make a prediction, There is almost zero chance of Artemis III going before 2030, maybe ’29. And it doesn’t matter if they go with Elon or Jeff, there are simply too many things that need to be tested, demonstrated to work and shown to work reliably.
Not 'maybe', but beyond all doubt and explicitly stated by SpaceX employees who have not claimed repeatedly that Full Self Driving will be ready real soon now. There will be at least one more fractional orbit launch because of the change to Raptor 3. The change to V3 Starship requires completion of the new launch tower. That will be ready early next year. Boca Chica was launch license limited to 5/year while the environmental effects were quantified. You will see a step up in cadence next year because the limit has been changed to 25/year. Your concerns about refilling Starship will be met with rapid iteration from SpaceX. Blue has yet to demonstrate iteration for New Glenn and has not demonstrated rapid for New Shepard. Anything beyond flags and footprints requires refilling.
Self levelling: the legs can extend different amounts so the landing surface does not need to be flat. It does need to be stable so there is an advantage to clearing it. Engine damage from clearing the site is a concern. I am glad there will be at least one uncrewed test run.
We have the engine performance and mixture ratio. This means we know about 50% of the take-off mass will be propellant. 78% of the propellant will be oxygen at the bottom of the lower tank. With that in my mind's eye, Starship looks more stable than Blue Moon 2. Blue employs skilled rocket scientists, which is why Blue Moon has and needs splayed legs. Apollo could take off from an 11 degree slope. I assume that with modern technology NASA could pick more level landing sites. We will see if HLS can find one. I assume the legs are designed to cope with the slope they expect to find - or they will abort the landing. In recent cargo landing failures, tipping over was the result of earlier problems, not the cause of the failure.
NASA has stated that human rated space craft must fly at least once per year to retain institutional knowledge. SLS is a long way short of the target. Last time there were delays from the ground support equipment. That has remained idle so long that I am confident it will have issues for A2 and A3. A3 cannot start stacking until A2 gets off the mobile launch platform. A1 required a stack of waivers for parts that were past their sell-by dates. A4 will have a new second stage which requires a new mobile launch platform. That second stage will be tested with crew - if it doesn't get cancelled. The only way the new launch platform will not be very late is if it is cancelled.
Parts of Orion died of old age waiting for A1 and launched with less redundancy than planned because it would have taken months to fix. The Orion for A1 did not have life support. We will find out if it works in space with A2. The Orion from A2 lacks a docking hatch. We will find out if it works in A3. Issues with Orion's heat shield had to be fixed without changing the vehicle and without an uncrewed test flight because that would have moved the crewed Moon landing flight onto the non-existent next generation mobile launch platform. NASA did an excellent job with that restriction, but it does hint at what will happen if there are issues with A2. If A3 is needed as a do-over for A2 then NASA will not get people back on the Moon before 2030.
Calling SLS+Orion a solved problem is being generous.
The realistic time frame was 2028 in 2016. You would have to be as gullible as a president to believe the NASA schedule of the month for Artemis. Why beat the Chinese back to the Moon? Ask someone who cares. I want a step up in technology that reduces the price of access to space. Flags and footprints 2 doesn't do that and for me is just a waste of time and money. The president wants distractions and legacy. Moon theatre does that.
Your prediction is perfectly reasonable. I do not particularly care if the HLS is from SpaceX or Blue Origin but with the information available today, SpaceX is clearly ahead of Blue but it is not clear if they will cause longer delays the space suits or SLS being ready for a third launch.
This post has been deleted by its author
"To beat the Chinese to the next moon landing, why?"
Media and politicians trying to recreate the race with the Soviets in the '60's to make it feel urgent. I don't think China cares. What will be more important for them is to get their Taikonauts on the moon and be the first (or best) permanent outpost. There's little point in a "flags and footprints" mission. This time it's more of a tortoise and hare race with China as the tortoise. Even if the hare crosses the finish line first this one time, then what? A D-waving parade replete with lots of littering? Again?
"so why haven’t they? Is it because they aren’t sure about their ability to successfully carry out a controlled de-orbit burn? Maybe?"
It's a bit more than a few seconds of additional burn time. It's another chunk of speed x mass of energy to turn into heat coming back through the atmosphere. The heat shield isn't up to scratch yet and they don't seem to be making fast progress in solving that problem. The HLS variant won't need a heat shield, but the dozens of tankers needed to refuel an orbital depot and be rapidly reused will. Unless SpaceX is going to build a few dozen tanker Starships, they won't have the time to strip and refurbish a whole heat shield for each flight. The orbital depot might be a one-time use item or be left in orbit with some station keeping fuel (storable) and solar/battery powered which can mean it won't need a heat shield other than insulation to keep it from getting too hot while holding propellants. The engines will need to be very reliable as well. Flight 11 booster had 9 new engines on it so the booster isn't "gas 'n go" yet either.
Flight 11 apogee 192km, perigee 50km. The delta V required to get to circular orbit would be 43m/s. If this were are commercial flight, assume 150t for the ship and 100t payload and 230tf for a single raptor 2. The burn time would be 4.6 seconds. To re-enter, another burn would be required to get back to a 192x50km orbit so the heat shield was tested with precisely the velocity of a return from (the lowest end of) LEO.
"don't seem to be making fast progress in solving that [heat shield] problem". Artemis 1: 2022-11-16. NASA shares Orionhest shield finding: 2024-12-05. Artemis 2: NET 2026-02-05. What would the date be if NASA tested the new re-entry profile with a few uncrewed test flights? Pot meet kettle.
The tankers don't actually need a heat shield either. SpaceX can churn out a dozen, park them in a rocket garden and launch them one after another. It is not like they cost $2B each.
SpaceX are aware of the engine reliability issue and are working on it. They are also set up to swap out engines quickly.
Gigabay will have 24 work stands each so 48 between the two sites (plus the 2 megabays with 4 stands each). Assume half are booster and half ship that means 24 ships in production at a time. Currently taking 3 months per ship but I assume that will come down. Even so that means around 2 ships a week.
Currently have ships 39 to 45 in production with 39 about a 4 to 6 weeks away from being ready for Massey assuming they don't need to make any changes. Reports are saying that one of them is a flight ready HLS test article, probably 45 ?. 1 is a tanker though all Block 3 come with docking capability.
"The tankers don't actually need a heat shield either. SpaceX can churn out a dozen, park them in a rocket garden and launch them one after another. It is not like they cost $2B each."
What!? Their whole mantra has been 100% re-usability. Without a heat shield, those tankers would be burning up on re-entry and 6-9 Raptor engines would be sacrificed each time. The shiny metal tube isn't expensive in the grand scheme of things, but if SpaceX is going to start going with an expendable system and rely on lots of production capacity, they could have been done by now. What's slowing them down is the re-usability part.
"but what is the current plan;"
Current plan is that IFT-12 will be suborbital and do a relit as per IFT-10 and IFT-11. If all goes well then they will go orbital on IFT-13. And I'm pretty sure they are confident after having all the data from at least 5 relights in space.
" I know there have never been a demonstration of large scale liquid propellant transfer in orbit,"
So you don't think that 5 tons of propellant tank to tank transfer from IFT-3 was significant ? They have a pretty good idea of how to deal with slosh.
" and also didn't the debris thrown up by the first test launch, damage some of those same engines to the point that they shut down?"
Confirmed by SpaceX several times that debris didn't cause outages, it will propellant delivery that caused the issue and has been dealt with. Also not expecting as much debris, the landing engines are about 30m above the base of the ship.
Replace all the astronauts with Optimus humanoid robots running xAI artificial intelligence hosted on Tesla automobiles being charged overnight. The full self driving feature will make the whole mission autonomous which will save a lot of money in not having to staff mission control. And you don't need to bring them back from the Moon as they are just machines anyway. If they decide to pitch this next month, I want my 10% cut in Bitcoin.
Duffy later invited Kardashian to the Kennedy Space Center for the launch of the Artemis mission to the moon.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg1epp73ppo
May be send her up as well. Then she can arrest that this one's for real. Probably more Americans would follow/believe what she says over NASA
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
