Starship may chauffeur Orion to the Moon, as NASA mulls ditching SLS after Artemis V

NASA is at a turning point in its program to return to the Moon. According to Bloomberg reports, the space agency is considering a radical change in its approach to the Artemis mission — instead of relying solely on the Space Launch System (SLS), it wants to use Starship from SpaceX to transport the Orion capsule to the Moon. This is no longer speculation or a distant possibility. Sources close to the negotiations suggest that the decision may be practically predetermined. If confirmed, this will be one of the biggest turns in the history of the Artemis program — and at the same time a clear signal that NASA is ready to abandon multi-billion dollar investments in traditional solutions in favor of more flexible and cheaper alternatives.

For the space industry, this is a breakthrough moment. SLS, the giant rocket that NASA has been building for years and on which it has spent tens of billions of dollars, could be limited to the role of a regular shuttle to low Earth orbit. This would mean not only a change in the schedule, but a fundamental reorganization of the entire strategy for humanity's return to the Moon. Starship, which has still not achieved full orbital capability, would become a key element of crewed missions to the Moon as early as 2028.

The history of this turn begins with finances and ambition. The new NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman — a former SpaceX client who himself flew to space — took office with a clear vision: accelerating the pace of missions and more rational budget spending. His predecessors juggled schedules and priorities, but Isaacman approached the problem differently. Instead of defending the status quo, he began thinking like a businessman — what if instead of building more expensive solutions, we use what already exists or is being created faster?

SLS: A magnificent project that lost momentum

Space Launch System is a technological monument — and also a symbol of the problems that plague large government projects. The rocket was indeed born. In November 2022, SLS lifted the uncrewed Artemis I mission to the Moon, which was an engineering success. However, this success came after years of delays, budget overruns, and endless specification changes. The cost of the first flight alone hovers around 4 billion dollars — more than several entire space programs combined.

The problem is that SLS is not a mobile solution. It is a rocket built for one purpose — launching the Orion capsule. Its architecture, based on solid fuel from the Space Shuttle era, is invariably expensive to operate. Each flight requires enormous preparations, specialized infrastructure, and teams of engineers. Comparing this to Starship — a reusable vehicle that is supposed to be cheaper and faster to prepare — the difference is obvious. Boeing, the main contractor for SLS, protected its grant, but even within NASA more and more voices were saying: maybe this is not the way forward.

Add to this the fact that Artemis II, the second SLS flight, has already been postponed several times. Originally it was supposed to be in 2021, now it's being talked about in 2026 or even later. Each delay means more billions spent on maintaining infrastructure and teams. Meanwhile, Starship is making progress — tests are getting closer to achieving full orbital capability. For Isaacman, who comes from the commercial sector where speed and efficiency are the norm, this was unacceptable.

Orion stays, but the journey changes

It is crucial to understand that in this scenario Orion is not being replaced. NASA is not abandoning its advanced return capsule — and that makes sense. Orion is the result of years of research into safe return at lunar speeds. It has a heat shield capable of withstanding temperatures above 3000 degrees Celsius. Starship, despite its size and capabilities, does not have an emergency system for the crew nor is it certified for such return conditions.

The proposed scenario looks as follows: Orion launches from Earth on SLS, reaches low Earth orbit. At this point it meets Starship, which is already waiting there. The crew transfers to Starship, which transports them to lunar orbit. There they transfer back to Orion, which performs the final phase of the mission — landing and return. This is not an elegant solution from an engineer's point of view, but from an economic point of view it is brutal: the number of SLS flights is reduced, and Starship — which must be ready for lunar missions anyway — works at full capacity.

The problem is that this solution is technically complicated. Docking in orbit, crew transfer in microgravity conditions, system synchronization — all of this requires testing and certification. NASA will have to develop new procedures, train astronauts, and do all this while maintaining the schedule. However, compared to building a completely new transport system from scratch, this seems feasible.

Artemis schedule in permanent reorganization

The new NASA administrator rewrote the Artemis mission schedule practically from scratch. Artemis III, originally planned as the first landing, has now become a test mission in low Earth orbit — analogous to Apollo 9, which tested the Lunar Module before Apollo 11. The actual landing has been pushed to Artemis IV in 2028, with the possibility of Artemis V in the same year. This pace is aggressive, but possible — if things go according to plan.

The key question is: when will Starship be ready? The next flight test is scheduled for April 2026. If it succeeds — meaning achieving orbit and returning — that gives NASA two years to prepare the vehicle for its role as a lunar crew transport. That's not a lot of time, but SpaceX has historically accelerated its projects when financial and substantive motivation appeared. Starship has already been tested multiple times, its architecture is known, and the main challenge now is repeatability and reliability.

However, here an element of uncertainty appears. Starship is still an experimental machine. Each test is a lesson, and each lesson is a potential delay. If April 2026 does not bring success, the Artemis schedule will shift again. NASA knows this and probably has contingency plans — it could be a postponement to 2029 or a return to greater SLS use.

Blue Origin and New Glenn: the third player in the game

In a scenario where SLS would be completely abandoned, an alternative emerges: Blue Origin's New Glenn. This rocket, still in advanced construction, has the capacity to lift up to 45 tons to low Earth orbit — enough for Orion and its European service module. New Glenn is not yet ready, but Blue Origin claims the first flight will take place in 2025 (although this may be optimistic).

For NASA this means options. If Starship encounters serious problems, New Glenn would be a time-buying solution. However, Blue Origin does not have experience in crewed missions on this scale, and human certification takes years. Starship, despite being younger, already has more experience in tests with elements of the emergency system and return. For this reason, Starship seems like the more likely choice.

For Boeing, the main contractor for SLS, this is depressing news. If SLS is limited to one or two flights and then retired, Boeing will lose its main source of government contract revenue. However, Boeing is too large and has too many political connections to be completely eliminated — it will likely find other roles in NASA programs or will lobby to maintain SLS in some form.

Technical and political obstacles

The Starship scenario is not certain — far from it. The first obstacle is pure physics. Starship must be able to safely carry a crew in conditions that have never been tested on this vehicle before. Emergency systems, emergency procedures, safety certification — all of this must be approved by federal agencies. NASA cannot simply send astronauts on an experimental vehicle, no matter how promising the project seems.

The second obstacle is Congress. SLS has strong political support. The rocket is being built in a dozen states, which means many politicians have a personal interest in its funding. Abandoning SLS after Artemis V would be a political battle. However, the Isaacman administration has an argument: money. If you can save billions of dollars a year by using Starship instead of SLS, then the financial argument could be strong enough to push through the change.

The third obstacle is scaling. Starship must be tested in orbital conditions and then prepared for lunar missions. This requires not only engineering, but also appropriate facilities, personnel, and time. SpaceX has experience in accelerating projects, but the laws of physics and economics are relentless. If something goes wrong, delays will be measured in years, and costs can explode.

Economics: why this makes business sense

Despite the challenges, the economic logic of this plan is overwhelming. Starship is designed as a reusable vehicle, which means that each subsequent flight should be cheaper than the previous one. SLS, on the other hand, is a single-use vehicle — each flight requires building a new one. Estimates of Starship's cost per flight range from 100 to 300 million dollars (although SpaceX claims it could be even cheaper in the future). SLS costs a billion dollars plus per flight.

If NASA can save billions of dollars a year by switching to Starship, that's money that can be invested in other projects — new space stations, Mars exploration, scientific research. For an administration that must justify spending to Congress, this is a powerful argument. Isaacman seems to understand this dynamic — his business background gives him a perspective that traditional NASA officials may not have.

However, we must be honest: this is a gamble. Betting the Moon return program on a vehicle that has still not achieved full orbital capability is a risky move. If Starship fails, NASA will have to return to SLS or look for a completely new solution. Politically, this would be a disaster — costly and embarrassing. But sometimes the greatest innovations require risk, and Isaacman seems willing to take it.

The future of the Artemis program in a state of flux

What does this mean? NASA remains at a crossroads. The decision about Starship is not yet final — Bloomberg cites sources, but NASA has not officially commented. However, the fact that such talks are taking place tells us a lot. The traditional approach to space exploration — big, federal projects, long schedules, enormous budgets — is changing before our eyes. Commercial players, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others, are beginning to set the pace.

Artemis V, if it takes place in 2028 with Starship, will be a breakthrough moment. Not only because people will land on the Moon, but because it will be the first time a commercial space vehicle will carry a crew on such a distant and dangerous mission. It will be a signal that the era of exclusively government space programs has come to an end. The future belongs to those who can be faster, cheaper, and more flexible — qualities that SpaceX consistently demonstrates.

However, the ultimate reality is this: NASA's path back to the Moon remains deeply unstable. Every new administration, every new administrator, every budget shift — it can all change the plan. Starship may become the key to the Moon, or it may turn out to be another project that failed to deliver on its promises. The only thing that is certain is that the history of space exploration is being rewritten, and we are observing this process in real time.