HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — Two former NASA administrators are raising concerns about the agency's current strategy for utilizing SpaceX's Starship in the Artemis 3 crewed lunar landing. They are advocating for a swift change in direction to ensure the United States reaches the moon before China.
During a discussion at the American Astronautical Society’s von Braun Space Exploration Symposium on Oct. 29, Charlie Bolden and Jim Bridenstine, both former NASA administrators, voiced doubts about the feasibility of NASA’s existing Artemis architecture. This architecture relies on Starship to transport astronauts to and from the lunar surface and its ability to succeed before China's projected crewed landing later this decade. Bridenstine stated that, given the current approach, "the probability of beating China approaches zero, rapidly. We have to do something different.”
Bridenstine, who headed NASA during the Trump administration, had previously expressed concerns about the use of Starship for Artemis 3 during a Senate hearing in September but did not propose an alternative at the time. When asked about the matter at a separate event on Oct. 21, following Acting Administrator Sean Duffy’s announcement that he would “open up” SpaceX’s Artemis 3 contract, Bridenstine declined to comment directly. However, at the symposium, Bridenstine was more forthright, stating, “Secretary Duffy, I think, is doing the absolute right thing.”
He called for an acceleration of work on an alternative lander design, suggesting the government employ the Defense Production Act. This Cold War-era law allows the government to prioritize work deemed vital to national security. “If the goal is to beat China to the moon, we need to have a program that is, dare I say, a Defense Production Act kind of program,” he said. He envisioned a focused team with special authorities to build a landing system rapidly, possibly through an executive order from the President, emphasizing it as a "national security imperative" to outpace China.
Bridenstine suggested organizing the effort like a “small Skunk Works-type organization,” referencing Lockheed Martin’s advanced development division. He clarified that his criticism was not directed at Starship itself: “Starship is a tremendously important vehicle for the future. It’s going to deliver large mass to low Earth orbit for a long time, and it’s going to drive down costs and increase access.” However, he cautioned, “But if you need a moon lander, it’s going to take time.”
Bolden, who led NASA during the Obama administration, echoed Bridenstine’s concerns, stating, “I did not recognize the architecture when I came back to thinking about NASA again after Jim had left office. How did we get back here where we now need 11 launches to get one crew to the moon?” referencing the multiple refueling flights required for Starship. “We’re never going to get there.” He doubted that NASA could achieve a human landing on the moon by the end of President Trump’s term or before China’s first crewed landing. "We cannot make it if we say we’ve got to do it by the end of this term,” he stated.
Bolden suggested that it might be acceptable for China to land humans on the moon first if NASA’s approach is superior. “They’re going to put a human on the moon in 2030,” he said of China. “We may not make 2030 and that’s ok with me, as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have there.”
Following these remarks, companies discussed potential alternative lunar landing solutions at other conference sessions. Jacki Cortese of Blue Origin mentioned that they had recently started working with NASA on accelerating lunar lander development, building on their Blue Moon Mark 1 lander design, which doesn't require in-space propellant transfer. Lockheed Martin, while not currently part of NASA’s Human Landing System program, has also expressed interest in developing an alternative lander.
Bob Behnken from Lockheed Martin Space stated that the company had conducted "significant technical and programmatic analysis" of crewed landers adaptable for an accelerated program. Tim Cichan described a two-stage design with a descent element remaining on the lunar surface while the ascent element returns astronauts to Orion, saving propellant. This architecture could also deliver large cargo payloads and be repurposed for a lunar base. “The intent there is, let’s add another system that, from today, can move as fast as possible with as little risk as possible, using parts that actually exist right now,” he said. “That might be the fastest way.”