said: Sorry but I don't think you fully understand, how NASA painted themselves into a corner with the Artemis program. They funded SLS and Orion. They didn't fund or properly plan for a Lunar lander. NOT SX's problem. Thus at some point they looked around and said hey we need a lander for Artemis. Keeping the SLS and Orion funding going while it takes another decade to build a lander would of been a real challenge. Expecting BO to build a lander when they still are trying to put anything into orbit is a pipe dream. There was only 1 company building a lander. 1st point. SX is developing a Mars transportation and landing system with Starship. They have their own schedule and plans for this. They didn't seem interested in delaying their Mars lander system. If NASA wants to use the Mars lander for the Moon that is fine, but they it is being built for Mars Specs. NASA's Moon schedule and deadline is their own political driven agenda, but it really isn't something I believe SX is that worried about. If they wanted to build a Lunar lander they would of made a 3rd stage for Starship and a small grasshopper style lander. Of course that would delay their Mars plans for at least a decade. 2nd point. Everyone needs to let go of Apollo, thinking. A small LEM Apollo style lander puts us right back to the problem of "Now What?" we faced in 1972. If you can only place 2 astronauts on the surface in what basically is a small weekend camper. The cold shower reality is, there is only so much you can actually do besides plant a flag, take some selfie's and grab some rocks. Apollo was a dead end as far a tech. It was designed to get to the Moon and back before the end the 1960's. There was no path forward to develop any infrastructure on the moon without upgraded rockets and new landing systems. The SX/Mars system can put 100+ tons on the surface of the Moon. That is a lot of food, water and infrastructure. Land 3 ships and you're looking at over 300 tons. Physics demands orbital refueling to put that much weight on the Moon but if solved, all of a sudden a real Moon base is possible. If we're going to go back let's go to stay this time. NOW, we're looking at taking not a small step but another giant leap. This is a load of crap. I don't think there is a single accurate fact in your entire post. 1st Point SLS and Orion were designed to go to Mars, not the moon, and that is why there was no lander. Donald Trump (the stable genius) wanted to undo everything that Obama started and nixed the Deep Space transport and told NASA to go back to the Moon by 2024. SpaceX secured a contract from NASA to develop the Human Landing System (HLS) based on the Starship Architecture. SpaceX is now bound by a contract to deliver HLS.=, and NASA will hold them to that contract. 2nd Point The 'Go to stay" argument is key.. because the next question is "Stay and do what?" NASA doesn't have the answer to that yet. Is there enough water at the lunar South Pole to make a rocket propellent factory worth while .. we have no idea. Using a small lunar lander for some geological survey missions makes sense here. But more problematic for SpaceX .. water isn't enough. Starship uses Methane and the moon is carbon poor. Only Blue Origin's lander would benefit from mining ice reserves to create liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen propellent. I still chuckle that NASA approved SpaceX HLS funding with this one GLARING AND COMPLETELY UNMITIGATED PROBLEM. Kathy Leuders (the interim NASA administrator now working at SpaceX) was corrupt and should never have awarded SpaceX a contract. Reply