NASA Names Artemis III Crew for First Crewed Test of Lunar Landers

On June 9, 2026, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman stood at Johnson Space Center in Houston and introduced the four astronauts who will fly Artemis III: Randy Bresnik, Luca Parmitano, Frank Rubio, and Andre Douglas [1]. The announcement came two months after the Artemis II crew returned from a successful 10-day lunar flyby, and the mood was celebratory. "Today we take another bold step in humanity's return to the Moon," Isaacman said [1].

But Artemis III will not land on the Moon. In a quiet restructuring announced in February 2026, NASA converted the mission from America's first crewed lunar landing since 1972 into an Earth-orbit docking test of two competing lunar landers — an approach NASA itself compares to Apollo 9, the 1969 shakedown flight that preceded the actual Moon landing by four months [2]. The lunar surface is now the job of Artemis IV, tentatively targeted for 2028, a date that depends on milestones neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin has yet met [3].

The Crew

The four astronauts bring a combined six prior spaceflights and deep test-pilot experience — qualities NASA considers essential for what Jeremy Parsons, the Artemis program manager, called a mission "deliberately designed to take calculated risks" [2].

Randy Bresnik (Commander) is a retired Marine Colonel on his third spaceflight. He flew on Space Shuttle Atlantis in 2009 and commanded ISS Expedition 53 in 2017. A Citadel graduate with a mathematics degree, he has logged over 7,000 flight hours across 95 aircraft types [4].

Luca Parmitano (Pilot) is the first European Space Agency astronaut assigned to an Artemis crew. An Italian Air Force colonel and test pilot, he commanded the ISS during Expedition 61 in 2019 — only the third European to do so — and has completed six spacewalks [4]. ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said Parmitano's assignment "reflects the depth of European expertise in human spaceflight" [1].

Frank Rubio (Mission Specialist) holds the U.S. record for the longest single spaceflight: more than 370 days in orbit after his Soyuz return was delayed by a spacecraft coolant leak. A board-certified family physician and Army Black Hawk pilot with combat deployments to Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Rubio called his selection "an incredible blessing" [5][6].

Andre Douglas (Mission Specialist) will be making his first spaceflight, though he served as backup and closeout crew for Artemis II. A Coast Guard Reserve commander with a doctorate in systems engineering from George Washington University, Douglas said at the announcement: "My brain — it is going a mile a minute right now. But my heart — my heart — it is so warm" [1][7].

Bob Hines was named as backup crew member [1].

The crew composition marks several firsts. Parmitano is the first non-NASA astronaut on an Artemis flight crew. Douglas, who is Black, continues a pattern set by Artemis II's Victor Glover — but the crew remains entirely male, a contrast with Artemis II, which included Christina Koch. Compared to the Apollo era, when all 24 astronauts who flew to the Moon were white American men with military backgrounds, the Artemis astronaut corps is substantially more diverse, though critics have noted the pace of that change [4][7].

What Artemis III Will Actually Do

The mission, approximately two weeks long, will launch from Kennedy Space Center on an SLS rocket with the Orion capsule [1]. Once in Earth orbit, the crew will perform rendezvous and docking operations with SpaceX's Starship Human Landing System and, if ready, Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander [2]. They will also evaluate the Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit (AxEMU) spacesuit [2].

Parsons described the flight as a necessary proving ground: "This test flight will enable us to prove we can carry out highly choreographed operations" [2]. Bresnik, the commander, used a more poetic frame: "We are honored to carry this torch forward, to make that flame burn brighter and pass that flame on to the next crew" [1].

The comparison to Apollo 9 is apt but incomplete. Apollo 9 tested a fully developed lunar module that had already passed NASA's design certification review. Starship HLS, by contrast, still has not completed its in-space propellant transfer demonstration — the foundational technology that will allow the massive vehicle to reach the Moon [8].

The $93 Billion Question

The Artemis program's price tag continues to grow. A 2021 NASA Office of Inspector General audit projected $93 billion in total spending from fiscal years 2012 through 2025, covering SLS, Orion, ground systems, the Human Landing System, the Lunar Gateway, spacesuits, and commercial lunar payload services [9][10]. That figure excluded an estimated $25 billion for missions beyond Artemis III [9].

Source: NASA OIG Report IG-22-003

Data as of Nov 1, 2024CSV

The cost breakdown reveals the program's heaviest line items. The SLS rocket accounts for approximately $23.8 billion, followed by the Orion capsule at $19.5 billion. The Human Landing System — the SpaceX and Blue Origin contracts — totals roughly $11.8 billion. Ground systems add another $7.5 billion [9]. Per-launch costs for SLS and Orion alone run approximately $4.1 billion [10].

For comparison, the entire Apollo program cost approximately $257 billion in 2024-adjusted dollars across 17 missions, or roughly $15 billion per mission [10]. Artemis III, even in its reduced Earth-orbit configuration, will cost substantially more per flight — a fact the Inspector General attributed to sole-source, cost-plus contracts and NASA's practice of excluding significant program costs from official baselines [9].

A Timeline That Keeps Slipping

When the Trump administration formally directed NASA to return astronauts to the Moon in 2017, the initial target was 2024. That date has slipped repeatedly.

Source: SpaceNews, NASA announcements

Data as of Jun 9, 2026CSV

In 2023, NASA pushed the target to 2026. By December 2024, it shifted to mid-2027. In January 2026, NASA delayed again to "no earlier than 2028." Then in February 2026, the agency announced the current plan: a late 2027 launch, but with the mission fundamentally redesigned as an orbital test rather than a landing [3][11].

The primary drivers of delay have been SpaceX's Starship HLS development and heat shield concerns on the Orion capsule discovered during Artemis I's uncrewed flight in 2022. The Orion capsule experienced unexpected "char loss" on its heat shield during reentry, requiring investigation and potential redesign [11].

Starship's Unfinished Business

SpaceX has completed 49 HLS-specific milestones, including power generation, communications, guidance and navigation, propulsion, and life support systems. The company has demonstrated a docking adapter and crew elevator, and has started fabricating a flight-article cabin with functional avionics [8][12].

But the single most critical capability — in-space propellant transfer — remains unproven. Starship HLS requires approximately 10 tanker launches to fill a fuel depot in orbit before it can reach the lunar surface. NASA planned a two-ship propellant transfer demonstration starting around March 2025, but as of March 2026, neither the demonstration nor the design certification review had occurred [8][12]. The demo is now expected sometime in 2026 [12].

This is the technical bottleneck that transformed Artemis III from a landing mission into a test flight. Without proven orbital refueling, there is no path to the lunar surface.

The Blue Origin Complication

NASA's contingency plan was to have two competing landers — SpaceX Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon — so that the agency could proceed with whichever was ready first [3]. That plan was disrupted on May 28, 2026, when a Blue Origin New Glenn rocket exploded during an engine test at Cape Canaveral, destroying the vehicle and significantly damaging the company's only launchpad [13].

The cause was traced to a cryogenic leak that froze a hydraulic line, leading to a thrust anomaly. No one was injured, but the consequences for Artemis are substantial. Isaacman told reporters that 2028 is "within the realm" of possible launchpad recovery [14]. Before the explosion, Blue Origin Senior VP John Couluris had said the company expected to "complete the vehicle for Artemis III and be ready for launch in 2027" [13].

NASA stated the Artemis III mission will proceed with one available lander if necessary [2]. In practice, that means SpaceX is now the sole near-term option — a concentration of dependency the dual-lander strategy was specifically designed to avoid.

Adding to the restructuring, NASA cancelled the Lunar Gateway — the planned small space station in lunar orbit — in March 2026 [2]. The Gateway had been intended as a staging post for Artemis IV and beyond, and its cancellation reshapes the entire post-Artemis III manifest.

What If the Test Fails?

If Artemis III is explicitly a test of lander docking and operations, the obvious question is: what happens if it fails?

NASA has not published a detailed public contingency plan for a failed docking or mission abort. Parsons acknowledged the mission involves "calculated risks" but said the orbital test approach was chosen specifically to reduce mission-ending scenarios [2]. A docking failure in Earth orbit, while embarrassing and expensive, would not endanger crew life in the way a failure at the Moon would.

The choice of lander for Artemis IV — currently the first planned crewed lunar landing — depends on the results of Artemis III's docking tests and each company's readiness [3]. If Starship fails the docking test and Blue Origin's launchpad is not restored, the entire crewed lunar landing timeline could slip to 2029 or later.

The Space Race With China

NASA's urgency is shaped partly by China's crewed lunar program. China plans to land astronauts on the Moon by 2029 or 2030, using its Mengzhou orbiter and Lanyue lander, each launched by a Long March 10 rocket [15]. Precursor missions include Chang'e 7 (late 2026), which will explore the lunar south pole for ice, and Chang'e 8 (2028), which will test in situ resource use [15][16].

Beyond individual landings, China and Russia are building the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) at the south pole, with 11 partner countries. Construction is planned from 2025 to 2035, with permanent crewed operations by 2036 [16]. China has stated its ambition to establish a permanent base by 2035 and to develop helium-3 as an energy resource [17].

NASA and Congressional supporters have framed Artemis as necessary to prevent Chinese "dominance" of the Moon. Independent analysts offer a more nuanced picture. A 2025 RAND Corporation analysis found that while China's program is technically credible, the framing of a "space race" oversimplifies a situation where both nations have distinct objectives [18]. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits national sovereignty claims on celestial bodies, though questions about resource extraction rights remain legally unsettled.

Jobs, Politics, and the Supply Chain

Artemis supports over 69,000 jobs across all 50 states and generates more than $14 billion in economic output, according to NASA figures cited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [19]. Approximately 800 supplier companies contribute to the program, and NASA provides about $2.8 billion per year directly to small businesses [19].

The program's economic center of gravity falls in politically significant states: Florida (Kennedy Space Center), Alabama (Marshall Space Flight Center, where SLS is developed), and facilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas [20]. Critics have long noted that SLS's design and contracting structure was partly driven by the goal of distributing jobs across specific congressional districts — a phenomenon sometimes called the "Senate Launch System" because of championing by senators from those states [20].

This political geography helps explain why Artemis has maintained bipartisan Congressional support even as costs have escalated and timelines have slipped. Cancellation would disproportionately affect communities in swing states and districts represented by members of key appropriations committees [20].

Robots vs. Humans: The ROI Debate

The hardest question about Artemis is whether crewed lunar missions produce scientific returns that justify their cost premium over robotic alternatives.

NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program sends robotic landers to the Moon at a fraction of the cost of crewed missions. Critics argue that robotic exploration offers superior science per dollar — robots need no life support, no return vehicles, and can be sent to more dangerous locations [21].

Defenders of crewed exploration cite scholarly research suggesting that human missions are two to three orders of magnitude more efficient at exploration tasks than robotic ones, while being only one to two orders of magnitude more expensive [22]. Humans can perform deep drilling, collect representative geological samples, deploy complex instrumentation, and make real-time decisions that rovers cannot [22].

The Artemis science agenda focuses on the lunar south pole, where permanently shadowed craters may contain water ice — a resource that could support sustained human presence and eventually fuel production for Mars missions [23]. Whether that long-term vision justifies near-term expenditures of $4 billion per launch is a judgment call that depends heavily on time horizon and risk tolerance.

No independent body has published a comprehensive return-on-investment analysis comparing the Artemis crewed approach to a robotic-only alternative for achieving the same scientific objectives. The National Academies' decadal surveys endorse lunar science as a priority but do not perform the kind of cost-benefit comparison that would settle the debate [21].

What Comes Next

The Artemis III crew will spend the next year training for their late 2027 mission. The immediate technical milestones to watch are SpaceX's propellant transfer demonstration and the progress of Blue Origin's launchpad reconstruction.

If all goes well, Artemis IV could attempt the first crewed lunar landing since Apollo 17 in 2028. If key milestones slip — as they have at every previous stage of the program — that date will move again.

Reid Wiseman, the Artemis II commander whose crew returned to Earth in April 2026, offered a perspective on the program's meaning that transcends schedule debates. "We really wanted to connect with humanity," Wiseman said. "We wanted humanity to just pause for a second and see that this world can still do something exceptionally well when they put their mind to it" [24].

Whether $93 billion and counting constitutes doing something "exceptionally well" depends on whom you ask. What is clear is that the United States is committed to returning humans to the Moon — just not quite as fast as anyone originally planned.