Back to the Moon? Or Destination Mars? 🚀

16 minutes ago7 min read

NASA’s Artemis program is about to send humans back to the Moon for the first time in over 50 years.

Or is it?

Artemis was set to make history by landing the first woman and first person of colour on the lunar surface. It aimed to lay the groundwork for a permanent Moon base, which some see as key to eventually reaching Mars.

But amid political upheaval in the US, the future of Artemis now looks precarious. Might NASA be about to take a giant detour and head straight for the Red Planet instead?

Artemis: The story so far

Here’s my short explainer video:

NASA established the Artemis program (named after the twin sister of Apollo) in 2017.

In the space agency’s words: “We’re going back to the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation.”

Here’s a quick rundown of the key milestones:

🚀 Artemis I: An uncrewed lunar flyby completed in December 2022. This was the first successful test flight using NASA’s huge new rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), and its Orion spacecraft. Both will be central to future Artemis missions.

👩‍🚀 Artemis II (2026?): Four astronauts will venture around the Moon on a 10-day mission. The selected crew includes the first woman, the first person of colour and the first Canadian on a lunar mission. None had been born the last time an astronaut left Earth’s orbit. Initially scheduled for November 2024, Artemis II has been delayed twice due to technical issues and is currently set for an April 2026 launch.

🌔 Artemis III (2027?): This mission aims to return humans to the Moon for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. If all goes to plan, these astronauts will also become the first to visit the Moon’s South Pole. Currently scheduled for “no earlier than 2027”.

🛰️ Artemis IV (2028?): Astronauts on this mission will be the first to live on Gateway, a lunar space station currently under construction that will be launched into space sometime in 2027. NASA says this will “enable new opportunities for science and preparation for human missions to Mars.”

And after this? NASA envisions a permanent habitable Moon base and, eventually, a mission to Mars.

Trump, Musk, and an astronomical plot twist

“Another giant leap!” “A sequel five decades in the making!” “We’re back!” Under NASA’s original timetable, humans would have made our long-awaited return to the Moon last November.

In reality, Artemis II was always unlikely to launch on schedule. Delays are common in space missions, where the most meticulous planning can be derailed by weather, technical challenges, budget constraints and rigorous safety reviews. Artemis I faced multiple delays due to engine issues, fuel leaks, hurricanes and even a petulant billionaire (more on that later…)

However, this postponement might be more consequential than most.

Following President Trump’s re-election in the US, uncertainty hangs over NASA’s lunar plans. NASA chief Bill Nelson and his deputy have both stepped down. And, despite initiating the Artemis program in his first term, a lot is being read into how little Trump said about space in last month’s inauguration speech. The Moon was notably absent. In the sole reference to space exploration, he said:

We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.

Standing behind the 47th President throughout this speech was Elon Musk. As the founder of SpaceX and owner of two-thirds of all the active satellites orbiting Earth, it had been hard to conceive of one individual holding more power and influence over US space policy than Musk. However, the world’s richest man is now the President’s official efficiency tsar, with responsibilities that include reviewing government funding for NASA. Not one to shy away from sharing an opinion, Musk recently posted on his platform X:

Regarding space, the Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient, as it is a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program. Something entirely new is needed.

In early January, he went even further:

With no official announcement on the future of Artemis, concerns are growing. Earlier this month, Boeing announced plans to drastically reduce the number of employees working on NASA’s Space Launch System “to align with revisions to the Artemis program and cost expectations.”

Fearing an abrupt change of destination, NASA’s commercial partners are urging the US to stay the course. As one put it:

If you throw [plans] away every four years and start over, that’s probably the slowest and most expensive thing we could do.

Fly me to the… Red Planet?

“We won the Moon race; now it’s time for us to live and work on Mars.” That’s the view of Buzz Aldrin, who is not alone in believing that the US should refocus its efforts.

With Mars vs Moon now one of the most critical debates in space exploration, here’s a quick summary of some of the key arguments.

The case for the Moon first:

It’s a test run for Mars. The Moon is 239,000 miles away, allowing astronauts to return to Earth relatively quickly if issues arise. On Mars, 140 million miles away, astronauts would be stranded for months. The development of a Moon base, where astronauts would stay for long durations to research and test new technologies, will help prepare us to sustain life on Mars.

An interplanetary pit stop. The Moon has water ice which is believed to be especially widespread at its South Pole – the proposed landing destination for Artemis III. This can be converted into rocket fuel, allowing spacecraft to refuel on their way to Mars.

It has valuable resources. We may only have scratched the surface of what the Moon has to offer. In addition to water ice, the Moon also contains rare earth metals used in electronics, and Helium-3, a potential fuel for nuclear fusion reactors.

International collaboration. NASA has been keen to position this new era of space exploration as a global effort. The European, Canadian and Japanese space agencies are all contributing to the Moon missions and, as of last month, 51 countries have now signed up to NASA’s new space exploration guidelines, the Artemis Accords. A pivot away from the Moon now could disrupt other nations’ space programs and undermine the international partnership the US had sought to build.

Security and economic opportunity. China, Russia and India are also targeting the Moon. They are developing plans for mining the lunar surface and even want to put a nuclear power plant up there. Abandoning the Moon could mean ceding Western influence in space, posing a potential risk to securityand the economy.

Reasons to pivot to Mars:

Mars is the ultimate goal. It is the only other planet in the solar system where humans could potentially live. Mars has some of the key ingredients for life, including frozen water, a thin atmosphere and a day length similar to Earth’s.

We already know how to live in space. Over the past 20 years, the International Space Station has proven that long-duration space missions are possible. Those who favour heading straight to Mars believe that there is relatively little more that we would learn from a Moon base.

Mars is more exciting and inspiring. Apollo 11 captured the imagination of the world in the summer of 1969. But by 1972 the public had already become bored and barely tuned in to TV broadcasts of the last Apollo mission. Landing humans on another planet will excite and inspire a new generation and instantly become one of the most important moments of this century.

Bypassing the Moon could save time and money. The Artemis program has already cost an estimated $93 billion. Building a moon base is likely to cost tens of billions more. If we bypass the Moon, that money could be invested in a mission to Mars, getting us there faster and for less money.

The technology might already be ready. For years, The Mars Society has been advocating for a plan called Mars Direct which sets out a mission to the Red Planet that leading space engineers believe can be achieved with technology NASA had in the 1990s. Since then, SpaceX has developed the Starship rocket, specifically designed to carry people and cargo to Mars.

Who’s really in charge?

For decades, shifting political priorities have delayed deep space missions. But this time, the power dynamic is different.

NASA once relied on Black & Decker to develop power tools for the Apollo missions. Now, it depends on SpaceX and Blue Origin for its rockets and lunar landers. Many believe the Space Launch System will be the last rocket NASA ever builds.

This has brought some huge benefits, with private sector innovation driving down launch costs and making deep space voyages more feasible than ever.

However, it means these companies’ billionaire owners are now increasingly calling the shots.

Artemis I’s launch was delayed by four months in 2021 when Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin unsuccessfully tried to sue NASA. He was unhappy that they commissioned Elon Musk’s company rather than his to build the lunar lander for Artemis III. NASA subsequently awarded a contract to Bezos’s firm for another lunar lander.

SpaceX’s Starship – the world’s largest and most powerful rocket – may eventually render NASA’s Space Launch System obsolete. This rocket is currently being lined up to launch astronauts to the Moon. But, in line with Musk’s Mars ambition, it has been designed with longer journeys in mind. As the SpaceX website states:

Building cities on Mars will require affordable delivery of significant quantities of cargo and crew. The fully reusable Starship system uses on-orbit propellant transfer to enable the transport of up to 100 people to Mars or other distant destinations.

The question of where NASA sends astronauts on its next crewed mission is crucial. But the answer to another question might have just as big a consequence for our future in space: who will get to decide?