Inside NASA’s Rush for a Backup Moon Plan — New Landers, Tight Deadlines and Rising Stakes

NASA quietly explores backup lunar landers as Starship timeline slips

Acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy’s recent suggestion that SpaceX could be removed from upcoming lunar plans jolted the space industry and prompted a wave of quiet proposals. SpaceX holds a $2.9 billion contract to ready its Starship system to land astronauts on the Moon for Artemis III, but NASA — citing development delays and strategic urgency related to China’s ambitions — asked SpaceX and Blue Origin to submit accelerated development plans by Oct. 29. The agency is also soliciting ideas from other commercial providers once the government shutdown ends, according to sources.

Why NASA is looking for alternatives

Artemis III is targeted for as early as mid-2027, while China has publicly signaled an intent to land astronauts on the Moon by 2030. That timeline, plus technical setbacks in Starship’s development, has increased pressure on NASA to consider alternative ways to meet the schedule.

“There’s a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,” Duffy said, referring to the lunar south pole. “We have ice there. We have sunlight there. We want to get there first and claim that for America.”

Where Starship stands

SpaceX touts progress: Starship has flown 11 suborbital test missions, demonstrated engine relights in space, reused boosters and launched payloads. The company says it completed 49 contract-related milestones tied to subsystems, infrastructure and operations for a crewed lunar landing. But the program has also faced serious setbacks. In the first half of 2025, three prototype vehicles exploded during flight testing and another caught fire in ground tests, damaging nearby infrastructure in Texas.

Crucially, Starship has not yet flown an operational orbital mission, nor has it demonstrated in-flight propellant topping and orbital cryogenic refueling — capabilities likely necessary for a crewed lunar mission. Estimates for required tanker flights before a crewed Starship lunar mission range broadly from roughly 10 to 40 launches, and orbital transfer of cryogenic propellants has never been performed at this scale.

Alternate proposals bubbling up

• Blue Origin: Already under contract for later Artemis landers, Blue Origin is developing two Blue Moon variants — Mark 1 (cargo) and Mark 2 (crew). Industry sources say the company plans to propose a hybrid approach that borrows elements of both to accelerate a human lander for Artemis III. The idea may convert Mark 1 cargo vehicles into auxiliary stages to boost a scaled Mark 2 to the Moon, avoiding a heavy cryogenic tanker program.
• Lockheed Martin: As a legacy NASA contractor and builder of the Orion capsule (a roughly $20.4 billion program), Lockheed proposes a two-stage lander that reuses existing hardware, including Shuttle-era OMS-E–derived engines for ascent. The descent stage would be developed with another commercial partner and could use either cryogenic or storable (hypergolic) propellants — a choice that affects how the system would be launched and refueled in orbit.
• Other commercial firms: Companies such as Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman say they stand ready to support NASA, though they have not publicly detailed formal proposals.

Technical trade-offs and timelines

Experts note every alternative requires building and testing new spacecraft — work that often takes six to seven years at minimum. Some, like former NASA official Doug Loverro, argue a new lander concept could be moved from design to flight in roughly five years if priorities and program leadership are shifted and if NASA leans on centers with strong systems and mission management experience.

Lockheed emphasizes approaches that minimize reliance on novel on-orbit cryogenic refueling, pointing out that transfers of storable propellants are well-established and that leveraging existing hardware could reduce development risk and launch cadence.

Cost and political realities

From NASA’s perspective, Starship is the lowest-cost option because SpaceX is funding much of the development and facilities; SpaceX has said it finances around 90% of Starship production, testing and launch infrastructure. Alternative landers would likely require substantial additional funding. Congress has shown bipartisan support for Artemis — adding roughly $10 billion for lunar efforts in recent legislation — but it is unclear whether lawmakers would authorize the extra funds needed to accelerate Artemis III.

Long-term goals vs. headline races

Several experts argue the priority should be building sustainable lunar infrastructure rather than winning a single race to plant a flag. SpaceX stresses Starship’s value for long-term logistics — its large cargo capacity could transform sustained lunar operations — but critics caution that a late pivot to new designs could siphon time and money from the plan NASA has refined for years.

Bottom line: NASA is actively exploring contingency options as Starship faces technical and schedule challenges. Multiple sensible alternatives exist, but each carries its own technical risks, cost implications and schedule challenges — and none offer an easy shortcut to the Moon.