NASA's big plan to send people back to the moon has some problems, so they have to wait a little longer. They were working with two companies, Lockheed Martin and SpaceX, but they are having trouble fixing some important parts of their spaceships. The main problem is keeping the astronauts safe when they come back to Earth. They also need to make sure the spaceships can work together in space. NASA wants to fix these problems before sending people to the moon, so they moved the first trip to 2026 instead of 2025. Read from source...

1. The article title is misleading and sensationalist, as it implies that there are direct encounters between Lockheed Martin (LMT) and SpaceX that caused development issues for NASA's moon mission. In reality, the delays are due to internal challenges within NASA and its contractors, not external conflicts with other companies.
2. The article does not provide enough context or background information on the Artemis program and its objectives, which makes it difficult for readers to understand the significance of the delays and their impact on NASA's long-term goals.
3. The article focuses too much on the technical details of the Orion spacecraft and Starship, without explaining how these issues relate to the overall success or failure of the mission. For example, the article mentions that the heat shield is essential for protecting astronauts, but does not explain why this particular design has encountered problems or how it could affect the safety of the crew.
4. The article uses emotive language and negative tone throughout, such as "encounter development issues", "delayed to 2026", "challenges", "acknowledges", etc., which creates a sense of pessimism and doubt about NASA's ability to achieve its lunar ambitions. This could undermine public support for the program and discourage potential collaborators or investors from joining the effort.
5. The article ends with an irrelevant quote from Goldman Sachs, which has no connection to the topic of the story and seems to be added as a filler or to boost the credibility of the source. This is unprofessional and misleading, as it gives the impression that the article is based on more comprehensive research and analysis than it actually is.

- LMT shares are trading higher by 0.35% to $457.90 premarket on the last check Wednesday. This suggests that there is some positive sentiment in the market for Lockheed Martin, potentially due to its involvement in NASA's moon mission and other space projects. However, it also reflects the uncertainty and risks associated with the development issues of Artemis program and SpaceX's Starship.
- One possible investment strategy is to buy LMT shares on dips and hold them until the Artemis 3 mission is launched in September 2026, expecting a positive impact on LMT's stock price from the successful completion of the mission. However, this strategy also involves significant risks, as there are no guarantees that the development issues will be resolved by then, or that the mission will be successful, or that other factors will not affect LMT's performance in the meantime.
- Another possible investment strategy is to short LMT shares on rallies and sell them before the Artemis 3 mission is launched in September 2026, expecting a negative impact on LMT's stock price from the delay of the mission or other setbacks in the program. However, this strategy also involves significant risks, as there are no guarantees that the development issues will not be resolved by then, or that the mission will be successful, or that other factors will not boost LMT's performance in the meantime.
- A third possible investment strategy is to invest in a basket of ETFs or mutual funds that track the performance of space companies, such as ARKK, ROKK, UFO, SPCE, LMT, etc., and diversify the risk across different sectors and industries. This strategy also involves risks, as there are no guarantees that any of these ETFs or mutual funds will outperform the market or the sector over the long term, or that they will not be affected by other external factors, such as regulatory changes, geopolitical tensions, economic conditions, etc.