SpaceX’s Insane Solutions to Land Starship Without Legs on the Moon! Could This Really Work!?

Landing Starship on the moon has always been a topic that sparks much discussion because there are many different scenarios that could play out for such a mission. Among those scenarios, the idea of landing with legs has often been raised. However, it's important to remember that the current version of Starship is built without legs. And this is most likely the approach SpaceX intends to use for its lunar missions. So, how exactly will SpaceX land Starship without legs? What challenges does this approach present? And why is it still worth pursuing despite those challenges? Let's explore more in today's episode of Great SpaceX. SpaceX has less than 2 years to prepare for the Aremis 3 mission, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years. The timeline is tight and the pressure is immense. On top of that, the company may also need to conduct an uncrrewed demonstration mission before then by late next year. This means that in a very short period of time, SpaceX must solve one of the most difficult challenges in modern space flight, and that is figuring out how to land the massive lunar lander version of Starship on the surface of the moon. This task assumes, of course, that SpaceX has already overcome all of the earlier hurdles such as orbital refueling and long duration mission readiness just to reach the lunar surface. When people consider how Starship will land, many immediately think of landing legs. It feels natural, even intuitive to assume that a lander of this scale would require strong legs to remain balanced on the uneven terrain of the moon. In fact, NASA's official renderings of the human landing system, or HLS for short, have all featured Starship with some form of landing legs. Personally, a Starship with legs seems like a straightforward and practical approach compared to the current designs without them. Legs provide a sense of stability, helping the vehicle maintain balance when touching down on slopes, craters, or loose regalith. Yet, the question remains, is landing with legs really the perfect solution? So far, SpaceX has given every indication that it intends to move forward with a Starship design that does not rely on legs. Many fans of the program do not like this direction because it is optimized for catching Starship with the massive mechanical arms of the launch tower, also known as Mechazilla, rather than standing on its own supports. In the long term, SpaceX clearly envisions a future where rockets land and are rapidly turned around by towers both on Earth and eventually on other worlds. That approach suggests that a legless Starship design will be the priority. Still, it's worth looking at why legs, despite their apparent benefits, are not a perfect answer. The first challenge is complexity. Designing a leg system that can handle the extreme size and weight of Starship is far more difficult than the landing legs on Falcon 9. A folding leg design might allow neat stowage and convenience during flight, but it would also introduce mechanical joints that are vulnerable to failure. A fixed leg design could reduce moving parts and increase reliability, but it would add bulkiness, especially when stacking Starship on top of a booster. Either way, the engineering challenge is immense. The second issue is cost and mass. Compared to Falcon 9, Starship is far heavier and taller, which means the legs must also be far larger. and larger legs, if you didn't know, add more mass, which works against SpaceX's entire design philosophy of making Starship as light as possible. To support such a large vehicle, SpaceX would probably need at least six legs, if not more, compared to Falcon 9's four. This makes manufacturing, installation, and maintenance significantly more timeconuming. Another problem is that landing legs may not even be necessary. Falcon 9 still uses legs because it's a reusable system that must land on Earth and be rapidly redeployed. The Starship HLS, however, is not intended to return to Earth or be reused in the same way as the operational Starship fleet. Once it's on the moon, it may not fly again. In that case, the cost and complexity of adding legs may be wasteful. And for the last point, legs don't guarantee success. Several lunar landers from different space programs in recent years have failed to land safely despite being equipped with legs. Stability is important, but precision in descent and reliability in systems are far more critical factors in ensuring a successful lunar landing. So, what about the alternative? A design without legs. At first glance, it seems riskier. A tall vehicle without legs sounds unstable. However, SpaceX has consistently focused on developing this approach. And many experts argue that if SpaceX can figure out how to land Starship without legs on Mars, where the gravity and atmosphere add further complications, then landing on the moon should also be possible. There's also the consideration of long-term design philosophy. Once SpaceX has fully developed and deployed its launch towers, the need for legs will diminish. At that point, a Starship without legs becomes not only viable, but also preferable since it simplifies the vehicle and reduces mass. But there is another possibility that makes this conversation even more interesting. What if Starship did not land vertically at all? Imagine a scenario where Starship lands horizontally. This method would remove many of the concerns associated with vertical landings, such as the vehicle's extreme height and center of gravity. A horizontal landing would provide much greater stability, especially for longduration missions. It would also make it easier to select landing sites since the surface would not need to be as flat or as stable. Horizontal landings would also eliminate the need for complex elevators or lifts to lower astronauts from dozens of meters above the ground to the lunar surface. Cargo and equipment could be be loaded and unloaded more easily. In fact, this concept could be especially attractive for future missions where Starship might be transformed into a lunar base. By landing horizontally, the spacecraft itself could become the foundation of a habitat with astronauts walking directly in and out of it. Several methods could make this feasible. SpaceX might use cranes or cables to carefully lower Starship on its side, Starship onto its side after landing. Alternatively, they could design cushion systems to absorb the impact as the vehicle transitions from vertical to horizontal. The most ambitious possibility would be to use Starship's own engines and thrusters to perform a controlled maneuver, gently laying the spacecraft down immediately upon touchdown. This would save time, effort, and infrastructure while reducing the need for external support systems. Horizontal landings would also provide better protection. For example, Regalith could be piled around the sides of the Starship to shield it from harmful radiation. This is much more practical with a vehicle lying on its side than standing vertically. Of course, this approach is not without its own challenges. The transition for flight to horizontal orientation would require precise engineering. With no aerodynamic surfaces on Starship HLS, the maneuver would rely entirely on thrusters and engines. These systems would need to work in perfect harmony to balance the vehicle and set it down gently. Then there's the issue of launch. Missions that require ascent from the lunar surface would need Starship to stand up vertically. Again, that is a major challenge because lifting a vast vehicle, lifting such a massive vehicle from a horizontal position to vertical would require immense thrust and careful engineering. The internal design of Starship also presents a problem. Much of the vehicle is engineered with the vertical pressure loads in mind. Tanks, payload compartments, and internal structures may not handle horizontal orientation without reinforcement. The shift could cause pressure imbalances in the fuel tanks, leading to risks such as fuel slloshing or leakage. SpaceX would need to find creative ways to counteract these issues. Perhaps by designing mechanisms that keep key systems stable regardless of orientation. Even in a horizontal state, Starship would still need some kind of stabilizing support. Small legs, pegs, or anchor points could be required to prevent it from rolling on uneven terrain or shifting due to impacts. These would add another layer of complexity to the design. All these factors highlight just how challenging it is to design a reliable lunar lander at Starship's scale. SpaceX's decision to pursue either a legged or legless design would depend on many considerations, including cost, timeline, reliability, and long-term goals. So, what do you think? Is a legless Starship worth pursuing? Could horizontal landings be the unexpected solution that makes it possible? Let me know with a yes or a no in the comment section down below. Keep in mind, regardless of what we think, the decision will ultimately rest with SpaceX as they balance ambition with practicality. For me, both approaches to landing Starship, whether with legs or without, deserve serious consideration. Each path brings distinct advantages, and the choice may ultimately depend on the mission profile and the stage of the program. What works best for a lunar landing may differ from what is optimal for a Mars mission and SpaceX's flexibility in exploring both options could prove to be one of its greatest strengths. The non-leg version seems best aligned with SpaceX's long-term vision. This design is clearly intended for a future where launch and landing systems such as the Megazilla arms are fully built and operational. In that scenario, the non-leg Starship has the advantage of simplicity, reduced weight, and better integration with the rapid turnaround model that SpaceX is aiming to establish. Once stability in operations is achieved and the supporting infrastructure is in place, this version could dominate the long-term future of Starship missions. However, the early stage of the program is where both versions deserve attention. The starship with legs could play a key role in the first missions, especially when landing in new and uncertain environments. Legs provide an additional layer of stability and reduce reliance on groundbased support systems. This makes them attractive for early lunar missions where safety is the highest priority. In fact, SpaceX could even consider adapting such a legged design for conventional Starship variants if they decide to attempt landings on oceangoing drone ships in the future. On the other hand, the non-leg version could open possibilities for more complex missions in areas with uneven terrain or when considering the potential to convert Starship into a base. The option of horizontal landing that has been discussed might offer unique advantages. This shows that the non-leg version has flexibility, especially for later stages of lunar and Martian exploration. For now though, as we look toward Artemis 3 and the first crude lunar landings, it seems like the legged version of Starship has the higher chance of being selected. Despite the challenges that come with its heightened mass, the combination of NASA and SpaceX's planning suggests that the first generation of crude missions will prioritize the safety and reliability that legs provide. In the end, both designs have a place in the program, and each could serve an important role as SpaceX and NASA work together to achieve humanity's return to the moon. Indeed, landing on the moon stands as one of the most thrilling and highly anticipated milestones of modern space exploration. But it also brings enormous challenges. Overcoming them will demand carefully calculated choices from SpaceX. Among the most debated is whether Starship will ultimately rely on landing legs or operate without them. It's far from a simple question. Each path carries its own risk and advantages, and the outcome could shape the future of lunar exploration. The answer may come sooner than expected. As we enter the latter half of 2025, preparations are becoming more urgent. A crucial uncrrewed lunar landing demonstration is already targeted for late 2026 and an official version of Starship HLS is likely to be revealed early next year. That design could become one used for the first Artemis missions. However, it doesn't necessarily mean it will remain the long-term solution since future lunar operations may require different approaches. Having multiple options for landing demonstrates the flexibility and adaptability of Starship compared to other spacecraft. It reinforces the idea that Starship will play a central role in humanity's effort to return to the moon, no matter how the design evolves. Of course, before Starship can touch the lunar surface, there are still enormous hurdles to clear. SpaceX must first perfect Starship's landings here on Earth. On top of that, the orbital refilling system, an essential technology for sending Starship beyond Earth, still needs to be fully developed and tested. And without that capability, no lunar landing will be possible. The timeline is tight. These systems must be advanced over the next year into 2026, marking one of the most critical periods in SpaceX's history. The pressure is even greater because this is not just a race against technical challenges. It's also a race against international competition. China has made significant progress toward its own lunar ambitions and is rapidly positioning itself as a formidable challenger in the new space race. The stage is set for an extraordinary few years ahead. Whether with legs or without, Starship's path to the moon will shape the future of exploration, and all eyes are watching to see how this historic race unfolds. 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.