---
title: 'SpaceX''s NEW Dragon scheduled to ISS to rescue NASA after Russia Soyuz Trouble...'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=GYC5xeL6OEM'
video_id: 'GYC5xeL6OEM'
date: 2026-08-03
duration_sec: 3599
---

# SpaceX's NEW Dragon scheduled to ISS to rescue NASA after Russia Soyuz Trouble...

> Source: [SpaceX's NEW Dragon scheduled to ISS to rescue NASA after Russia Soyuz Trouble...](https://youtube.com/watch?v=GYC5xeL6OEM)

## Summary

The video discusses the recent damage to Russia's Soyuz launch pad at Baikonur, which has grounded Soyuz crew and cargo flights to the ISS. It explores how NASA has stepped in to help by adjusting SpaceX Dragon missions, and analyzes the broader implications for US-Russia space cooperation, the future of the ISS, and the rise of SpaceX's Dragon as a superior spacecraft. The video also covers SpaceX's Starship progress and Jared Isaacman's 'Project Athena' plan for NASA.

### Key Points

- **Soyuz Launch Pad Damaged** [00:43] — On November 27, 2025, launch site 31 at Baikonur, the only facility for Soyuz launches to the ISS, was seriously damaged. Roscosmos initially projected quick repairs, but progress has been opaque, with experts fearing disruptions could last up to 2 years.
- **NASA Steps In** [01:44] — NASA preemptively moved up two SpaceX cargo Dragon missions (CRS-34 from June to May 2026, CRS-35 from November to August 2026) to compensate for delayed Progress cargo flights and the loss of reboost capability.
- **Crew-12 Includes Russian Cosmonaut** [02:29] — NASA announced Crew-12 for February 2026, including Russian cosmonaut Andrei Fedyaev under the cross-flight agreement. This shows continued cooperation despite the Soyuz issues.
- **Russian Crew Rotation Dependency** [03:14] — With Soyuz grounded, Russian crew rotations depend on US missions. Russia may need to renegotiate the cross-flight agreement to get more Dragon seats per mission.
- **Historical Context: Soyuz Seat Prices** [04:23] — After the shuttle retirement in 2011, NASA depended on Soyuz, and Russia raised seat prices from ~$20M to $50-70M. This history explains the leverage dynamics.
- **Rogozin's Trampoline Tweet** [05:02] — In 2014, Dmitry Rogozin suggested the US use a trampoline to reach the ISS. Elon Musk replied that SpaceX was working on a Dragon spacecraft, and later, in 2020, Crew Dragon launched, ending US dependence.
- **Why NASA Still Helps Russia** [07:30] — Cooperation is strategic: the ISS is interdependent (Russia provides propulsion, US provides power/life support), cross-flight agreements are binding, and pushing Russia away could drive it closer to China.
- **Russia Unlikely to Leave ISS Early** [10:45] — Russia is unlikely to exit the ISS early because it's investing in repairs (130+ workers at Baikonur) and needs ISS experience for its future station (ROSS). Leaving would create a dangerous gap.
- **Soyuz Launch from Vostochny Not Human-Certified** [12:33] — On December 28, Russia launched a Soyuz-2.1b from Vostochny with 52 satellites, but that pad is not certified for crewed missions due to lack of crew access arm, service tower, and launch escape system.
- **SpaceX's Dual Launch Pads** [13:30] — Dragon uses two launch pads (LC39A and SLC40) for flexibility and redundancy, avoiding the single-point failure Roscosmos faces.
- **Soyuz's Troubled History** [14:00] — Soyuz had early disasters: Soyuz 1 (1967) killed Komarov due to parachute failure; Soyuz 11 (1971) killed three cosmonauts due to cabin depressurization. These tragedies contrast with Dragon's safety record.
- **Dragon's Safety and Comfort** [16:14] — Dragon was designed with safety as priority, with a successful Demo-2 in 2020. It has flown nearly 50 missions without compromising crew safety. It's more spacious, has touchscreens, and a real toilet, unlike Soyuz.
- **Continued Seat Swaps Until 2027** [23:52] — Despite tensions, Roscosmos and NASA agreed to continue seat swaps until at least 2027, showing trust in Dragon's safety.
- **Jared Isaacman's Project Athena** [24:21] — Isaacman, now NASA administrator, wrote Project Athena, a plan to restructure NASA, focus on Mars, use nuclear propulsion, and accelerate timelines. It includes Project Olympus for Mars base and a 180-day reorganization.
- **Starship's Mars Base Potential** [30:55] — Starship's large payload volume (larger than ISS) could deliver modular habitats, and lava tubes on Mars offer natural shelter. Alternatively, Starship itself could become the first habitat.
- **Starship Progress in 2025** [36:08] — In 2025, SpaceX flew 5 Starship missions, with 2 successful Super Heavy catches, but Starship itself hasn't been caught or reused due to stability issues. Flight 12 will test V3, and catch may happen on Flight 13.
- **Challenges of Mechazilla Catches** [42:16] — Tower catches rely on complex ground infrastructure and risk catastrophic pad damage if misaligned. Sea landings cause corrosion, as seen with booster 11. SpaceX needs backup options.
- **Expendable Landings as Fallback** [47:21] — SpaceX may use expendable landings (no reuse) as a fallback for special cases, though it contradicts reusability philosophy.
- **Booster 19 Built in 28 Days** [48:30] — SpaceX completed stacking of V3 Super Heavy booster 19 in just 28 days, a record, compared to 175 days for booster 18. This shows improved production speed.
- **COPV Upgrades on Booster 19** [49:15] — Booster 19 features red protective covers on COPVs to prevent damage during installation, addressing past failures. SpaceX also built a dedicated COPV test area.
- **Raptor 3 Engines and Thrust Increase** [51:18] — Flight 12 will use 33 Raptor 3 engines producing ~9,200 tons of thrust, up from ~7,600 tons with Raptor 2. This reduces gravity losses by 20-30% and increases payload capacity.
- **Structural Upgrades for Pogo Oscillation** [53:29] — Superheavy V3 has more internal stringers (96 vs 76) to reduce resonant vibrations, and a larger fuel transfer tube (downcomer) to improve propellant flow and reduce oscillations.
- **Launch Cadence as Key to Moon Base** [56:02] — Building a moon base requires hundreds of tons of hardware, needing dozens of launches. Rapid reusability and high cadence are critical; V3 aims to reduce turnaround to weeks/days.
- **Orbital Refueling Test** [58:15] — The next major milestone is orbital propellant transfer, critical for Artemis and Mars missions. This will be the first large-scale cryogenic transfer in orbit.

### Conclusion

The video concludes that while Russia's Soyuz troubles have temporarily increased its dependence on SpaceX Dragon, the ISS remains interdependent, and cooperation is strategic. Meanwhile, SpaceX's Starship program, with its focus on rapid reusability and high launch cadence, is poised to revolutionize space access and enable ambitious goals like a moon base and Mars exploration.

## Transcript

to use a trampoline to reach the ISS. But today, with Soyos grounded after serious damage at the Bikonor launchpad, Russia has quietly found itself needing NASA's help. What's even more surprising, NASA didn't retaliate.
Instead, it stepped in, ramping up cargo Dragon missions to keep supplies flowing and the Russian segment of the ISS running. So, why choose cooperation over payback? And could Russia use this crisis as a chance to leave the ISS
earlier than planned? Let's find out in today's episode of AlphaTech. Nearly a month has passed since November 27th, 2025, the day Roscosmos suffered a major
setback. Launch site 31 at the Biconor Cosmo Drrome, the only facility capable of sending the Soyu spacecraft to the ISS was seriously damaged. In the immediate aftermath, Roscosmos projected confidence. Officials insisted repairs
would move quickly, saying replacement components were already on hand. Deputy Director Dmitri Baronov claimed the full repair kit had arrived. That work would begin on December 1st, 2025, and that the pad could be operational again as
early as late February, 2026. But as weeks have gone by, progress has become increasingly opaque. There have been no meaningful updates, no public indications that repairs are advancing as planned. Many experts and media
outlets now believe the disruption could last far longer, potentially extending to 2 years, and that changes everything. For up to 2 years, Russia may be unable to launch Soyu's crew vehicles or Progress cargo ships to the ISS at all.
side of the station would be forced to rely almost entirely on NASA. Of course, Russia never formally asked NASA for help. Instead, NASA moved preemptively to hedge against delays in Russia's progress cargo flights. NASA pulled
forward two upcoming SpaceX cargo Dragon missions. CRS34 was moved from June to missions. CRS34 was moved from June to May 2026 and CRS35 from November to August 2026. These flights are meant to compensate for delayed cargo deliveries
and the loss of progress vehicles that normally help reboost the ISS's orbit. More recently, NASA also announced the crew lineup for SpaceX's Crew 12 mission under the commercial crew program, a crew rotation that operates
independently of Soyos. The mission is scheduled to launch in February 2026 and notably includes Russian cosminaut Andre Fedy, who previously flew on Crew 6 in His seat is part of the ongoing
crossflight agreement between NASA and Ross Cosmos. SpaceX confirmed the mission on X, saying, "We're excited to train NASA's crew 12 and looking forward to Falcon 9 launching the crew aboard Dragon to the space station in February
Under the current cross-flight arrangement, Russia is allocated just one ride share seat aboard crew dragon permission. But with launch site 316 at Bikonor severely damaged, Roscosmos cannot conduct independent Soyuse
flights in the near term. That creates a situation where Russian crew rotations are indirectly dependent on US missions. If the delays continue, Russia may be forced to renegotiate the agreement, potentially expanding the number of
Dragon seats per mission instead of limiting it to one simply to maintain uninterrupted cosmonaut rotations aboard the ISS. There is also the question of crew return. So traditionally lands in Kazakhstan, territory controlled by
Russia, while crew dragon splashes down off the coast of Florida or in the Pacific. That means Russian cosminauts flying on Dragon would return to the US first, then travel back to Russia by conventional means, not land directly on
Russian controlled soil. One possible outcome is that Russia could seek to purchase a dedicated Crew Dragon flight to carry an entire Russian crew, setting aside years of political tension. The real unknown is whether SpaceX would
agree. And if it does, whether ticket prices might suddenly rise three or four times higher, just as Roscosmos once did when NASA had no other choice. And here's the irony. It's hard not to remember how differently Rosscosmos once
treated NASA. After the US space shuttle was retired in 2011, NASA became fully dependent on Russia's Soyos to send astronauts to the ISS. That dependency
gave Roscosmos enormous leverage. Seat prices on Soyos jumped from around $20 million per astronaut to roughly 50 to 70 million per seat and Russia made a fortune from it. Then came 2014 as
escalated following the annexation of Crimea. Washington imposed sanctions on several Russian officials, including Dmitri Roggozen, who at the time was deputy prime minister and the man
overseeing Russia's space industry. Angered by the sanctions, Roggozen fired off a tweet that would go down in spaceflight history. He suggested that instead of relying on Russia, the United States should send its astronauts to the
ISS using a trampoline. The remark went viral instantly. The world laughed, partly because it was outrageous and partly because it sounded so confident, even arrogant. Elon Musk, who was quietly developing Crew Dragon with NASA
at the time, responded with a calm but pointed reply. Sounds like this might be a good time to unveil the new Dragon. EMC2 spacecraft SpaceX has been working on with NASA. No trampoline needed. Back then, it sounded like nothing more than
a witty comeback. But just 6 years later, in late May 2020, SpaceX successfully launched Crew Dragon with two NASA astronauts to the ISS from US soil. It marked the end of 9 years of American dependence on Russia. After the
historic press conference, Elon Musk smiled and said, "The trampoline is working." It almost felt like the space cold war was finally over, but it wasn't. Space cooperation between the US and Russia soon drifted even further
apart. In 2022, following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Moscow was hit with sweeping sanctions from the United States and the West. In response, Dmitri Rogozan announced that Russia would stop selling its RD 180 and RD 181 rocket
engines to the US. He even went on Russian state television and declared, "Under these conditions, we cannot supply the United States with the world's best rocket engines anymore. Let them fly on something else. On
broomsticks, for all I care. What Rogoen either ignored or failed to realize was that by then SpaceX didn't rely on Russian engines at all. Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon were already flying on fully Americanbuilt hardware. Elon Musk wasted
no time. He reposted a Falcon 9 launch video and captioned it simply, "American broomstick." Rogos in meed as an insult aimed at the US space program. SpaceX turned it into a patriotic flex. And now look at where things stand. What began
as jokes about trampolines and broomsticks didn't just end NASA's reliance on Soyos. Today, SpaceX's Dragon has become so capable that even Roscosmos finds itself depending on it to keep crew access to the ISS alive.
History has a strange sense of humor, but this raises a puzzling question. Given their troubled history, why is NASA still willing to help Russia so NASA still willing to help Russia so actively? From 2019 to 2025,
cooperation on ISS operations never fully stopped. Crossflights continued, seats were exchanged between Dragon and Syos, and day-to-day coordination carried on. However, high-level in-person leadership meetings were
completely frozen, largely due to geopolitical tensions stemming from geopolitical tensions stemming from Crimea in 2014 and then escalating Crimea in 2014 and then escalating sharply after 2022. That changed on July
sharply after 2022. That changed on July 31st, 2025 when Rosscosmos head Dmitri Bachenov met face-toface with NASA acting administrator Shaun Duffy at Kennedy Space Center. It was the first direct top level meeting in nearly 7
extending the cross-flight agreement, continuing ISS operations through 2030 and potential areas of future cooperation. The reason cooperation continues is not because NASA is being
generous or forgiving. It's because cooperation is unavoidable and strategic. First, the ISS is a deeply interdependent system. The 150 billion station was deliberately designed so that no single partner can operate it
alone. Russia plays a critical role in propulsion, reboosting the station's orbit, avoiding space debris, and helping control attitude. Without sustained Russian support, the ISS risks orbital decay or loss of control. At the
same time, the US and its partners provide the majority of the station's power and life support systems. If the ISS is to survive until 2030, as currently planned, cooperation is mandatory. Helping Russia in this
context is not altruism. It's self-preservation. That's why NASA compensate when Russia couldn't launch Progress resupply vehicles. A food or propellant shortfall on the Russian segment wouldn't just be Russia's
problem. It would threaten the entire station. Second, this cooperation is already built into the cross-flight agreements. If one partner encounters a failure, such as damage to a Soyuse launchpad, the other steps in to prevent
disruption. This redundancy has proven essential before. It helped keep the ISS alive after the Colombia disaster in 2003. So even if SpaceX or Elon Musk personally had no desire to fly Russian cosmonauts, they couldn't simply opt
out. These arrangements are binding, institutional, and designed to protect the station above all else. Third, the ISS is the world's largest symbol of international cooperation in space. It has produced thousands of scientific and
technological experiments that benefit not just the US and Russia, but humanity as a whole. Allowing political grudges to derail its operation would undermine for. And there's another strategic
reality. Pushing Russia entirely away risks driving it closer to China. In the long run, that could reshape the global balance of power in space, and the United States would be hardressed to carry that competition alone. So, after
all of this, Russia clearly cannot rely on the United States forever. The question is, could Moscow use this moment as an opportunity to withdraw from the ISS earlier than planned? The short answer is no. Russia is very
unlikely to leave the ISS earlier than planned. As we just discussed, the ISS is a deeply interdependent system. Without Russia, the US would need to deploy additional astronauts and retrain crews to take over operations that are
still handled by the Russian segment. That alone makes an early breakup highly impractical. More importantly, Russia is still clearly trying to fix the Soyuse launch pad. While Russosmos has stayed quiet about repair progress, reports
indicate that more than 130 workers have been assigned to roundthe-clock shifts at Bikonor. If Russia truly intended to abandon the ISS, it wouldn't be pouring manpower into repairs. It would be building new infrastructure dedicated
solely to its future station instead. And that future station, the Russian Orbital Service Station, or Ross, is another key reason an early exit makes another key reason an early exit makes little sense. Announced back in 2022,
Ross is expected to launch its first module no earlier than 2027 or 2028 with full completion pushed into the early 2030s. Even then, the project remains largely on paper, slowed by budget constraints and unresolved technical
challenges. Leaving the ISS too soon would create a dangerous gap. Russia would lose years of operational experience in long duration the space flight. experience that could otherwise be used to train new cosminauts ahead of
Ross. That would significantly weaken Russia's position in orbit, especially at a time when China is already operating the fully functional Tangong space station. It's kind of ironic when you think about it. The launchpad's
ready, the Soyuse spacecraft's ready, the rockets ready, and yet Russ's cosmos. All they can do is watch and depend on SpaceX Dragon. On December depend on SpaceX Dragon. On December 28th, Russia launched a Soyuse 2.1b
rocket from Vastto Cosmo. This time, instead of astronauts, it carried a record-breaking 52 satellites on board, including three built by Iran. So, why not use this pad when launchpad 31 is out of commission. Turns out, it's not
ready for humans. No proper crew access arm, no special service tower, no launch escape system, and most importantly, it's not certified for crude missions. This is the bottleneck Rascoosmos desperately needs to fix if they don't
want to keep depending on NASA, the very organization that once relied on them to send astronauts to the ISS at huge cost. And here's what they could learn from And here's what they could learn from SpaceX. Dragon has two launchpads, LC39A
and SLC40, designed to increase flexibility, avoid scheduling conflicts, and even allow two emergency flights to launch at the same time. Most importantly, it keeps them from ending up in the same mess
Roscosmos is facing right now. But even with these fixes, is simply upgrading really enough for the long-term space race? Maybe Nokia offers the clearest warning for Ross Cosmos. Once the king of mobile phones, now all that's left is
the name. Similarly, Soyos with its nearly 60-year-old technology will eventually be phased out, too. To really understand, let's go back to the early days, a period few like to remember. In 1962, Soyuse was designed by Soviet
rocket engineer Sergey Corv. His goal was bold, to turn this spacecraft into a vehicle capable of taking humans to the moon. But that dream quickly turned into a nightmare. In 1967, the first crude Soyuse mission, Soyuse 1, took off.
Veteran cosminaut Vladimir Kumarov was chosen to fly with plans to dock with Soyos 2 carrying three others. But the spacecraft was riddled with technical problems. Over 200 issues were reported from solar panels failing to deploy to
guidance system malfunctions. Kamarov knew the risks. Even Yuri Gagarin, his backup, tried to volunteer to fly in his place to save him, but Soviet leadership insisted on launching to commemorate Lenin. The result was heartbreaking.
After a series of inorbit failures, during re-entry, the parachute failed to deploy properly. The spacecraft slammed into the ground at terrifying speed and caught fire. Kamarov became the first human to die during a space flight, a
shock that stunned the world. After Soyuse 1, the spacecraft was improved and became more reliable. Soyuse 11 successfully docked with Salute 1, the first space station in history. Cosminauts Georgie Dovolski, Vladislav
Cosminauts Georgie Dovolski, Vladislav Volkov, and Victor Fatay spent 23 days aboard, setting a record. But tragedy struck again during re-entry. A pressure valve opened prematurely due to vibrations from exploding Pyro bolts,
causing the cabin to depressurize at 168 km altitude. The three cosminauts, not wearing pressure suits, suffocated within seconds. They remain the only humans to die in space outside Earth's atmosphere. The capsule landed safely,
but rescue crews found only three lifeless bodies. Of course, recalling these tragedies isn't meant to dwell on pain or assign blame. It's to reflect on how history has shaped change and how lessons learned long ago still echo
today. Unlike Soyos, SpaceX's Dragon was built with astronaut safety as the top priority. To see this clearly, let's look at its first crude flight, Demo 2. look at its first crude flight, Demo 2. On May 30th, 2020, two veteran NASA
astronauts, Doug Hurley and Bob Benin, launched on Demo 2. The weather was rough. Thunderstorms and heavy rain made conditions only 50% favorable. Yet, the mission went ahead and the result, a smooth flight. After 22 hours, both
astronauts reached the ISS to cheers from their fellow crew members. The return trip had a small hiccup. Parachutes deployed slightly lower than expected, but because Dragon uses a splashdown landing, it remained within
safe limits. Both astronauts were unharmed. Since then, Dragon has flown unharmed. Since then, Dragon has flown nearly 50 missions to the ISS, and not a single flight has compromised crew safety or cargo. In terms of safety and
reliability, Dragon has clearly surpassed Soyos. The favorable start of Dragon couldn't be more different from Soyos's rocky beginnings. Soyuse took just 5 years from development to its first crude flight pushed by enormous
political pressure during the Cold War with the US. They were fully funded, but the high stakes came with high risk which led to several disasters. SpaceX's Dragon, on the other hand, officially began development in 2014 and flew its
first astronauts on demo two six years later. They developed the spacecraft in peace time with NASA support. Their main pressure was simply to break so use's monopoly, not to compete in a cold war. The result, a vehicle that took just a
little longer to develop, but is far safer. And safety isn't the only advantage. Dragon is bigger, more modern, and far more advanced than a spacecraft designed over half a century ago. The first time Elon Musk talked
about a seven seat Crew Dragon was back in May 2014 at a SpaceX event in Hawthorne, California. Unlike Soyos, which has three separate modules, Crew Dragon keeps it simple with just two, the crew capsule and the trunk. The crew
capsule is actually inspired by the Apollo command module that once took astronauts to the moon, the trunk. It's got solar panels, a heat radiator system, cargo space, and fins for stability in case of an emergency
aboard. Altogether, Crew Dragon stands about 8.1 m tall with a 4 m diameter, slightly bigger than Soyos, which means more room for the crew. Soyos seats three. Crew Dragon was designed for seven, though NASA only uses four for
the commercial crew program. They had to cut down from seven because of GeForce concerns during splashdown, but even with four, it's still way roomier than Soyos. European Space Agency astronaut Andre Kypers once said Soyos is cramped
and tiny. On the flip side, Russian cosminaut Anna Kikina flying on Dragon during Crew 5 said it's much more comfortable than Soyos. She also loved the touchscreen interface, which is sleek, easy to use, and right in front
of the astronauts. Also in that Crew 5 interview, besides Anna Kakina, there was another female astronaut, Nicole Anapu Man, the first Native American woman in space. She shared a really cool detail from the mission. At the end,
when the Crew 5 team handed over to crew 6, she gave up her sleeping spot for the new crew and got to sleep alone in Dragon for about a week. She said comfortable, really special, very unique
with a bungee cord and in the morning could pull the window shades, sip coffee, and watch Earth's sunrise and coffee, and watch Earth's sunrise and sunset. Very, very unique. Overall, she
called the whole flight one heck of a ride and gave heartfelt thanks to SpaceX. Now, tell me this, has Soyos ever received that kind of praise? Absolutely not. And comfort is just the beginning. Dragon is a completely
different beast under the hood. Docking, orbit adjustments, system checks, mostly automatic. Astronauts just monitor on the touchcreen and can step in if needed. Manual mode exists, but it's rarely used. Compare that to Soyos.
Hundreds of buttons, switches, levers, and tiny displays. Everything's manual. Docking especially relies on periscopes and physical controls, making training way longer and way more intense. And yes, Soyuse has had its share of scares.
yes, Soyuse has had its share of scares. Back in 2003, Soyuse TMA1 carrying NASA astronauts Ken Bowers and Don Pettit plus Russian cosminaut Nikolai Bdderin unexpectedly went into ballistic re-entry mode. The capsule landed 440 km
off target. The biggest deviation in Soyu's history. At first, Russian button, but the astronauts denied it. it was a software error in the guidance
system, not human error. And it's not just comfort or control tech. Crew Dragon even leaves Soyos in the dust in a topic no one really talks about the toilet. On Soyos, the spacecraft is tiny and during launch and landing,
astronauts are strapped in their seats for hours. That means they have to wear adult diapers or maximum absorbency garments the entire time. It's been standard procedure since the Soviet era. Astronauts get used to it, sure, but
nobody enjoys it, especially during a rough, bouncing landing, then having to stay put for hours waiting for the recovery team. Crew Dragon, on the other hand, total gamecher. It has a real toilet with a vacuum system, a privacy
curtain, and it's located near the capsule's ceiling close to the cupula. Some civilian missions like Inspiration 4 even called it the best view toilet in space with 360° views of Earth and the stars. Of course, Dragon has had a few
hiccups. Crew 2 in 2021 had a leaking urine line, so the crew had to use diapers on the way back, and more recently, Crew 10 in 2025 had fan and burst disc issues. But SpaceX fixes these fast redesigned pipes, better
corrosion resistant materials, and later missions have been smooth. The result, astronauts on Dragon never have to wear diapers, and can use the bathroom normally, privately, and comfortably on the 19 to 36-hour trips to the ISS. In
general, with any plane or spacecraft, you always make improvements because it makes sense, it's easier, and it actually helps the crew. Ideally, a much that they barely have to do anything. The ship runs almost entirely
on autopilot. On top of that, it should be comfortable. That's what really matters in today's space tech race. It's not about clinging to old outdated technology, no matter how reliable it seems. At the end of the day, Russia
can't deny it. Its spacecraft is outdated. While Crew Dragon feels like a true 21st century vehicle. So much so that Dimmitri Rogoen, the famously blunt former head of Rosscosmos, actually said back in 2022 that Crew Dragon is
reliable and safe enough to carry Russian cosminauts, even though he had spent years criticizing SpaceX on Twitter. And the Sting, one of their own astronauts, Anna Kika, had to praise the competitor. She's not alone. Other
cosminauts like Andre Fedy, Constantine Borisovv, and Alexander Gorbunov all described Dragon as modern, highly automated, and spacious. They didn't directly compare it to Soyuse, but their positive tone was clear. Fast forward to
today. Despite rising geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine, Roscosmos and NASA have agreed to continue seat swaps at least until 2027. Russian cosmonauts fly on Dragon and American astronauts still ride Soyos. If
Dragon wasn't safe and comfortable, Russia would have canled this a long time ago. Continuing the program shows they trust Dragon enough to put their people on. Jared Isaacman, a young and highly successful entrepreneur with a
deep passion for space, has flown aboard SpaceX's Dragon capsule twice. first on SpaceX's Dragon capsule twice. first on Inspiration 4 in 2021 and then again on Inspiration 4 in 2021 and then again on Polaris Dawn in 2024. After spending two
missions in orbit, watching Earth drift by against the backdrop of deep space, he came away convinced of just how beautiful and almost surreal space really is. And that experience pushed him toward a much bigger dream, a bold,
almost crazy vision, not unlike Elon Musk's. not just reaching Mars, but building a permanent outpost there, a self- sustaining ecosystem for humans on another world. From late 2024 into early 2025, Isaac man personally researched
and wrote a document known as Project Athena. Originally over 100 pages, later refined to 62, it laid out a strategic plan to restructure NASA, put Mars exploration front and center, embrace nuclear propulsion, and accelerate
mission timelines. The plan included bold moves like Project Olympus designed to prepare for a long-term Mars presence with early uncrrewed Starship missions and an accelerate fix jars delete philosophy to cut through bureaucracy,
reorganize NASA centers and partner more with private companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab. The ultimate goal to move faster, cut costs, and make NASA operate more like a business, all while keeping Mars in sight. Now, with
Jared Isaacman officially confirmed as NASA administrator, the question becomes clearer. How would the Athena plan actually work? First, Project Athena overhaul designed to strip away bureaucracy and refocus NASA's resources
on the Mars mission. The argument is that NASA has become fragmented across hundreds of programs with large portions of its budget tied up in efforts that no longer align with future exploration goals. Athena calls for a full
agencywide reorganization within 180 days. That includes flattening management layers, eliminating redundant deputy and assistant roles, and pushing a mission first culture built around urgency and personal accountability. One
concrete example is directive two, organizational updates, which requires major centers like Johnson and Kennedy to submit consolidation proposals within 30 days. The goal is simple. Increase the number of doers, the people actually
building and flying hardware rather than administrators. This directly supports Mars by freeing up budget from non-essential programs, including a planned shift of resources away from SLS once Artemis 2 and the third are
completed and redirecting that funding toward more advanced initiatives. Take SpaceX's Starship for example, the largest and most capable launch vehicle ever built. Just imagine this. NASA currently spends $3 to5 billion every
year on SLS and Orion. Now picture that entire budget being redirected to Starship instead. The scale of progress that could unlock would be absolutely staggering. Second, the heart of Athena lies in Directive 5. Invest in the
future where NASA formally launches its Mars program, Project Olympus, a standalone initiative dedicated entirely to the red planet. Within 30 days, teams would be stood up to prepare the first uncrrewed mission targeting the 2026
launch window with SpaceX's Starship at the center of the plan. The goal isn't a simple flyby. It's a surface landing, delivering the first pieces of infrastructure to Mars, a so-called discovery base designed to validate the
technologies needed for future human missions. That includes major investment in insitu resource utilization, extracting local resources to produce fuel, oxygen, and water, dramatically reducing both risk and cost for sending
humans to Mars and bringing them home. To turn Project Olympus into reality, Athena places nuclear electric propulsion at the core of its technology stack, a greatly expanded nuclear electric program meant to overcome the
limits of traditional chemical propulsion. Inside the nuclear program plan, Isaac man lays out the road map in three clear phases. Phase one from 2025 three clear phases. Phase one from 2025 to 2028 is about proving a single point
that America can operate in space using nuclear power that includes an uncrrewed demo spacecraft powered by the Valkyrie reactor from Idaho National Labs, potentially capable of a Mars flyby. Phase 2, starting as early as 2026,
scales things up to megawatt class systems with Dow lighter, more durable reactors designed to support crude missions. This phase also covers crude docking tests and laser experiments with potential national defense applications.
Phase three is the endgame. Building a full NEP fleet that can take astronauts to Mars, keep them there long term, and bring them home safely without relying on magic tricks like making large amounts of cryogenic fuel on another
planet. Even though NEP is an area led primarily by NASA, the plan is tightly integrated with and strongly complent SpaceX and Starship. The document
explicitly describes NEP as a perfect match for Starship. While Starship excels at heavy lift, reusable landing, and initial transport, NEP provides efficient propulsion for long duration travel, reducing reliance on chemical
engines and improving orbital maneuverability. Together, they form an ideal combo. NASA's advanced nuclear technology paired with SpaceX's large-scale fully reusable transport system, allowing the US to accelerate
its push to Mars on a far more costeffective timeline. And with the close relationship between Isaac man and Musk, Athena is clearly designed to have NASA work with SpaceX, not compete against it. Fully leveraging Starship
rather than building a parallel system, turning the dream of a Mars settlement into something achievable sooner than ever before. But of course, everything we've talked about so far is still just part of a draft. To really understand
where this is headed, we'll have to wait for Jared Isaacman's final stance on Project Athena. And that leads to one key question. How could SpaceX actually build the first human base on Mars? The answer, quite simply, is Starship.
Starship has a 9 m diameter and stands over 120 m tall, eventually reaching 140 over 120 m tall, eventually reaching 140 to 150 m in the V4 configuration. The spacecraft itself, the part that would travel to Mars, is already more than 50
m tall and will grow to around 60 m in V4. At this scale, Starship offers a payload volume larger than the entire International Space Station. Today, it can lift over 100 tons to orbit, and that number could exceed 200 tons once
V4 comes online. Even sending just a fraction of that mass to Mars would enable the construction of serious surface infrastructure. Early on, Starships would launch carrying massive amounts of materials, modular
structures, heavy machinery, and construction equipment delivered directly to the Martian surface. Astronauts would then assemble these modules using the tools brought with them, potentially supported by insitu
resource utilization, producing building materials from local resources. This construction on Earth and could result in hardened shelters, insulated domes, or even underground habitats. But Mars is brutally hostile. Dust storms that
can engulf the entire planet for months. A thin atmosphere offering almost no protection. extreme temperature swings from 140° at night to occasional highs near 20s and intense cosmic radiation. All these forces heavily dictate habitat
design. Many engineers and scientists now see Martian lava tubes as the ultimate gamecher for early human settlements. These are massive underground tunnels formed billions of years ago when volcanic lava flowed
beneath a hardened crust, then drained away, leaving empty caverns behind. Thanks to Mars' lower gravity, only about onethird of Earth's, these tubes can be monstrous in scale. Some are estimated to be hundreds of meters wide
and kilometers long, big enough to fit entire cities inside. To take advantage of these natural shelters, SpaceX plans to launch hundreds of Starships every 2 years using optimal Earth to Mars transfer windows. Each ship would fly 5
to 6 months, landing vertically near surveyed lava tube sites using Raptor engines. Once on the surface, Starship could unload inflatable habitats, ISRU oxygen generators, hydroponic green houses, and small nuclear reactors using
integrated elevators, similar to NASA's inverted Starship concept. Autonomous rovers would then transport everything to the skylights, natural openings into the lava tubes. cranes, mobile elevators, or temporary ramps would move
the cargo deep inside. Assembling airtight living spaces with LED lighting, air filtration, and indoor farms to support long-term human survival. The challenge: Some lava tubes are tens or even hundreds of meters
underground, requiring complex spiral staircases, elevators, or rail systems to move between levels. This makes daily travel inconvenient, increases risks if systems fail, and could slow emergency evacuations or colony expansion. Though
the protection they offer far outweighs surface structures vulnerable to micrometeorites or static discharges from dust storms. In short, lava tubes and modular habitats are impressive, but they're complex and risky. That's why
SpaceX is also considering a simpler, more elegant approach. Instead of sending multiple modules and assembling them on Mars, Starship itself could become humanity's first home on the red planet. Starship's crew compartment
already offers an interior volume larger than the entire International Space Station, more than enough to support longduration research and daily life for a crew. A purpose-built Starship would leave Earth, land vertically on Mars,
and then be laid on its side, instantly becoming the core structure of the base. Once on the surface, the crew would only need to modify the interior, removing or reconfiguring fuel tanks, rearranging systems, and adding structural
reinforcements to expand the living space. Life support systems, laboratories, medical areas, and crew quarters could all be pre-integrated on Earth, minimizing the amount of construction required on Mars itself.
The thick stainless steel hole would act as a durable outer shell, while the onboard methane oxygen system could support INC2 fuel production, ensuring reliable resupply cycles. Additional radiation shielding such as regalith
cover or protective materials could be added after the vehicle is safely in place. Compared to building a base inside lava tubes, this approach is much faster. A single optimized Starship could deliver a near complete habitat
with just one or two follow-up flights to bring equipment and supplies. Starship becomes both transport and home, spacious, sturdy, and expandable. Its design is already suited for Mars conditions, making it the ideal
candidate for humanity's first home off Earth. So, which method do you think is more feasible? Drop your thoughts in the comments below. Here we are on the final comments below. Here we are on the final day of 2025, a remarkable year in which
SpaceX hit an impressive number of milestones in the Starship program. Despite flying only five missions in total, they successfully deployed dummy Starlink payloads twice and achieved two successful superheavy landings caught by
Mechazilla. In fact, SpaceX could have completed several more booster catches, but because they reused boosters twice, they opted for ocean splashdowns instead, prioritizing the safety of the launch tower. Overall, most of the
progress this year has centered on Super Heavy. But what about Starship itself? It has yet to be caught by the tower's chopsticks, and it has never been reused even once. So, why is that? The answer is pretty simple. Starship still isn't
stable enough. From flight 7 through flight 9, SpaceX went through three consecutive ship failures with the vehicle breaking apart mid-flight. Only the last two missions managed to get Starship through the spaceflight phase
successfully. But even then, both vehicles returned in a weakened state due to heat shield issues. Because of that, SpaceX wasn't willing to take the risk of attempting a catch, not even once. That's why 2026 is so important.
With Starship moving to version three, featuring stronger, more robust design changes, this goal is almost certainly within reach. But will SpaceX attempt to land both Super Heavy and Starship in the upcoming flight 12? Definitely not.
Elon Musk himself hinted back in October that Starship catch is probably flight 13 to 15, depending on how well V3 flights go. And if that holds true, it's actually very good news. Flight 12 is essentially a test flight for new
hardware and software, meaning SpaceX won't fully know where the weak points are until that mission flies. Logically speaking, Starship hasn't even reached orbit yet. So, SpaceX is likely to push its limits on flight 12, but not attempt
a tower catch. If Starship can survive re-entry and perform a clean ocean splashdown on that flight, then flight 13 could be truly historic, catching both Superheavy and Starship with Mechazilla at pad 2. Flight 13 is
currently expected around late March or early April, assuming booster 20 and ship 40 are completed on time. And given that booster 19 was finished in just 28 days, that timeline looks very achievable. If that holds true, this is
how flight 13 could play out. After liftoff from pad B, boo booster 20, the second block three super heavy powered by 33 Raptor 3 engines with higher thrust and an optimized structure would push the entire stack skyward with
push the entire stack skyward with nearly 9,300 tons of thrust. Stage separation via hot staging would occur around T plus0 hours, 2 minutes and 39 seconds as Superheavy shuts down and ship 40 ignites its nine Raptor engines,
six sea level and three vacuum to continue ascent. Immediately after separation, booster B20 would execute its boost back burn, turning back toward the launch site. About 6 to 7 minutes after liftoff, it would begin its
landing burn using a new profile, igniting roughly 13 center engines. then throttling down to just three for precision, guiding itself straight toward Mechazilla at pad B. If everything goes smoothly, the chopsticks
would catch the booster cleanly, hold it on the tower for a few hours to cool down, then lower it, and transport it back to Mega Bay for rapid refurbishment. Meanwhile, ship 40 would continue on to full orbit. It would
deploy a test payload potentially up to around 30 dummy Starlinks or equivalent test mass thanks to the extra performance of Raptor 3, perform multiple inspace engine relights to demonstrate orbital maneuvers, and then
begin re-entry on a return to launch site trajectory. around t + 1 hour 6 minutes to t + 1 hour 8 minutes. The ship would execute its flip maneuver, perform a powerful landing burn, slow its descent to just a few meters/s and
make history as the first SpaceX vehicle ever caught by Mechazilla rather than splashing down in the Indian Ocean like before. If successful, Flight 13 would be a truly historic milestone, marking the biggest leap yet towards Starship's
original goal, becoming the world's first fully reusable orbital rocket system. That means full reusability of both the Superheavy booster and the like this wouldn't just be big for SpaceX, it would send shock waves across
the entire aerospace industry. We've seen this story before. Back when rockets were strictly expendable, SpaceX introduced Falcon 9, a partially reusable launcher. Almost overnight, the entire industry scrambled to follow
suit, trying to replicate Elon Musk's approach. Projects like Rocket Labs Neutron, Blue Origin's New Shepard, and New Glenn all grew out of that shift. And to be fair, it worked. Launch costs dropped dramatically from hundreds of
millions of dollars to around $67 million per flight. But after flight 13, history could repeat itself, only this time in a much bolder way. Fully reusable Starship could drive launch costs down below 10 million per mission
while boosting payload capacity to as much as 150 tons to low Earth orbit powered by the sheer force of Raptor engines. And by eliminating heavy landing legs altogether, Starship saves multiple tons of mass compared to drone
ship landings used by Falcon 9 and planned for New Glenn, which require 3 to 7 days just to transport a booster back to shore for inspection and refurbishment. Catching the vehicle directly at the launch site changes
everything. It enables rapid turnaround at a completely different scale, and that speed is essential. Without it, missions like building a moon base or a Mars base simply don't work. Using Starship, those goals could
realistically be achieved in just a couple of years. Try doing the same thing with New Glenn and you're looking at decades. What do you think? If you let's hope Starship gets caught sooner
rather than later. However, despite landing with Mechazilla representing the pinnacle of reusable launch technology, it comes with some serious drawbacks. The biggest issue is its total reliance on complex ground infrastructure along
with the high risks associated with having no truly safe alternative landing environment. Specifically, if Superheavy or Starship is forced to splash down at sea due to technical issues or bad weather, the risk of a rapid unscheduled
disassembly increases dramatically. And even if the vehicle survives, seawater can quickly seep through small gaps, causing severe corrosion to electronics and the stainless steel structure, which can only tolerate saltwater exposure for
a very limited time. We've seen this before. Booster 11 from flight 4 in 2024 was recovered by the ship Host Rididge wind after splashing down in the Gulf of America. But within just a few days, it had effectively turned into a pile of
rusted scrap with corrosion layers reaching roughly 0.5 to 1 mm thick. A similar fate hit booster 13 from flight 6 in 2024, where multiple Raptor engine
components suffered permanent damage due to salt contamination. Moreover, the biggest risk lies with the chopsticks themselves. Any error in guidance or mechanical execution, even a software glitch causing a positional offset of
just one or two meters, could result in a direct impact with the launch tower, potentially inflicting catastrophic damage to the entire pad. We've already seen how destructive padside failures can be. On June 18th, 2025, ship 36
exploded at Massiey's test site after a nitrogen COPV failed during a static fire test. The blast destroyed the flame trench and surrounding infrastructure, delaying flight 10 by at least 2 months and costing an estimated 10 to 20
million to rebuild. Now, to be fair, SpaceX is moving toward a multi-tower launch architecture, meaning that even if one pad is taken offline, there are still up to four others in development. But a single accident can still be
enormously expensive with repair costs easily reaching 50 to$100 million per incident while also delaying critical missions. And when it comes to projects like building a lunar base, every month of delay compounds the problem. That's
why SpaceX still needs flexible backup options, ensuring long-term resilience and sustainability for the Starship program. At this point, many people argue that SpaceX should reconsider a more conventional landing method, one
they've already perfected with Falcon 9, landing on autonomous drone ships at sea. There's no denying how impressive it is to watch a rocket land itself on a middle of the ocean. It showcases incredible guidance and control, and it
helps ease the load on increasingly crowded land-based launch sites. But as we mentioned earlier, drone ship landings aren't ideal when SpaceX is pushing critical high-tempo missions. They're far better suited for satellite
launches. More importantly, drone ship landings require landing legs. Starship did have landing legs in earlier concepts, but they were removed to cut mass and better integrate with the Mechazilla catch system. Bringing
landing legs back would reintroduce familiar challenges, minimizing mass and reducing refurbishment time, similar to the trade-offs SpaceX already faces with Falcon 9. That said, the benefits of landing legs can't be ignored. They are
absolutely essential for missions to other worlds. On the moon or Mars, stable and adaptive landing mechanisms are critical given the rough terrain, loose rocks, and fractured surfaces. Elon Musk himself emphasized this back
in 2023. Responding to a SpaceX tweet showing synchronized Falcon Heavy booster landings, Musk said, "And that's how we'll land on Mars." That statement highlights not only the importance of
landing legs, but also SpaceX's broader long-term vision. Simple as they may seem, landing legs are fundamental to safe landings beyond Earth. For lunar missions, SpaceX has already revealed early landing leg concepts through
Starship HLS prototypes. These include both folding and fixed leg designs, each tailored to the moon's unique environment, low gravity, fine dust, and potentially hazardous slopes. As for Mars missions, details remain tightly
guarded. However, many expect SpaceX to reveal more in the near future, especially as timelines for the first uncrrewed Starship missions to Mars draw closer. Musk has suggested such missions could happen within the next 2 years.
Mars with higher gravity than the moon and far more demanding surface conditions will require even more robust and adaptable landing solutions. But that's the longerterm vision. In the near term, handling the massive launch
cadence SpaceX is aiming for will likely require a mix of different landing strategies, not just one single solution. Beyond tower catches and drone ship landings, SpaceX also has a third option, one that's simpler and easier to
execute, so-called expendable landings. In this scenario, both the Superheavy booster and Starship would not be reused, instead descending into pre-desated zones in the Atlantic Ocean. It's obviously not ideal and it runs
counter to SpaceX's core philosophy of reusability, but it serves as a critical fallback option for special cases or emergency situations. NASA's new chief Jared Isaacman hasn't even been in the role for long, and he's already
energized the entire space community. In a recent post on X, he said, "We are going to build a moon base." That statement strongly hints that NASA may push harder and provide more support for SpaceX's Starship program. And it makes
sense. Starship is currently the only vehicle capable of delivering hundreds of tons of material to the moon, which is exactly what you'd need to build a permanent lunar base. That's also why Elon Musk looked genuinely excited. He
replied with a simple, "Awesome." just one word, but it was enough to give the community renewed confidence in this bold, longheld dream. And that confidence isn't unfounded at all. Just last week, while many of us were
counting down the final hours to Christmas, SpaceX, right on schedule, completed the full stack of a version 3 Superheavy booster preparing for flight, booster 19. And they did it in just 28 days, setting a new record for the
Starship program. To put that into perspective, booster 18 took 175 days to reach the same stage. And despite all that time, it ultimately suffered a serious rupture at Massiey's site. SpaceX has yet to release the full
official investigation results, but the community and several reliable sources strongly suspect the cause was a COPV failure. So, what's the clearest piece of evidence? It's right there in a recent photo SpaceX released of booster
19. Take a close look at the lower section of the booster. You'll notice something new. Two bright red COPVs mounted on the exterior. Let me explain why this matters. The booster 18 incident wasn't the first time COPVs
were involved in a failure. A similar issue also occurred with ship 36 back in June. Recognizing how vulnerable these pressure vessels can be, SpaceX has now added red protective covers around the COPVs. These covers are designed to
protect the tanks from impacts, scratches, or hidden damage during transportation from the factory to the build site and especially during installation when workers are moving, welding, and stacking rings around them.
It's a phase where accidental contact is almost unavoidable. Once installation is complete, those protective covers are removed. So, what happens next? Of course, SpaceX will install aerodynamic fairings over those COPVS.
These fairings are commonly known as Chinese, resembling long fins running along the booster's body. They're located around the LOX tank section, usually arranged as four symmetrical structures around the booster. In
earlier designs, SpaceX mounted each pair of COPVS side by side, which resulted in short, bulky Chinese. That design increased aerodynamic drag during ascent, making the booster less efficient. In later versions, however,
efficient. In later versions, however, SpaceX switched to placing the COPVS in a single line instead of parallel pairs. This allowed the Chinese to become longer and slimmer, significantly improving aerodynamic performance. And
speaking of COPVS, SpaceX has also recently built a dedicated COPV test area behind Massie's site. The facility includes four testing bays designed to verify pressure tolerance and detect hidden damage early, well before these
tanks ever make it onto a flight vehicle. Overall, this is just one of many upgrades we've spotted on Superheavy version 3. And the first major upgrade everyone is eager to see is the booster's full set of 33
incredibly powerful Raptor 3 engines. If you've ever witnessed a Starship launch in person, you immediately understand just how powerful Super Heavy really is. Even standing 2 to 3 miles away, you can feel the sound slamming into your body
like being right in front of a massive subwoofer at a heavy metal concert. There's a sharp high frequency crackle mixed with a deep low-end rumble. And yet, people are cheering, hugging, and celebrating almost as if Starship is
about to land on the moon right in front of them. Of course, that was only the power of 33 seale Raptor 2 engines. Each produces about 230 tons of thrust for a produces about 230 tons of thrust for a total of roughly 7,600 tons, already
about twice the thrust of Saturn FE, the legendary rocket that carried humans to the moon. But what's coming next will be on a completely different level. With Starship Flight 12, the experience will change dramatically. Instead of 7,500
tons of thrust, we're talking about 9,200 tons generated by 33 Raptor 3 engines, each producing around 280 tons of thrust. So, what does this massive increase actually achieve? From a physics standpoint, a rocket suffers two
major losses during liftoff. Gravity losses and aerodynamic drag losses. With higher thrust, the rocket burns propellant faster, meaning a higher mass flow rate and a shorter burn time. As a result, the vehicle accelerates more
quickly and escapes Earth's strongest gravitational pull sooner, reducing gravity losses by as much as 20 to 30%. When the booster separates, the upper stage now starts with greater altitude and velocity, which means it needs less
delta V from its own engines to reach orbit. The final result is simple but powerful. The entire system can deliver more payload to orbit without adding more propellant. And that's exactly the kind of upgrade needed to bring the
dream of building moonbased alpha one step closer to reality. However, higher thrust also brings stronger resonant forces. And superheavy is a 70 m tall stainless steel structure thinwalled by design that makes it susceptible to pogo
oscillation, a phenomenon where pressure fluctuations in the propellant feed lines interact with the rocket's longitudinal vibrations, creating a feedback loop that can damage internal structures. That may be why SpaceX has
added additional internal stringers. In earlier booster generations, the liquid methane tank contains 76 internal stringers, while the newer version features 96. This significantly improves structural stiffness and helps reduce
the effects of resonant vibrations. And that's just one internal change. Externally, we can also see a network of piping running around the aft section of the booster. These are known as the liquid oxygen autogenous pressurization
pipes. Autogenous pressurization uses gas generated by the Raptor engines, which is then routed back into the propellant tanks to maintain flight pressure without the need for separate pressurization tanks. A pretty clever
design, wouldn't you say? So now, what else is there? Ah, right. The fuel transfer tube. This component sits in the middle of the booster, and we booster 18 after its outer shell ruptured. In simple terms, it's the main
downcomer responsible for carrying cryogenic methane from the methane tank at the top of the booster down to the distribution system feeding all 33 Raptor engines at the base. It's a critical piece of engineering designed
to withstand high pressure, extremely low temperatures, and massive flow rates throughout the burn. This downcomer made its first appearance in version 3. So, yes, it absolutely counts as a major upgrade. And quite literally, it's big.
Its diameter is estimated at around 3 m, nearly the same as the entire body of a Falcon 9 with a length comparable to a full Falcon 9 stage. The purpose of this change is highly technical but important, increasing propellant mass
flow rate to support the higher thrust of Raptor 3 while also reducing pressure oscillations in the feed system. That directly helps mitigate pogo oscillation and structural vibrations just like we discussed earlier. Beyond that, a larger
downcomer also enables a faster and more stable boost back flip maneuver after stage separation. It can even store a portion of reserve propellant for the boost back and landing burns, increasing the booster's total propellant load to
roughly 3,650 tons, all without the need for a complex separate header tank. Taken together, this is a key upgrade that allows Superheavy version 3 to deliver higher performance, greater reliability, and
faster reusability. So, why do those benefits matter so much? Every Starship HLS mission, whether carrying astronauts or large cargo to the moon, requires between 8 and 14 tanker launches to refuel in low Earth orbit. And under
Jared Isaacman's updated vision of building a sustainable moon base, we're not talking about a handful of missions. We're talking about hundreds of tons of hardware, habitats, exploration rovers, nuclear power systems, ISRU plants, and
more. That scale demands dozens, potentially hundreds of launches over just a few years. If booster and ship turnaround times remain several months per flight as they are today, launch cadence becomes the limiting factor. The
result, a lunarbased timeline stretched out over decades. This is where Superheavy V3 with its focus on rapid reusability changes everything. Higher reliability and faster turnaround could push launch cadence to dozens of flights
per year from Starbase. Combined with orbital propellant transfer, this enables a continuous tanker flow. In practice, a super heavy booster would land back at Mechazilla, be set down onto the orbital launch mount by the
chopsticks, undergo a short inspection and maintenance cycle, get refueled, and then launch the next Starship over and over again. That kind of operational loop allows lunar starships to be sent at a much faster pace, each delivering
150 to 200 tons of payload to the moon at far lower cost. Over time, that's how you build a truly self-sustaining lunar base. Without upgrades like these, building a moon base becomes far slower and far more expensive because the real
bottleneck isn't payload capacity, it's launch cadence and reusability. That's why to turn this ambition into reality, SpaceX must first prove the stability and reliability of Starship version 3. From there, the next challenge is to
drive launch cadence down from months to weeks and eventually to days with the same booster and ship flying again and again. That's the turning point where Starship becomes a truly reusable system. and the first time SpaceX
successfully catches a Starship upper stage. It will mark one of the most dramatic and exciting moments of the entire program. But that moment also unlocks the next major leap, orbital refueling. This will be the first
large-scale transfer of cryogenic propellant in orbit ever attempted. The idea itself is simple but extraordinary. One Starship launches first and acts as the target vehicle. A second Starship follows weeks later, launching from the
same pad to rendevu and transfer propellant in orbit. This test is absolutely critical to NASA's Aremis road map because it leads directly to the first orbital propellant depot and the human landing system demonstration
mission ahead of Artemis 3. It's still unclear whether that first depot will support multiple missions, but if not, we could see another launch before the end of 2026 as preparations accelerate for the first Mars demonstration flight.
Everything now hinges on the results of these early refueling tests. Because this is the only way to move truly large payloads to the moon, to Mars, and beyond. This technology isn't just key for SpaceX. It's fundamental for anyone
serious about deep space exploration and for the first time, it's how we truly begin to unlock scalable access to space. So, are you excited to see SpaceX make all of this happen? If you are, drop a go SpaceX in the comments below.
drop a go SpaceX in the comments below. Thanks for watching. T minus 10 9 8 7 6 Thanks for watching. T minus 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 engine full power and lift
5 4 3 2 1 engine full power and lift off. Go Falcon and go in 77.