Astronauts won't walk on the moon until 2026 after NASA delays next 2 Artemis missions

We'll have to wait a little longer for humanity's return to the moon.

In a media teleconference on Tuesday (Jan. 9), NASA leadership stated that its flagship Artemis 2 mission will be delayed from November 2024 until September 2025. And the Artemis 3 moon-landing mission, originally targeted for late 2025, will now aim for September 2026. 

"Safety is our top priority, and to give Artemis teams more time to work through the challenges with first-time developments, operations and integration, we're going to give more time on Artemis 2 and 3," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said during the briefing. "So, what I want to tell you is, we are adjusting our schedule to target Artemis 2 for September of 2025 and September of 2026 for Artemis 3, which will send humans for the first time to the lunar south pole." 

Nelson added that Artemis 4 remains on track to launch in September 2028. 

Related: NASA's Artemis 3 astronaut moon landing unlikely before 2027, GAO report finds

An illustration of NASA's Orion spacecraft in orbit around Earth. (Image credit: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab)

Jim Free, NASA's associate administrator, stressed that the decision to delay Artemis 2 was made with crew safety in mind. 

"I want to emphasize that safety is our number one priority. You heard it from the administrator today; you've heard it multiple times. And as we prepare to send our friends and colleagues on this mission, we're committed to launching as safely as possible. And we will launch, when we're ready," Free said during the press conference. "The crew is a constant reminder for us how important it is to remain focused on the work we need to do to ensure their safe return."

Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Moon to Mars program, listed a number of new systems and technologies that the agency is still testing and developing ahead of Artemis 2, including new facilities at Kennedy Space Center in Florida to enable rapid propellant loading, crew ingress and egress, a new abort system and a new life support system. "And those are all added there, of course, to support the crew and, of course, to support crew safety," Kshatriya said.

Kshatriya then explained that the heat shield issues that NASA's Orion capsule encountered during the uncrewed Artemis 1 test flight around the moon in late 2022 have been a major concern as the data from that successful mission is analyzed. The heat shield sufficiently protected Orion, but much of it charred away from the spacecraft. 

"We did see the the off-nominal recession of some char that came off the heat shield, which we were not expecting," Kshatriya said during the briefing. "Now, this heat shield is an ablative material — it is supposed to char — but it's not what we were expecting, with some pieces of that char to be liberated from the vehicle."

Related: Facts about NASA's Artemis moon program

Kshatriya said that some of the life-support hardware will have to be replaced inside the Artemis 3 Orion spacecraft due to failures during testing, an exhaustive process that requires disassembling and accessing many different systems inside the capsule. 

In addition, the electrical system in the crew abort system that pulls the capsule away from NASA's Space Launch System rocket in the event of a launch anomaly has not performed as expected during testing. "We're still very early in that investigation. We have not yet developed a forward path; we have multiple parallel options to fix this issue," Kshatriya said. "And we have a lot of testing to do in front of us, but we wanted to make sure we give ourselves the time to do that."

When it launches, Artemis 2 will send a crew of four around the moon and back to Earth. The crew includes three NASA astronauts — commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover (who will be the first person of color to leave low Earth orbit, or LEO) and mission specialist Christina Koch (the first woman) — as well as Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen (who will become the first non-American to leave LEO).

Despite the delays, NASA leadership is still enthusiastic about Artemis 2 and what it will mean for space exploration. "Artemis represents what we can accomplish as a country, as a global coalition," Nelson said. "And what we can accomplish when we set our sights on what is hard. And what has never been done before."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Brett Tingley
Managing Editor, Space.com

Brett is curious about emerging aerospace technologies, alternative launch concepts, military space developments and uncrewed aircraft systems. Brett's work has appeared on Scientific American, The War Zone, Popular Science, the History Channel, Science Discovery and more. Brett has English degrees from Clemson University and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In his free time, Brett enjoys skywatching throughout the dark skies of the Appalachian mountains.

  • SpaceForce_45
    NASA has taken a step back in the last 3+ years, that is for sure!
    Reply
  • CDNSpacefan
    With all the delays, it does make a believer feel like maybe we never did actually land on the moon and return back to the earth safely. I mean back in the 60's when I watched the moon landing, I was in awe. However, today's world and all of our technology we still can't make a space craft to accomplish this mission. The world watched an event happen in one test flight basically. Yet we can't study from history and do it again.
    Becoming skeptical.
    Reply
  • Wolfshadw
    I would argue that with the advances in technology over the past 50+ years, comes a whole slew of new points of failure that we simply haven't been able to navigate through as yet. I also think this generation lacks "Go Fever" which was so prominent back in the original space race (probably a good thing, too).

    I was too young to understand what was happening back then. I'm (much) older and wiser now. I don't mind taking the time to get things right.

    Personally, I'd rather not make it than lose any more lives on missions.

    -Wolf sends
    Reply
  • rod
    CDNSpacefan said:
    With all the delays, it does make a believer feel like maybe we never did actually land on the moon and return back to the earth safely. I mean back in the 60's when I watched the moon landing, I was in awe. However, today's world and all of our technology we still can't make a space craft to accomplish this mission. The world watched an event happen in one test flight basically. Yet we can't study from history and do it again.
    Becoming skeptical.
    While I did view the Apollo launches and returns from 1968-1972, I can understand folks now questioning the whole program and claims. Continued NASA failures here will edit likely help the skeptics on the Internet or some in the flat earth society that present a flat disk Moon and translucent, so no Apollo missions there. Wolf in post #4 makes some good points.
    Reply
  • joelanier
    It is not good trying to engineer your way into a one shot success by creatively applying OTS equipment to new expanded missions or trying to do too much on a dime without allowing budgeting for failures. The OTS equipment is limited in supply, so failure testing is too costly. The 737max was engineered to save money as was the Titanic explorer, and probably the latest example, the Peregrine lunar mission. My guess is the Peregrine mission was funded by all the add-on missions and they probably also had to work on a dime. Musk has it right. Keep testing and failing cheaply, till you end up with a robust resilient system. Start simple and cheaply and fail, fail, fail until you fully understand the engineering and work out all the kinks. Sending Astronauts around the Moon on a second shot, with such a complicated system, is like throwing a hail mary in a football game hoping nothing goes awry. I have never been comfortable with that approach, and I agree with delaying for more robust testing, if that is their approach. Better yet, would be to have SpaceX send a few more dummy capsules around the Moon to test the heatshields. His launches have to be a lot cheaper.
    Reply
  • COLGeek
    Listen to this, especially the part about life support expertise:

    NASA delays first Artemis mission to the moon to 2025 - https://one.npr.org/i/1223988628:1223988637
    Reply
  • CDNSpacefan
    I must say, I am happy with the responses I am seeing. Also, I didn't really mean to make my comment a downer. I am a real space nut. I love the subject of space. I wanted to be an astronaut when I was younger. It is far too late for an old guy like me. :( However, I think some of my, I'll say disappointment. Is based on wishing that we were already back at the moon.
    After reading the above comments. I do not dis-agree with anyone saying that the delay is based on the safety of the astronauts. I too want them to go and come home safely. I also agree with testing, failing, failing, failing, and finally getting it right.
    Reply
  • CDNSpacefan
    COLGeek said:
    Listen to this, especially the part about life support expertise:

    NASA delays first Artemis mission to the moon to 2025 - https://one.npr.org/i/1223988628:1223988637
    That is a great piece of information. Thank you.
    Reply
  • DominicML
    Personally, and perhaps this is a bit cynical, but as a lover of space and space travel... I struggle to find the purpose of these Artemis missions. I understand they're meant to help us further understand and prepare for deep space travel in some capacity, but a more cynical part of me sees them as a publicity stunt and waste of funds. I'm hoping somebody can change my mind on that.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    We need a B-52. Every time will go up there, we want to do it with new tech and new methods and a new craft to do it with. This takes time money and delays.

    If we stuck to one model, we wouldn't have this overhead.
    Reply