Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin have submitted revised plans to NASA, aiming to return American astronauts to the Moon’s surface. These proposals are centered on NASA’s Artemis III mission, which will mark the first U.S. lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 1972. However, recent developments have led NASA to reconsider its contract with SpaceX, initially awarded in April 2021, due to delays with the Starship spacecraft.
On October 20, 2025, NASA’s acting administrator, Sean Duffy, announced the reopening of the lunar landing contract to competitors like Blue Origin, citing concerns over Starship’s progress. This decision highlights the ongoing challenges faced by SpaceX in its ambitious lunar mission plan.
Challenges with Starship
The core of the issue lies in Starship’s size and ambition. The spacecraft is designed to stand 50 meters tall and deliver a payload of 100,000 kg to the Moon. However, the path to achieving this has been fraught with difficulties. Starship’s test flight program has become the longest in space launch history, with numerous setbacks.
The upper stage of Starship, which is supposed to carry astronauts, underwent several test flights between 2020 and 2021. Only one, SN15, successfully landed. Additionally, 11 test flights of the full Starship system have been conducted, with most resulting in failures. The last two tests managed to survive re-entry but ended in explosions upon landing in the ocean.
“Starship continues to simultaneously be the fastest path to returning humans to the surface of the Moon and a core enabler of the Artemis programme’s goal to establish a permanent, sustainable presence on the lunar surface,” SpaceX stated in a recent blog post.
Design Philosophy and NASA’s Concerns
SpaceX’s unique development approach aims for frequent launches and rapid progress, accepting losses as part of the learning curve. However, NASA’s acting chief, Sean Duffy, has expressed concerns about Starship’s readiness for the Artemis III mission, scheduled for 2027. Despite SpaceX’s claims of completing 49 milestones, the payload-to-orbit promise remains unproven.
SpaceX is not solely designing a lunar landing vehicle but a versatile super-heavy-lift launcher for various missions, including to Mars. This broad focus contrasts with traditional spacecraft design, which targets specific mission constraints. The need for Starship to refuel in Earth orbit before heading to the Moon adds complexity, requiring multiple additional launches.
NASA’s Trajectory and International Collaboration
The leadership and direction of the U.S. government significantly influence NASA’s operations. The American Moon program, initiated over 20 years ago under the George W. Bush administration, has undergone frequent changes, complicating long-term planning. In contrast, the European Space Agency (ESA) sets objectives over a decade, allowing for steady progress.
The current U.S. administration’s budget proposal could further impact NASA’s plans, potentially ending American participation in international missions like EnVision and Lisa. Such changes would necessitate additional funding from other nations, affecting the Artemis program’s international collaboration. Artemis relies on global support for key elements, including the Orion service module and segments of the Lunar Gateway space station.
Looking Ahead
Despite the challenges, exciting developments are on the horizon. The upcoming Artemis II mission will send four astronauts on a lunar flyby, while Blue Origin’s New Glenn heavy lift rocket is set for its first launch. Additionally, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are preparing to launch commercial payloads to the Moon.
As NASA navigates these complexities, the competition between SpaceX and Blue Origin remains intense. Whichever company ultimately carries astronauts to the Moon on Artemis III, the journey promises to be a significant milestone in space exploration.
/Courtesy of The Conversation. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style, and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).
