One of NASA’s most audacious mandates is the Artemis mission to put humans back on the moon within the next five years, but a lack of political support could throw plans into jeopardy.

Perhaps the most audacious part of the plan is the timeline. NASA was originally tasked to return by 2028, but President Donald Trump moved the finish line ahead four years.

The decision to accelerate was part of a political calculation, said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine.

“NASA has amazing capabilities to retire technical risk and we do it all the time,” Bridenstine told The Oklahoman. “Where we have not been good historically is the political risk.”

Previous attempts to organize deep-space missions failed because they ran into delays and cost overruns, he said.

“So if we want to retire the political risk, let's accelerate,” said Bridenstine.

Trump’s plan hasn’t earned total confidence from the scientific community or Congress, although the funding measures to send more than $5 billion for deep-space exploration systems were recently introduced in the House and Senate.

The Artemis mission includes plans for the Gateway, a logistics station that would orbit the moon and allow spacecraft to dock. Officials hope it will be used as a launch point for future moon missions and eventual manned trips to Mars.

It would have a reusable lunar lander to reduce costs, and it would also be used for refueling once moon mining operations are able to convert water on the surface into the liquid hydrogen-based fuel needed for NASA’s Space Launch System now in development.

Democrats in the U.S. House have complained that NASA hasn’t shown full plans or detailed budgets for the multi-year project; in this year’s funding bill, the House Appropriations Committee noted how clear mission goals and deadlines can galvanize an agency and a nation behind the Artemis mission, saying it believes that “without firm goals and specific years by which to achieve those goals, programs could drift and languish.”

“We still have a lot of unanswered questions,” said Kendra Horn, chair of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. “In order to set NASA up for success, to ensure that we are authorizing and appropriating enough money, we got to have an idea of what it takes to get there.”

Having certainty about what NASA will need in future years also gives confidence to private contractors bidding on space projects, she said. The Artemis mission relies heavily on commercial partnerships.

“Businesses have to hire people. NASA has to hire people; we have to have the workforce,” said Horn, D-Okla. “It's hard for them to bid if there aren't specifications.”

A staffing decision this month also prompted questions about the mission’s stability. Bridenstine replaced Bill Gerstenmaier, a longtime civilian NASA employee who oversaw human spaceflight programs. Both Horn and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, expressed concern about the abrupt shakeup.

There are members of Congress who are confident in NASA’s budget requests. U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas, ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said he’s asking the agency to put realistic numbers in their budget proposals.

During the early Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, he said, officials made plenty of adjustments.

“There was a lot of flying by the seat of your britches. My concern is, can we put enough resources in there to get the job done?” said Lucas, R-Okla. “I think what NASA's laid down is a practical, reasonable blueprint to move forward. I personally think it will cost more, but I want to get it done in the safest possible way.”