SpaceX's crazy Solution to land a Starship on the Moon Without Leg! Is this even possible?

How would you land it on the moon? That question continues to drive debate around Starship, a vehicle that is exceptionally large, extremely tall, and currently designed without landing legs. Will Starship ultimately gain landing legs or will it not? That decision rests with SpaceX. The more immediate question is how Starship could safely touch down on the lunar surface One unconventional concept under consideration is sideways landing, an approach that offers surprising efficiency and several unique advantages. How could such a method work and could it truly remove the need for landing legs altogether? After more than 50 years since the last crewed mission to the moon, humanity is finally preparing to return to this natural satellite. However, the challenge is far greater than many expected. Landing on the moon remains extremely difficult and many modern landers have failed, even those with low horizontal designs and dedicated landing legs. Examples include Intuitive Machines landers such as IM-1 Odysseus and IM-2 Athena. This raises a critical question. How can a vehicle like Starship land safely on the moon? Starship is enormous, standing at over 50 meters tall with a diameter of just 9 meters. This means its height is more than 5.5 times its width. SpaceX is even planning future versions such as the V-4 where the height increases further while the diameter remains unchanged, making this imbalance even more extreme. Its height alone exceeds that of many rockets, let alone lunar landers. The vehicle is also designed to land vertically, which significantly increases the risk of failure. Compounding the problem, the current Starship design does not include landing legs for stabilization. Even on Earth, Starship requires support stands to remain upright, something that would not be available on the moon. The lunar surface itself is uneven and unpredictable, with slopes, cracks, and rough terrain. Even a minor surface irregularity could cause Starship to tip over. If that were to happen, the consequences would be catastrophic. Starship would still contain fuel and a strong impact could result in an immediate explosion. All onboard payloads would be lost. More critically, Starship HLS is designed to carry astronauts, making crew safety the top concern. So how could SpaceX address this problem if it chooses not to add landing legs? There is one clear answer that has been proposed, sideways landing. At first glance, it sounds unusual, but the concept offers several compelling advantages. The most significant benefit is improved stability. By landing in a tilted or horizontal orientation, Starship would have a much lower center of gravity and a much larger contact area with the lunar surface. This would greatly reduce the risk of tipping over and make balancing the vehicle far easier than attempting a vertical landing. A second major advantage involves surface operations. Once Starship is tilted, nearly the entire spacecraft would be much closer to the lunar surface, including the payload bays and crew living quarters. This would eliminate the need for large elevators to transport astronauts and cargo from heights exceeding 40 meters. Instead, simple stairways or short-access systems would be sufficient, allowing astronauts to move easily between the surface and the vehicle and enabling efficient unloading of payloads. Another advantage lies in long-term potential. A tilted Starship could be more easily converted into a permanent lunar base. This would allow SpaceX to rapidly establish a stable habitat for astronauts on the moon. Starship already contains a large and advanced interior designed to support crews during deep space missions, and with further modifications, it could support long-duration living and scientific research on the lunar surface. This concept is often referred to as Moon Base Alpha. If SpaceX were to pursue this idea, additional modifications would still be required. Fuel tanks would likely need to be removed or repurposed to expand living space. A protective layer of lunar regolith could be added to shield the structure from dust, debris, micrometeorites, extreme temperatures, and radiation. One question naturally follows. If Starship is converted into a lunar base, how would astronauts return to orbit? One possible solution would be to carry a smaller ascent vehicle inside Starship HLS. This vehicle could be stored in the payload bay and would not need to be operational until it was time to return the crew to lunar orbit. Its sole purpose would be crew transport, making its design relatively simple. The larger challenge would be determining who would design and build such a vehicle and how it would integrate with Starship operations. Because of these uncertainties, converting Starship into a lunar base remains a long-term concept rather than an immediate plan. It's unlikely to be implemented on the first missions but could become viable during later expeditions. Despite its benefits, sideways landing introduces several major challenges that cannot be ignored. The first and foremost significant challenge is the landing support system itself. In addition to the main engines, Starship would require powerful thrusters, likely mounted near the forward section of the vehicle. These thrusters would need to assist with deceleration while also counterbalancing the main engines. During landing, the aft engines and forward thrusters would need to work together to slow the vehicle, rotate it from a vertical orientation to an inclined position, and then gently lower it onto the lunar surface. This process would require extraordinary precision. These engines and thrusters would also consume large amounts of fuel, meaning SpaceX would need an efficient method of fuel management and distribution. If Starship were later required to launch again to return astronauts to lunar orbit, the thrusters would face an even greater challenge. They would need to lift the forward section of the vehicle before the main engines could fully ignite for liftoff. Overall, this approach would require substantial modifications to Starship's propulsion and control systems. The second challenge involves Starship's shape. Its cylindrical, bullet-like design that while may not easily tip over when laying down, it could roll. This presents another serious risk. To prevent this, additional structural supports or stabilizing bars would likely be needed at both ends of the vehicle. The third issue concerns the interior layout. Starship was originally designed to operate vertically. If the vehicle were placed on its side, internal spaces could be disrupted and unsecured payloads could shift or collide. Converting the interior for horizontal operations would take time and careful planning. Ideally, SpaceX would need to design Starship from the beginning to allow smooth transitions between vertical and horizontal configurations. Structural concerns also play a major role. Starship's structure is strongest when forces are applied along its vertical axis. When positioned horizontally, the stresses on the hull and internal tanks increase, while overall structural strength decreases. Loads that are distributed evenly could become concentrated in specific areas, increasing the risk of damage. While lunar gravity is much lower than Earth's, these stresses cannot be ignored. To address this, Starship's hull and fuel tanks would need significant reinforcement to withstand horizontal loads and impacts. Another structural challenge involves fuel delivery. When Starship is horizontal, fuel flow to the engines becomes less efficient, which could negatively affect engine performance. This issue would be especially critical during the transition from a horizontal position back to vertical for liftoff. Unstable engine performance during this phase would pose a serious risk. SpaceX would likely need to add backup pumps or alternative fuel management systems to ensure reliability. Clearly, sideways landing requires extensive analysis, redesign, and testing. If SpaceX chooses to pursue this method, it would need to be implemented early and refined through repeated testing. However, if these challenges can be overcome, sideways landing could address one of the greatest concerns surrounding Starship HLS, which is the risk of failure due to its extreme height. For me, the sideways landing concept would be an impressive way to demonstrate Starship's versatility. That said, I still find rockets, spacecraft, and landers equipped with landing legs more appealing. There's something inherently satisfying about a vehicle standing firmly on its own. If you feel the same way, respond with LEGO in the comments. From a practical standpoint, landing legs remain the most efficient and straightforward way to stabilize a vehicle, especially during early missions. At that stage, there would be no external support systems available and SpaceX may not want to heavily modify Starship to enable sideways landings. However, adopting landing legs would require major upgrades to Starship, particularly in the aft section. The legs would almost certainly need to be foldable so they could remain protected during ascent, flight, and descent, avoiding unnecessary bulk or damage. During landing, these legs would deploy to provide stability following a concept similar to the approach SpaceX has successfully used on Falcon rockets for many years. Because the legs would need to fold neatly into the vehicle, critical systems such as the engine bay and the fuel plumbing that connects the engines to the tanks would have to be repositioned or redesigned. Starship is an extremely large vehicle and its landing legs would also need to be large and robust to support its mass. This implies that the structural changes required in the aft section would be substantial. If these challenges can be resolved, a legged version of Starship would still offer significant value and flexibility for SpaceX. Such a configuration would likely be used during the earliest missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as for potential Earth-to-Earth transportation. During these missions, SpaceX would not yet have access to infrastructure such as holding arms or concrete balancing platforms. In remote locations on Earth without support systems, Starship could also land on drone ships or floating platforms, both of which require landing legs. In this sense, a legged Starship would serve as a pioneer, enabling SpaceX to operate in new and undeveloped environments. Meanwhile, a version of Starship without landing legs would likely be reserved for sideways landings when support systems are not yet available, or for specialized missions such as converting the vehicle into a surface base. While it could still perform pioneering tasks, it would face more limitations. Designing and integrating powerful support thrusters is likely more complex than simply adding landing legs. In the long term, SpaceX will likely aim to develop a dedicated landing support tower system. This approach would be fully compatible with the non-leg Starship design currently under development. It would also enable faster recovery, refurbishment, and reflight compared to other landing methods. The challenge is that building such infrastructure would require dedicated missions to transport materials, landing pad sections, and support equipment. This process would be both time-consuming and labor-intensive, and additional solutions would still be needed to safely support Starship landings. There is still much to explore when it comes to Starship's role in space exploration. Its size and design present both extraordinary opportunities and significant challenges. As Starship continues development and works toward missions to the Moon and Mars, these design questions will remain central to ensuring the safety of both cargo and crew. Will Starship be able to land successfully on these missions, and which landing method will ultimately be chosen? Those decisions rest with the SpaceX engineering team. Without landing legs, sideways landing offers a compelling alternative. Once these challenges are addressed, Starship's true potential will become clearer. Its capabilities could enable long-term human exploration in ways no other vehicle can match. Now, we wait to see how SpaceX rises to this challenge. What does the interior of a crewed Starship, whether Starship HLS or another human-rated variant, actually look like? That question has long captivated SpaceX fans and the broader aerospace community. Over the years, we've seen plenty of concept art and speculative renders, but nothing compares to first-hand experience. And now, one astronaut who's had exactly that, Scott Poteet, has shared new details about Starship's crew interior. So, what does the design really look like? And after seeing it, will you prefer this concept over the earlier visions? It's safe to say that interior design will play a decisive role in humanity's push toward distant destinations beyond Earth. It's not merely about aesthetics or convenience. It directly reflects the quality of life that astronauts will experience during long, uncertain, and psychologically demanding journeys through deep space. When missions extend from days to months and eventually to years, the internal environment of a spacecraft becomes just as important as its propulsion system or its heat shield. With its unprecedented size and ambitions, Starship is steadily shaping itself into what may become the most consequential spacecraft humanity has ever built. Unlike previous vehicles that were designed primarily to survive the journey, Starship is intended to support life at scale. It's meant to transport large crews, carry massive payloads, and remain functional for extended durations. That ambition naturally leads to one critical question. What will the interior of a crewed Starship actually look like? And how will people live inside it? A recent and intriguing glimpse into that future came from astronaut Scott Poteet, who has close connections to SpaceX. Poteet is one of the four astronauts selected for the Polaris Dawn mission, which was commanded by Jared Isaacman, the current NASA administrator and supported by SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. During an interview on Ryan Sean's show, Poteet offered an unexpected description of the interior crew module planned for Starship. According to Poteet, the sleeping quarters inside Starship consist of small individual compartments. He described them as little cubicles, almost like these Japanese trains that have just enough space to lay down, but hundreds of these spirals stacked up inside. This single statement sparked widespread discussion because it diverges sharply from many of the concepts that have circulated in previous years. At first glance, the imagery feels almost cinematic. Many people imagine a vast open interior, something closer to what science fiction films have conditioned us to expect. However, most earlier leaks and design hints pointed at a different direction. For example, concepts related to Starship's HLS showed a two-level interior. In those designs, the lower level was dedicated primarily to cargo, storage, and equipment, while the upper level was intended for crew activities such as work, rest, and daily operations. The working areas in these concepts were modeled after the Dragon crew compartment, emphasizing functionality and efficiency. Meanwhile, the sleeping quarters were depicted as stacked bunks arranged along the walls, resembling cabinets placed partially on top of one another. Some have compared this layout to the way playing cards are held in a fan, compact and overlapping, but still individually accessible. There has also been frequent discussion about a six-level internal configuration for Starship. This concept suggests that Starship would provide more total pressurized volume than the ISS. Each level would serve a distinct function, ranging from command and control to living quarters, storage, research, and payload handling, particularly within the expansive nosecone and payload section. Against that backdrop, Scott Poteet's description feels like a turning point. The comparison to Japanese train sleeping pods implies a continuous and tightly packed arrangement, possibly spiraling through the interior rather than being divided into large open decks. This suggests a design philosophy focused on maximizing occupancy and efficiency rather than individual spaciousness. One likely interpretation is that these compact cubicles are intended exclusively for sleeping. Sleep in space is a critical function that demands privacy, stability, and isolation from light and noise. Designing a dedicated sleeping area with hundreds of small compartments could allow SpaceX to provide each astronaut with a personal, enclosed space while still conserving volume for other essential functions. This approach aligns with SpaceX's long-stated goal of carrying more than 100 people on a single Starship flight. That number alone sets Starship apart from every crewed spacecraft ever built. No past or present vehicle even comes close to that capacity, and it may take decades before any other system rivals it. However, accommodating such a large crew inevitably involves trade-offs. As Poteet described, each sleeping compartment may only provide enough room to lie down. For some, this feels disappointing. There has long been hope that SpaceX might revolutionize sleeping quarters in space by offering more spacious, customizable environments where astronauts could truly personalize their private space. The reality is that volume is finite, even in a vehicle as large as Starship. When the priority is transporting dozens or hundreds of people, individual comfort must be balanced against overall mission capability. That said, limited physical space does not necessarily equate to poor quality of life. SpaceX is known for compensating physical constraints with technological solutions. Systems can be tightly integrated into compact spaces while maintaining high performance and reliability. Digital interfaces, smart lighting, climate control, and adaptive displays can all enhance comfort without consuming additional volume. Connectivity will likely be central to long missions. Starlink could extend its Earth-based impact into space, enabling continuous access to data, research tools, entertainment, and real-time communication, all critical for maintaining mental health and a Familiarity also matters. Interior designs that echo modern living environments through color, materials, and layout can reduce stress and disorientation, making the habitat feel intuitive rather than purely industrial. Sleeping quarters are only a small part of Starship's interior, much of which remains undisclosed. These spaces will include mission work areas, centralized control systems, communal living zones, exercise and dining facilities, hygiene areas, and extensive storage. Here, SpaceX has room to introduce genuinely new solutions that could redefine how humans live and work in space. Expectations for Starship's crewed configuration are high across the aerospace community. Not every concept will meet early optimism, but Starship is not meant to be a luxury vehicle for a select few. It's designed as mass transportation for space, supporting large crews and repeated missions. Beyond interior design, Starship's overall capabilities amplify its significance. Starship is the most powerful spacecraft ever built and, unlike traditional crew capsules, is not merely a payload. It's an integral part of the launch system, serving as the rocket's second stage while also operating as a spacecraft in its own right. In many ways, it resembles a mobile space station. With a 9-meter diameter and a height exceeding 50 meters in its current V3 form, future variants could surpass 60 meters, including a roughly 21-meter nosecone and payload section. Within that structure, Starship offers an internal volume greater than the total habitable space of the International Space Station, enabling capabilities and amenities far beyond those of any existing spacecraft or station. This becomes critical when mission duration is considered. Lunar flights last only days, but a Mars journey demands at least six months each way, spent in confinement while exposed to microgravity, radiation, and isolation. Sustaining physical health, mental resilience, and crew cohesion over that span requires far more than basic life support. Interior upgrades will be essential. Exercise systems must counter muscle and bone loss. Living areas must balance shared space with privacy, and work environments must remain functional and adaptable for months on end. Starship is built for scale, intended to carry not a few astronauts but dozens or even hundreds. That capacity underpins SpaceX's vision of sustained human presence on the Moon and Mars, where permanent or semi-permanent bases will require moving vast numbers of people, equipment, and supplies. In this context, Starship could offer the United States a major strategic advantage. Delivering large crews and heavy payloads in a single launch simplifies logistics and accelerates infrastructure development compared to smaller incremental systems. Beyond exploration, Starship is also envisioned as a point-to-point Earth transport system, moving people and cargo across the planet at unprecedented speed. Comfort is secondary in that role, but the vehicle's versatility remains unmatched. After arrival, Starship can be transformed. On the Moon or Mars, it may be repurposed as a surface base, with interiors adapted for long-term habitation and the vehicle itself converted from a vertical lander into a horizontal structure once crew return capability is assured. Several concepts have been proposed for this transition. One envisions mechanical systems, lowering Starship from vertical to horizontal after landing, while another involves a controlled sideways landing using thrusters. Either approach would quickly turn the vehicle into a large, ready-made habitat. The appeal is speed and efficiency. A single Starship could provide a substantial base immediately upon landing, eliminating lengthy assembly and reducing cost, construction time, and operational complexity during early off-world settlement. In Earth orbit, Starship's scale also makes it a strong candidate for use as a space station. With added docking ports, maneuvering thrusters, and support systems, multiple Starships could be linked to form an orbital complex far larger than anything flying today. This concept is especially compelling because Starship is designed for low-cost production, launch, and refurbishment. Musk has cited a long-term goal of launch costs near $2 million per flight. Even if that proves optimistic, the cost per kilogram to orbit would still be dramatically lower than existing systems. Full reusability and high launch cadence could enable rapid construction of orbital infrastructure, compressing timelines from decades to years or even months. Once repurposed as a station or base module, Starship gains another advantage. Flight-specific hardware, such as large propellant tanks and main engines, could be removed or reused, freeing enormous internal volume for habitats, laboratories, and storage. Despite all this potential, progress remains the defining challenge. As of early 2026, SpaceX is only beginning the transition from experimental prototypes to truly operational designs. Two major experimental variants have flown, but the fully refined Starship required for routine crewed missions is still taking shape. Looking ahead, 2027 is expected to mark the start of crewed Starship flights. The most immediate milestone is Artemis III, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in more than half a century, currently targeted for late 2027 or early 2028. Mars missions are expected to follow later in the decade, potentially four to five years beyond that. The pace is accelerating. Starship HLS has taken on new urgency as the U.S. refocuses on lunar exploration while competition is intensifying, with Blue Origin positioning itself as a potential alternative. Near-term progress on Starship HLS may directly shape SpaceX's role in Artemis III, making schedule discipline increasingly critical. At the same time, SpaceX must continue refining Starship's core capabilities. The program has already demonstrated boosted recovery using the Mechazilla arms and achieved several early flight milestones. Over the next year, it must reach orbital insertion, payload deployment, controlled two-stage landings, and on-orbit refueling. These are the foundational technologies that must be proven before any crewed variant can be certified. For that reason, 2026 stands as a defining year for Starship. What succeeds or fails during this period will shape the trajectory of human spaceflight for decades to come. And that brings us to the final takeaway. SpaceX is not just building a spacecraft, it's assembling a self-contained environment meant to sustain human life far from Earth, with early glimpses provided through astronaut perspectives like Scott Poteet's and the promise of far more still ahead. Major challenges remain, chief among them gravity. Long-term exposure to microgravity poses serious health risks and creating artificial gravity through rotation or other methods is still an open question. Whether SpaceX turns to rotating habitats, tethered systems, or entirely new solutions, gravity may become one of the defining design challenges of future Starship missions. For now, the vision continues to take shape. What's clear is that Starship marks a fundamental shift in spaceflight, moving from short missions to the prospect of sustained human life beyond Earth. And that brings us to the end of today's episode. Thank you so much for tuning in, and as always, this has been Kevin from Great SpaceX. Until next time, keep looking up.