Inside NASA’s scramble to find a backup moon plan — and the wild ideas companies are pitching

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is pictured on February 7, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. The center is widely respected for its work on projects such as robotic Mars exploration. David McNew/Getty Images via CNN Newsource

A suggestion made last week by acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy that SpaceX could be booted from the agency’s upcoming moon-landing plans has rocked the space industry.

Now, behind the scenes, pitches for alternate paths to the lunar surface are quietly starting to take shape.

SpaceX currently has a US$2.9 billion contract to prepare its gargantuan Starship rocket system to ferry astronauts to the moon’s surface as part of NASA’s Artemis III mission. However, citing delays in Starship’s development and competitive pressure from China, NASA asked SpaceX and Blue Origin — which holds a separate lunar lander contract with the space agency — to submit plans to expedite development of their respective spacecraft by October 29. Both companies have responded.

But the space agency is also asking the broader commercial space industry to detail how they might get the job done more quickly, hinting that NASA leadership is prepared to sideline its current partners.

CNN spoke with half a dozen companies about how they plan to respond to NASA’s call to action, which the agency will formally issue once the government shutdown ends, according to a source familiar with the matter.

While some of the potential proposals appear more straightforward than the current moon-landing plan that uses Starship, each involves constructing and testing new spacecraft designs, a process that typically takes at least six or seven years, noted Casey Drier, the chief of space policy at the nonprofit exploration advocacy group Planetary Society.

This could pose an issue for NASA’s timeline. China aims to land its astronauts on the lunar surface by 2030, and Duffy has repeatedly indicated he views beating China as a national security imperative.

Artemis III is currently slated to happen as early as mid-2027, and NASA has signaled that the current pace of Starship development is threatening to push that target months or years into the future.

“There’s a certain part of the moon that everyone knows is the best,” Duffy said, referring to the moon’s largely unexplored south pole region — the target landing site for NASA’s Artemis III astronauts.

“We have ice there. We have sunlight there. We want to get there first and claim that for America,” he said in August.

Experts who spoke with CNN for this article said that reevaluating SpaceX’s lunar lander contract could be wise. Spending years to develop an entirely new spacecraft could still potentially be faster, some argued, than waiting for Starship, which presents extremely difficult engineering challenges due to its sheer size and unprecedented design.

Still, SpaceX has ticked a few boxes that might give it a significant leg up on the competition. Though in light of NASA’s broader lunar ambitions, experts say the real contest is about much more than speed.

More power, more problems

Touted as the most powerful rocket system ever built, Starship has launched on 11 eye-popping suborbital test flights, relighting engines in space, reusing boosters and demonstrating the ability to deploy satellites along the way.

In a statement posted to its website on Thursday, SpaceX also said it has “completed 49 milestones tied to developing the subsystems, infrastructure, and operations needed to land astronauts on the Moon.” And the “vast majority” of its contractual testing milestones for NASA have happened on schedule, according to the company.

NASA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on SpaceX’s claims.

Starship has also faced significant setbacks — particularly this year. In the first six months of 2025, three prototype vehicles exploded during test flights and another burst into flames during routine ground testing, causing damage to SpaceX’s surrounding infrastructure in Texas. The hangups prompted national security hawks to voice worries that SpaceX won’t deliver Starship in time to realize NASA’s goals.

Under the current plan, NASA would launch its astronauts aboard the Orion capsule atop the Space Launch System rocket, both of which NASA developed. After reaching lunar orbit, the astronauts would transfer to Starship, which would ferry two people down to the moon’s surface and then back to lunar orbit.

But Starship is likely still a long way from being capable of carrying out such an endeavor. So far, the company has only attempted to fly Starship on hour-long, suborbital test flights. It has not yet sent a vehicle to orbit on an operational mission, nor has it attempted to top off Starship’s fuel during a flight — a step that will be necessary for lunar missions because of Starship’s massive size and design.

It’s not clear how many refueling flights would need to be launched prior to Starship carrying out Artemis III. As CNN previously reported, the number could be anywhere from 10 to 40. And transferring cryogenic propellants, of the kind Starship relies on, has never been attempted before with any spacecraft.

“SpaceX is not going to be able to make this work before 2030,” said Doug Loverro, a former chief of human spaceflight at NASA, expressing a sentiment recently echoed by two prior NASA administrators.

The company did not provide details about its plan to expedite work on the NASA contract. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment from CNN, nor does the company typically answer questions from reporters.

Retrofitting Blue Moon

One alternative option that Duffy mentioned during a TV blitz last week is using a spacecraft built by Blue Origin. The Jeff Bezos-funded company already has a contract to provide lunar landers for use later in the Artemis program, including the Artemis V mission.

And because Blue Origin already has an Artemis contract, it could be simpler for NASA to switch up the order in which it relies on its contractors rather than bringing a new company into the mix.

Right now, Blue Origin is developing two models of its Blue Moon landers: Mark 1 for cargo, and Mark 2, the vehicle designed for humans and intended for use during Artemis V.

But to expedite the creation of a lunar lander that could be used for the Artemis III mission, Blue Origin plans to propose a new design that leverages elements of both Mark 1 and Mark 2, according to an industry source familiar with the plan that hasn’t been made public.

Then, to get the vehicle to the moon, Blue Origin would make use of one or more Mark 1 landers that have been essentially converted into small rocket stages that could boost a scaled-down version of Mark 2 out of Earth orbit and to its destination.

The approach would require multiple launches, but likely fewer than the current plan with Starship, the source noted. Blue Origin’s plan also does not require the launch of refueling tankers or transferring super-chilled propellants between spacecraft in orbit.

A team effort

Lockheed Martin — which previously worked on Blue Origin’s lander design but is not actively part of a partnership — also intends to throw its hat in the ring.

Notably, as a legacy NASA contractor, the company built the $20.4 billion Orion spacecraft that astronauts will ride when they take off from Earth. Orion has already flown one successful mission around the moon — Artemis I — and is slated for a crewed test flight to lunar orbit as soon as February.

Now, Lockheed says it can piece together a two-stage lunar lander that uses spare parts harvested from Orion.

The company would make use of Space Shuttle-era OMS-E engines — which are also used on Orion — to serve as the propulsion for an “ascent stage” of the lunar lander, providing the thrust for the vehicle to lift off the moon after a mission is completed.

But the vehicle also needs a descent stage to get down to the lunar surface in the first place.

For that component, Lockheed plans to work with another commercial space outfit, though it has not yet decided which one, said Rob Chambers, Lockheed’s director of human spaceflight strategy, and Tim Cichan, the company’s chief architect of space exploration, during a video call last week.

There are two paths Lockheed could take for its descent stage that could determine which company it teams up with. It could use a cryogenically fueled lunar lander similar to Blue Origin’s Mark 1. Or it could go with a vehicle that uses more stable propellants such as hypergolic fuels.

If Lockheed decides to go with cryogenic fuels, which must be kept at super-cold temperatures, it would need to launch its ascent stage and descent stage on separate rockets and dock them in orbit.

In that scenario, it may also need to launch additional “boost stages” to kick them out to the moon, Cichan said.

If Lockheed opts for a descent stage with more stable fuels, however, the whole lander could launch in one piece. But it would need to be topped off with fuel in orbit, Cichan added.

He noted that the refueling process in that case would not, however, be as complex as attempting to refuel cryogenically powered spacecraft, such as Blue Origin’s lander or SpaceX’s Starship, in orbit.

Transferring stable fuels between vehicles in orbit is a less risky proposition and has been taking place on the International Space Station since 2000, Cichan explained. “The Russians and Soviets have been doing it all the way back to the ‘70s,” Cichan said. “So that’s very known technology.”

When asked what would make Lockheed’s proposal competitive with Blue Origin or SpaceX, Chamers said the company’s “approach is 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.”

Other commercial space companies contacted by CNN — including Firefly Aerospace and Northrop Grumman — said simply that they were “ready to support” NASA in its endeavor to find a faster way to complete the Artemis III mission.

They did not confirm whether they would formally respond to the space agency’s anticipated request for companies to submit proposals.

Back to the drawing board

Experts who spoke with CNN suggested that NASA should stretch its imagination when it comes to the spacecraft that will land astronauts on the moon.

“Nobody’s put together a true concept of design,” Loverro said.

“All of that’s doable very quickly,” he noted, adding that he believes a new lander could go from concept to reality within five years.

Loverro suggested that NASA should leverage in-house expertise by leaning on its own Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or JPL, which he said should be empowered to rapidly pursue a lunar lander development program.

While JPL couldn’t do the job alone, because the center is focused on robotic exploration and does not have human spaceflight experience, Loverro noted, the laboratory has built a reputation over decades for its engineering precision and ability to pull off complex missions on unforgiving timelines.

“You really want that that kind of program management leadership that JPL embodies so well,” Loverro said.

Expensive red herrings

One huge consideration with any of these proposals is the price.

From NASA’s vantage point, SpaceX’s Starship is by far the cheapest proposal because the company is spending so much of its own money on the project. The company even estimates it is funding 90% of Starship’s production, test and launch facilities.

None of the other companies CNN spoke with about alternative proposals for NASA’s lunar lander offered cost estimates for bringing their ideas to fruition.

But as with any spaceflight project, it’s safe to assume they won’t be cheap.

NASA’s funds are already limited. While Congress has been on board with supporting the Artemis program — adding $10 billion to bolster lunar efforts in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — it’s not clear whether lawmakers would throw even more money at the project in an attempt to speed things up.

The space agency also can’t easily cancel existing contracts with either SpaceX or Blue Origin.

Drier noted, however, that support for the Artemis program does seem to be a stand-out unifying force for lawmakers. He also highlighted the fact that the current administration clearly views Artemis as a priority, allowing work on the program to continue despite the ongoing government shutdown.

But considering the time and money space programs tend to consume, an attempt to hash out a new moon landing plan for Artemis III is an idea that “is probably three years too late to make a difference,” Drier added.

“There’s only ever been one example of a successful human lunar lander in history: The contract for that was awarded in 1962, and it was first demonstrated on Apollo 9 in 1968,” Drier noted.

“So that’s six years — and that cost about 30-ish billion dollars” for the lunar lander alone when adjusted for inflation, which is an exorbitant amount of money that exceeds the agency’s entire annual budget since the mid-1990s, he added.

The space agency’s funding levels have remained far below the highs hit during the Apollo era in the decades since the program concluded.

Another key consideration is time: It’s possible that pursuing one of these alternative options does successfully expedite the Artemis III mission. It’s also possible this pursuit will be an expensive red herring — sucking time and resources away from realizing the plan NASA has been working toward for years.

‘A base not a race’

In addition to the flurry of conversations around rushing to cobble together a lunar lander, another discussion has been percolating — one that questions whether NASA should be trying to expedite Artemis III at all.

Drier is among the experts who told CNN that they did not view simply landing on the moon before China as essential. The more important goal, they argue, is to pave the way for a permanent lunar base where astronauts can live and work.

SpaceX has appeared to support this viewpoint, saying in its Thursday statement that Starship “will be a central enabler that will fulfill the vision of NASA’s Artemis program, which seeks to establish a lasting presence on the lunar surface, not just flags and footprints, and ultimately forge the path to land the first humans on Mars.”

The company argues that is why Starship remains the best option for NASA’s Artemis program: The vehicle boasts a massive cargo bay and immense power that could be transformational — opening up possibilities once considered unthinkable, such as delivering 100 metric tons of cargo to the moon in one trip, according to SpaceX.

In the public imagination, the new “space race” — as much as it really is a race — may be won or lost the moment the next astronaut sets foot on the moon. But perhaps the true winner will be the country that is able to build lasting infrastructure, experts say.

“It makes great press fodder to frame this as competition,” said one space policy source, who was among several that spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity to discuss controversial issues. “But this is about the long game and the sustainability.”