The suggestion by acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy that SpaceX might be removed from the critical crewed lunar-landing phase of the Artemis III mission has sent reverberations through the commercial space sector. With SpaceX holding a $2.9 billion contract to develop its massive Starship system to ferry astronauts to the Moon’s surface, this move signals a major re-evaluation of the agency’s strategy. to consider NASA Artemis III Lunar Lander Alternatives.
Citing persistent delays in Starship’s development and the escalating competitive pressure from China’s 2030 lunar target, NASA has quietly initiated a search for alternate, quicker paths to the lunar surface. While SpaceX and Blue Origin (which has a separate lunar lander contract for a later mission) were asked to submit plans to expedite their current work by October 29, NASA is also signaling to the broader industry that it is prepared to sideline its existing partners in the pursuit of a faster solution.
The agency’s urgency is tied directly to national security and strategic interests, as Duffy has repeatedly emphasized the imperative to “get there first and claim that for America” on the largely unexplored Moon’s south pole region, the target landing site for Artemis III.
The Engineering Hurdles of Starship and the Race Against Time
The current pace of development for Starship, touted as the most powerful rocket system ever built, is threatening to push the Artemis III target of mid-2027 months or even years into the future. Despite making progress, including relighting engines in space, reusing boosters, and deploying satellites across 11 suborbital test flights, Starship still faces monumental engineering challenges. SpaceX stated it has “completed 49 milestones tied to developing the subsystems, infrastructure, and operations” and that the “vast majority” of contractual testing has been on schedule.
However, the system has endured significant setbacks, including multiple prototype vehicle failures and ground testing incidents this year, raising concerns among national security experts about its readiness. The planned Artemis III mission requires astronauts to travel aboard the Orion capsule and Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to lunar orbit, where they would then transfer to Starship for the surface descent. Crucially, Starship has yet to successfully complete an orbital mission and, more importantly, has not attempted the necessary in-orbit refueling.
Because of its massive size and design, Starship requires multiple refueling flights—estimated to be anywhere from 10 to 40—to top off its cryogenic propellants in orbit, a maneuver that has never been accomplished before with any spacecraft. Experts like Doug Loverro, a former chief of human spaceflight at NASA, have expressed doubt, stating that “SpaceX is not going to be able to make this work before 2030,” supporting the view that pursuing a completely new design might be faster. For more technical details on the Orion spacecraft and the SLS rocket, readers can consult the NASA Artemis Program Overview.
Industry Alternatives: From Blue Origin’s Retrofit to Lockheed’s Spares
The possibility of dropping Starship has opened the door for commercial competitors to pitch their own “go-fast” solutions. Blue Origin, already contracted for the later Artemis V mission, is proposing a retrofit approach for Artemis III. The Jeff Bezos-funded company plans to leverage elements of its Mark 1 (cargo) and Mark 2 (crewed) Blue Moon landers to create an expedited human-rated vehicle.
This plan includes converting one or more Mark 1 landers into small rocket stages to boost the scaled-down Mark 2 out of Earth orbit. This approach would require multiple launches but significantly fewer than Starship’s refueling concept and critically, avoids the need for in-orbit refueling tankers and the complex transfer of super-chilled cryogenic propellants. Separately, Lockheed Martin, the legacy NASA contractor that built the $20.4 billion Orion spacecraft, is offering a two-stage lunar lander design leveraging existing hardware. Lockheed’s plan involves using spare parts harvested from Orion, including Space Shuttle-era OMS-E engines for the lander’s ascent stage.
For the descent stage, Lockheed is considering partnering with another company, with options including a cryogenically fueled lander (requiring in-orbit docking) or a lander using more stable hypergolic fuels. The use of stable fuels is less risky and utilizes a proven technology; transferring such fuels between vehicles in orbit has been standard practice on the International Space Station since 2000 and by the Russian/Soviet programs since the 1970s.
Lockheed believes their approach is the “quickest because it leverages existing hardware, minimizes the required cadence of launches, and does not rely on technologies like cryogenic refueling or long duration storage that have never been performed on orbit.” Detailed technical information on the Orion capsule’s components can be found via the Lockheed Martin Space Systems website.
The Cost and Strategic Debate: Race or Base?
While the alternative proposals aim for speed, the central considerations remain cost and strategic value. From NASA’s vantage point, Starship is currently the cheapest option because SpaceX estimates it is funding 90% of the production, test, and launch facilities with its own money. No other company has offered cost estimates, but spaceflight projects are inherently expensive.
The original Apollo Lunar Module, when adjusted for inflation, cost approximately $30 billion—an amount exceeding NASA’s entire annual budget since the mid-1990s—and took six years from contract award (1962) to demonstration (1968). This historical precedent highlights the immense time and financial burden of developing a new human-rated lander. This financial strain is compounded by NASA’s already limited funds and the uncertainty of whether Congress would allocate additional money to speed up the process. However, the overarching strategic debate is whether the mission should prioritize being a “Race” or establishing a “Base.” While beating China to the South Pole makes for powerful political and media coverage, many experts argue that the true long-term objective is to pave the way for a permanent lunar base where astronauts can live and work sustainably.
SpaceX champions this view, asserting that Starship, with its massive cargo bay and power to deliver 100 metric tons of cargo to the Moon in one trip, is the only vehicle capable of fulfilling the vision of establishing a lasting presence and “ultimately forge the path to land the first humans on Mars.” The sustainability and future of space exploration are core to the Planetary Society’s advocacy and the long-term goals outlined in the SpaceX Starship Program documentation.
