Key Points
NASA may halt SLS launches after the Artemis V launch.
The new plan would have Lockheed’s Orion hitch rides with SpaceX HLS to the moon.
Changes aren’t final yet, but could mean tens of billions of lost revenue for Boeing.
Once upon a time, NASA’s moon ambitions promised to pave a Milky Way to profits for Boeing(NYSE: BA). Collaborating with fellow big space companies, including Lockheed Martin(NYSE: LMT) and Northrop Grumman(NYSE: NOC), to launch as many as 20 Space Launch System megarockets to the moon at $4.1 billion a pop, Boeing stood in line to share in some $82 billion in revenue across 20 missions under NASA’s Project Artemis.
But no longer.
Will AI create the world’s first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an “Indispensable Monopoly” providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
Image source: Getty Images.
Bloomberg spills the beans
As Bloomberg reported last week, NASA is revising plans for future moon missions. Instead of paying Boeing to launch an SLS rocket to propel a Lockheed Martin Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit — there to dock with a SpaceX Human Landing System (HLS) for landing — NASA now sees a simpler way to get astronauts from Earth to the moon.
The existing framework — SLS launching Orions, Orions docking with HLSes near the moon, and so on — will still be used for the Artemis IV and V moon landings taking place in 2028 and 2029. But beginning with Artemis VI, the plan will be to launch Orion atop a smaller rocket and have Orion dock with HLS in Earth orbit. Orion and HLS will then travel in tandem to the moon, with HLS providing the propulsion. There, astronauts will transfer from Orion to HLS, descend to the moon, ascend from the moon, redock, and retransfer.
Finally, Orion will return to Earth alone.
The advantage of this new approach is Orion won’t be traveling as far under its own power, it won’t need a rocket as big (or expensive) as SLS to give it an initial boost. A smaller Vulcan Centaur rocket (built 50-50 by Boeing and Lockheed) might not be able to send Orion all the way to the moon, but should suffice to put Orion in Earth orbit, at which point HLS could take over.
So could a SpaceX Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, or a New Glenn rocket from Blue Origin.
Of course, the disadvantage from Boeing’s perspective is that, instead of charging NASA $3 billion (roughly SLS’ share of an Artemis mission cost) for each launch, it will only be able to charge a smaller fee for a Vulcan launch — on the order of $110 million. And it will only get even that much if SpaceX or Blue Origin doesn’t offer to do the launch for cheaper.
Pick your poison. Either option means less money for Boeing, and much less than $82 billion for the entire Artemis project.
The Lockheed Martin corollary
Nor is Boeing the only space company put at risk by this new NASA plan. If SLS is no longer necessary to fulfill Project Artemis’s mission, is Orion?
After all, the Orion spacecraft’s primary purpose is to keep astronauts alive en route to lunar orbit; it cannot descend to the moon on its own. Theoretically, a SpaceX Crew Dragon could fulfill the same function as Orion (crew quarters en route to the moon), thereby removing the need for Lockheed to build Orion.
It’s even possible no second spaceship at all would be needed. HLS might be able to carry astronauts into Earth orbit, then to lunar orbit, then down to the moon, up again, back to Earth, and finally land on Earth (where Mechazilla’s space chopsticks could catch it).
What it means for investors
Admittedly, this isn’t all quite as simple as I’ve sketched out above. Orion, for example, was designed to be compatible with SLS, and only SLS. It would need to be modified to make it compatible with alternative rockets, but that obstacle shouldn’t be insurmountable. Orion was also designed with a robust heat shield to enable it to survive reentry into Earth’s atmosphere at insanely high speeds — which neither Crew Dragon nor HLS were designed to survive. More redesign work would surely be needed for this option as well.
Still, the main point remains: NASA wants to make moon missions more affordable. SLS and Orion, as currently designed and priced, interfere with this goal. Under the leadership of new NASA head Jared Isaacman, the space agency seems motivated to find more economical solutions that will enable mission success at an affordable price. Lucky for SpaceX, a working HLS could offer one viable solution, at a very attractive price — and just in time for the SpaceX IPO.
Boeing and Lockheed shareholders won’t be happy about any of this, but with potentially tens of billions of dollars in savings at stake, Isaacman has a huge incentive to start cutting Boeing and Lockheed out of the loop.
Should you buy stock in Boeing right now?
Before you buy stock in Boeing, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Boeing wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $503,861!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005… if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,026,987!*
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 884% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 179% for the S&P 500. Don’t miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
*Stock Advisor returns as of March 30, 2026.
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.