SpaceX Starship problems likely to delay Artemis 3 moon mission to 2026, NASA says

News
By
published

'They have a significant number of launches to go, and that of course, gives me concern about the December of 2025 date.'

a large rocket on the surface of the moon
Artist's illustration of SpaceX's Starship vehicle on the moon. (Image credit: SpaceX)

NASA is worried that SpaceX's giant new Starship vehicle won't be ready to carry astronauts to the surface of the moon in late 2025, as currently planned.

In 2021, the agency selected Starship — the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built — to be the first crewed lunar lander for its Artemis program of moon exploration. 

Starship will put astronauts down near the ice-rich lunar south pole on the Artemis 3 mission, in humanity's first return to the moon since the Apollo program ended in 1972. Artemis 3 is currently targeted to lift off in December 2025, but it's unlikely Starship will be able to meet that timeline, NASA officials said.

December 2025 "is our current manifest date, but with the difficulties that SpaceX has had, I think that's really, really concerning," Jim Free, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems development, said on Wednesday (June 7) during a joint meeting of the U.S. National Academies' Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and its Space Studies Board.

"So, you can think about that slipping probably into '26," he added.

 Related: NASA's Artemis 3 mission: Landing humans on the moon

A fully stacked Starship launched for the first time ever in April, soaring high into the skies above South Texas on an epic, highly anticipated test mission. 

The flight aimed to send Starship's upper stage most of the way around Earth, wrapping up with an ocean splashdown near Hawaii. But the vehicle's two stages failed to separate as planned, and SpaceX ordered Starship's destruction over the Gulf of Mexico less than four minutes after liftoff.

It's unclear when Starship will fly again; several boxes must be checked first. For example, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is still investigating the launch mishap, with SpaceX's help. And a coalition of environmental groups is suing the FAA, claiming the agency didn't properly assess the damage Starship launches could inflict on the surrounding ecosystem.  

A relatively quick return to flight would be necessary for Artemis 3 to have any chance of meeting the 2025 target, for, as Free noted, SpaceX must conduct a number of Starship launches before the vehicle starts carrying Artemis astronauts.

Each Starship that heads for the moon, for instance, must be fueled in a "depot" in Earth orbit by several other Starship tanker vehicles. And SpaceX will send an uncrewed Starship to the lunar surface and back ahead of Artemis 3, to demonstrate the craft's safety and readiness for crewed flight.

"If you figure they need a number of launches to do their depot for our crewed flight, they need a number of launches to do the demo, they need a number of launches just to get flying — they have a significant number of launches to go, and that of course gives me concern about the December of 2025 date," Free said.

The Artemis program aims to establish a permanent, sustainable human presence on and around the moon by the end of the 2020s. NASA believes the skills and knowledge gained by achieving this will help the agency send astronauts to Mars in the late 2030s or early 2040s.

One Artemis mission has lifted off to date — Artemis 1, which sent an uncrewed Orion capsule to lunar orbit and back last fall. Artemis 2 is slated to launch astronauts around the moon in late 2024, again using Orion and NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) megarocket, the latter of which debuted on Artemis 1. (Orion had flown once before, on a test flight to Earth orbit in 2014.)

SLS and Orion will be involved in Artemis 3 as well. The duo will carry four astronauts off Earth; two of those spaceflyers will then board Starship for the trip to the lunar surface and back.

RELATED STORIES:

— Starship and Super Heavy: SpaceX's Mars-colonizing transportation system

— NASA's Artemis program: Everything you need to know

— Relive SpaceX's explosive 1st Starship launch in incredible photos

An Artemis 3 delay to 2026 would hardly be surprising; the mission is ambitious, after all, and will employ newly developed and highly complex pieces of space hardware.

Indeed, the December 2025 date is already a slip from the original target: In March 2019, the Trump administration instructed NASA to put astronauts on the moon by the end of 2024. This timeline was widely viewed as overly aggressive, as a November 2021 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) noted.

"NASA's goal to land astronauts on the moon's south pole in late 2024 faces multiple significant challenges including major technical risks, an unrealistic development schedule and lower-than-requested funding levels. As a result, the 2024 date will likely slip to 2026 at the earliest," wrote the authors of the OIG report.

You can read that report, titled "NASA's Management of the Artemis Missions," here.

Starship isn't the only private vehicle that NASA plans to use as a crewed moon lander, by the way. Last month, the agency announced that it had selected Blue Origin, Jeff Bezos' spaceflight company, to provide a second Artemis human landing system.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Mike Wall
Mike Wall
Senior Space Writer

Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.

16 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Unclear Engineer
    Considering how far behind its own schedule NASA is at this point in its Artemis program, I doubt that NASA will be ready on-schedule, either.

    But, this whole thing with SLS taking NASA astronauts to Moon orbit and then having them taken to the surface by SpaceX Starship has seemed ridiculous from the start. If Starship can get to Lunar orbit with a human rated ship and land on the moon, why not just have the NASA astronauts ride to Lunar orbit on Starship in the first place?

    This whole NASA schedule seems to be driven by the concern that China will get to the Moon before the U.S. gets back to the Moon. And, that would not have been any sort of issue if Artemis was anywhere close to its original schedule. But, funding and bureaucracy have delayed government programs, as usual.

    And, now the worry is that government and bureaucracy will delay Starship development launches, too.

    At this point, I am betting on China getting there before Artemis. And, I am thinking "So what?" They have a central planning government with dictatorial powers - they can focus their economy on whatever they choose.

    The interesting thing will be if SpaceX gets there with human crew before Artemis.
    Reply
  • Icepilot
    It's hard to test a rocket if the FAA won't let you launch.
    Reply
  • bryant
    honestly, the whole if way off target when you consider that less than a penny of American tax dollars goes towards NASA. If the government would quit wasting money on BS and get on with it, we would be on the moon by now with possible test runs to mars. As it is now, some will be dead before boots are on mars, because of the short life span of man and the ignorance of a banana republic to get off their buns and do the hard thing, like Kenndey did with Apollo.
    Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Considering how far behind its own schedule NASA is at this point in its Artemis program, I doubt that NASA will be ready on-schedule, either.

    But, this whole thing with SLS taking NASA astronauts to Moon orbit and then having them taken to the surface by SpaceX Starship has seemed ridiculous from the start. If Starship can get to Lunar orbit with a human rated ship and land on the moon, why not just have the NASA astronauts ride to Lunar orbit on Starship in the first place?

    This whole NASA schedule seems to be driven by the concern that China will get to the Moon before the U.S. gets back to the Moon. And, that would not have been any sort of issue if Artemis was anywhere close to its original schedule. But, funding and bureaucracy have delayed government programs, as usual.

    And, now the worry is that government and bureaucracy will delay Starship development launches, too.

    At this point, I am betting on China getting there before Artemis. And, I am thinking "So what?" They have a central planning government with dictatorial powers - they can focus their economy on whatever they choose.

    The interesting thing will be if SpaceX gets there with human crew before Artemis.

    They are not that far behind .. to be honest. And most of the delays can be attributed to a Congress that cuts their budget repeatedly, and a deadly Global Pandemic. In late 2022, the first SLS launch was an incredible success that sent an Orion Spacecraft to the Moon. Artemis II is on track for a late 2024 flight, and I have no doubt that Artemis III will be ready by mid 2026.

    Where is Lunar Starship? They haven't even built one yet - not even a prototype - and it's easy to see why. The Starship program is floundering. They are still working to get the easy parts right, launch and staging and orbit. But in order for the Human Landing System to reach the moon (and rendezvous with Orion) they need to perfect Rapid Reuse of a Super Heavy Launch Vehicle. They need to catch Super Heavy boosters and land refueling starships with near 100% reliability and turn them around for re-flight in mere hours. Not to mention they need to also perfect rapid orbital refueling of cryogenic fuels. All of this has NEVER been done before, and there is a very good chance of complete ... dismal ... failure.

    NASA should never have granted this contracted to SpaceX. They should have eliminated SpaceX and gone ahead with a round two of Human Landing System proposals. Why on Earth would you want a lunar lander taller than ten story building? It's too big! Even if they manage to get there, the damn thing might fall over and explode killing everyone on board. Or worse... Marooning them so that Americans can watch them painfully asphyxiate. NASA has lost its mind and worse.. They have turned their back of the lessons learned from the Apollo missions. We know what a successful lunar lander looks like.. And it's not Starship!!!
    Reply
  • tetonman50
    Well how about saving the political comments for another site and get back to the situation here? Which simply comes down to this. At this rate if we get back to the moon by 2030 we will be doing better than this program is realistically able to do as is. No matter who is, or was president. As it is it will be almost 2 full years between Artemis 1 and 2. Why so long to essentially fly the same mission except adding the crew?
    The solution at this point is NOT to resurrect some different plan that may or may not have been better or not as you suggest. That horse has long left barn. The solution is to put some sense of urgency back into NASA, and kick this entire program into a far higher gear .
    What is the point of NASA so proudly advertising that Artemis 2 and 3 will involve a more diverse crews? And 3 will land a diverse crew of astronauts on the moon if NASA currently has no realistic way to do that ??? Time for NASA to get back to the kind of mentality it had 50 years ago when the only problem it had solving impossible problems was their solutions only took a bit longer.
    Reply
  • RomMak
    Have you seen the coverage of Boca Chica? Beautiful view. 24 hours something is happening. No other space company in the world has so much work and no such schedule and working methods. Here at Starbase, the future is in sight. These are new methods of work, production and new methods of thinking about the future. The future of man in space and the exploration of the entire solar system.

    If the second Starship flight is successful and there are no major damages to the 0 (zero) stage, SpaceX will be able to send a Booster and a Ship every 1 month. By the end of 2024, we may have even 10-12 such flights. Astronaut missions are treated slightly differently than missions for civilian crews. Of course, everything has to work well and be durable, but it doesn't have to be hundreds of Starship flights to get astronauts on board.

    What's been happening at Starbase for the last 4 years is something the space sector has never seen before. SpaceX already has another 4 Booster and Ship kits ready today. There will be even more of them in the next 2-3 months. If they build an automated factory, the speed of building more ships will accelerate. The private company SpaceX has additional important goals, such as the settlement of Mars or the very profitable launch of the new second-generation Starlink communication satellites in full version. Starship can't go wrong. It matters much more than just individual lunar missions.

    Looking at the experience, methods and working tools of SpaceX engineers (no one else has this), one can believe that the Lunar Starship will be ready on time. It's not old space, it's new space. A new and better space sector. Private space sector.
    Reply
  • Phillip Huggan
    There will be delays all along the way to doing Lunar science. 3 projects I'd like to see up there are: seed saplings sample-returned, a wire radar dish and perhaps brecchia wall collapse stabilizer, and thin test armour.
    These are inventions that can happen a decade or two earlier on the Moon. The sample return needs fire and explosion safeguards. Astronauts need time for botany. The samples need to be safeguarded to Earth and analyzed to be worthy of return. The radiation sensor must record cosmic rays are there.
    The wire chain mail needs university facilities to make. It needs a space coating or it breaks in 1/2. Ideally larger diameter wire crimpers are there for structure. A handling wand or roomba might keep away pointy ends. The electrical system (of the mesh dish) might fail at first prototype.
    And if the armour is to catch samples it might need to be thicker or a lunar brick under it invented. Astronauts might want time to anaylze such. And it need thin sheet deployment and visual damage detection may not be the only modality wanted. Collecting such panels might be risky.

    As with Cis-Lunar, the delayed R+D above also has upsides potentially: new sample catching means, safe metal handling, new space food flavours and plant varieties including pharming, and perhaps a tracking dish on the Moon in its dust is stimulated.
    Reply
  • Phillip Huggan
    I dunno: crappy Proof-of-P wire 2029, damageable armour sheets 2030, good radar dish 2033, damage resistant armour 2034, dry saplings for Earth return 2035, micro meteorite catch 2037, wet saplings maybe for Lunar analysis 2038, crater sidewall mesh deployment 2040, meteorite catch 2045. NASA/USA gets the dish technology, the DNA IP minus my hubs and personal aloe vera, and hopefully the armour is useful. Just like delays, pointy or flamable objects are a downside. Not starshading Webb and having it be all things to all astronomers seems to have worked and it was similiarly delayed. My good tech starts circa 2033 w/ some astronaut free time.
    Reply
  • MarcusAlexander
    And who thinks SLS/Orion/Space Suits will be ready for a 2025 launch?😆 2 years from now? Dreaming. And SLS/Orion/New Space Suits have been in development for a decade. So lets not blame Starship development which entered the game just recently. Blame our politicians for funding a lunar orbit mission instead of a lunar landing. The hardware built is underpowered with a weak second stage on SLS incapable of delivering a lander. And China has been outspoken about their ambitions. Our politicians and general public didnt listen or care. Wouldnt be shocked if Chinas much simpler lunar mission beats us back.
    Reply
  • Phillip Huggan
    TEAMSWITCHER said:
    NASA should never have granted this contracted to SpaceX. They should have eliminated SpaceX and gone ahead with a round two of Human Landing System proposals. Why on Earth would you want a lunar lander taller than ten story building? It's too big! Even if they manage to get there, the damn thing might fall over and explode killing everyone on board. Or worse... Marooning them so that Americans can watch them painfully asphyxiate. NASA has lost its mind and worse.. They have turned their back of the lessons learned from the Apollo missions. We know what a successful lunar lander looks like.. And it's not Starship!!!
    For each orbit you might want a 1/2 dozen different vehicles. These are expensive to develop. Perhaps $1T to mine an asteroid with vehicles and equipment. If I were to give NASA or Blue Origin a deadly Saturn mining blueprint or go to Triton, I might consider buying Ford, retooling them to space. Buying a smaller version of Magna. And buying an Al refiner. That is $100B and it leads to the $1T if you can fund enough early stage stuff from the biz model you are seceding from. I agree but the multi-vehicle strategy requires selling in the bitcoin boom and buying help of some sort. I would but I've never ever witnessed a company buy a hedge in the middle of an own industry bubble. Unless you count vacations hedging the coming legal stuff...
    Reply