Recently, NASA made headlines by selecting SpaceX exclusively to develop its next human lunar lander. By committing to Starship, the agency is positioning itself for frequent, cost-effective missions. In turn, SpaceX gains crucial NASA support for its Mars ambitions.
About a year ago, NASA awarded contracts to Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX to develop landing systems enabling the next man and first woman to land on the Moon in 2024.
Over recent months, these teams refined their prototypes. Blue Origin and Dynetics offered conventional designs, efficient on paper but limited to carrying just a few astronauts to the lunar surface.
SpaceX proposed its Starship, capable of transporting far more passengers per trip while being fully reusable. Though technically ambitious—requiring in-orbit refueling with methane and liquid oxygen—NASA recognizes its long-term potential.
Consider NASA's SLS rocket: it launches 95 tons to low Earth orbit at about $2 billion per mission, with one flight annually. Starship and Super Heavy match this capacity but with SpaceX's production scaling to one vehicle per month and reusability for dozens of flights.
Envision launching 100 tons to orbit every two weeks versus one costly annual mission. NASA's decision underscores Starship's unmatched scalability.
This wasn't guaranteed. Skeptics questioned relying on Starship before flawless landings. Yet SpaceX's rapid launches from South Texas proved persuasive.
NASA is investing $2.89 billion in SpaceX for an initial uncrewed lunar mission, followed by a crewed one. Astronauts will soon board a 50-meter-tall Starship—vastly different from the 7-meter Apollo lunar module that carried Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin in 1969.
SpaceX leads in innovative rocket design and operations. But Mars missions demand more: expertise in life support, resource recycling, and planetary protection—areas where NASA's decades of deep-space research and ISS operations provide invaluable experience beyond SpaceX's current scope.
NASA can also address regulatory hurdles, like nuclear power on Mars, smoothing the path forward.
Why fund Starship, which competes with SLS? SLS and Orion remain central to Artemis, sustaining jobs across all 50 states and numerous contractors. Starship, by contrast, faces congressional scrutiny as a potential "job killer."
The initial plan involves three vehicles: Super Heavy launches Starship to lunar orbit; SLS sends Orion with crew for docking; Starship ferries them to the surface and back.
This may evolve. If Starship enables direct Earth-to-Moon crewed flights affordably, sustaining $2 billion-per-mission SLS with limited capacity seems untenable long-term.
