Talk:Starship HLS

New editor here. Can someone explain to me why we need a secondary source here?
In the current revision, the phrase:

In September 2020, Elon Musk stated there was no need to bring early ships back.[non-primary source needed]

requires a non-primary source. Can someone elaborate on why this is necessary, or can we delete the tag? osunpokeh (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Someone just thinks that a news article explaining Elon's tweet would make a better source. In general, this is true. N828335 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Earlier version was "Elon Musk proposed leaving several Starship HLS vehicles on the surface of the moon permanently, to serve as habitation modules for a lunar base. added note saying "it is not yet clear exactly what NASA will want to do with the ships, and the large cargo capacity, etc.  This source says nothing about that" tweet source includes "No need to bring early ships back. They can serve as part of moon base alpha." So ref did mention leaving on surface, but doesn't mention 'as habitation modules'. If it is NASA's decision not Elon Musks the perhaps we should phrase as 'Elon Musk suggested early Starships could be left on the surface as part of a lunar base' rather than using Elon Musk stated which may imply it is his decision. Phrased like that I wouldn't see a need for further ref. Note, I am not sure whose decision it is. C-randles (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

complete mission profile?
The mission profile is neither clear nor complete in the article. Is this because it's not clear to NASA, or because we just haven't documented it yet? our article mentions several steps, but not in a clear sequence. I think the known steps are:
 * ("Boosts" means "uses its Raptor engines")

NOW WHAT??? I doubt the HLS will just remain in this orbit as a derelict. More landings and returns? if so how many, and where does the fuel come from? I can envision multiple trips, ending with a final uncrewed landing on the moon to become part of the lunar station, but I have not seen this described by NASA or SpaceX. -Arch dude (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Stack HLS on a Super Heavy booster at the Earth launch site
 * Launch from Earth. Booster lands for reuse while HLS boosts to (LEO? some other orbit?) as the second stage
 * HLS refuels from a waiting tanker starship or from multiple waiting reusable starships.
 * HLS performs TLI boost and transits for 5(?) days
 * HLS boosts into a lunar orbit (NHRO? Other?)
 * HLS rendezvouses with Orion or with Gateway
 * Crew transfers to HLS
 * HLS boosts for lunar surface
 * HLS boosts for landing to within "tens of meters" of surface
 * HLS shuts off Raptors and uses its landing thrusters to descend to the surface
 * HLS and crew perform the surface mission
 * HLS uses its landing thrusters to ascend to "tens of meters".
 * HLS boosts to lunar orbit
 * HLS rendezvouses with Orion or with Gateway
 * Crew transfers from HLS
 * I doubt the HLS will just remain in this orbit as a derelict. It genuinely might. Apollo 10's LM was left in lunar orbit. Leijurv (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But where can we find a reliable source to discuss the mission profiles? The closest thing to a single-source profile is the Blue Origin infographic showing how "bad" the Starship HLS is. Also, since Artemis is supposed to result in an ongoing long-term presence in NHRO, I don't think they would clutter it up. Depending on who actually owns the HLS after it reaches NHRO, the owner might use the empties to establish a competitor to the Gateway. -Arch dude (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the details are, or even can be, that specific right now, this early in the new way NASA decided to procure human lunar landing flights and passenger services. In 2020, NASA solicited some concepts for the basic flow, I think some call these CONOPS, and asked for concept design work during the next 10 months--they also offered (vendor specific amoounts) funds to pay for that design work the companies would be doing at NASA's behest.  This year, they selected one of the concept designs and conops, but it is definitely not the case the all the details were fully cooked at the time of the proposals submitted by the three companies.
 * So now, NASA will be doing a lot of work with SpaceX (the selected provider of the flight services) to hash that all out (but its not public yet, nor even decided yet). Moreover, SpaceX is still finishing the (iterative) detailed desing of their first-ever Starship second stage; so the final details on mass and capabilities of the basic (pre-HLS variant) Starship are still in flux.  The HLS variant will be even moreso.
 * Bottom line, I don't think we're gonna find good sources that show the details of the mission, and likely won't for some time yet. To use the question you asked, I'd say, yeah, "it's not clear to NASA." Cheers.  N2e (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The GAO report that denied the Blue Origin and Dynetics HLS Option A complaints, had the following profile for Earth orbit operations for refueling Lunar Starship. This should replace the entry between 'launches from Earth' and the 'translunar injection' I believe. At least until new info is released by NASA or SpaceX.

page 27 (Footnote 13 at the bottom of the page) of the GAO decision to deny the Blue Origin complaint, [DELETED] is apparently at least a propellant depot "SpaceX’s concept of operations contemplated sixteen total launches, consisting of: 1 launch of its [DELETED]; 14 launches of its Tanker Starships to supply fuel to [DELETED]; and 1 launch of its HLS Lander Starship, which would be [DELETED] and then travel to the Moon."

This page already notes that Elon Musk has tweeted (Aug 11th, 2021) that with the increased capability of Starship since the inition bid proposal, up to 8 Starship Tanker flights may be needed, instead of the 14 in the original bid.

So the [DELETED] propellant depot launches. Then up to 8 Starship Tanker flights refuel [DELETED]. Then once [DELETED] has the full propellant load needed, the Lunar Starship would launch to meet [DELETED] and be refueled.

Elon Musk tweet Aug 11th, 2021 Kizarvexis (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

95-day work stoppage probably did not happen.
What we know is that Bezos' protest and the resulting review delayed NASA's first payment of $300 million to SpaceX. We also know that this prohibited any formal interactions between NASA and SpaceX in this period, and most likely prohibited any informal interactions and any actual "on the clock" work within NASA. The order by itself has no legal effect on what SpaceX was doing in that period as long as they are willing to spend their own money, and their track record seems to be to just keep working in anticipation of getting permission. Therefore, we have no reason to state that SpaceX stopped work. I suppose that under the contractual definition "work", we mean "work we can charge the customer for" then perhaps "delayed start of work" is true. But this does not appear to be a T&M or cost plus contract, so that does not really apply. -Arch dude (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you've got that right Arch dude. The work that was stopped would only be the specific work that is contracted by NASA for SpaceX to do to accomplish the detailed design and test objectives for the bits that are the HLS-specific stuff.  I have been a designated vendor representative to work with the "Contracting Officer" from NASA on NASA contracts in the past, and when contracts are halted (for a variety of reasons, including say government "shutdowns", changes in Congressional appropriations, etc., it is normal to receive a letter from the CO insisting that all work stop on the NASA contract.  It of course does not restrict what a private company may choose to do with their own capital in the meantime; but ultimately, the NASA payments, will only be made for specific work and specific milestones achieved, even when it is not a cost-plus contract, which in this case, it is not.  At any rate, here we have a source that says this stopped work by SpaceX; so only endeavoring to represent what the source says.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the contract include delivery of HLS to Lunar orbit?
Does the April 2021 contract include the requirement to deliver the HLS to NASA in lunar orbit and the development costs of any required HW for this? Is that a reference? Does anyone know how to find the contract itself as an (admittedly primary) reference? This is important for the article, since we need to distinguish "starship HLS" (the spacecraft) from "Starship HLS" (the contractually required mission). -Arch dude (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The April 2021 HLS Option A Source Selection Statement is the closest thing I could find. There is a government website for looking up contracts, but I have never been able to find anything there that I wanted. SpaceX was able to get the GAO to redact parts of the GAO report detailing the reasons for denying the Blue Origin and Dynetics complaints. Blue Origin and Dynetics also had the GAO redact parts of that report. So I wonder if the full HLS Option A contract is available outside of NASA and SpaceX.

Kizarvexis (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The HLS Option A contract price should be updated to $2.94B
The April 2021 NASA HLS Option A Source Selection Statement has the cost of the SpaceX HLS bid as $2,941,394,557 (page 8, first paragraph under the table of ratings.) So the $2.89B reference is in error and the correct figure should be $2.94B please.

April 2021 NASA HLS Option A Source Selection Statement https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/option-a-source-selection-statement-final.pdf Kizarvexis (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * SpaceX bid $2.94 Billion. After contract negotiation NASA awarded them a contract of $2.89 billion. SpaceX did not get as much as they asked for. -Arch dude (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
An editor has proposed that this article on the Starship HLS lunar landing variant for NASA-specific work of the more general Starship spacecraft, be MERGEd into the (much larger scope) article SpaceX Starship.

They started the discussion over in the Starship Talk page, at Talk:SpaceX_Starship So read, follow, and add comment over there if you have an opinion. Attn: osunpokeh, C-randles, Arch dude, Kizarvexis. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Unclear string of edits
@CodemWiki I'm finding it hard to understand the reason behind some of the edits you are making. You seem to be changing the structure but it is unclear how. Can you explain here the rationale once you are done or use the edit descriptions more precisely to indicate the reasoning for each edit so other editors can follow? Thanks &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 20:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pasted a sentence from the Starship page and accidentally posted a part that had nothing to do with HLS. Should be fixed now. CodemWiki (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Payloads
I know that we are a bit of a way off with actually planning how to make this article work for missions of the HLS, but I was working on the Luxembourg Space Agency page, and they have a contract to launch an ISRU probe onboard the first HLS mission. Should we make a section about payloads that have been confirmed so far? or is it still way too early? Scu ba (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely. Redacted II (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)