[consumer451]

Well, he wasn't entirely fair, but, rapid full-reuse of Starship feels like a distant thing at this point. Rapid full-reuse is required for HLS as according to NASA, around 15 launches of the tanker version will be necessary. Those launches will need to happen in relatively short order.

That means either 15 full stacks (Booster + Tanker) ready to go, or a few with full-reuse and very fast turnaround.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but there is a chance that Blue Moon lands first.

[dotnet00]

Current Blue Moon is also a Starship style lander, just instead of Superheavy, it'll launch on New Glenn. It's also a refueling heavy, orbital depot focused lander. Only major difference being that it's hydrogen fueled, and one of their project goals is to solve boil-off free storage of cryogenic hydrogren in orbit, which also seems like a tall order.

Kind of hard to believe you think it'll land before Starship when New Glenn itself hasn't even had a flight test yet.

[consumer451]

> Kind of hard to believe you think it'll land before Starship when New Glenn itself hasn't even had a flight test yet.

Please put down your pitchfork. I said "I can't believe I'm saying this, but there is a chance."

A neutral reading of this would be that I believe Starship will land first.

[dotnet00]

Yeah that's fair, sorry if I came off as aggressive

[sabareesh]

Please think again what is the point of going back to moon if we cannot establish a base and stay longer ? It is not about just going to moon we want to stay there and establish a base

[consumer451]

I am well aware of this. I think Destin's video was not nearly as cool as he thought it was.

I am just stating that Startship's full-reuse is not as close as I would like.