New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

NASA scraps 2027 Artemis III moon landing in favor of 2028 mission

The announcement that NASA will rejigger Artemis III not to land on the moon in 2027 came after the agency’s Artemis II mission encountered problems, delaying its launch

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman

NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

NASA will not land astronauts on the moon in 2027, the space agency’s administrator Jared Isaacman announced on Friday. Instead the agency will rejigger its planned Artemis III mission to test in-orbit capabilities such as using the astronauts’ space suits in microgravity and rendezvousing with at least one of the spacecraft that NASA hopes to use as a lunar lander.

NASA will then attempt to two crewed lunar landings in 2028 as part of Artemis IV and Artemis V. The decision represents a major schedule shift for the agency, which has been pushing for years to make Artemis III the mission that will land astronauts on the moon for the first time in more than half a century.

The announcement comes after NASA’s upcoming Artemis II mission encountered more problems with its rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), last week. As a result, NASA has had to scrap a target March launch, which already represented a delay from its initial time line. The SLS, which now has helium flow issues, had already encountered hydrogen leaks and other problems that had caused its launch window to slip earlier this year—and similar issues had caused months of delays for the rocket’s first launch in the uncrewed Artemis I mission. The next launch window for Artemis II opens in early April.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


At a press conference on Friday, Isaacman said NASA was confident that increasing the cadence of SLS launches to once every 10 months or so would result in less risk and more mission success.

“I’m excited because I think we have a path here to actually get the job done within the time frames that we’ve targeted right now,” Isaacman said. NASA needs to rebuild its “core competencies,” he said, adding that the agency will work to standardize the SLS production so that the time between launches can be reduced as much as possible. Currently, the period between the last SLS launch for Artemis I and the upcoming missions will be more than three years.

“There is simply a right and wrong way to go about doing this,” Isaacman said. “Launching every three years and ... massive changes in the configuration of vehicle is not a recipe for success.”

Editor’s Note (2/27/26): This is a developing story and may be updated.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe