No doubt that the moment Lunar mining operations commence, interest groups on Earth will launch “Save our Moon” initiatives that will entangle those efforts in legal battles.
There is no doubt that a mini-space race is brewing between China and the US. Both are planning landings in the 2027-2029 timeframe.
Who gets there first matters less than who can make those operations sustainable.
Fortunately it will be difficult to execute legal challenges as nobody owns the moon, even nation states are banned from owning celestial bodies due to the UN's Outer Space Treaty. SpaceX has a really good shot at mounting sustainable operations given they have spent more than a decade developing ISRU; lunar propellant production is the shortest route, less some exceptional advance in technology.
You try to put on best possible spin for HLS Starship, but I disagree on a number of points.
1) The award was unusual, allowing SpaceX to dramatically underbid their costs, just a few dollars under the NASA projected budget line. In the long run Kathy Leuder who was key the award, ended up getting a position at SpaceX. IMHO SpaceX was doing it as short term cash grab as well as a ego boost for "winning" for Elon and others. Elon does not do projects for free (see canceling
of propulsive landing, canceling of Red Dragon) and I think it is a personal challenge to not use his own money for funding his businesses after a certain point (unlike Jeff Bezos).
2) Elon and SpaceX have not, and do not care about long term lunar ops, and nor should they.
3) Starship is a poor fit to the moon (and especially HLS that calls for only two crew), where it's very large shape that is key for aerocapture is needed as well supporting multi-year trips. Starship has too much un-needed dry mass, so you need up to 10 fuel launches to LEO to support. Blue Moon is better matched to the Artemis defined mission.
But the worst outcome the process was unsaid, if there had been no winning bid, Artemis with its budget breaking SLS/Orion would have needed to be re-thought. In the era a proven FH and Crew Dragon, and alternate and much lower cost path to the moon, as promoted by Zurbin and others. HLS Starship will probably delay Mars by 6-8 years as NASA beats on SpaceX spending a lot of Mars money on hopefully landing a top heavy skyscraper on a dusty soft terrain of the moon.
Artemis III will delay to 2028 whatever happens because that's what Boeing want and planned from the very start. They made a concession to NASA/Trump launching Artemis I early but that's it. Starship will be ready before then and a marvelous asset for sustained lunar operations because its needs relatively few tanker flights to shuttle between Earth and the moon, once lunar propellant becomes available.
No doubt that the moment Lunar mining operations commence, interest groups on Earth will launch “Save our Moon” initiatives that will entangle those efforts in legal battles.
There is no doubt that a mini-space race is brewing between China and the US. Both are planning landings in the 2027-2029 timeframe.
Who gets there first matters less than who can make those operations sustainable.
Fortunately it will be difficult to execute legal challenges as nobody owns the moon, even nation states are banned from owning celestial bodies due to the UN's Outer Space Treaty. SpaceX has a really good shot at mounting sustainable operations given they have spent more than a decade developing ISRU; lunar propellant production is the shortest route, less some exceptional advance in technology.
You try to put on best possible spin for HLS Starship, but I disagree on a number of points.
1) The award was unusual, allowing SpaceX to dramatically underbid their costs, just a few dollars under the NASA projected budget line. In the long run Kathy Leuder who was key the award, ended up getting a position at SpaceX. IMHO SpaceX was doing it as short term cash grab as well as a ego boost for "winning" for Elon and others. Elon does not do projects for free (see canceling
of propulsive landing, canceling of Red Dragon) and I think it is a personal challenge to not use his own money for funding his businesses after a certain point (unlike Jeff Bezos).
2) Elon and SpaceX have not, and do not care about long term lunar ops, and nor should they.
3) Starship is a poor fit to the moon (and especially HLS that calls for only two crew), where it's very large shape that is key for aerocapture is needed as well supporting multi-year trips. Starship has too much un-needed dry mass, so you need up to 10 fuel launches to LEO to support. Blue Moon is better matched to the Artemis defined mission.
But the worst outcome the process was unsaid, if there had been no winning bid, Artemis with its budget breaking SLS/Orion would have needed to be re-thought. In the era a proven FH and Crew Dragon, and alternate and much lower cost path to the moon, as promoted by Zurbin and others. HLS Starship will probably delay Mars by 6-8 years as NASA beats on SpaceX spending a lot of Mars money on hopefully landing a top heavy skyscraper on a dusty soft terrain of the moon.
Artemis III will delay to 2028 whatever happens because that's what Boeing want and planned from the very start. They made a concession to NASA/Trump launching Artemis I early but that's it. Starship will be ready before then and a marvelous asset for sustained lunar operations because its needs relatively few tanker flights to shuttle between Earth and the moon, once lunar propellant becomes available.