NASA has been very active in recent news, launching the uncrewed Artemis I mission in November 2022 [1], and announcing on April 3rd, 2023 the names of the four crew members who will fly around the Moon on the Artemis II mission in late 2024 [2]. Among the selected crew members are the first US female, Canadian, and African-American astronauts to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. The Artemis program is a series of collaborative lunar missions, between NASA, CSA (Canadian Space Agency), ESA (European Space Agency), and JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency), with the ultimate goal of establishing sustained human presence on the Moon. The long-term human presence on the Moon is desirable for several reasons; the Moon is an accessible training ground for studying the feasibility of human exploration beyond Earth, it houses various valuable resources such as water ice, metals (e.g., iron and titanium), and fuel for fusion energy [3]. It is also an ideal laboratory for answering key planetary science questions. The planned Artemis missions span from 2022 (launch of Artemis I) to the 2030’s (Artemis VI projected date). Additional proposed missions (Artemis VII – XI), involving establishing a lunar habitat, span into the mid-2030’s. Though the Artemis program was announced in 2017, previous efforts to revisit the Moon with people have been ongoing for decades.
First interest in a crewed mission to the Moon started in the late 1950’s as Russia began demonstrating technological prowess by sending up the first satellite and the first human into space. In the following decade, with Congress and the White House in alignment, NASA was established, and robotic and human lunar missions were accomplished via the Apollo program, demonstrating remarkable productivity and efficiency. Once Americans set foot on the Moon through six successful landings, the Apollo program was cut short at 17 out of 20 proposed missions. Interest in the Moon was rekindled on the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing, when George H.W. Bush announced the Space Exploration Initiative, a long-term program aimed at putting humans on the Moon “to stay”. The initiative died during the Clinton Administration, but was revived when George W. Bush took office, announcing the Constellation program in 2005. Constellation’s aim was ambitious – to regain human presence beyond low-Earth orbit – starting with a crewed mission to the Moon and ending with a crewed mission to Mars. However, by the time Barack Obama began his presidency, Constellation was far behind schedule and severely underfunded [4] and was ultimately shut down in 2011. This came as little surprise, as President Obama expressed little interest in the Moon, stating “Frankly, we’ve been there”. The only remnant of Constellation was the Orion spacecraft, which was used in Artemis I and will be used throughout the rest of the program.
The Orion spacecraft is not the only commonality between Artemis and Constellation, their goals are eerily similar as well. Both programs aim to return to the Moon and prepare for sustained human presence beyond Earth (e.g. Mars and beyond). Artemis’s timeline is more aggressive than Constellation’s, planning the crewed lunar mission a mere 8 years out from the start of the program (2017 to 2025 launch), as opposed to Constellation’s approximately 15 year gap (2005 to 2020). However, there are key differences that make Artemis better set up for success. The international collaborations (with Canada, Europe, Japan) allow us to do more with less time and funding, with the added (or perhaps, primary) benefit of strengthening political relations. For example, the Lunar Gateway, a space station that will orbit around the Moon and facilitate lunar landings, will be built collaboratively. ESA will contribute to habitation and refueling modules,
CSA is responsible for advanced robotics related to scientific payloads, and JAXA is majorly contributing to life support and environmental systems. Further, the US strengthened international relations in the name of Space through the Artemis Accords, a written agreement for peaceful use of the Moon and other planetary bodies. Artemis also leans into commercial contracts, setting it apart from the more government-led Apollo and Constellation programs. This aspect leverages the competitive, US capitalistic culture to accomplish tasks on schedule while stimulating the economy. In terms of program progress, Artemis has successfully completed one mission, putting it ahead of Constellation at the time of its cancellation (zero missions and only one test launch completed). Artemis is, however, far from complete. Five planned crewed lunar missions lie ahead and five additional proposed beyond it, spanning at least 10 years leaving plenty of room for obstacles.
Will Artemis reach completion, or will it fall short as previous lunar endeavors, such as Constellation, did? The executive and legislative branches have the power to propel Artemis forward or deorbit it to its grave. The next major hurdle is the 2024 presidential election. When the executive administration changes, it is standard procedure for the NASA administrator and deputy administrator, the highest roles in NASA, to submit their resignations. The incoming president can accept or decline their resignations. If the resignations are accepted, the President appoints two new NASA administrators to carry through their vision. The last time a NASA administrator survived a change-of-power was Daniel Goldin in 1992, appointed by George H.W. Bush and serving through Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Every set of NASA administrators since Goldin has resigned upon the arrival of a new executive administration, a possible indicator of the increasingly partisan political climate. If a Republican wins the 2024 presidential election, NASA administrators may likely change and affect the Artemis program. Between now and the final planned Artemis mission, there will be up to two changes of power. However, not all power lies with the President – Congress can override the President’s funding requests. For example, in the 2019 budget proposal, President Trump decreased funding for two new versions of the Space Launch System (SLS), a powerful rocket to deliver spacecraft into orbit and crucial to the Artemis program. Congress overrode the decision and passed NASA’s budget with SLS funding. An additional factor that may contribute to Artemis’s success is the growing tensions related to a new Space Race between the US, Russia, and China [5]. If Apollo was any indicator, uniting the country against a common enemy is an effective method of accomplishing missions.
What can NASA do to maximize the chances of completing Artemis and establishing sustained presence on the Moon? As is the case with any US Department program, staying on schedule and in budget is the best way to show Congress progress is being made and money is being used well. The timing of the Artemis II mission launch, scheduled for November 2024 (the month of the presidential election), may be used to NASA’s benefit. If the launch can stay on schedule, or perhaps move earlier, NASA can do what they do best – electrify the public (taxpayers who are funding Artemis) by delivering stunning images of the Moon and Earth from space and broadly-appealing scientific discoveries. If these images from the Artemis II flyby, along with launch footage and perhaps even livestreams from Space, line up with campaigns and debates, Artemis could become a major talking point during the election process. Outer space is awe-inspiring to individuals across the political spectrum; voters witnessing the activity of Artemis II will want Artemis to continue. With the public’s positive perception of NASA at a 20-year high [6], presidential candidates will leverage the excitement and make continuance of Artemis a campaign platform and a priority during their term.