A recent statement by acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy has sent shockwaves through the space industry, suggesting that SpaceX could be removed from the agency’s upcoming moon-landing plans. As the agency prepares for its ambitious Artemis III mission, alternative proposals for reaching the lunar surface are quietly being developed by various aerospace companies. Currently, SpaceX holds a $2.9 billion contract to use its massive Starship rocket system to transport astronauts to the Moon, but delays in development and increasing competition from China have prompted NASA to reconsider its options.
As part of its efforts to expedite lunar exploration, NASA has requested that both SpaceX and Blue Origin—which has its own lunar lander contract—submit plans to accelerate their spacecraft development by October 29. While both companies are working on their proposals, NASA is also engaging the broader commercial space industry to seek innovative solutions, signaling that current partners may be sidelined if they fail to meet deadlines. According to sources, the formal request will be issued once the ongoing government shutdown concludes.
Experts caution that any new proposals will require constructing and testing entirely new spacecraft designs, a process that typically takes six to seven years. This timeline could jeopardize NASA's ambitious plans, especially given China's objective to land astronauts on the Moon by 2030. Currently, Artemis III is projected for mid-2027, but delays in Starship's development could push that timeline further back.
During a recent interview, Duffy emphasized the importance of reaching the Moon's unexplored south pole region, where valuable resources like ice and sunlight are found. "We want to get there first and claim that for America," he stated. Given the high stakes, experts suggest that reassessing SpaceX's lunar lander contract might be a prudent move. Some believe that developing a new spacecraft could potentially be quicker than waiting for the challenges associated with Starship's unprecedented design to be resolved.
SpaceX's Starship is touted as the most powerful rocket system ever built, having successfully completed 11 suborbital test flights, demonstrating various capabilities such as engine relighting in space and satellite deployment. In its latest statement, SpaceX reported that it has achieved 49 milestones related to the development of systems necessary for lunar landings. Despite this progress, Starship has faced significant setbacks, including multiple explosions during test flights this year.
Under the current plan, NASA intends to launch astronauts aboard the Orion capsule, which will then transfer to Starship for the final descent to the Moon. However, SpaceX has yet to demonstrate the capability for orbital missions or in-flight refueling—both essential for lunar operations. Experts estimate that the number of necessary refueling flights could range from 10 to 40, complicating the logistics of the Artemis III mission.
One alternative proposed by Duffy involves utilizing a lunar lander developed by Blue Origin, which already has a contract for later Artemis missions. Blue Origin is working on two models of its Blue Moon landers: Mark 1 for cargo and Mark 2 for human missions. To expedite the Artemis III mission, Blue Origin plans to devise a new design that combines elements from both models, potentially facilitating a more efficient launch process without the need for complex refueling operations.
Lockheed Martin, another key player, is also preparing to submit a proposal. The company has extensive experience as a NASA contractor and is exploring the possibility of using spare parts from the Orion spacecraft to create a two-stage lunar lander. Depending on its design choice, Lockheed may collaborate with another commercial space company to develop the descent stage of its lander, weighing the benefits of cryogenic versus stable propellants.
One major consideration for NASA is the cost of pursuing alternative lunar landers. Currently, SpaceX's Starship is the most cost-effective option, as the company is self-funding a significant portion of the project. Other companies have not yet provided cost estimates for their proposals, raising questions about the financial viability of potential alternatives. While Congress has supported the Artemis program, uncertainties remain about whether additional funding will be allocated to expedite these new plans.
Experts suggest that instead of racing to expedite Artemis III, NASA should focus on establishing a sustainable lunar presence. The overarching goal, they argue, should be to lay the groundwork for a permanent lunar base rather than simply achieving a one-time landing. SpaceX has echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that Starship is designed to support long-term lunar exploration and pave the way for future missions to Mars.
In an era where the space race is framed as a competition, experts emphasize the importance of sustainability over speed. The true winner may well be the nation that can establish lasting infrastructure on the Moon, ensuring that future exploration is both achievable and sustainable.
