Rocket Lab Doing Something Impossible...Humiliated Blue Origin even SpaceX

[00:01] War paid a visit to their headquarters, Rocket Lab just landed the biggest military contract in the company's history. And honestly, for a relatively small player to be handed something this massive, it almost sounds unreal. The

[00:15] kind of move that shocked even giants like Blue Origin and SpaceX. So, what exactly is this contract and why could it completely reshape Rocket Lab's position in the industry? Let's dive in. From a small startup built almost from

[00:28] scratch in a garage and a tiny workshop in New Zealand, Rocket Lab has grown into one of the leading space companies in the United States. And at the center of that journey is Peter Beck, the founder and CEO. A name that has earned

[00:42] the respect of even Elon Musk, the man behind SpaceX, the world's number one private space company. And recently, that respect has only grown stronger. Because on March 18th, 2026, Rocket Lab

[00:55] hit a major milestone. The company secured the largest military contract in secured the largest military contract in its history worth $190 million. This is a block buy for 20 hypersonic test flights using the HASTE rocket part of

[01:07] flights using the HASTE rocket part of the Mach-TB 2.0 program under the US Department of War. At a time when global tensions are rising and conflicts are flaring up in multiple regions, the mission here is clear: accelerate

[01:19] hypersonic technology testing for US defense. And with this deal, Rocket Lab's total backlog has now surged past $2 billion. You might be used to hearing billion-dollar contracts from giants

[01:32] like SpaceX or Blue Origin, but backlog tells a different story. It is essentially revenue already secured, work that is locked in. So, when Rocket Lab crosses the $2 billion mark, it means one thing: the company is entering

[01:46] one of the strongest growth phases in its history. What's even more surprising its history. What's even more surprising is this: just 68 days before that $190 million dollar was signed, something happened that

[01:58] almost no one saw coming. On January 9th, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth visited Rocket Lab's headquarters in Long Beach, California. And more importantly, this wasn't just another stop. It was the

[02:11] very first stop on his tour. That alone says a lot. It suggests Rocket Lab may most right now, even ahead of giants like Blue Origin and even SpaceX. But that raises a big question. Why Rocket

[02:25] Lab? Because on paper SpaceX seems like the obvious choice. They have Falcon 9, one of the most reliable medium-lift rockets ever built. It has flown hundreds of times with a success rate of around 99.5%.

[02:39] And then, there's Blue Origin. They have shifted focus away from New Shepard, a suborbital system often used for short tourist flights, to concentrate on developing New Glenn. But so far, New Glenn still hasn't met the current

[02:52] launch demands of the Department of Defense. So, when you look at all of it be that Rocket Lab is simply the better fit? Well, yes, exactly. And the straightforward. It starts with Electron, their core launch vehicle.

[03:08] This is a two-stage rocket, or three if you include the optional kick stage. It you include the optional kick stage. It stands about 17 to 18 m tall, just 1.2 m in diameter, with a total mass of around 13 tons. The first stage is powered by

[03:21] nine Rutherford engines, some of the most advanced electric pump-fed engines in the world. They are fully 3D printed and run on RP-1 and liquid oxygen. The second stage uses a vacuum-optimized engine. Thanks to its carbon composite

[03:35] structure and 3D printed engines, Rocket Lab can manufacture Electron quickly and keep costs low, around 7.5 million dollars per launch. And it works. It The

[03:47] rocket has achieved a success rate of over 95% across its missions. Electron is designed specifically for small payloads around 150 to 300 kg to low Earth orbit. That makes it perfect for launching small satellites at a high

[04:02] cadence with a highly responsive schedule. In some cases, launches can happen just weeks after booking. But the real game-changer here is HASTE, the Hypersonic Accelerator Suborbital Test Electron. This is a modified suborbital

[04:17] version of Electron. HASTE keeps the same core technologies, carbon composite structures, and 3D printed Rutherford engines, but replaces the kick stage with a specialized configuration. That upgrade boosts structural strength and

[04:32] allows it to carry payloads of around 700 to 773 700 to 773 kg on a suborbital trajectory. More importantly, it can accelerate payloads to speeds above 7.5 km per second. That

[04:45] is over Mach 20. This creates a true hypersonic flight environment, typically in the Mach 5 to Mach 20 range. And that is exactly what makes it so valuable. It allows engineers to test hypersonic technologies like glide vehicles,

[05:00] air-breathing scramjet engines, thermal protection materials for reentry, and advanced guidance systems all without needing to reach full orbit. This is precisely what the Department of Defense has been looking for. In fact, the US

[05:14] needs dozens, even hundreds of hypersonic test flights every year to push forward its hypersonic weapons programs. But traditional government test infrastructure is slow, expensive, rigid, and simply not flexible enough.

[05:27] That is why the Mach TB 2.0 program exists to bring in commercial providers. And Rocket Lab fits that role perfectly. They offer high launch cadence and extreme responsiveness. And since 2023, Rocket Lab has achieved a perfect track

[05:43] record with HASTE. Every single mission has been successful with more than seven flights completed as of February 2026. Now, compare that to SpaceX. Falcon 9 is an incredible rocket, but it is not built for this job. It is a large

[05:58] orbital class vehicle about 70 m tall, capable of delivering up to 22.8 tons to low Earth orbit with a price tag around $67

[06:12] is too energetic, too high, too fast. That can actually damage sensitive hypersonic payloads because the acceleration, vibration, and thermal conditions do not match what suborbital testing requires. To make Falcon 9 work

[06:26] for this kind of mission, you would need major modifications. That means higher costs, lower launch cadence, and a lot of wasted capability. It is like using a 40-ton truck to deliver a small box. And Blue Origin, they are in an even tougher

[06:41] spot. Right now, they simply do not have the right vehicle for this kind of mission. And you know what happened next. Right after Rocket Lab secured that contract, the company's stock jumped. Not some crazy spike like 10 or

[06:54] 20%. Just around 3%. But still a solid move. It helped reinforce a much bigger trend because RKLB has already climbed roughly 270%

[07:06] over the past year. That surge has pushed the company's valuation to around $41 billion. That is roughly what Elon Musk once paid to acquire Twitter. In theory, you could say Musk could buy Rocket Lab, too. Of course, that is just

[07:19] for fun. Peter Beck would likely never sell. And the reason why, I will save that for the end of this video. And here is the smarter part of the strategy. Instead of going head-to-head with the giants in the medium and heavy lift

[07:33] market, Rocket Lab is doubling down on the small launch segment. That is a very calculated move because at that level, demand is still massive. In 2025 alone, they successfully carried out 21 launches for commercial constellations,

[07:48] NASA, and international partners. Meanwhile, the medium-lift category is already dominated by Falcon 9. The heavy-lift space is being shaped by New Glenn, and looking ahead, there is Starship, a true giant entering the

[08:01] rockets are heading for a fierce showdown, but in reality, New Glenn may struggle to survive in the long run when facing something like Starship. Right now, New Glenn can deliver around 45 tons to low Earth orbit. It has flown

[08:16] successfully twice, and there are plans for an upgraded 9 by 4 configuration targeting over 70 tons to LEO around 2027. But Starship, especially the upcoming version 3, is on a completely different level. In a fully reusable

[08:32] configuration, it could deliver up to 200 tons to LEO. And if flown in expendable mode, that number could climb to 250, even 300 tons. The difference in raw power is just as dramatic. Starship produces more than four times the thrust

[08:47] of New Glenn. It is not hard to see why. 7 BE-4 engines simply cannot compete with 33 Raptor engines. Then there is the size. Starship stands about 121 m

[08:59] tall with a 9-m diameter. That scale opens the door to missions New Glenn was never really designed for, like launching massive space telescopes or large space station modules. And perhaps most importantly, cadence. Starship is

[09:13] being built with the goal of flying hundreds of times per year, driving costs down through full reusability. New Glenn, on the other hand, still has limitations. Only the booster is reusable for now. The upper stage is

[09:26] still under discussion with Blue Origin recently bringing in a director focused on reusable upper stage development. Launch cadence remains low, and costs are significantly higher. Once Starship scales production and proves reliable

[09:39] full reusability, the cost per kilogram could drop to around $100. At that point, it would likely absorb most of the heavy lift market, much like Falcon 9 once did to older expendable rockets. But, don't think Rocket Lab is afraid of

[09:53] Falcon 9. Not even close. Their ambitions go much further than most people realize. And Neutron is the clearest proof of that. The company is now moving toward finalizing Neutron, a reusable medium-lift rocket designed to

[10:07] carry around 13,000 kg to low Earth orbit. That is enough to handle large satellite constellations, deep space probes, and national security payloads, the same kind of missions Falcon 9 typically flies. Rocket Lab is targeting

[10:23] a launch price of about $50 per mission, lower than Falcon 9's roughly 67 million. A big part of that comes from its unique Hungry Hippo fairing design, which opens and closes, allowing the entire structure to be reused as a

[10:37] single piece. And Peter Beck has been very clear about the vision. Rocket Lab is not trying to defeat SpaceX. The goal is to build the world's leading end-to-end space company. Right now, Neutron is in its final qualification

[10:51] phase. There was a delay after a propellant tank failure in January 2026, pushing the maiden flight to the fourth quarter of 2026. Even with that setback, the pace is still impressive. And if Neutron

[11:04] delivers it, could transform Rocket Lab from a small launch provider into a true competitor to SpaceX in the medium-lift market. And honestly, they will get there because they have already walked a path very similar to SpaceX. Back in the

[11:18] early days, when Peter Beck went to Silicon Valley to raise funding, he was only asking for $5 and at the time that number sounded almost absurd. A rocket startup from New Zealand in an industry where SpaceX was

[11:31] basically the only real player. It just did not fit the mold. Most venture capital firms turned him down. The risks were too high. He did not have a traditional academic background, and the company was based far from the usual

[11:44] tech hubs. Beck once said, "Nothing happens without funding in this business." And because funding was so limited, Rocket Lab had no choice but to become ruthlessly efficient. Every decision had to count. Every step had to

[11:57] move them forward. So, what do you think about Rocket Lab's journey? Drop your thoughts in the comments below. And we're getting really close to 150,000 subscribers. If you've been enjoying the content, it would mean a lot if you

[12:11] could help us reach that milestone soon. Thank you so much. Over the next 5 years, the space industry is set to change at an incredible pace. Major players like SpaceX and Blue Origin are racing to build massive satellite

[12:24] constellations, not in the thousands, but in the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Space is turning into a giant platform for data and AI. And in that future, one thing feels almost certain. SpaceX will still be number one. No real

[12:40] debate there. But what about second place or third? Most people immediately think of names like Blue Origin, Boeing, or Lockheed Martin. But in doing so, they often overlook one company that's growing at a truly insane speed. A

[12:53] company that could break into the top three and even challenge some of the most deeply established giants in the industry. That company is Rocket Lab. So, why don't first take a look at their latest post on X. They said, "More than

[13:07] 800 Rutherford engines have been launched to space, and this year, we plan to exceed 1,000 total. 3D printing helped to make that scale possible." Sounds pretty normal, right? But behind

[13:19] those seemingly simple numbers is a massive leap forward. One they're very likely to achieve this year. Let's break it down. That figure of 800 Rutherford engines refers to the total number of engines that have actually flown on all

[13:33] electron missions since 2017. Electron is a two-stage rocket. The first stage uses nine engines, and the second stage uses one. With more than 84 successful launches as of March 2026, that 800 number is actually rounded. The

[13:49] real figure is closer to 840 engines. And here's the key point. That number doesn't just represent engines they've built. It's also the number of engines they've already destroyed in space. Sounds a bit painful, right? We tend to

[14:02] think of rocket engines as expensive, complex machines that take years to build. And yet they're just throwing them away after every flight. In fact, Rocket Lab has successfully tested engine reuse twice. But for some reason,

[14:15] they still haven't turned Electron into a fully reusable rocket. But this isn't a waste. It's a deliberate and highly strategic business decision. Now, imagine Rutherford like a high-quality budget smartphone. You don't buy it to

[14:28] last forever. You expect to replace it every two or three years because the tech improves and the cost keeps dropping. That's exactly how Rocket Lab is treating their engines. As they mentioned, thanks to advanced 3D

[14:40] printing and a unique design that uses electric pumps powered by lithium-ion batteries instead of traditional gas-driven turbo pumps, each engine weighs just 35 kg. Yes, you heard that right. Just 35 kilos.

[14:55] That's lighter than the heaviest weights you'd find in a gym. Because it's so small and lightweight, each engine can be produced in under 24 hours with an estimated cost of only 300,000 to 375,000

[15:08] dollars per unit. That's dramatically cheaper than legacy engines like the RS-25 from the Apollo era, which can cost over from the Apollo era, which can cost over 130 million dollars for a single engine.

[15:20] In other words, Rutherford is no longer a handcrafted masterpiece. It's closer to an industrial consumable. Now, let's go deeper into the 3D printing tech go deeper into the 3D printing tech behind it. Rocket Lab uses electron beam

[15:33] melting or EBM, a high-end metal 3D printing process that takes place inside a vacuum chamber. A powerful electron beam, far more energetic than a typical laser, scans across ultra-thin layers of titanium or Inconel powder, just 50 to

[15:49] 100 micrometers thick. It melts and fuses each layer perfectly, building a dense solid metal structure that can withstand temperatures above 3,000 degrees Celsius and the extreme pressure inside a combustion chamber.

[16:03] Step-by-step, layer-by-layer, they print the engine. The combustion chamber, the injector, the electric pump housing the main valves, even load-bearing structures, all of it can be printed as a single integrated unit in less than 24

[16:17] hours for the core components. Inside, you get ultra-fine spiral cooling channels that improve efficiency along with lightweight lattice structures that are both strong and material efficient. What used to be 20 or 30 separate parts

[16:32] pieces, cutting component count by up to 95% compared to traditional engines. So, what's the result? In July 2019, Rocket

[16:45] Lab celebrated its 100th fully completed flight-ready Rutherford engine. At that point, 70 had already flown on seven successful Electron missions. Fast forward to today. In just seven years, they've produced another 700

[17:00] engines. That's an average of about 100 engines per year. But this year, they're aiming for 200. That's double the usual pace. And that changes everything. It means engine production is no longer the bottleneck. In the past, manufacturing

[17:15] was the biggest constraint for Electron. Now, the Long Beach factory can produce engines fast enough to support 20 to 25 launches per year without running short. They even have enough capacity to build the larger Archimedes engines for

[17:28] Neutron in parallel inside the same facility. This is what a successful scale-up looks like. From hand-crafted production, 100 engines over 6 years of development, to true mass production over 200 engines per year with a

[17:41] dedicated factory. It's the same kind of leap Tesla made when it scaled from a few thousand cars to hundreds of thousands per year by optimizing its production lines. And this is a clear signal of explosive growth. So, here's

[17:56] the big question. 5 years from now, where will Rocket Lab rank in the aerospace industry? Number two? Number three? comments, but no matter where they rank, one thing is clear. Rocket Lab has

[18:10] already outpaced a major competitor like Blue Origin when it comes to engine production speed. If Rocket Lab reaches around 200 engines this year, Blue Origin is only producing about 30 to 40. That's a massive gap. And this is

[18:24] despite Jeff Bezos pouring huge amounts of his own money into Blue Origin, especially into the BE-4, aiming to compete directly with SpaceX's Raptor. Yet, in terms of production speed, they're still far behind Rocket Lab.

[18:38] But, hold on. That comparison isn't entirely fair. Rutherford is a small engine designed for Electron, a light-lift rocket. Meanwhile, the BE-4 powers New Glenn, a heavy-lift vehicle. In terms of payload capability, New

[18:53] Glenn is roughly 150 times more powerful than Electron. The BE-4 produces around 640,000 lbs of thrust, putting it in the same class or slightly above SpaceX's Raptor 3. And there's a reason for that. The

[19:08] BE-4 uses is oxygen-rich stage combustion cycle, one of the most complex engine cycles ever developed. It requires extremely durable turbo pumps, injectors, manufactured with micrometer-level precision, and hundreds

[19:23] of components that must withstand extreme pressure and temperature. Blue Origin does use 3D printing for certain parts like the oxidizer boost pump housing injectors and turbine sections. But, that's only part of the process.

[19:37] Much of the engine still relies on CNC machining, casting, welding, and extensive manual inspection. Put simply, if Rutherford is like a mass-produced Apple Watch, then the BE-4 is more like a high-end Swiss watch, intricate,

[19:51] expensive, and largely handcrafted. But, in the space industry, being more expensive or more powerful doesn't necessarily mean much on its own. So, the real question is this: Doesn't Rocket Lab's advanced 3D printing give

[20:04] them a clear edge over Blue Origin? And doesn't higher production speed usually mean higher launch That's exactly why contractors, especially the US government, the DoD, Space Force, NASA, and commercial customers are

[20:18] increasingly leaning toward Rocket Lab instead of Blue Origin. The core reason comes down to cadence, reliability, and responsiveness. Electron has proven itself with a perfect run of 21 successful launches in 2025, a company

[20:33] record. And right now, they're not slowing down. On March 24th, they completed a wet dress rehearsal and are preparing to launch a dedicated mission for the European Space Agency on March 25th. And that ESA deal is no small

[20:48] contract. It's worth $816 million, covering the production of 18 satellites for the Tranche 3 tracking layer designed to detect hypersonic missiles. That pushes Rocket Lab's total contract value with the Space Development Agency

[21:03] to over $1.3 billion. dollars. Meanwhile, Blue Origin is still waiting for more contracts to come in. Yes, they have New Glenn, a powerful heavy-lift reusable rocket, and they've secured NASA payloads like ESCAPADE, but they're

[21:17] still seen as lagging behind in the medium and small launch segments, especially in national security missions. They do have strength in lunar programs, Artemis-related work, and some large commercial deals, but they still

[21:30] lack the launch cadence needed for customers to trust them with urgent missions or large satellite constellations. And Rocket Lab knows it. Peter Beck has said it clearly. Government and commercial customers are

[21:42] pulling toward them because they need a reliable alternative to SpaceX. When it comes to SpaceX, the picture is already crystal clear. They're dominating the market with Falcon 9 powered by the Merlin 1D. And right now, the government

[21:57] truly needs a company like Rocket Lab, not just to ease SpaceX's growing monopoly, but across the entire industry. Not only missions like Dragon flying to the ISS. So, can Rocket Lab actually pull that

[22:11] off? It's not easy. But, if you look at engine production and launch cadence, it's honestly a 50-50 game. Even researcher and YouTuber Scott Manley once said on X, "At the rate Rocket Lab is going, they

[22:25] may end up building more Rutherford engines than SpaceX have built Merlins." So, what does that really look like? To understand that, we have to go back a To understand that, we have to go back a bit. Between 2013 and 2015, SpaceX made

[22:39] a historic leap. They pushed Merlin 1D production up to four to five engines production up to four to five engines per week, roughly 200 to 260 per year, with a long-term goal of reaching 400 to 500 annually to support a rapidly

[22:53] increasing Falcon 9 launch cadence. They achieved this through a simple but powerful approach, a gas generator cycle design, fewer parts, and a highly optimized production line in Hawthorne. Compared to traditional

[23:07] aerospace manufacturing, where a single engine could take months, this was a engine could take months, this was a massive shift. As of March 2026, total Merlin production is estimated to have surpassed 1,000 to 1,300 engines,

[23:20] including both sea level and vacuum variants. These engines have supported more than 570 successful Falcon launches, with many flying over 20 times. That's the power of reusability combined with sheer scale. Each Merlin

[23:35] 1D produces around 845 to 934 kilonewtons of thrust. Nine engines on the first stage generate over 7.6 meganewtons, enough to send more than 22 tons into low Earth orbit. But Rocket Lab is telling a very different

[23:51] story, and it's just as fascinating. With Rutherford, they're not chasing raw thrust or reusability from day one. Instead, they're focused on ultra-fast mass production driven by deep integration of 3D printing. So, what do

[24:06] And if you found it interesting, don't forget to hit that subscribe button. I'm aiming for 150,000 subscribers, and your support really means a lot. Yeah, has been poured into NASA's lunar projects over the past 20 years. Yet, as

[24:23] of now, none of those projects have successfully gotten off the ground in a meaningful way. Jared Isaacman, NASA's new administrator, has openly these failures. It's not because NASA

[24:36] lacked money. Instead, the agency has been far more focused on deciding what kind of hardware to build, rather than worrying about when that hardware would actually be ready, or whether it would even work properly in deep space. That's

[24:50] cancel several multi-billion dollar resources, most notably the Lunar Gateway, and will invest an additional $20 billion over the next 7 years to concentrate all

[25:03] efforts on one massive ambitious goal, building a permanent moon base. But, here's an important caveat, without SpaceX and Starship, this enormous new sum of money they're about to spend could very likely end up being wasted

[25:17] once again. Why? Let's go back to the beginning to understand the full picture. In a way, all of us are investors, quiet contributors to the future of spaceflight, to the rockets launching today and the ones still

[25:30] waiting their turn on the pad. And we do it through something incredibly simple, taxes. But, here's where it gets uncomfortable. It's hard to feel good about that contribution when so much of that money seems to be wasted, spent

[25:42] inefficiently, and in some cases delivering little to no real results. And lately, that frustration hasn't just been coming from the public. At a meeting with more than 160 senior officials at NASA headquarters in

[25:56] Washington, D.C., NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman didn't hold back. He put it plainly, billions of dollars wasted, years lost, hardware that never launched, fewer flagship science missions, and fewer astronauts in space,

[26:11] which means fewer kids dressing up as astronauts for Halloween. I don't like it. The president doesn't like it. The American people have waited long enough. And when you actually look at the numbers, it hits even harder.

[26:25] Public funding for these programs has now climbed to around $100 billion. Most of that money has gone into developing the two most expensive core systems of the Artemis program, the Space Launch System, or SLS, and the

[26:40] Orion spacecraft, along with the ground infrastructure needed to support them. return? Just a single mission, Artemis 1, an uncrewed test flight of Orion. beyond that, nothing else. But that's still not

[26:55] the full picture. Another 20 billion dollars has been poured into the lunar gateway, a planned space station that will orbit the moon. And on paper, the idea actually makes a lot of sense, which explains why NASA was willing to

[27:07] spend so heavily on it. Gateway was designed to act as a kind of orbital hub around the moon, flying in a unique trajectory. Astronauts would launch from Earth aboard the Orion spacecraft dock with the station then transfer to a

[27:20] lunar lander to descend to the surface. After completing their mission, they'd return to the station and only then head back home. There's more. In theory, staging missions from Gateway could also make future trips to Mars faster and

[27:34] more cost-efficient. Sounds great, right? But in reality, the program has now been officially paused by NASA. And as mentioned earlier, it's not because because the project has become both incredibly expensive and repeatedly

[27:48] delayed. The concept dates all the way back to 2010. And even today, multiple sources say Gateway is facing what they call very real hardware and schedule challenges. In other words, both the physical components and the timeline are

[28:03] slipping in a serious way. And then there's the launch problem. To even get this massive structure into lunar orbit, NASA would need a vehicle like Starship. But as of now, Starship is still in the testing phase. And that leads to another

[28:17] critical issue, fuel logistics. Running missions between Gateway and the lunar surface requires a constant supply of propellant. So, where does that fuel Earth. If that's the case, then why not just fly directly from Earth to the moon

[28:32] and back? Why introduce a complex middle step while still needing continuous refueling missions to the station? And then, from the station to the lander. That question cuts right to the core of the problem. And And exactly why NASA

[28:46] administrator Jared Isaacman, has decided to push for a major shift in direction. Speaking at the ignition event at NASA headquarters, he made it It should come as no surprise that we are pausing Gateway in its current form

[28:59] and shifting our focus toward building infrastructure that supports sustained operations on the lunar surface. So, does that mean the $20 billion spent on the lunar Gateway has simply vanished into thin air? Not at all. NASA isn't

[29:13] scrapping the Gateway entirely. Instead, they're taking a much more strategic approach, repurposing the hardware modules, technologies, and even the workforce already developed for the program, and redirecting them toward

[29:26] building a moon base directly on the lunar surface. From a technical standpoint, several of Gateway's key components are already finished or very close to completion. At the center of it all are two core modules, the power and

[29:39] all are two core modules, the power and propulsion element, or PPE, and the habitation and logistics outpost, known as HALO. The PPE is essentially the station's power and propulsion backbone. It weighs around 5 tons at launch with

[29:53] roughly half of that being propellant. It can generate up to 60 kilowatts of electricity using roll-out solar arrays. For propulsion, it relies on a hybrid system combining Hall effect ion thrusters with traditional bi-propellant

[30:07] maintain orbit while delivering a steady, reliable power supply. Then there's HALO, the main living module. It's being developed by Northrop Grumman based on the Cygnus cargo spacecraft platform. The module is about 3 m in

[30:21] diameter and roughly 7 m long after an extension. Inside, it provides a pressurized environment that can support four astronauts for up to 30 days. And this is where things get interesting.

[30:34] directly on the lunar surface and turned into an initial modular habitat. A ready-made pressurized space where astronauts can live, work, store equipment, and run experiments without having to build everything from scratch.

[30:48] are already designed to withstand the harsh conditions of space radiation, harsh conditions of space radiation, vacuum, and micrometeoroid impacts. So, with additional protection like covering it with lunar regolith or placing it

[31:02] inside a crater, it could be operational relatively quickly. As for PPE, it could serve as an independent power source for the base. This becomes especially valuable at the moon's South Pole where certain regions often called peaks of

[31:17] eternal light receive near continuous sunlight. Still, this would likely be a backup system since NASA plans to deploy nuclear power on the moon later on for a more stable long-term energy supply. The cost of adapting and deploying these

[31:31] systems will be part of a separate $20 billion budget not tied to Gateway aimed at building a NASA moon base within the next 7 years. But, here's the key question. All of this hardware still needs to be delivered safely to the

[31:45] moon. So, what vehicle can actually do that? Right now, there's really only one answer, Starship. Specifically, the human landing system version along with its cargo variant are the only vehicles

[31:57] capable of making this vision a reality. And the reason comes down to one simple thing, capability. Starship's cargo variant is designed to deliver up to 100 metric tons to the lunar surface in a single mission.

[32:11] That's far beyond anything currently flying or even seriously planned. Its 9-m wide payload bay combined with an enormous internal volume can carry an enormous internal volume can carry an entire HALO or PPE module in one piece.

[32:26] No need to cut it apart. No custom adapters. No risky assembly work in orbit. Now, compare that to the alternatives. Blue Origin's Blue Moon Mark 2 is expected to handle at best around 20 to 30 tons. CLP S-class

[32:42] landers only manage a few tons at most, which means NASA would have to break modules into smaller sections, launch them separately, then piece everything back together in space using robots or astronaut spacewalks. That adds years to

[32:57] the timeline. It adds billions in cost, and more importantly, it introduces a long chain of failure points, something the 20 billion-dollar moon base plan simply cannot afford. Then there's the physics of landing. On the moon, putting

[33:11] down a massive payload safely requires a very high thrust-to-weight ratio, precise engine control, and a stable landing system to avoid tipping over or kicking up massive clouds of regolith. Starship checks every one of those

[33:25] boxes. With six sea level Raptor engines running on methalox, offering high efficiency and deep throttle capability, it has the control and redundancy needed to hover shift, laterally during descent, and land softly, even with up

[33:40] to 100 tons on board. No other lander comes close. Not in engine count, not in propellant capacity, and not in structural strength at this scale. And then there's the biggest challenge of all, orbital refueling. To move that

[33:53] much mass from Earth to the moon and land it, you need hundreds of tons of propellant in cis-lunar space. Right now, only Starship's tanker architecture can realistically make that happen through rapid reusable fuel transfers in

[34:07] orbit. Without that, the rocket equation becomes a hard limit. Traditional chemical stages simply run out of delta V long before they can land heavy cargo on the moon. Put it simply, without Starship, that 20 billion dollars

[34:22] invested in the lunar gateway could very well end up going to waste. But what if I told you Starship's role in NASA's future goes even further than that. Because when you zoom out, it's not just about the 20 billion tied to Gateway.

[34:37] It's about the remaining 80 billion out of the 100 billion NASA has already of the 100 billion NASA has already spent. Roughly 24 to 29 billion dollars has gone into the space launch system alone. Orion adds another 20 billion on

[34:50] top of that. And each actual launch costs somewhere between two to four billion dollars. That's an enormous number, especially for a rocket that's fully expendable, not reusable, and flies at a painfully slow cadence. Then

[35:04] there's the ground hardware. Mobile Launcher 1, the tower used to transport and launch, Orion has already cost over 1 billion dollars. And Mobile Launcher 2 costs spiraled so badly that NASA now has no real plan to even use it. And

[35:19] when you look at how this system was designed, it starts to make sense. SLS wasn't built purely for performance. It was built to satisfy everyone, Boeing, Aerojet, and Lockheed Martin trying to protect jobs in places like Alabama and

[35:33] Florida. The result is a system that produces extremely expensive hardware, rather than a tool that actually builds toward the future. To cut through that, Jared Isaacman made a bold but logical move. Cancel the upgraded versions of

[35:47] SLS. Cancel ML2. But even then the core issue remains. But even then the core issue remains. Strategic inefficiency. SLS and Orion create a system that doesn't generate return, can't be reused, and simply

[36:01] return, can't be reused, and simply doesn't scale. Right now, SLS can do one thing. It puts Orion into space sending astronauts toward lunar orbit. But beyond that, it contributes almost nothing to building an actual lunar

[36:13] base. And that brings everything full circle. Because in the end, it all comes back to Starship. The only vehicle capable of delivering massive payloads in a single launch at a fraction of the cost and doing it again and again

[36:27] through full reusability. Let's start with what it's actually like inside Soyuz. Every single inch of space is already claimed. Three crew members are squeezed tightly together, shoulder to shoulder knees, almost pressed into

[36:40] their chests. They're strapped into custom-molded seats that force the body into a fetal position for hours at a time. The entire cabin volume is under 3.5 cubic meters. That means no room to stretch, no way to escape the constant

[36:54] pressure of metal structures and hardware surrounding you. And if you accidentally brush against the wrong switch, that can be dangerous. Astronaut Shannon Lucid has described the Soyuz experience multiple times, saying that

[37:07] for anyone with claustrophobia, it feels like being in hell, intense, suffocating, deeply uncomfortable. Her accounts are often cited as a clear example of just how physically cramped and psychologically stressful the

[37:19] environment can be. Now, the space shuttle was a step up. It offered more room, but not necessarily more freedom. The cockpit was packed with over 400 switches, dials, levers, and analog gauges. Every single

[37:32] component mattered, and every single one introduced another potential point of failure. The wiring alone weighed over 1,000 kg running behind panels and beneath the crew's feet. Operating the shuttle felt like living inside a

[37:45] machine built for systems, not for humans. It was a cockpit where every surface demanded your attention, and every moment was spent managing checklists or scanning for a blinking light. It was so overwhelming that even

[37:57] veteran astronaut Chris Hadfield once said, "In the astronaut business, the shuttle is a very complicated vehicle. It's the most complicated flying machine ever built. And that's not even counting the launch phase." With the solid rocket

[38:11] boosters firing, the ride was incredibly violent, intense vibrations, heavy shaking, the kind that made people close their eyes, and just hope for the best. irrational. The shuttle's history includes more than one major disaster.

[38:27] Shuttle earned much praise from the people who flew on them. What you hear more often are complaints. For decades, that was simply the reality of human space flight, endurance, not comfort. But missions kept getting longer, more

[38:41] complex, more dangerous. And if those outdated designs had continued unchanged, you have to wonder how many astronauts would still hold on to their passion when every flight feels like stepping into uncertainty. Then SpaceX

[38:54] arrived and changed the equation. They introduced a new kind of experience, one that astronauts actually deserve. And for the first time, a spacecraft interior was truly designed around the people living inside it. The Crew Dragon

[39:08] everything that came before. Take a look. The dense control panels that once required near Einstein-level training to master have been reduced to just three 17-in touch screens, each one about the size of a desktop monitor, now handling

[39:23] almost everything: flight control, life support, navigation, communications. switches can now be executed with a simple tap or swipe. But the physical world hasn't disappeared completely.

[39:37] Around 30 tactile buttons are still there, each one hardwired for the most critical functions: emergency abort, power cutoffs, manual override. Interestingly, SpaceX initially didn't even plan to let astronauts interact

[39:51] with the touch screens. The idea was to make flying on Dragon feel more like riding in a space taxi, not driving it. But NASA pushed back, and that decision was reversed, giving astronauts full control when needed. If the software

[40:04] ever runs into trouble, those physical buttons become the final line of defense. To put it in perspective, for every single button on Dragon, the Space Shuttle had more than 10, and Soyuz had nearly 30. This is a leap towards

[40:17] simplicity that almost feels mathematical, and it's more than just aesthetics. It's a philosophy, a bet that software can handle 99% of the workload, while hardware is reserved for the 1% where failure is simply not an

[40:30] option. NASA's evaluation and certification confirmed it. Crew Dragon is operated 99% by software. The remaining 1% is protected by a very small set of critical physical switches. Elon Musk

[40:45] calls this approach progressive disclosure, a smart way of layering information. The most important data is always front and center. Everything else stays hidden until it's actually needed. The result

[40:58] is a cockpit that dramatically reduces cognitive load. Instead of constantly scanning thousands of switches and analog gauges, astronauts can now focus on the mission itself. Crew Dragon redefines the role of the astronaut. No

[41:12] longer a mechanic managing every detail, but a decision maker. Someone who trusts the software to handle routine operations and steps in manually only when it truly matters. Doug Hurley, a former space shuttle astronaut with

[41:26] years of experience, shared his first impression of stepping inside Crew Dragon. He was used to the shuttle cockpit where information was scattered everywhere and every switch demanded constant attention.

[41:38] But inside Dragon, everything felt completely different. He described the experience as totally different than shuttle and called it a very pure flying machine, smoother, quieter, and far more refined. He also confirmed that even the

[41:52] onboard toilet worked well and that the overall experience was noticeably more comfortable compared to the rigid metal seats and the constant hum of machinery on older spacecraft. For him, the difference was immediate and deeply

[42:05] personal. And then there's Soichi Noguchi, the only astronaut to have flown on all three, the space shuttle, Soyuz, and Crew Dragon. When asked which one he preferred, his answer was immediate. The Dragon is the best short

[42:17] answer, he said. I feel Dragon is really ready to go up. It's really fun to ride, and 2 days in Dragon is really remarkable memories. That kind of praise is something you almost never heard in human spaceflight before. For decades,

[42:31] every mission carried a sense of tension, even fear. And now, astronauts are talking about it like it's an experience they actually enjoy. Because flying on Dragon feels like stepping into a completely different world. Gone

[42:43] is the constant clicking of mechanical switches. In its place is an environment that feels quiet, clean, almost intuitive. What surprised Noguchi wasn't just the technology, but the way the entire system seemed to anticipate what

[42:57] he needed. And it's not just the controls. The interior itself plays a huge role. In her post-flight report, Anna Kikina, the first Russian cosmonaut to fly on Crew Dragon, described the

[43:10] experience as feeling like being in a hotel room in orbit. She talked about the spacious cabin, the comfortable seats, the quiet environment filled with being able to stretch out during a long-duration stay. For Kikina, who

[43:24] trained on Soyuz, the contrast was striking. It felt like going from an armored vehicle to a modern studio apartment. And remember, these aren't ordinary passengers. These are astronauts who have worked with some of

[43:36] the most advanced systems ever built by NASA. And yet, even they were genuinely impressed by what SpaceX achieved with Dragon. That alone tells you just how far the company has pushed the boundaries of human spaceflight. But,

[43:50] everything we've talked about so far is only part of the story. So, what else changed inside that cabin enough to turn even the most skeptical veterans into believers? NASA's human factors teams actually measured the impact in

[44:03] simulation studies. Crews using Dragon's interface spent 22% less time focusing on peripheral controls compared to older spacecraft. That means less eye scanning from panel to panel and more attention on the mission itself. Heart rate

[44:19] variability, a key indicator of stress and cognitive workload, improved by about 12%. In simple terms, astronauts were operating in a calmer, more adaptive state. And it's not just about the

[44:31] screens. Every physical detail inside Dragon is tuned for the human body under pressure. The gloves fitted with conductive fingertips allow astronauts to tap and swipe without ever taking their hands off. Armrests are positioned

[44:45] so the elbows sit at a natural angle reducing fatigue during long tasks. The astronaut built on a lightweight carbon fiber frame and wrapped in soft Alcantara, the same material you'd find in high-end supercars. They're slightly

[45:00] reclined giving a cradled feeling instead of that cramped forced posture. There's also significantly more legroom than Soyuz. The cabin volume reaches 9.3 cubic meters, roughly double that of Soyuz. In theory, it can carry up to

[45:15] seven people, but NASA typically flies just four for comfort. And those details matter when you're strapped in for hours. Nicole Mann described for the first time being able to truly relax her shoulders and fall asleep without waking

[45:29] up sore. NASA's own surveys show that self-reported stress levels dropped by about 15% when privacy curtains were used. Jared Isaacman, commander of the all-civilian Inspiration 4 mission, summed it up perfectly. This is the

[45:44] difference between being transported like cargo and being treated like a real human being. For the first time in aerospace history, a spacecraft gives astronauts a moment of privacy, even if it's just a few minutes. They can move

[45:57] around freely, close a small curtain, look out at Earth through large windows, or even use a thoughtfully designed restroom. That sense of dignity isn't a luxury. It's built into the design from the ground up. Custom-molded carbon

[46:11] fiber seats lightweight IVA suits, intelligent touchscreen interfaces, and a cabin layout that feels like a modern studio apartment have transformed a psychologically supportive.

[46:25] Psychological comfort is now a real engineering parameter, just as important as any mechanical system on board. Inspiration 4 proved something powerful. Ordinary people can adapt quickly thanks to intuitive controls and a cabin that

[46:40] intimidating like a traditional spacecraft. That environment builds confidence and a sense of control over the mission. Polaris Dawn is pushing that boundary even further, adding nearly 40 advanced research experiments

[46:54] from high radiation studies to EVA technologies without making the cabin feel cramped or cluttered. Today's civilian astronauts are no longer passive passengers. They train and fly on Dragon as active participants,

[47:07] interacting through touchscreens and human-centered systems. The ripple effect is already clear. What began as a bold experiment in comfort and usability is quickly becoming the new standard for crewed spacecraft design. NASA is

[47:21] already learning from it. Dragon's digital-first cockpit is now treated as a reference baseline for future human-rated vehicles. Today a cockpit no vehicle. It feels closer to a smart studio apartment. Because for the first

[47:37] time, astronauts are treated as human beings, not just operators. And that shift is reaching far beyond the walls of the spacecraft. If you want to keep exploring stories like this where SpaceX is quietly reshaping the rules of

[47:50] aerospace, make sure to subscribe. There's a lot more coming. Back in the last century when technology was far less advanced, the 12 astronauts who walked on the moon during the Apollo missions all wore the same space suit,

[48:03] the A7L. It was often described as a kind of mini tank, and surprisingly it was hand-sewn by a team of underwear seamstresses. The reason people compared it to a tank becomes clear once you picture what the suit was actually like.

[48:19] It was built from 13 to 21 layers of fabric all carefully stitched together by hand. Once the suit was pressurized, it became incredibly stiff. Moving inside it was anything but easy. On top of that, astronauts also carried the

[48:33] PLSS life support backpack, which weighed nearly 100 lb on Earth. Altogether, the full suit system came in at roughly 180 to 250 lb. And despite

[48:46] all that the thickness and weight, the suit still had serious limitations during real lunar missions. Harrison Jack Schmitt, the only professional geologist ever to walk on the moon, was especially blunt about it. After

[48:58] returning to the lunar module, he suffered what he later described as lunar dust hay fever. The dust irritated his nose, his face swelled up, and his voice turned hoarse. It stuck to everything, increased friction damaged

[49:11] the suit's outer layers, and even jammed the joints, he said. Years later, even at the age of 90, Schmitt still looked back on that experience and said very plainly, "I don't want to do that again. Physically and from a suit maintenance

[49:25] standpoint, that was probably the limit." And that's exactly why, nearly 50 years later, we need a better generation of space suits, something that can overcome the limitations of the old A7L design, not just to prove that

[49:37] technology has moved forward, but also to give astronauts the comfort and protection they'll need for the missions ahead. Because the next time humans return to the moon, the goal is not simply to repeat what happened during

[49:49] Apollo. This time the objective is far more ambitious. We are talking about laying the foundation for long-term infrastructure on the lunar surface, building permanent outposts, constructing facilities like Moon Base

[50:01] Alpha, even deploying nuclear power systems. These are demanding tasks, and they require a suit that is safe, comfortable, and efficient for astronauts working in that harsh environment. In that context, two suits

[50:14] are currently emerging as the most serious contenders. The first is the serious contenders. The first is the Axiom suit developed by Axiom Space. It has been undergoing extensive testing since 2024 in preparation for the

[50:26] Artemis program missions, particularly Artemis 4. The second is the SpaceX EVA suit, a new challenger design with an iterative approach aimed at future exploration. At first glance, placing these two suits side by side reveals a

[50:41] clear visual difference. The Axiom design includes the familiar PLSS backpack, which immediately makes it look more suited for long duration work on the lunar surface. The SpaceX EVA suit, on the other hand, does not

[50:55] include that backpack. Its appearance is much simpler, more modern, with the clean black and white aesthetic SpaceX is known for. But appearances can be misleading, so let's take a closer look. The SpaceX EVA suit is essentially an

[51:08] evolved version of the IVA suit astronauts wear inside the spacecraft. This is the suit we often see when crews launch and return aboard Crew Dragon on Station. Because of that heritage, the EVA suit keeps the same overall design

[51:24] language. A slim profile, the signature black and white color scheme, and a streamlined look. But it also adds several key upgrades so it can operate in the vacuum of space. For example, the thermal management system has been

[51:38] significantly improved using advanced fabrics inspired by materials used on the interstage of Falcon 9 and on the Dragon spacecraft itself. The helmet has also received a major upgrade. It now includes a heads-up display that

[51:51] provides astronauts with real-time data such as pressure, temperature, humidity, and mission time. The helmet also features a high-definition camera and an advanced visor designed to reduce glare. One of the most distinctive aspects of

[52:04] this suit is that it does not carry a standalone PLSS backpack. Instead, it uses a tethered system connected to the spacecraft through an umbilical line that supplies oxygen, power, and cooling. The first

[52:18] real test of this suit came during the Polaris Dawn mission in September 2024. successfully carried out the world's first commercial spacewalk. The tethered

[52:30] EVA lasted around 2 hours and took place at an altitude of nearly 740 km above Earth. During the operation, the suit performed reliably. It maintained stable pressure, allowed good mobility, and the helmet display proved useful for the

[52:45] crew. Most importantly, no major technical issues were reported. Of course, this is still essentially a first-generation system, something close to a minimum viable product. But for SpaceX, it represents an important

[52:58] milestone and a crucial step toward a design that could eventually scale to future missions like Mars, for example. So, what about the Axiom space suit from Axiom Space? At the moment, it clearly holds an advantage over the SpaceX EVA

[53:12] suit. The reason is simple. Axiom U is no longer in an early experimental no longer in an early experimental phase. In February 2026, the suit technical review confirming that the design had stabilized in terms of

[53:26] configuration, interface, and performance. Next, NASA will conduct an independent critical design review to verify that the suit is ready for its final testing phase certification and eventually large-scale production before

[53:40] Things get even more interesting when you look at the system itself. Unlike the tether design used by the SpaceX EVA suit, Axiom is a fully self-contained suit, Axiom is a fully self-contained system. It carries its own PLSS backpack

[53:54] weighing around 45 kg. That backpack handles all of the astronaut's life support functions. It supplies oxygen, removes carbon dioxide, regulates temperature, and most importantly, maintains stable internal pressure to

[54:08] protect the human body. And that pressure is absolutely critical. Our bodies are adapted to Earth's atmospheric pressure of about 14.7 lb per square inch. In a vacuum without external pressure, the pressure inside

[54:22] the human body would cause bodily fluids such as blood, saliva, tears, and sweat to begin boiling at body temperature around 37° C. This phenomenon is known as ebullism. Gas bubbles form in the bloodstream, the lungs can no longer

[54:37] exchange oxygen properly, and the body begins to swell dramatically. A spacesuit prevents all of that by maintaining a stable pressurized environment around the astronaut. The SpaceX EVA suit can also provide

[54:50] pressure protection, but it relies heavily on the spacecraft because it remains connected through an umbilical system. In other words, the suit is still partially dependent on the vehicle supporting it. when you compare it

[55:02] directly with the SpaceX suit, the Axiom design is far better suited for actual lunar surface operations. For example, Axiom is designed to support spacewalks lasting up to 8 hours, while the tethered EVA suit used on Polaris Dawn

[55:18] supported roughly 2 hours of activity. Even more importantly, the suit was designed from the beginning to integrate with Starship HLS following the demanding development roadmap set by SpaceX. According to the current design,

[55:31] when astronauts are inside Starship HLS, the suits will be mounted on dedicated racks. From there, the spacecraft's internal systems will connect directly to the suits in order to perform several key functions. First, refill operations.

[55:47] The system can replenish oxygen and cooling water inside the PLSS backpack after each spacewalk. Second, battery charging. Power is supplied to recharge the suit's electronics and biometric monitoring systems. For astronauts

[56:02] preparing for repeated lunar excursions, that kind of integration could make operations much more efficient. But, in return, the SpaceX EVA suit stands out for its simplicity and ease of use. It uses a spiral zipper along

[56:16] the body, creating a wide opening so astronauts can put it on by themselves without much assistance. In most cases, suiting up takes about 10 to 30 minutes, sometimes even faster once they get used to it. The Axiom U space suit from Axiom

[56:30] Space is quite different. The system is far more complex and usually requires assistance during the suit-up process. In some cases, it can take up to 45 minutes to fully prepare the suit since every seal and connection must be

[56:43] carefully checked. And that factor of time actually matters more than you might think. Imagine spending nearly an hour just trying to get into a complicated suit before the real work even begins. That kind of process can

[56:56] quickly become exhausting. Because of that, the Axiom U design is better suited on the lunar surface. Tasks like traveling farther away from the lander, collecting samples, or assembling infrastructure. In those situations, the

[57:08] suit-up time is not the main bottleneck. Meanwhile, the SpaceX EVA suit, with its spiral zipper design, could be far more convenient for day-to-day activities inside a lunar base. Astronauts could put it on quickly when needed, whether

[57:22] for short transitions, system checks, or quick adjustments without wasting too much time preparing. In the end, both designs may end up playing important roles in future lunar missions. Each one solves a different operational problem

[57:35] and together they reflect how human space exploration is evolving for the next era of moon exploration. But there is one uncomfortable truth that still remains. Even today NASA does not have a real capability to rescue astronauts if

[57:49] surface during a life-threatening emergency. And this situation actually has a very clear historical precedent. On July 18th, 1969, William Safire, the speechwriter for Richard Nixon, prepared a contingency

[58:04] speech that would have been delivered on national television if the Apollo 11 mission had ended in disaster. Specifically, if Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin had been unable to leave the moon. The speech opened with a line that

[58:16] later became famous, "Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace." sacrifice and expressed hope for humanity through their courage.

[58:30] Fortunately, Apollo 11 succeeded and that speech was never delivered. It famous speeches that was never actually read. But it also revealed something important. Even during the Apollo era,

[58:43] NASA had no real contingency plan to rescue astronauts if they became stranded on the moon. A similar concern still exists today in the current Artemis program. A report from NASA's Office of Inspector General found that

[58:56] while the agency has tried to reduce risks associated with the human landing system developed by SpaceX and Blue Origin, there are still gaps in the overall risk mitigation strategy. One of the most notable points is that NASA has

[59:09] effectively ruled out developing a dedicated crew rescue capability for the early crewed missions. In other words, if a serious failure were to leave astronauts stranded on the moon or even in deep space, there is currently no

[59:22] vehicle and no operational plan ready to bring them safely home.