Could Blue Origin develop a lander for Artemis III?

Copyright 2025 Robert Clark

SpaceX is coming under increasing criticism for its delay in developing the Starship lunar lander:

U.S. Is Losing Race to Return to Moon, Critics Say, Pointing at SpaceX.
“The company’s Starship rocket, which has suffered a series of recent test explosions, is still years away from being ready for the mission, former NASA executives say. The SpaceX Starship rocket has exploded during three of its four recent tests, and its current version can carry only a fraction of its promised payload into orbit.”
By Eric Lipton
Reporting from Washington Sept. 20, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/spacex-us-moon-race.html

Then other possibilities should be explored for a lander for Artemis. Blue Origin is planning on the multi-billion dollar Blue Moon Mk2 manned lander, but only for the later Artemis missions. However, due to the size of the Mk2, this plan would require a separate Cislunar Transporter to carry refueling propellant and 2 to 6 New Glenn launches for refueling the Mk2.

But instead of that, I discuss here using the smaller Blue Moon Mk1 lander for the purpose. Blue Origin already developed the Mk1 under its own dime, and so, one assumes, under much lower development costs.

I’ll argue here for using the Mk1 and which can be done in a single launch of the New Glenn in expendable format. But for this to happen the New Glenn’s capabilities will have to be extended to its reach originally announced payload.

Blue Origin had originally cited New Glenn’s capability as 45 tons to LEO under partial reusability. However, for its first test launch it was listed as only 25 tons. Looking at the surprisingly slow takeoff acceleration of that first test flight this must have been due to lower initial thrust of its BE-4 engines. It could not have been Blue Origin always intended for the takeoff thrust to be that low.

Then Blue Origin either needs to quickly upgrade the engines to reach their originally intended thrust value or increase the number of engines to 9. We have seen with SpaceX and the Starship, adding extra engines is relatively straight-forward and accomplished within months. Quite likely, the only reason why Blue Origin did not want to give New Glenn nine engines in the first place is because they did not want to be seen as copying the Falcon 9. But given the possible implications, getting a manned lander before SpaceX, and possibly even by the planned date for Artemis III, the option should be explored.

Then I’ll assume the New Glenn’s thrust can be raised in short order to have its payload in partial reusable format raised to the 45 tons originally cited. Then that would imply its expendable payload would be in the 60+ tons range.

But this means Blue Moon Mk1 could work as a lander to and from NRHO to the lunar surface, launched on a single expendable New Glenn. No refuelings would be required, unlike what’s required for the Mk2. You might need to use the Delta IV Heavy upper stage, currently used for the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) on the SLS, or a Centaur V upper stage as a 3rd stage to do the TLI burn.

But it’s possible you wouldn’t need that extra stage at all. Considering New Glenn uses an efficient hydrolox upper stage, it may not need an extra stage to get the ca. 25 ton Mk1 to TLI at all.

See the attached image showing in the first row the delta-v’s needed to go one way from LEO to land on the lunar surface, 6.1 km/s. This is the plan for how Blue Moon Mk1 was intended to be used by Blue Origin as a one-way cargo lander. Now, look at the fourth row showing the delta-v’s making stops at NRHO. You see to first rendezvous at NRHO then go back and forth to the lunar surface totals 5.95 km/s. That is to say, the Blue Moon Mk1 has this capability in its current form carrying 3 ton payload.

Note though the highlighted part of the fourth row is not including the delta-v needed to get to TLI. That propulsive burn would have to be supplied by New Glenn or an additional 3rd stage I mentioned.

Then we need a manned capsule for this lander within the 3 ton payload capability of the Mk1. This is certainly doable since the Apollo LEM had a crew module at only 2 ton dry mass. Now, to get a rapid, low cost development, I would advise adapting the Cygnus capsule for the purpose, rather than developing one from scratch. It would only require adding life support and crew seats. It is my thesis using already existing and operational systems saves greatly on development costs in general.