Astronaut safety and delays were top concerns in a new audit of NASA’s plans to use either SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon lunar landers on future Artemis missions, although costs have remained on target so far.

NASA’s Office of the Inspector General released the audit Tuesday, assessing progress and shortcomings for both commercial companies tapped to provide a human landing system (HLS) to the agency.

NASA is set to launch the first crewed Artemis mission on a lunar fly-by as soon as April 1, and recently shifted plans so Artemis III will be a near-Earth mission in mid-2027 to test out the Orion spacecraft’s ability to dock with one or both of the lunar landers.

It won’t be until Artemis IV, currently pushing to fly in early 2028, that one of the two landers aims to take astronauts down to the lunar surface for the first time since the end of the Apollo program in 1972.

The audit, though, called out the risky approach to that mission, noting the agency has no plan in place for a rescue if something were to go wrong on the flight.

“We also observed limitations in the agency’s approach to crew survival analyses — the evaluation of available crew survival capabilities to counter a catastrophic event — due to functional constraints and the availability of resources,” the audit reads.

It notes that these plans typically mature later in the design cycle, which is behind schedule, so for now NASA’s decisions on crew safety so far have not been adequately aimed at driving down risk on each spacecraft.

“Moreover, the analyses do not account for extended crew survival once an immediate threat is over,” the report reads. “While NASA is taking steps to prevent catastrophic events from occurring, ultimately, should the astronauts encounter a life-threatening emergency in space or on the lunar surface, NASA does not have the capability to rescue the stranded crew.”

The audit targeted Starship as well, noting the crew’s ability to take control of the spacecraft is in question.

“NASA and SpaceX disagree on whether the provider is meeting the intent of the Agency’s manual control requirement,” the audit reads. “Incorporating the manual control capability is a key element of HLS’s human rating certification and part of an essential crew survival strategy.”

Decisions on Blue Origin’s lander manual controls have yet to be made.

The audit recommended that NASA consult with the Commercial Crew Program, which has overseen both SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, to review the risk findings related to manual control. The Dragon program received a waiver for manual control, and has performed all of its dockings with the International Space Station autonomously, while Starliner has manual control in place, something that helped astronauts counter failed thrusters during its beleaguered Crew Flight Test mission in 2024.

Another recommendation is for NASA to update its crew survival plans to include strategies for extended crew survival in the event something goes wrong during the orbit transfer from Orion to the lander, and on the surface.

That includes the risk inherent with the new landers’ designs as they have to tackle a difficult target landing site.

The Artemis program is aiming for the moon’s south pole, which is peppered with craters and rocks as large as 65 feet in diameter along with some areas with 20-degree slopes. This terrain has already proven a bane to recent uncrewed lander attempts, including both missions by Intuitive Machines, which had landers tip after touchdown.

Starship stands at 171 feet while Blue Moon is 53 feet tall compared to the Apollo lunar landers’ 23-foot height. The audit notes Starship’s height increases the risk its momentum will continue after landing causing it to tip over and Blue Moon could exceed “tilt tolerance for safe and effective execution of critical crew functions.”

“Surpassing the tilt tolerance for either lander, which NASA established as not to exceed 8 degrees to support all post-landing crew activities, could impact the operation of equipment such as the hatch used by the crew to exit and enter the vehicle,” the audit reads.

Starship’s design also features an elevator that would transport crew from the top of the rocket 115 feet above the ground.

“Currently, there is no other method for the crew to enter the vehicle from the lunar surface in the event of an elevator failure,” the audit reads. “The HLS Program is tracking the elevator as a top risk and is actively working with SpaceX to develop alternate means of vehicleingress should the elevator become stuck or fail while the crew is on the lunar surface.”

Blue Origin’s lander is similar to the Apollo landers with an entrance 6 feet above the ground accessible by ladder.

As far as costs go, both Blue Origin and SpaceX have remained close to the original task order awards that totaled $6.9 billion between he two, although NASA expects those costs to grow to $18.3 billion through 2030. A lot of that involves NASA embedding with the companies to ensure safety and operational requirements are met during development.

“Given NASA’s significant financial investment and the high stakes of returning astronauts to the moon’s surface, it is essential the Agency maintains sufficient awareness into the risks associated with these new technologies and the authority to require system and operational changes to ensure the safety of the crew,” the audit states.

Both landers are behind original target delivery dates as both companies have faced technical and integration challenges that could further delay the Artemis timeline and increase costs, with NASA providing expertise to guide them.

“The HLS Program has insight into more than 1,100 focus areas between SpaceX and Blue Origin, with increased insight into engine development, cryogenic fluid management and crew training,” the audit reads. “As the providers continue development and approach critical milestones, increases in insight will likely require additional NASA resources to conduct analyses, reviews and tests.”

For Starship, several missions in 2025 ended short of company goals, including two that saw the upper stage break apart soon after launch. Each mishap caused a 1- to 3-month delay, and a new version of Starship had been delayed further with an issue during ground testing so that it won’t fly until at least next month.

Blue Origin, meanwhile, had yet to complete nearly half of the changes asked for in the preliminary design review in 2024, including issues with its propulsion system, reducing mass and improving propellant margins. That would push the next milestone, the critical design review, to this summer — 11 months later than the most recent plan, which itself had already been pushed by eight months from the original target.

“These requests reflect issues raised during the review that must be corrected, agreed upon by NASA and the provider, and formally closed by the HLS Program,” the audit states.

---------

©2026 Orlando Sentinel. Visit at orlandosentinel.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.