\n Starship is still in the nascent stages of a long and laborious development process. So far, parts of the vehicle have failed in dramatic fashion during six of its 10 test flights. Another prototype recently exploded during ground testing<\/a>. SpaceX is set to launch its next test, Flight 11, as soon as 7:15 p.m. ET Monday from the company\u2019s South Texas launch facilities.\n <\/p>\n \n The megarocket has yet to hit several key testing milestones. These include figuring out how to top off Starship\u2019s fuel as it sits parked in orbit around Earth. Such a step is necessary given the vehicle\u2019s design and enormous size \u2014 but it\u2019s never been attempted before with any spacecraft.\n <\/p>\n \n Adding to the uncertainty is that no one knows exactly how many tankers full of fuel SpaceX will need to launch to give Starship enough gas for a moon-landing mission, which NASA has planned for mid-2027.\n <\/p>\n \n One SpaceX executive estimated<\/a> in 2024 that number \u201cwill roughly be 10-ish.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n But, more recently, engineers at NASA\u2019s Johnson Space Center in Houston estimated that a single moon landing could require SpaceX to launch more than 40 tankers \u2014 which are Starship vehicles designed to carry fuel, according to one former NASA official who spoke on condition of anonymity.\n <\/p>\n \n That estimate may be specific to the current version of Starship, referred to as Version 2 or V2, that SpaceX is flying, the source noted. And the company is expected to debut an upgraded version of the vehicle after its next test mission on Monday that could change those predictions.\n <\/p>\n This slide needs an update, but gives a rough idea of what we\u2019re aiming for with V3 and V4.<\/p>\n V3 should be built & tested (maybe flown) by end of this year. <\/p>\n V4 is 2027. Probably closer to 150m height and 7500 tons. pic.twitter.com\/5WSUR8MORt<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 27, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n \n Still, even if the number of refueling flights is somewhere between 10 and 40, in general, the path NASA has chosen to return to the moon is \u201cextraordinarily complex,\u201d Jim Bridenstine, who was NASA administrator during President Donald Trump\u2019s first term, said at a Senate committee hearing in September<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cThis is an architecture that no NASA administrator that I\u2019m aware of would have selected had they had the choice,\u201d Bridenstine said, referring to the decision to use Starship as the vehicle that will land astronauts on the moon. That choice was made in 2021<\/a> when the space agency was without a Senate-confirmed leader.\n <\/p>\n \n Acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy responded to the Senate hearing during a September 4 town hall with agency employees, saying the hearing amounted to \u201cshade thrown on all of us.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cMaybe I am competitive. I was angry about it,\u201d Duffy said. \u201cI\u2019ll be damned if that is the story that we write. We are going to beat the Chinese to the moon.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n A spokesperson for current NASA leadership declined to provide comment for this story, citing the government shutdown<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n Given Starship\u2019s gargantuan size and refueling needs, NASA\u2019s road map for its planned moon-landing mission, called Artemis III, appears far more convoluted than the Apollo missions of the 20thcentury.\n <\/p>\n \n On those lunar treks decades ago, NASA launched a single rocket \u2014 the Saturn V \u2014 that had everything the astronauts needed already on board, including the Apollo crew capsule and the landers, such as the Eagle<\/a>, they rode to the moon\u2019s surface.\n <\/p>\n \n NASA is not repeating that streamlined approach for several reasons.\n <\/p>\n \n For one, spaceflight is not as simple as dragging out blueprints from old missions. The supply chains, construction methods and institutional capabilities that built the Apollo launch vehicles no longer exist.\n <\/p>\n \n Even if NASA could resurrect its retro rockets, the space agency has made it clear that path wouldn\u2019t align with its goals.\n <\/p>\n \n NASA hopes the Artemis program will accomplish far more difficult missions than Apollo, including allowing humans to visit the moon\u2019s largely unexplored south pole region, where researchers believe water is stored in ice form beneath the dusty surface. It\u2019s trickier to land there due to the rough terrain and a flight path that requires far more energy. But water and other lunar resources could be harvested and used to sustain a moon base where astronauts would live and work.\n <\/p>\n \n The goal \u2014 as NASA leadership frequently says \u2014 is not to merely plant a flag on the moon but to pave the way for a permanent crewed operation.\n <\/p>\n \n Such a vision requires far larger and perhaps more versatile lunar landers, according to former NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, who helmed the agency under President Joe Biden.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cFor the research that we\u2019re going to do on the surface of the moon, particularly at a very difficult place to get \u2014 the south pole \u2014 it takes a larger lander,\u201d Nelson told CNN during a September phone call.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cYou just simply can\u2019t take everything with you,\u201d like the Apollo astronauts did, he added, \u201cbecause of the law of physics.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Still, critics argue, it\u2019s possible for NASA to carry out a moon mission that \u2014 while not as simple as Apollo \u2014 is at least less complicated than relying on Starship.\n <\/p>\n \n Under the current road map for Artemis III, the mission will begin with the launch of a single, bare-bones Starship vehicle that will serve as a refueling depot. That spacecraft will sit in orbit as it waits for additional Starships, also flying with nothing but propellant as cargo, to launch, dock with the depot and pass off more fuel.\n <\/p>\n \n Whether it requires 10 launches or 40, the process must be carried out quickly to counter the effects of fuel boiling off, noted Doug Loverro, a consultant who previously was NASA\u2019s associate administrator for human exploration. Loverro resigned<\/a> from NASA, as CNN previously reported, because he improperly communicated with an Artemis contractor.\n <\/p>\n \n The cryogenic fuels Starship requires must be kept at super-cold temperatures or else they will evaporate. And it\u2019s not clear just how much propellant may boil off as it is moved from one place to another in space.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cNobody knows how efficient the transfer is going to be,\u201d Loverro said. \u201cIt\u2019s nearly an impossible question to answer.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Once the refueling depot is filled up, SpaceX would then launch a Starship vehicle that is equipped to carry humans \u2014 called the Starship HLS, or Human Landing System \u2014 which would be decked out with all the systems necessary to support life.\n <\/p>\n \n Only after the Starship HLS docks with the refueling depot and is topped off with propellant can it begin its trek to the moon.\n <\/p>\n \n Meanwhile, NASA astronauts will launch into orbit aboard a different vehicle: the Orion spacecraft, which rides to space atop NASA\u2019s Space Launch System<\/a> (SLS) rocket.\n <\/p>\n \n Following launch, Orion separates from SLS and begins its own journey to orbit around the moon. Once there, the Orion spacecraft will link up with the Starship lander, docking while orbiting above the moon\u2019s surface. Two of the astronauts will then transfer to the Starship HLS, which will carry them down to the moon\u2019s south pole, a treacherous area pockmarked with steep craters.\n <\/p>\n \n After about a week, the astronauts would then climb back aboard Starship HLS and launch into lunar orbit where they would once again dock with Orion. The Orion capsule would fly the astronauts back to Earth, making a splashdown landing in the Pacific Ocean.\n <\/p>\n \n If NASA achieves its hope of carrying out this mission in mid-2027, it would beat China\u2019s goal of pulling off an astronaut landing by 2030.\n <\/p>\n \n NASA\u2019s plan, however, is \u201cincredibly hard, complex\u201d and likely a decade away from reality, Loverro said.\n <\/p>\n \n From his vantage point, Loverro said NASA\u2019s decision to use Starship as the lunar lander for the Artemis III mission was made in error.\n <\/p>\n \n SpaceX made big promises on paper, he said, referring to the bid the company submitted to secure the $2.9 billion<\/a> contract for the job. And while Loverro said he believes the company will eventually deliver on its pledges to make Starship operational \u2014 he also thinks there is no way it will have the vehicle ready before China lands astronauts on the moon.\n <\/p>\n \n SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment for this story, nor does the company typically respond to requests for information.\n <\/p>\n \n One former NASA official close to the selection process told CNN that Starship beat out its competitors in a series of technical evaluations<\/a> that a team of NASA experts conducted. The assessments evaluated Starship\u2019s capabilities as well as costs to the government \u2014 an important consideration because NASA had limited funds to dole out.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cIt was not like this was a controversial decision at that stage\u201d from the agency\u2019s point of view, the source said, adding that NASA would have liked to have chosen two companies to compete to build lunar landers but simply did not have the money.\n <\/p>\n \n SpaceX\u2019s competitor, Blue Origin, sued the federal government over the decision, alleging the space agency unfairly favored SpaceX. But a judge ultimately upheld NASA\u2019s decision. (After Nelson lobbied Congress and secured additional funds, NASA brought Blue Origin on as a second contractor<\/a> in 2023 to build lunar landers for use later in the Artemis program.)\n <\/p>\n \n SpaceX\u2019s Starship promised not just to get the job done for the moon landing \u2014 but to be transformative for the space industry. The massive rocket could conduct missions NASA could previously only dream of.\n <\/p>\n \n Still, critics say, Starship was likely chosen for its future promise, not for its potential to perform under an ever-looming deadline.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cIt \u2014 quite frankly \u2014 doesn\u2019t make a lot of sense if you\u2019re trying to go first to the moon, this time to beat China,\u201d Bridenstine said during his testimony in September.\n <\/p>\n \n However, Duffy, the acting NASA chief, indicated that the space agency remains confident in SpaceX.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cI think it\u2019s important to be honest, and if I thought we were going to have concerns \u2014 I would tell you,\u201d Duffy told CBS News in August. \u201cAnd if there\u2019s a point that I do have concerns, I\u2019ll make that public.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Despite a growing chorus of voices expressing concern that pinning the outcome of a moon race on Starship may be a losing bet, not many stakeholders are ready to decry the plan publicly or recommend shifting course.\n <\/p>\n \n In fact, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a key figure in US space policy, made it clear during a September hearing that he thinks it is too late to ditch Starship for an alternative plan: \u201cAny drastic changes in NASA\u2019s architecture at this stage threaten United States leadership in space,\u201d Cruz said then.\n <\/p>\n \n Behind closed doors, however, some space industry leaders have voiced deep concerns.\n <\/p>\n \n When asked about the public discourse, Loverro said that it\u2019s possible that the gravity of the issue may not have fully sunk in across space industry leadership.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cI think we\u2019re really at step one of the 12-step process of figuring out we have a problem,\u201d he said.\n <\/p>\n \n Still, others remain optimistic, pointing to SpaceX\u2019s remarkable success across other projects it has worked on with NASA, such as the International Space Station\u2019s Commercial Crew Program<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n During a September 21 meeting of NASA\u2019s Aerospace Safety Advisory Pane<\/a>l<\/a>, member Paul Hill, who had visited SpaceX\u2019s Starship development facilities in August, said the timeline for this vehicle is \u201csignificantly challenged.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n The ASAP committee expects the vehicle will be \u201cyears late\u201d to the 2027 deadline, Hill said.\n <\/p>\n \n In a September 23 statement responding to the meeting, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens said the agency \u201cappreciates the opportunity to hear from our advisory groups and stakeholders. \u2026These discussions are important to helping NASA safely execute our missions.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n However, Hill also complimented SpaceX, repeating sentiments frequently voiced by space industry leaders and stakeholders: Even if SpaceX is behind schedule, the company has a long track record of excellence and tends to get things done even when conventional wisdom suggests it will fail.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cThere is a multifaceted, self-perpetuating genius, for lack of a better way of saying it, at SpaceX,\u201d Hill said, heaping praise on the company\u2019s business model and development approach. \u201cThere is no competitor, whether government or industry, that has this full combination of factors.\u201d\n <\/p>\n ![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/gettyimages-2156353542-20251010151407714.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/ksc-69pc-420-orig.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/2024-12-02t100319z-1362976735-rc2al6ai7yev-rtrmadp-3-year-end-2024-photos-best.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/09-24-24-first-steps-axiom-suits-large.jpg\")
<\/p>\n