Break it! SpaceX Falcon Heavy to the Moon Sooner instead of NASA's "$26.4 billion" Rocket...

Aside from Starship, does SpaceX have any other vehicle capable of sending humans to the moon? It's a question that's been on a lot of people's minds, even NASA's. They need a reliable backup as the lunar race with China heats up and as budget cuts keep growing. Of course, Falcon 9 is out of the running. It's a medium lift rocket, incredible for what it does, but simply not powerful enough for a lunar mission. So, what about a rocket that's three times stronger than Falcon 9? That's right, Falcon Heavy. It could even be Blue Origin's New Glenn. So, could Falcon Heavy actually send astronauts to the moon? Let's find out in today's episode of Alpha Tech. If SpaceX hadn't shifted all its focus toward developing Starship, there's a good chance Falcon Heavy could have already taken humans to the moon. And that's not an exaggeration. Even today, it remains one of the most powerful rockets in the world. The third most powerful, in fact, stronger than Blue Origin's New Glenn. and just slightly less powerful than NASA's gigantic SLS. Falcon Heavy is more than just a rocket. It's a symbol of SpaceX's ambition. It made history back in 2018 when it launched Elon Musk's personal Tesla Roadster into space. That very first mission was a success, setting the tone for everything that came after. Since then, Falcon Heavy has flown 11 times with a 100% success rate. So, it's no surprise that people are wondering if this rocket is that capable and that reliable, could it actually handle a crude lunar mission? Actually, this question isn't strange at all. Even NASA once asked the same thing back in 2019. Impressed by Falcon Heavy's first flight, former NASA administrator Jim Benstein publicly discussed with the Senate Committee the possibility of using it together with ULA's interim cryogenic propulsion stage to launch the crude Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit instead of relying on the SLS. He believed this could be a practical alternative to meet the goal of landing astronauts on the moon by 2024. But in the end, the idea was dropped mainly because at that time the SLS was considered more powerful than Falcon Heavy. Ironically though, SLS went on to face constant delays and ballooning costs and the 2024 lunar landing target was eventually scrapped. So, who knows? If NASA had gone with SpaceX's rocket back then, maybe we'd already be celebrating humanity's return to the moon today. So, why is this SpaceX vehicle so highly regarded in the first place? Well, let's compare it with NASA's SLS for a moment. Both are heavy lift rockets, but Falcon Heavy stands out for its low cost and high reliability, even though the SLS has the edge in raw payload capacity. Here's how they stack up. Falcon Heavy can carry about 63.8 tons to low Earth orbit and around 16.8 tons to lunar orbit. Meanwhile, the SLS Block One can lift up to 95 tons to LEO and 26 tons to lunar orbit. So, yes, Falcon Heavy's thrust is roughly 20 to 25% lower. But even with that, it still has enough power to send the Orion capsule to lunar orbit since Orion alone weighs just over 10 tons. The real challenge comes when you add the European service module, which weighs around 15.4 tons. That module carries the propulsion, power, oxygen, and life support systems needed for the crew. And that's where Falcon Heavy starts to reach its limits. So to get astronauts to the moon, Falcon Heavy could theoretically use a multi-launch strategy. For example, one launch could send the Orion spacecraft and another could deliver the lunar lander module. NASA actually looked into this concept before, as we mentioned earlier, and beyond its technical feasibility, they also found Falcon Heavy to be far more economical than SLS. We're talking about roughly $500 million for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy mission and under $100 million in a reusable configuration. Compare that to the $2 billion price tag of a single SLS launch, and the difference is staggering. On top of that, Falcon Heavy has already flown 11 missions with a 100% success rate, proving a level of reliability that SLS simply hasn't matched yet, having completed only one successful flight so far with Artemis 1. Well, while SLS is better suited for single launch missions thanks to its higher payload capacity, Falcon Heavy could still play a major role in crude lunar missions when paired with supporting systems such as SpaceX's own lunar lander or other partner modules. It's a more flexible and far more cost effective path to the moon. However, the biggest issue right now is that Falcon Heavy isn't human rated, meaning it hasn't been certified to carry astronauts. And that's a major reason why it hasn't been used for any crude lunar missions so far. Since its completion, SpaceX has shown no real intention of pursuing human rating certification for Falcon Heavy. Why? Because all of the company's focus has shifted to Starship, which is designed for much larger and more ambitious missions. That said, if there were ever an urgent need, getting Falcon Heavy certified wouldn't be too difficult. Its extensive flight record and nearperfect reliability already speak for themselves. And the certification authority of course would be none other than NASA. Beyond the human rating certification issue, Falcon Heavy would also need several technical modifications before it could actually send the Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit. First, engineers would have to design structural adapters to safely integrate Orion, including both the crew module and the service module with the rocket itself. Second, they'd also need to make sure the setup is compatible with Orion's launch abort system, which is critical for crew safety during ascent. And the last, Falcon Heavy's payload fairing, is already large enough to accommodate Orion, but it might still require some optimization to handle the vibration and thermal loads expected during a lunar mission. With just those improvements, Falcon Heavy could absolutely be capable of sending humans to the moon before 2030, potentially beating China to it. Normally, NASA's plan involves launching the Orion spacecraft into Earth orbit first, where the crew would perform system checks before initiating the trans lunar injection, or TLI, the crucial burn that sends the spacecraft toward the moon. That TLI maneuver is typically handled by the interim cryogenic propulsion stage, a hydrogen oxygen upper stage built by United Launch Alliance. But according to a more optimized concept proposed by NASA engineers, Falcon Heavy alone could potentially send Orion most of the way to the moon without needing the ICPS at all. This approach wouldn't just simplify the integration between Orion and Falcon Heavy. It would also preserve the ICPS, which is not reusable, for a future mission instead. As mentioned earlier, Falcon Heavy can lift over 26,300 kg to geostationary transfer orbit or GTO. Now, GTO doesn't take you all the way to the moon, but energetically it gets you surprisingly close. Reaching GTO requires an increase in velocity of about 2.5 km/s, while a full TLI burn needs around 3.2 km/s. So, where does that extra 700 m/s come from? From Orion's own service module propulsion system. According to NASA's specs, the service module can provide up to 1.8 km/s of delta V, which is more than enough to complete the TLI and still have fuel left for midcourse corrections. However, in this scenario, Orion likely wouldn't have enough propellant left to perform lunar orbit insertion. Instead, it could follow a free return trajectory, swinging around the far side of the moon and heading straight back to Earth, similar to the backup flight paths used during the early Apollo missions. So, yes, using Falcon Heavy as a crude lunar launch vehicle actually looks like a viable alternative, one that deserves serious consideration. It offers comparable capability, potentially greater flexibility, and it comes at just a fraction of the space launch systems massive cost. So, why didn't NASA go with Falcon Heavy after all? As mentioned earlier, while the idea was intriguing, Falcon Heavy was originally designed to launch payloads to orbit, not to send crude spacecraft to the moon. That means it would need a number of modifications before it could take on such a mission, which is why for now, it's only considered a backup option. Then comes the technical side. As noted before, there are definitely some engineering challenges when adapting a special Falcon Heavy configuration for this kind of flight. Let's start with the launchpad. Pad 39 A would require a series of upgrades, including modifications to the tank farm and new fueling systems for Orion's hypergolic propellants, which would have to be loaded while the rocket stands vertically, similar to what we see with Starship today. Next, the transporter erector system would also need serious changes to handle the added height and mass about 95 m tall when fully stacked compared to the usual 70 m for Falcon Heavy. There are also other smaller considerations tied to integration and ground operations, but honestly, that's about it. These are all solvable problems. They're not trivial, but they're not dealreakers either. just the kind of technical challenges you'd expect when attempting something as ambitious as sending humans back to the moon. And finally, there's the strategic side. We already have Starship and the SLS, two vehicles purpose-built for lunar missions. Both NASA and SpaceX are prioritizing their completion and testing rather than spreading resources thin by trying to human rate and modify Falcon Heavy at the same time. If they tried to do everything at once, it would only slow progress across the board. So, for now, Falcon Heavy remains a promising backup. But before that backup ever becomes necessary, Starship has to prove itself first. Aside from Falcon Heavy, SpaceX's Dragon has also become a hot topic, with many wondering if it could one day replace Orion altogether. After all, Dragon is currently the world's most modern and reliable spacecraft for crew transport to the ISS. And the idea of using it beyond low Earth orbit isn't new. Right after the success of Demo 2, the first crude launch from US soil since the shuttle era, some experts began suggesting that Dragon could be upgraded to take humans into lunar orbit and even dock with the lunar gateway. Among them was Dr. Robert Zubran who published an article in the Washington Post titled send the SpaceX Dragon to the moon. In it, he proposed using Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon as a cost-effective alternative to the SLS and Orion combo, which cost several times more. Zubran argued that Dragon had already proven its reliability and could be modified with redundant systems to handle deep space missions. However, the idea didn't go unchallenged. Tony Antonelli, a former astronaut and the Orion program manager, pushed back, saying that Dragon simply wasn't designed for deep space. He pointed out that Orion was built to withstand radiation, operate autonomously for over 21 days, and deal with the unknown unknowns of long duration exploration. As he put it, Orion is an exploration class spacecraft, while Dragon is mainly optimized for low Earth orbit. And he's right. Turning Dragon into a deep space vehicle would face some real engineering hurdles. SpaceX would have to rework almost everything. Navigation and comms that depend on GPS, tougher radiation protection, bigger life support systems, and a redesigned heat shield to survive lunar re-entry at 11 km/s. Technically, it's possible, but it would take years of redesigns and testing. And time isn't exactly on NASA's side if they want to beat China to the moon. If America really makes it back to the moon more than 50 years after Apollo, that would be something truly incredible. The idea was first revived under the Trump administration in 2019. Back then, NASA administrator Jim Benstein fully supported it and eager to win the president's favor, he officially announced the Aremis program in March of that year. At the International Astronautical Congress later in 2019, Benstein said, "We're going to the moon with commercial partners, and we're not going to do it alone." That message was clear. NASA couldn't go to the moon by itself anymore. It needed help from the private sector. About a year later, in April 2020, under Benstein's leadership, NASA picked three companies to build prototype lunar landers. SpaceX with Starship HLS, Blue Origin with its Blue Moonlander, and Dynetics with Dynetics HLS. But here's the twist. SpaceX only received $135.6 million to kickstart its lunar starship. That's tiny compared to the others. Blue Origin got a massive $579 million, and Dynetics received $253 million. But don't get it wrong, the smaller amount didn't mean NASA was underestimating SpaceX. It's because Starship HLS was by far the cheapest proposal, and SpaceX had bid the lowest price simply because they believed in their fully reusable design, the first of its kind in the world. And just a few months later, the company successfully launched its first crude Dragon spacecraft to the ISS under the Demo 2 mission, finally ending America's decadel long dependence on Russia's Soyos to send astronauts into space. That moment strengthened NASA's trust and Benstein's confidence in SpaceX. So in April 2021, NASA made it official. SpaceX would be the sole contractor for Artemis 3 with a $2.89 89 billion deal. Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin, unwilling to accept that outcome, immediately filed a protest, claiming the selection process had been unfair. But Benstein, even as he was preparing to leave NASA, stood by his choice. He called Starship the best technical and economic option, a clear sign of how much he believed in Space X. He even said at a 2021 event, "Starship could be the backbone of our lunar and Martian exploration." And yet, after he left NASA, everything changed. In 2021, Benstein used his experience, insider knowledge, and the weight of his former title to launch a lobbying firm called the Aremis Group, representing companies that directly compete with SpaceX, including ULA, Boeing, Lheed Martin, Blue Origin, and other traditional contractors. By 2025, his firm reportedly received around $1 million from ULA to lobby both NASA and Congress. And the results, they soon became visible. In September this year, during a Senate hearing, Benstein stated that the US would have a very hard time landing on the moon before China because Starship HLS was too complex, required multiple inorbit refuelings, and carried too much risk. He even argued that NASA buys rockets, not landers, and suggested invoking the Defense Production Act to force NASA to reopen the HLS contract, prioritizing simpler solutions, a thinly veiled reference to ULA and its Vulcan rocket, which NASA had once considered for launching Blue Origins Blue Moon or Dynetics HLS. Then in October at the von Brone Space Exploration Symposium, Benstein, joined by former NASA administrator Charles Balden, urged NASA to restructure Artemis 3 to reduce or even drop reliance on Starship, calling it slow, overly complex, and unnecessary. He also pushed to reopen the Aremis 3 contract, a move that of course would benefit his clients. It's a complete flip. The man who once championed SpaceX's lunar mission is now openly tearing it down. And let's be honest, the reason couldn't be more obvious. Money and influence. And after all that, SpaceX had finally had enough. They weren't going to just sit there and listen to Benstein's constant complaints anymore. So, they fired back hard. It started with a single post followed by five separate comments. each one adding more facts and context until the former NASA administrator had to feel at least totally embarrassed. At first, SpaceX's tone seemed polite, even gracious. They wrote, "Like many Americans, we are thankful for Mr. Benstein's service leading NASA." At one point, "He deserves credit for spearheading the creation of the Artemis program." Many people read that and thought, "Wow, SpaceX is really being the bigger person here." But that was just the setup. What came next hit much harder. Mr. Benstein's current campaign against Starship is either misguided or intentionally misleading. SpaceX was selected to design and develop a human landing system for Aremis along with Blue Origin and Dynetics during Mr. Benstein's tenure as NASA administrator. To make it even clearer, SpaceX attached the original NASA press release from 2020, the one officially announcing that he himself had chosen SpaceX for the Aremis lander program. It was a powerful reminder and a subtle jab, saying, "In essence, you picked us. Don't let money make you forget that. You thought that was the end of it. Oh, no. Things were just getting started." People began to suspect that Elon Musk himself had stepped in, using SpaceX's official ex account to expose Benstein even further. The post read, "To be clear, he is a paid lobbyist. He is representing his clients interests, and his comments should be seen for what they are. A paid lobbyist's effort to secure billions more in government funding for his clients who are already years late and billions of dollars over budget. No filters, no sugar coating, just pure classic Elon Musk. Blunt, direct, and absolutely unafraid to call things as they are. And honestly, that's exactly the kind of strength SpaceX needed to protect its reputation. This whole clash came right after Benstein's call for NASA to build a new lander, which led the agency to consider reopening the Aremis 3 contract. That move basically implied that SpaceX was falling behind, that Starship HLS was too ambitious to deliver, a blow to everything SpaceX had been building toward. But that plan didn't go anywhere. Musk's response, public, sharp, and impossible to ignore, effectively shut it down. It also felt like Musk wanted to pull back the curtain on Benstein's motives to make sure everyone saw what was really going on. After all, Blue Origin had already sued NASA multiple times trying to push SpaceX out. And now, with Benstein acting as a paid lobbyist, they were clearly trying to grab even more taxpayer money while SpaceX was pouring billions of its own dollars into Starship without a scent of bailout cash. So, Musk's bold move didn't just defend SpaceX, it exposed the game entirely, leaving both Benstein and his clients looking, well, pretty embarrassed. Of course, whether Elon Musk personally used SpaceX's ex account to criticize Benstein is still just speculation. Nothing has been confirmed. However, that theory didn't come out of nowhere. Musk has a history of personally responding to critics on X, for instance. He previously fired back strongly at Shawn Duffy, a NASA administrator. But this time, Musk himself stayed silent while SpaceX's official account did the talking. That's why many observers believe Musk authorized or oversaw the response on behalf of the company. Overall, after all that noise, NASA eventually decided to open the door for other companies to join the Aremis 3 program instead of relying solely on SpaceX. On October 20th, 2025, acting administrator Shawn Duffy officially announced the move through interviews with CNBC and Fox News, confirming that NASA had issued a request for information. The very first step in the US government's public contracting process. Of course, this doesn't mean NASA is replacing SpaceX. An RFI is simply an invitation for companies to submit preliminary concepts so NASA can gather data and evaluate potential backup options without committing any funding right away. Duffy emphasized that this approach would open the contract without cancelling SpaceX's deal, adding more redundancy and flexibility to reduce risk. So far, the RFI is still under review, and no new contracts have been awarded, but still, this move stirred up a lot of attention. After all, Blue Origin is already working on Artemis 5, and realistically, who else besides SpaceX could deliver a working lunar lander in time. The decision felt like pouring fuel on the fire. Then again, competition isn't necessarily bad news for SpaceX. In fact, the company had just released an update on Starship HLS progress, likely to remind everyone how far ahead they actually are. Behind the scenes, there's a bit more politics at play. NASA is facing pressure from Congress, especially from lawmakers in Texas and Virginia who support Blue Origin, urging the agency to speed things up and avoid another Apollo style collapse after 1972 due to costs. Duffy made it clear the president wants us to get there within his term. In other words, before 2029 to beat China, which plans to land its own astronauts on the moon by 2030 using the LANU spacecraft. And yet, all of this comes amid a proposal to cut NASA's 2026 budget by 24%. Kind of ironic, isn't it? So, what do you think? After all this drama, is this actually good for SpaceX, or will it just slow everything down? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Meanwhile, as SpaceX continues to dominate global headlines, its biggest rival, Blue Origin, has finally made some serious progress of its own. The company's massive orbital rocket, New Glenn, is now closer than ever to its long- aaited debut flight. Currently targeting a launch window between November 9th and 11th. A major milestone came on October 30th when Blue Origin successfully carried out a static fire test at Launch Complex 36 in Cape Canaveral. For 38 seconds, all seven BE4 engines roared to life, generating an incredible 1,700 tons of thrust, a huge step toward flight readiness. Both Jeff Bezos and CEO Dave Limp celebrated the test, noting that engineers intentionally extended the burn time to simulate landing conditions, shutting down the engines in sequence to study fluid dynamics during thrust transitions, something crucial for booster recovery. Blue Origin confirmed that all engines performed flawlessly, signaling that the once trouble BE4 has finally reached reliability. The test came after earlier reports of issues with the upper stage, but this success helped restore confidence that the company can meet its early November launch goal. After the test, the booster was rolled back for inspections. While integration continued for its first mission, NASA's Escapade, which will study Mars' magnetosphere, that flight aims to both deploy Escapade and attempt a booster landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic.