Plot Twist: SpaceX just Revealed Incredible “Stubby Starship” to Land on the Moon before China…

Returning to the moon with Starship sparks debate given its immense height, need for orbital refueling, and other challenges. Yet, history shows challenges invite solutions. One bold idea gaining traction is the stubby Starship, a shorter, more compact design aimed at easing many of the original vehicles hurdles. By downsizing, obstacles once daunting may become manageable. But how practical is this unconventional approach? And could it shape future missions? Let's explore on today's episode of Great SpaceX. More than 50 years after Apollo 17, humanity is once again racing for a return to the moon. This time, the leading role has been given to SpaceX with its giant Starship rocket chosen by NASA as the vehicle for the first two crude lunar landings under the Aremis program. The stakes are immense, the expectations are sky-high, and the questions are many. Yet, skepticism remains strong. The first source of doubt comes from Starship's own progress. Despite years of development, Starship has not yet successfully reached orbit, has not demonstrated the full reusability that was promised, and has not rolled out a dedicated human landing system or HLS prototype. In addition, the support infrastructure required for such an ambitious spacecraft is far from complete. That includes the complex refilling system in orbit, which is absolutely critical to Starship's long-term plan for reaching the moon and Mars. The second challenge is Starship's size. Its immense height, towering over 50 m tall, even in its stripped down HLS variant, creates serious concerns about landing safely on the moon's uneven terrain. Without robust landing pads or support structures in place, the vehicle risks toppling during those first critical missions. Furthermore, its vast size requires huge amounts of fuel, which means it must be refilled in Earth orbit after already burning through much of its propellant simply to reach space. Developing a refueling system capable of transferring and storing cryogenic fuel in orbit is among the most difficult engineering problems in modern space flight. So, is there a realistic solution to these problems? Recently, a fascinating proposal has been gaining traction, and that is called the stubby Starship. This concept envisions a shorter and lighter version of Starship designed specifically for the Aremis landings. While it would still be based on the current Starship architecture and possibly share features with the planned HLS design, its most radical change would be its size. Instead of more than 50 m tall, Stubby Starship would stand only 10 to 20 m, cutting its height dramatically. Along with this reduction in size comes a major weight advantage. By eliminating much of the central barrel section along with redesigning its propellant tanks, legs, and crew elevator, Stubby Starship could weigh around 30 tons less than the already heavy 110 ton Starship HLS. What benefits would this bring? Firstly, smaller size means faster production. A compact vehicle can be built more quickly with fewer materials and tested sooner. That directly addresses concerns about the pace of Starship's development. If SpaceX pursued this path, it's possible that a prototype could be ready as early as the middle of next year, putting it on a timeline that would align better with NASA's schedule for Artemis missions. Secondly, reducing height effectively tackles the issue of landing stability. A shorter vehicle has a lower center of gravity and is therefore much less likely to tip over when touching down on the moon's rugged surface. It would give SpaceX greater flexibility in choosing landing sites and greater confidence in using traditional vertical legs rather than more exotic solutions like horizontal landings. Additionally, the shorter height would make it far easier for astronauts to travel from the crew cabin to the lunar surface and to move cargo, rovers, and scientific equipment in and out of the vehicle. Another crucial advantage comes from fuel requirements. The stubby Starship design appears to hold around 400 tons of propellant, which is significantly less than the massive demand of the full Starship HLS. This means it would require only four to five refueling flights in orbit instead of the more than 10 that might otherwise be necessary. That reduction could be the difference between meeting deadlines and falling hopelessly behind. Of course, critics will point out that reducing size also reduces performance. A smaller Starship cannot carry as much cargo, nor can it conduct all the maneuvers of its larger counterpart. But here is where the mission design becomes important. Analysts note that much of the fuel burden in Starship HLS comes from attempting to perform the trans lunar injection or TLI burn itself. This maneuver requires burning 1,200 to,600 tons of propellant to push the spacecraft from Earth orbit toward the moon. However, carrying all of that fuel along with tanks and plumbing means dragging dead weight once on the lunar surface. The proposal suggests offloading this responsibility to a support vehicle or orbital depot. Stubby Starship would launch into low Earth orbit, dock with the system, and be pushed into near rectalinear halo orbit or NRH near the moon. From there, it would operate exactly as NASA intends, fing astronauts to the lunar surface and returning them safely to Orion. As for cargo capacity, the earliest Aremis missions do not require enormous payloads. The first landings will last only a few days and will focus primarily on delivering four astronauts. Their life support supplies and a few key instruments such as rovers and science packages. A smaller Starship is more than capable of handling those modest loads. The potential benefits are obvious. By simplifying operations, reducing fuel demands, and accelerating timelines, Stubby could allow NASA and SpaceX to meet their commitments and beat international competitors to the moon. China, in particular, has been making steady progress with a clear roadmap for crude, lunar landings, and even permanent bases. Many analysts warned that the US could fall behind if Artemis slips further. A bold rethinking like Stubby could be the key to keeping America in the lead. Yet, every idea has two sides, and Stubby faces enormous challenges. First, reaching orbit with a smaller upper stage means the booster must do more work. This could make Super Heavy non-reusable for these missions, which would significantly increase costs. Second, developing the orbital depot or TUG required for the TLI maneuver is not trivial. It would have to be launched ahead of time, fully fueled, and capable of transferring propellant in space. Even if Stubby reduces the number of refueling flights, it still requires at least some orbital refueling, which is a technology that has never been demonstrated at scale. Third, SpaceX itself may resist the idea. The company has been pushing Starship toward greater size and capability, not less. Starship's ultimate purpose is not only the moon, but Mars, where enormous payload capacity will be essential. Stubby seems like a temporary solution, useful only for early Artemis missions before infrastructure such as landing pads, depots, and capture towers exist. Would SpaceX devote resources to building a vehicle that might become obsolete in just a few years? These are serious questions. So, is Stubby the right path forward? On one hand, it promises faster progress, safer landings, and fewer refueling headaches. On the other hand, it introduces new complexities and may not align with SpaceX's long-term strategy. The truth of the matter is the moon race is not just about technology. It's also about politics, timelines, and competition. If NASA and SpaceX need a shortcut to get boots back on the moon before others, Stubby might be the bold, unconventional answer. What do you think? Should SpaceX pursue this smaller version, or should they stay the course with the full-sized Starship HLS? Let me know with a yes or a no in the comments. And be sure to like the video and subscribe to our channel to keep following SpaceX's incredible journey toward the moon and beyond. Now whether SpaceX ultimately chooses Stubby or continues with the full-size version, there's no escaping the fact that a tremendous amount of preparation still lies ahead. Before any variant can be applied to lunar missions, SpaceX must first complete the fundamental capabilities of Starship itself. Every step of the flight sequence has to be mastered and validated on Earth before anyone can seriously think about applying them to the moon. There are several crucial steps that explicitly relate to lunar operations. The very first is for Starship to successfully reach orbit. This is the absolute baseline standard for any space vehicle. And although SpaceX has come close in previous test flights, the full demonstration has not yet been achieved. Many analysts predict that this milestone may not arrive with flight 11 or even flight 12, but more likely around flight 13. Only when orbital flight is confirmed can Starship prove itself competitive against other vehicles and begin to be considered as a reliable lunar transport system. Once Starship is able to reach orbit consistently, the next tasks come into play. These include payload deployment and engine relight. Payload deployment will be essential because Starship will be tasked with delivering large amounts of cargo and equipment to the moon's surface. To build confidence in this capability, SpaceX must soon demonstrate real payload delivery. Their stated target is to place a 100 tons into orbit, a goal planned for next year. But this will not be enough to do only once. Starship needs to show it can repeat this performance multiple times with reliability. The ability to relight engines in orbit is another fundamental step as it will be critical for navigation, course correction, and ultimately for performing trans lunar maneuvers. Following the orbital phase, SpaceX will have to demonstrate advanced landing capabilities. This is perhaps the most challenging and most anticipated step. For now, only the booster has shown successful landings. While the upper stage or ship has yet to achieve this goal, many expect that ship landings will not occur until sometime next year. Nonetheless, mastering ship landings on Earth will be the primary prerequisite for landing on the moon, where the stakes are much higher. Moreover, achieving safe and consistent ship landings will unlock the full potential of reusability, which is at the very heart of Starship's design philosophy. Beyond these flight related challenges, SpaceX must also navigate the process of transitioning between vehicle versions. After flight 11, the company plans to move to version three. Yet, even beyond that, leaks have suggested that version 4 may be targeted for 2027. SpaceX must determine which design variant will be stable enough for long-term lunar missions as constant redesigns can create confusion and delays. Meanwhile, the first Starship HLS prototypes need to be launched for early testing and mission preparation since NASA's schedule demands results soon. Speaking of NASA, their partnership is another critical factor. Regardless of which Starship version is ultimately used, it'll need to integrate smoothly with NASA vehicles during the crew transfer process. That means NASA must also maintain steady progress with its part of the Artemis program. Any delays or setbacks on their side could cascade into SpaceX's timelines. On the ground, infrastructure is just as important as the rockets themselves. The production system anchored by the Staractory and stacking base must run at full capacity to keep up with mission demand. Since the return to the moon will not be about oneoff flights, but rather the beginning of base building efforts, the number of missions required will be significantly higher. To match that demand, both the testing and launch systems must expand and improve. The testing program has been paused since the S36 incident, and it is urgent that it return with upgrades tailored for newer vehicle versions. Similarly, the launch pads at both Starbase and Florida must be completed and brought fully online. Progress has been made, but much work remains before they can support a consistent flight rate. In summary, SpaceX faces a mountain of tasks that need to be urgently completed in the coming period. The race to the moon is intensifying, and while the US still leads in most respects, the Aremis program is not without significant risks. High costs, technical complexity, and delays can to fuel concern that the US could stumble in this new space race. Yet, history has shown that breakthroughs often emerge under pressure. Stubby, while unconventional, is an example of the kind of bold idea that could change the game. It offers potential to simplify operations, accelerate readiness, and ease some of the logistical hurdles. Whether or not it becomes the chosen path, it demonstrates that innovation remains alive and well in the effort to return humans to the moon. But of course, not everyone will support such an idea. Critics argue that Stubby may not align with the long-term plans and could represent a diversion of resources. Still, in a race where the ultimate goal is victory, the question becomes, if an unconventional solution works, why not pursue it? The answers will begin to emerge in the months ahead. By early or mid next year, we may see the first mandatory Starship HLS prototype take flight, setting the stage for official missions. Until then, the world will be watching closely as SpaceX, NASA, and their partners make the critical decisions that will determine whether America can once again lead humanity back to the moon. In any case, folks, this has been Kevin with Great SpaceX. Don't forget to like the video and subscribe if you haven't already to stay up to date with yours truly on the latest milestones in SpaceX's journey. Thank you so much for watching and always remember, curiosity, imagination, and inspiration will follow you so long as you keep looking up.