I think the development of xAI plays a big role here too. Founded in March 2023, announced in July 2023, they didn't have a lot of product off the ground until well into 2024, and it wasn't really stabilized until well into 2025. I think Musk has gone from idea to product and is now into his "How do I scale the heck out of this?" phase.

The scaling phase is coinciding with a wave of data center construction moratoriums and a squeeze to supply them with power and water. Moving to space makes a lot of sense in that environment if you have a lot of really big rockets at your disposal. Another timing coincidence.

But it doesn't make sense to perpetually fill up your own launch schedule, big as it may get, with only comms and AI satellites if you still want to build Martian cities. Re-targeting SpaceX at the Moon solves this with lunar resource use, manufacturing, and the escape velocity mass driver concept. Then you can use your lunar mass driver for all sorts of things.

I'd like to see Martian cities, but I'd also like to see very large Earth orbiting habits. The Moon base/mass driver would provide for those.

Forgive my ignorance, but are there a lot of usable resources on the moon? How much refining capacity has to be built before lunar manufacturing is actually realistic? And once you hit that point, are you still dependent on the delivery of some materials from Earth?

For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years.

The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 8, 2026

Elon's post yesterday on the change of priorities.

Quote:

---

For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years.

The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars.

It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time). This means we can iterate much faster to complete a Moon city than a Mars city.

That said, SpaceX will also strive to build a Mars city and begin doing so in about 5 to 7 years, but the overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster.

---

YellAg2004 said:

---

Forgive my ignorance, but are there a lot of usable resources on the moon? How much refining capacity has to be built before lunar manufacturing is actually realistic? And once you hit that point, are you still dependent on the delivery of some materials from Earth?

---

I think the moon has a high amount of helium in the surface. You just scoop up the dirt and process it, somehow. I know earth is actually losing He constantly since it can just kinda wander out of the atmosphere.

Aside from that I think silica (glass, circuit boards) and aluminum are common on the moon. You're probably always going to have to deliver materials but those are solid building blocks and enough value to make the investment worthwhile.

One significant bottleneck to delivering large amounts of cargo, like mining and refining equipment, to anywhere beyond LEO is fuel. You're currently looking at well over half of Starship launches just being tankers headed to depots in LEO so you can refuel to leave LEO with the cargo you've sent up.

If you can make LCH4 and LOX on the Moon you can send that to LEO for cheap, and then refocus your Earth to LEO launches on moving equipment off the ground.

Still have to build and fly tankers, but they don't need heat shields or have to suffer the punishment of reentry.

fullback44 said:

---

Any updates on when the next Starship will launch? trying to see if a few of us can get down there for the next one.

---

Word on the street is that Starship Flight 12 is NET March 9th. One month from today pending any delays.

Kunkle for Congress TX-34 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Any updates on when the next Starship will launch? trying to see if a few of us can get down there for the next one.

---

Word on the street is that Starship Flight 12 is NET March 9th. One month from today pending any delays.

---

Place your bets, which goes first? Artemis II or Starship 12?

Being able to have a source of metals and fuel precursors is the ultimate next step in really take a big leap in the space exploration field.

AtlAg05 said:

---

Kunkle for Congress TX-34 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Any updates on when the next Starship will launch? trying to see if a few of us can get down there for the next one.

---

Word on the street is that Starship Flight 12 is NET March 9th. One month from today pending any delays.

---

Place your bets, which goes first? Artemis II or Starship 12?

---

Artemis. Launch window is earlier.

This thread is amazing ! Good stuff

AtlAg05 said:

---

Kunkle for Congress TX-34 said:

---

fullback44 said:

---

Any updates on when the next Starship will launch? trying to see if a few of us can get down there for the next one.

---

Word on the street is that Starship Flight 12 is NET March 9th. One month from today pending any delays.

---

Place your bets, which goes first? Artemis II or Starship 12?

---

Lol I'm still figuring SLS has a rollback to the VAB in the cards.

Everyday Astronaut on the Danny Jones Show. Just started listening but thought others might want something to have on in the background

Cliff Notes please! Don't have time to listen but am interested.

Have not listened. The first part of it is talking about moon landing etc. just got to a part where they are comparing Von Braun's plans and how space x plans are very similar concerning refueling etc.

We produce helium, since 1929, at the Exell Helium plant in the Texas Panhandle at Masterson. I have worked on the compressors at that facility. There are other less productive helium sites in the panhandle as well.

MagnumLoad said:

---

We produce helium, since 1929, at the Exell Helium plant in the Texas Panhandle at Masterson. I have worked on the compressors at that facility. There are other less productive helium sites in the panhandle as well.

---

Exell shut down in 1998 and is now going to be "Helium Heights".

txags92 said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

We produce helium, since 1929, at the Exell Helium plant in the Texas Panhandle at Masterson. I have worked on the compressors at that facility. There are other less productive helium sites in the panhandle as well.

---

Exell shut down in 1998 and is now going to be "Helium Heights".

---

Still producing?

There's not much carbon on the moon except at the poles of I remember right. That might be more valuable as soil or other organics than for rocket fuel. Capturing a mid sized carbon rich asteroid may be a better play for fuel.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Cliff Notes please! Don't have time to listen but am interested.

---

I love this stat:

Saturn V/Apollo stack sent roughly 0.25% of it's initial mass to the moon's surface (Tim was answering a question about why do we need to refuel Starship 12-15 times to reach the moon when Apollo made it without refueling).

Answer - reusability!

I see that after looking around some. I'm curious how well we really know what's there and what we may find with some trained geologists putting boots on the ground.

I think you're right on asteroid capture. Wonder if keeping something in orbit somewhere works by itself or if you'd want to ferry a bunch of that material to the surface for a lunar colony's use and to refine fuel there.

MagnumLoad said:

---

txags92 said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

We produce helium, since 1929, at the Exell Helium plant in the Texas Panhandle at Masterson. I have worked on the compressors at that facility. There are other less productive helium sites in the panhandle as well.

---

Exell shut down in 1998 and is now going to be "Helium Heights".

---

Still producing?

---

No. Not since 1998.

Tracking footage from this morning's launch of @ulalaunch's Vulcan rocket & the USSF-87 mission for @USSpaceForce - filmed from a perspective 3.9 miles to the west of SLC-41.

SRM nozzle burn through plainly visible on the right-hand side of the vehicle, protruding in the… pic.twitter.com/1oBpcRf3Ix

— Max Evans (@_MaxQ_) February 12, 2026

That could have been catastrophic.

I was waiting for the boom. Pretty astounding it kept going with what appeared to be a successful booster separation. It will be interesting to see it it made it to the intended orbit.

PJYoung said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

Cliff Notes please! Don't have time to listen but am interested.

---

I love this stat:

Saturn V/Apollo stack sent roughly 0.25% of it's initial mass to the moon's surface (Tim was answering a question about why do we need to refuel Starship 12-15 times to reach the moon when Apollo made it without refueling).

Answer - reusability!

---

I think this is more the reason

Ag87H2O said:

---

I was waiting for the boom. Pretty astounding it kept going with what appeared to be a successful booster separation. It will be interesting to see it it made it to the intended orbit.

---

Similar thing happened on the second Vulcan launch except in that one, the entire nozzle broke off.

Happened at pretty much the same time after liftoff as this one.

Who manufacturers ULA's SRBs?

Northrop Grumman.

This is going to be a huge issue imho regards sending up astronauts on Starliner moving forward (which Nasa and Boeing should have at this point abandoned in a sane world).

An alternative crewed platform is needed vs. Dragon, and rationally thinking a derivative of Dreamchaser is the only US one that 'could' be developed in a reasonable time frame, if Sierra had decent engineering/funding/management.

nortex97 said:

---

Northrop Grumman.

This is going to be a huge issue imho regards sending up astronauts on Starliner moving forward (which Nasa and Boeing should have at this point abandoned in a sane world).

An alternative crewed platform is needed vs. Dragon, and rationally thinking a derivative of Dreamchaser is the only US one that 'could' be developed in a reasonable time frame, if Sierra had decent engineering/funding/management.

---

The Atlas V variant which launches Starliner doesn't use the GEM-63 SRBs which are the kind that has failed twice on Vulcan.

For Starliner launches, it uses the Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-60A.

Ok so it's not the same as whomever acquired Thyocol for Shuttle/Senate Launch. So they won't need to roll that back to reevaluate...

That's right, I'd forgotten Vulcan was due to take over launch duties for Starliner now that Atlas is retired. Well they use the SRB on Starliner launches? Or does the BE4 have the capability for Starliner to LEO?

I think ULA moved to the NG product from Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-60A a few years ago, and the latter (now L3 Harris) no longer manufactures those.

Let me know if I'm mistaken, respectfully. Thx.

Quote:

---

Some folks over at Northrop Grumman have some answering to do now that this is the second GEM-63XL burn-through in just 4 Vulcan flights.

---

Oh wow

Oh wow this mission was nearly lost.

Check the wild rolls and even pitching at ~20sec https://t.co/tQWxNgWu3x

— Ken Kirtland IV (@KenKirtland17) February 12, 2026