In 2024, SpaceX had one Falcon 9 launch per 2.8 days, after having been operational for several years. The first Falcon 9 was used in 2014, and the first booster reused in 2017. It seems it will take years for Starship to match and exceed that flight rate. Of course, Blue Origin faces other difficulties, as you mentioned, and they have a much more distant deadline (Artemis 5). But at this point I don't quite see Artemis 3 happening before a Chinese moon landing, with a much simpler approach that doesn't include any complexities comparable to what SpaceX is facing with its HLS. (As others mentioned, I don't think that's a major problem, as manned space flight is mostly done for abstract prestige, and the US already had Apollo.)

> My prediction is that nobody can build and fully qualify a safe moon lander with a more or less clean-sheet design in three years.

I tend to agree, though there are possible solutions that are technically simpler (if less ambitious) than either Starship or Blue Moon, while not even requiring SLS. Though it is probably too late now to try those. It's all the more surprising that Lockheed Martin still tries to offer an alternative solution:

> In a statement to Reuters, Bob Behnken, vice president of Exploration and Technology Strategy at Lockheed Martin's space unit, said the company this year has been conducting "significant technical and programmatic analysis for human lunar landers."

> "We have been working with a cross-industry team of companies and together we are looking forward to addressing Secretary Duffy's request to meet our country’s lunar objectives," said Behnken, a retired NASA astronaut.

https://www.reuters.com/science/us-seek-rival-bids-artemis-3...

But their offer would likely be very expensive, and it would be very questionable whether it can be faster than Starship HLS. So I don't think they will receive a contract.