A failure during a Blue Origin test flight has sent ripples through the space community, raising uncomfortable questions about the viability of NASA’s Artemis programme. The uncrewed New Shepard rocket suffered an anomaly just after launch on Monday, triggering the capsule’s abort system and ending the mission prematurely. While no injuries occurred, the incident underscores the technical hurdles that remain as the agency races to return humans to the lunar surface.
For NASA, the timing could not be worse. The Artemis III mission, intended to land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2025, relies heavily on SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s lunar lander concepts. The latter, known as Blue Moon, was set for critical design reviews later this year. Now, that schedule may slip.
This is not a case of simple teething problems. New Shepard has flown successfully more than 20 times, but the failure of its BE-3PM engine during ascent points to potential flaws in the propulsion system. Blue Origin has grounded the fleet pending investigation. If the root cause traces back to fundamental design choices, the cascading effect on NASA’s timeline could be severe.
Let us be clear about the physics. Returning to the Moon is not a repeat of Apollo. It requires sustained surface operations, in-situ resource utilisation, and the transport of significant mass. Every kilogram of payload demands reliable thrust. A single engine anomaly in a suborbital vehicle may not directly map onto the heavy-lift New Glenn or the Blue Moon descent stage, but it erodes confidence.
NASA has already pushed back its Artemis II crewed flyby from November 2024 to no earlier than September 2025. The agency now admits that a 2025 landing is optimistic. The Government Accountability Office recently warned that a 2027 landing was “more realistic”. This Blue Origin mishap, combined with ongoing delays in Starship development, makes a 2028 timeline plausible.
Consider the energy requirements. The Moon lacks a carbon atmosphere, so solar power is the only option for extended stays. But the lunar night lasts 14 Earth days. Batteries and fuel cells must be reliable. Every launch failure delays the testing of these critical systems.
The biosphere analogy is apt. Just as Earth’s ecosystems are interconnected, so too are the components of a lunar mission. A failure in one part stresses the whole. The Artemis programme is not merely a series of launches; it is a web of contracts, milestones, and interdependent technologies. One weak strand and the entire schedule unravels.
This is not a call to abandon the Moon. On the contrary, robust space exploration requires a clear-eyed assessment of risk. The physical reality is that space is unforgiving. We cannot afford to rush a landing only to face a life support failure.
Blue Origin must now conduct a thorough investigation and share results transparently. NASA must reassess its reliance on commercial partners and consider backup plans, perhaps accelerating work on smaller lander alternatives. The taxpayer funded Artemis programme is already the most expensive in history. Every delay adds billions.
The bottom line is this: our return to the Moon will happen, but not on the schedule we hoped. The physics of rocketry and the reality of engineering demand patience. We would do well to listen.
