SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed Will Take America Back to the Moon -- but Not Just Yet

In case you haven't heard, NASA shook up its moon landing plans again last week. Some people think this is bad for the Artemis program -- and for the rocket companies working to make it happen -- while others think the news is good.

The people who think it's good news... are correct.

Image source: Getty Images.

Don't judge a book by its cover: Artemis III

To understand why people might get this story wrong, consider the headline: On Feb. 27, newly appointed NASA administrator Jared Isaacman took to X to announce that the Artemis II mission, which has been repeatedly delayed already, will be delayed again until April. Over 10 days, Artemis II will sail around the moon and back again (and not land on the moon along the way).

Likewise, the following Artemis III mission will not land on the moon in 2028 as previously planned. Instead, it will merely travel to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), there to practice docking with various lunar landing vessels.

Taken together, these two revelations sure sound like bad news -- more delays at NASA and no moon landing for at least another couple of years.

President Trump gave the world the Artemis Program, and NASA and our partners have the plan to deliver. We will standardize architecture where possible, add missions and accelerate flight rate, execute in an evolutionary way, and safely return American astronauts to the Moon,... pic.twitter.com/Qjm6BD5Ipi

-- NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman (@NASAAdmin) February 27, 2026

But here's the thing: We're still planning to land on the moon. It's just that the rocket that does that will be Artemis IV.

An Artemis by any other number

So why the switcheroo? "Launching a lunar rocket every three years is not a strategy consistent with success. ... This is by far the lowest launch cadence in the history of America's space program," says Isaacman.

To rectify this, NASA wants to launch more frequently. Artemis III will be pulled forward one year to 2027, and astronauts will use it to practice docking procedures. (The moon landing, when it happens, will involve astronauts traveling to the moon on an Orion spacecraft, then transferring to a lunar lander for their descent to, and ascent from the moon, after which they will transfer back to Orion for return to Earth.)

One year later -- but still hitting the 2028 target date -- Artemis IV, not III, will conduct the actual landing. Indeed, because NASA is accelerating its launch cadence to once every 10 months (instead of once every three years), it may land on the moon twice in 2028: first with Artemis IV and then with Artemis V.

What else is up with Artemis?

Now that we've established the new timeline, let's take a look at the hardware.

I've already described two elements of the Artemis missions: an Orion capsule to go to and from lunar orbit, and a lunar lander (SpaceX's "Human Landing System") to go to and from the moon's surface. Arguably, the biggest part of any Artemis launch, though, is the rocket they ride into space.

NASA calls this rocket the Space Launch System, or SLS. Boeing (NYSE: BA) builds it. Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) adds solid rocket boosters to give it extra "oomph." Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) then puts an Orion spacecraft on top of it.

The sum total of all these efforts comes to $4.1 billion in costs for each Artemis launch -- partly because the rockets launch so infrequently that there's very little economy of scale involved and partly because Boeing is still evolving SLS and has been spending money on developing a more powerful version.

That's going to stop.

To help control costs, Isaacman wants to "standardize" Boeing's SLS moon rocket so that NASA can build more of them, faster and cheaper. Instead of a planned capability upgrade to "Block II," NASA will instruct Boeing to create a "near-Block I" version of SLS that includes the proven Centaur 5 second stage that Boeing and Lockheed's United Launch Alliance uses on its Vulcan Centaur rocket, rather than the more powerful "Exploration Upper Stage" Boeing had been working on.

What it means for space stocks

Artemis IV will be the first SLS rocket to use the Centaur second stage. All subsequent launches will use it, too, thus "standardizing" the design. If this enables Boeing and its partners to cut costs, it could be very good news -- not just for NASA, but also for its contractors.

How?

Well, $4.1 billion is a very high price to pay for a rocket launch, especially when Elon Musk and SpaceX are not being shy about arguing their Starship rocket would be much cheaper. This has led to active calls in Congress to cancel SLS outright and replace it with a cheaper rocket -- if not Starship, then perhaps with Blue Origin's New Glen rocket.

In one fell swoop, though, Isaacman has proposed a plan that stands a decent chance of getting us back to the moon by 2028, and on schedule; cutting SLS per-launch costs to a level that makes launches more affordable; and thereby making SLS more palatable to Congress -- such that Boeing, Northrop, and Lockheed may be allowed to keep building SLS rockets and not hand the rocket contract to Elon Musk on a silver platter.

I call this a win-win-win for all concerned. Boeing should send Isaacman a thank-you note.

Rich Smith has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Boeing. The Motley Fool recommends Lockheed Martin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.