SpaceX is behind schedule, so NASA will open Artemis III contract to competition
- Reference: 1761049904
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/10/21/spacex_is_behind_schedule_so/
- Source link:
Elon Musk, the boss of SpaceX, [1]fired back : "SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words."
As we [2]noted last week, SpaceX has a mountain to climb to develop NASA's Human Landing System (HLS). After a slew of unplanned explosions, the company achieved two sub-orbital missions for its monster rocket - impressive, but still more than 200,000 miles (322,000 km) from the Moon.
[3]
NASA's patience has worn thin. Despite praising SpaceX as an "amazing company" doing "remarkable things," Acting Administrator Sean Duffy [4]said the company was "behind schedule" and he's opening the astronaut landing contract to competition. "The President wants to make sure we beat the Chinese. He wants to get there in his term."
[5]
[6]
So, Artemis III could be slipping to the end of 2028 (or January 2029 at a pinch), and SpaceX might not be doing the landing. Duffy called out Blue Origin, "and maybe others," as alternatives to Musk's rocketeers.
In 2021, SpaceX bagged the lunar lander [7]contract , beating Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Dynetics. The inevitable lawsuit from Blue Origin was [8]filed in August that year, which halted work for a few months, before the claims were [9]dismissed in November, 2021.
[10]
The original 2024 landing target has already slipped to 2027 — but even that looks increasingly unrealistic. Artemis II won't launch until 2026, and in September, NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel [11]expressed serious doubts about SpaceX's HLS readiness.
According to a New York Times [12]report , the HLS variant of Starship might not be ready until 2032. Musk [13]dismissed it : "It's not worth lining a parrot cage with NY Times, let alone reading it."
[14]Like Apollo before them, ESA astronauts hone lunar landing skills in helicopters
[15]SpaceX rockets toward next Starship launch, set for October 13
[16]NASA panel fears a Starship lunar touchdown is more fantasy than flight plan
[17]US House Appropriations Committee saves NASA budget, Prez holds the veto pen
Yet Duffy's announcement confirms NASA is finally acknowledging that SpaceX is behind and 2027 is wishful thinking rather than reality.
Blue Origin [18]is currently scheduled to land a crew on the Moon with Artemis V in [19]2030 [PDF, page 6]. As the Apollo program demonstrated, sufficient government funding can put boots on the regolith quickly. SpaceX can also rebid.
The bigger question is that with NASA's budget already struggling to maintain current [20]science funding , where will the agency find the cash needed to land astronauts before Trump's term ends? ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1980335879945351303
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/16/spacexs_starship_two_down_a/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aPeuFvDicpiEx5_z_4ATvwAAAoA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://x.com/SecDuffyNASA/status/1980243865400701369
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPeuFvDicpiEx5_z_4ATvwAAAoA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aPeuFvDicpiEx5_z_4ATvwAAAoA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/16/nasa_spacex_moon/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/16/blue_origin_lawsuit/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/05/blue_origin_nasa_spacex_court/
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aPeuFvDicpiEx5_z_4ATvwAAAoA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/nasa_starship_artemis_doubts/
[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/spacex-us-moon-race.html
[13] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1969492141152817636
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/20/esa_helicopter_training/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/01/spacex_sets_the_eve_of/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/22/nasa_starship_artemis_doubts/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/12/nasa_science_gets_a_boost/
[18] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/marshall/nasa-selects-blue-origin-as-second-artemis-lunar-lander-provider/
[19] https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fiscal-year-2025-budget-summary.pdf
[20] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/12/nasa_science_gets_a_boost/
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: The outcome:
Landing on the moon is easy. It's getting back home that's the issue.
Re: The outcome:
I can think of three crew members where that wouldn't be a problem...
Re: The outcome:
Only three?!
Re: The outcome:
Three is "a good start"
Blue Origin?
Have they even put anything in orbit? I guess they sort of did with NG-1, although the landing part failed.
Rocket Labs is probably the 2nd to SpaceX in launch pace for orbital insertions, but they're stuff is (so far) smaller than a falcon. And I don't think they've reused a booster yet. However in August 2023, they launched an Electron with a pre-flown Rutherford engine...
Re: Blue Origin?
To be fair to BO, they successfully deployed a test payload, not a customer payload.
Starship has launched zero payloads into orbit and hasn't even tested a fairing option for starship though the pez dispenser looked cool.
Re: Blue Origin?
When you say they haven't tested a fairing option... they have, they don't just have a disposable fairing.
At the moment the only version that has flown is the pez dispenser - but there is nothing stopping them from changing up the shape of the opening - and I don't expect a door to be significantly more structurally challenging than a wider slot.
Re: Blue Origin?
Physics has a lot to say about what shape you can make that opening and how large you can make it. They had a lot of issues in earlier launches with the skin around the opening deforming and jamming the door. Iirc they went through like 5 different iterations of the door mechanism and door shape and they still rivetted on additional strengthening plates around the opening after assembly of the V2 airframes had already more or less finished (indicating they had figured out that whatever they had designed was not up to snuff)
Re: Blue Origin?
they tested the pez dispensor 7 days ago on 14/10 for test starlink satellites
https://youtu.be/oMAKcRCRLyc?si=PI7b4lhFCSY8BMR_&t=270
Just like the Orangeman
Elon Musk, the boss of SpaceX, fired back: "SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words."
"Never apologise, mister. It's a sign of weakness" [1]
[1] John Wayne in "She wore a yellow ribbon"
.
Re: Just like the Orangeman
My coach taught me never to apologize. He said: "don't apologize, do better next time!"
Elon can put a Tesla into LEO, but can't put a Starship in orbit after 11 tries. Then he tries to rewrite the narrative.
That he is planning to launch a hundred people into space at once given the shocking reliability of Starship so far should terrify everyone.
When you skip double orbitals-mechanics on a Wednesday afternoon
SpaceX never tried. They've got a Mk II or is it Mk III Starship & booster for the next flight. Probably still suborbital. Whereas NASA try to get it right on the first try, with the issues we have seen. Everybody hates Musk but SpaceX is doing OK with it's strategy.
"can't put a Starship in orbit after 11 tries"
SpaceX haven't tried to put any Starships into orbit. I think we can safely say at least 4 of the tests could have been orbital if SpaceX had been reckless enough to do it.
SpaceX needed to demonstrate a re-lighting of the engine to get a license for an orbital flight. They've now done this so orbital flight is merely a checkbox to be ticked.
Starship development is occurring at a rapid pace. The only thing that worries me is that every new version of Starship could mean their testing program needs to start from scratch again.
Latest plan is to do one flight of V3 suborbital and if that goes OK then then flight 13 will be orbital and feature a ship catch. IF and that is a big if especially tower 2, they can get everything ready for IFT-12 by end of Jan for example, they could attempt IFT-13 in March or April.
> planning to launch a hundred people into space
Starship will never launch anyone into space, not for NASA anyway.
Starship lacks any form of crew escape system - a required part of all human rated rockets for NASA - and there are no plans to add one. If something goes wrong on the pad, and it has before, then the passengers become toasty marshmallows. Starship can't be human rated for launch.
It is also unlikely to ever land people on Earth for similar reasons.
a required part of all human rated rockets for NASA
Didn't have one for Shuttle and lets not count that BS plan they had with crew parachuting out.
Anyway. no launch crew for starship, they are rendezvous with Orion in lunar orbit and the human rating is for lunar Lander and return back to Orion or Lunar gateway should that ever happen.
Re: a required part of all human rated rockets for NASA
>Didn't have one for Shuttle
But the Shuttle was only going to be crewed by flinty-eyed square-jawed test pilots. It's not like they were going to let just anybody fly on such a risky project.
Starship might have to take celebrity influences to the moon
Musk and his big mouth
Always over-promising and under-delivering. And insults do not an argument make.
He should be sweeping the streets of New York with a used broom, muttering to himself all the time.
Re: Musk and his big mouth
He does exhibit symptoms of artificial intelligence, and he hallucinates. Perhaps his time has come.
Go Fever
So NASA's primary mission is to land astronauts on the Moon before 2029 at any cost. There's a recipe for disaster.
Re: Go Fever
That was their approach 60 years ago and they got away with it (just about). So if that really is their approach again this time then hopefully they'll get away with it again.
Re: Go Fever
History flashback ( [1]Wikipedia ): "Kennedy stood before Congress on May 25, 1961, and proposed that the US 'should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.'" That was a full eight (8) years before successful landing, even including a temporary pause after (and due to) the Apollo 1 tragedy.
Kennedy then gave his famous speech at Rice University on September 12, 1962 -- over a year later, but while NASA was still accomplishing things that helped understand the challenges.
This new goal is only 4 years out and has some unique things both going for it (including massive rocket already designed) and against it (funding).
Referencing the same article, JFK did not have much public support at the time, but it increased, especially after his assassination. I'm not suggesting anything against the current administration, but should the unspeakable happen, we could do it as a tribute to him... but maybe on a more relaxed, reasonable timescale.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
Re: Go Fever
A bit of context: The program to develop the F1 engine used on the Saturn V started when Eisenhower was president.
Re: Go Fever
Apollo cost 2.5% of US GDP in the 60s, as a comparison the US military all together is about 3.25% of GDP today
That's a lot of tariffs to collect
Reality distortion field
I believe it's Duffy who's caught up in the "reality distortion field" if he believes Blue Origin or anyone else can do better than SpaceX. He'll only end up delaying SpaceX's progress even further and jeopardizing the entire prospect of landing astronauts on the Moon before the Chinese do.
Next there will be rumblings about money being siphoned off Starship development to pay for Blue Origin's boondoggle, further complicating things and wasting valuable time. Worst case Musk will simply abandon a Moon landing altogether and focusing on Mars instead.
Re: Reality distortion field
I don't think Blue Origin is the competitor that Duffy has in mind.
Re: Reality distortion field
Pray tell!
I'll take this drama serious when I hear about money.
Estimates to deliver this lander (not mission, mind) outside SpaceX and Blue Origin have gone from $10B (<2020) to $30B (2026)
have gone from $10B (<2020) to $30B (2026)
I was reading $20bn for Lockheed Martin but hey why not just increase it to $30bn and make it a cost plus contract as well.
This is 110% political BS from Sean Duffy who is now making a play for being permanent NASA admin, probably easier than being transport secretary and politically more visible.
Isaacman said after his review that the current plan with Starship HLS is still the fastest option and I assume he probably had access to more detailed updates from Gwynne that SpaceX have released publicly which I would say to SpaceX, release more data, are you really behind or just not releasing info.
For alternatives, I don't know if BO are working flat out or they can go faster. Plus they are tied to New Glenn as the launch system which has its own challenges. And shock horror, perennial government cronies Lockheed Martin stated that they have been working on a lander and can have it ready in 30 months, no mention of cost but speculation is around $20bn to meet the deadline.
Also no mention as to how long it will take to retrain crew, build systems, Orion integration or anything else that will be required.
The other option is to rescope the mission. If its just to get there and plant a flag and forget any science then there are cheaper and faster options. NASA's original requirement was for 5t of payload for the lander and then they go and chose a solution that can deliver 100t.
And in all this, its been widely reported that Musk really doesn't care about lunar mission. Yes, its a nice to have and good test of systems but priority has been and still is the Moon. But one interpretation of Mucks post is that SpaceX will go it alone if NASA gives the contract somebody else. Of course he could just sell HLS seats to the Chinese, lol
The outcome:
NASA buys a Chinese lander to beat the Chinese to the Moon....