Why China Needs 2 Launches, But Starship Needs 8?

We heard yesterday during the ASAT panel discussion that the latest estimate for the number of flights for fueling for Starship was going to be around the order of 22. That was pretty quickly refuted by Elon Musk on social media, saying it's closer to six to eight. Where, which end is closer based on the data that you have right now? A reporter asked Jeremy W. Parsons, manager of NASA's Artemis program, how many refueling flights Starship needs to reach the moon. Was the answer closer to double digits or single digits? Or somewhere in between? With NASA's deadline fast approaching, the space community is watching this closely. So, what number are we expecting? Double digits? Single digits? Or somewhere in between? It's a tough call for me. But I believe Elon Musk when he says it will get done, and I think he understands the Starship program's timeline better than anyone. Jeremy's answer, of course, points to the same conclusion. So we were definitely not tracking as high as 22 unless... You know, your transfer efficiency and performance wasn't the same. So I would say Elon's answer of six to eight is probably more, again, what SpaceX is planning to. Eight refueling flights sounds impressive, but it's also controversial because no space mission in history has ever needed eight tanker launches. Apollo, for example, needed only one launch. Recently, China confidently unveiled a detailed plan for a crewed lunar landing that requires just two rocket launches. Why such a huge gap in numbers? Why did China need two launch, but Starship needs eight? Could China actually move faster than SpaceX with fewer launches? I suspect that's the question many viewers are asking by now. China's ambition to surpass the United States is enormous, and if SpaceX were to fall even slightly behind, the country could pull out all the stops to get ahead. NASA, SpaceX, and all of us would prefer that not happen. But don't worry too much. China surpassing SpaceX is still a long way off, because fewer launches don't automatically mean reaching the moon faster. To see why I'm so confident in saying that, let's look at the crewed lunar landing plan China's space agency has recently announced. The first rocket will carry the crewed Mengzhou spacecraft to the moon. The second will deliver the Lanyue lander. Once both spacecraft reach lunar orbit, they will dock and connect. Three astronauts will travel aboard Mengzhou. Two of them will transfer to Lanyue and land on the lunar surface, while the third stays behind on Mengzhou, orbiting the moon. The two surface astronauts are expected to spend about three days exploring. They may carry out several spacewalks and scientific experiments. When their work is done, they will use Lanyue's ascent stage to return to lunar orbit, dock with Mengzhou again, and begin the journey home to Earth. In other words, China does not need to refuel a massive spacecraft in Earth orbit. It only needs to launch two dedicated vehicles and connect them once they reach the Moon. China's strategy actually shares a fundamental principle with NASA's Apollo missions — rendezvous in lunar orbit. In the Apollo program, NASA used a single Saturn V rocket to send the entire spacecraft to the Moon. Once in lunar orbit, the lunar module separated from the command and service module, carrying two astronauts down to the surface while the third remained in orbit. China is adopting a similar separation strategy, but with one key difference. Instead of launching both spacecraft together on one rocket, China plans two separate Long March 10 launches to put Mengzhou and Lanyue into lunar orbit. If you're finding this breakdown useful, subscribe so you won't miss the next analysis. So why does Starship need so many launches? Elon Musk has announced eight, but many experts argue the number would have to exceed 20 to be enough. The answer starts with its enormous size. Starship HLS is not a small moon module designed to carry two astronauts and a limited amount of equipment. It is a massive lunar lander built to transport crew, supplies, scientific instruments, and potentially a significant amount of cargo between lunar orbit and the surface. However, a spacecraft that large requires an enormous amount of propellant. A rocket burns most of its fuel getting out of Earth's gravity and into orbit. By the time Starship reaches low Earth orbit, it has already burned through the vast majority of the propellant it was loaded with at liftoff. There simply isn't enough left to send a fully fueled lunar lander to the Moon, land, and return to lunar orbit. This creates one of the biggest challenges in the entire Starship program. Instead of launching all the propellant at once, SpaceX plans to refuel Starship in space. The architecture involves launching a propellant depot into orbit, followed by multiple Starship tankers carrying liquid oxygen and liquid methane. Each tanker will rendezvous with the depot and transfer its propellant, gradually building up the massive quantity of fuel required for the lunar mission. Once enough propellant has accumulated, Starship HLS can dock with the depot, receive its fuel, and finally depart for the Moon. Depending on the vehicle's performance and transfer efficiency, Estimates suggest that about 6 to 8 propellant delivery flights may be needed to fuel a single lunar mission. That is an astonishing logistical undertaking. Before the lunar lander even begins its journey, SpaceX may need to launch an entire chain of tanker spacecraft into orbit. Of course, those 6 to 8 flights refer to propellant deliveries by tanker, not necessarily every launch in the full campaign. Transferring propellant in orbit, however, is far more complicated than simply connecting two pipes. Starship runs on liquid oxygen and liquid methane, and both must be kept at extremely low temperatures, roughly minus 183 degrees Celsius for liquid oxygen and minus 162 degrees Celsius for liquid methane. Keeping these propellants cold in orbit is a major engineering challenge. Heat gradually leaks into the tanks, potentially causing some of the propellant to boil off. SpaceX must also ensure that the propellant can be transferred between vehicles without unacceptable losses. Think about the complexity. Each tanker must reach orbit, position itself near the depot, complete a precise rendezvous, connect safely, and transfer its propellant. This process must be repeated until the depot holds enough propellant to send the lunar lander on its way. A single problem with docking, storage, or propellant transfer could delay the entire operation. And unlike a typical rocket launch, where most of the mission unfolds within minutes, in-orbit refueling requires multiple spacecraft to work together through a carefully coordinated sequence of operations. This is one reason Starship's lunar architecture is so challenging. SpaceX isn't simply developing a new rocket. It is trying to establish an entirely new method for operating large spacecraft in orbit. China's strategy, by comparison, looks far more appealing at this stage. Two primary launches appear much simpler than a propellant depot and a fleet of tankers. China avoids having to prove large-scale in-orbit refueling before attempting its first crewed landing. But there is a trade-off. A smaller, purpose-built lander can be optimized for a relatively short mission. Starship HLS, however, is designed around a much larger concept of transportation. Its enormous internal volume and payload capacity could allow it to deliver far more equipment and supplies to the lunar surface than the small lunar modules used during the Apollo era. That difference becomes especially important when looking beyond the first landing. NASA's Artemis program is not meant to repeat Apollo, with a few astronauts visiting the moon for a brief period. Its long-term goal is to establish a more sustainable human presence, conduct scientific and ultimately support infrastructure around the Moon's south pole. For those ambitions, carrying far more than just astronauts becomes essential. You need habitats, rovers, power systems, construction equipment, scientific instruments, and enough supplies to support longer missions. This is where Starship's size could become a decisive advantage. SpaceX is betting that the difficulty of orbital refueling will ultimately be outweighed by the benefits of a reusable, high-capacity transportation system. Rather than treating each moon mission as a separate expedition, the company wants to build spacecraft that can be refueled and reused for many trips. That same technology could eventually support missions to Mars, where orbital refueling and large-scale cargo delivery will be even more critical. In that sense, Refueling flights are not just an inconvenience, they are part of the infrastructure needed to make SpaceX's far more ambitious vision possible. Of course, that advantage remains theoretical until SpaceX demonstrates reliable in-orbit refueling at the scale required. Meanwhile, China still has a long road ahead. The Long March 10 rocket must prove it can send the necessary spacecraft to the moon. Mengzhou must prove it can safely transport astronauts. While Lanyue must demonstrate controlled landing on the lunar surface and a successful return to orbit. The rendezvous and docking process is especially critical. The two spacecraft must meet and connect in lunar orbit, far from direct support from Earth. A single failure could endanger the entire crew. For that reason, China has planned several test phases before attempting a crewed landing. These include crewed and uncrewed Mengzhou flights to the Tiangong Space Station using the Long March 10A configuration, an uncrewed test of Lanyue using a three-core Long March 10, and a full-scale uncrewed rehearsal of the lunar mission. Only after these demonstrations can China move forward with its first crewed landing, which it aims to complete before 2030. At first glance, China's two-launch plan looks simple. But Starship's plan operates on a much larger scale, with a long chain of missions that must succeed in sequence. Eight refueling flights are the single toughest bottleneck on the path to establishing a presence on the Moon. Once SpaceX solves that problem, everything that follows should be far easier, unlike China's path. So, are those eight launches credible? And what has NASA said about this? So we were definitely not tracking as high as 22 unless... You know, your transfer efficiency and performance wasn't the same. So I would say Elon's answer of six to eight is probably more, again, what SpaceX is planning to. What I will tell you is our propellant transfer demo is really going to be probably the best. method we have to really figure out exactly how many we're going to need, right? So it's going to be a number of different factors in terms of what is your transfer efficiency. Are you losing 5%? Are you losing 10%? And then especially as they start to get the capabilities of that V3 vehicle up, it will really make a big difference. But by all accounts, you know, SpaceX's latest estimate is that 6 to 8 from Elon. I mean, just to layer on to that, right, we are... I mean, they're still very early on in development of this program. I mean, right now their target performance from a Flight 14 versus where they ultimately hope to achieve a V-3, you know, two years from now is very different. And, you know, should that be concerning if there were a handful of additional flights from now until when we target to landing on the moon? Of course. You're talking about them aspiring to get up to potentially a weekly launch cadence. I think, I mean, total between Texas, what they're endeavoring to build in Louisiana and here at KSC, you're going to have 14, 15, you know, launch pads that are going to be operational. You saw that from some of the video footage of what their gigabay looks like here in the production capacities at Starship. They're not doing this to work with a handful of hardware here, but to get into a near weekly cadence. So from our perspective, 6 to 8 is kind of the ultimate potential end state for this vehicle. Fantastic. I mean, even, you know, they even get additional efficiencies and performance out of Merlin here, however many years later thereafter. But I suspect we will all be able to follow along going into 27 on potentially like a near weekly, maybe biweekly, and then getting weekly as the progress they're making to get to the ultimate target tonnage to Leo. And that is going to drive a lot of the ultimate number of tanking or depot stops before going to the moon.