Moonshot 2: Electric Boogaloo

The Moon, our celestial dance partner, inspiration and muse for countless great works of romance, horror, mystery, and comedy. So close, yet so very far away. How long has it been since we last visited? Looks like 52 years this December. Ah well, we’ll always have Apollo. But there’s this feeling, a renewed sense of urgency, a cosmic thread pulling us up onto our feet and toward the stars. We’re making the trip back, and this time we plan to stay for a while.

Have you noticed this, that everyone’s trying to get back to the Moon for some reason? NASA’s Artemis, China’s Chang’e, India’s Chandrayaan, and even private ventures like Odysseus. Governments and companies worldwide are racing to get up there. But what’s changed since the Apollo era? What happened to getting to Mars? And how close are we?

Well Why Not?

To answer these, we need to talk about why we stopped going. The original space race of the Cold War was a contest between the US and the Soviet Union. Scott Pace, director of space policy at George Washington University, calls it “an existential battle to stay ahead of the communists.” Many countries were newly independent, and demonstrating technological superiority would convince them that capitalism or communism was ideologically superior, or so the thinking went. Consequently, the US and Soviet Union were both willing to throw ridiculous amounts of money at their space programs, the US spending about $290 billion in today’s dollars. At its peak, NASA consumed 4% of the federal budget, whereas today 1% is generous.

Then there’s the idea of “been there, done that.” Once the US had landed 12 astronauts and collected the rocks it wanted, the motivation sort of evaporated. The Moon was just a hostile barren rock covered in sharp, electrostatic dust. Trying to keep a person there was way too difficult and expensive. Mars, with water vapor known to be in its atmosphere, was more promising. It just got harder to justify pursuing lunar missions, so we stopped.

Not as Bad as We Thought

Decades after the lunar landings, we started gathering evidence for water on the Moon. In the 1990’s, NASA’s Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions found indirect evidence of ice in permanently shadowed lunar craters. In 2008, India’s Chandrayaan-1 detected water vapor in the thin atmosphere. Then in 2018, data–also collected onboard Chandrayaan-1–confirmed the presence of water on the Moon.

And this is a big deal. Without water on site, keeping astronauts alive in space becomes prohibitively expensive. It costs roughly $2000 to get one liter of water to the International Space Station (ISS), and the Moon is a thousand times further away. Having water at our destination suddenly turns what was once a near impossibility into something that’s actually very doable.

Water can also be split into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis. This can provide breathable air for our astronauts–a big plus–but we can also recombine the hydrogen and oxygen, releasing huge amounts of energy in the process. In other words, rocket fuel! This means future missions could refuel directly on the Moon, making it a launchpad for deeper space exploration.

Beyond water, the Moon is abundant in rare-earth metals, which make modern technology like smartphones possible, and Helium-3, a potential fuel for nuclear fusion. Helium-3 is scarce on Earth, but on the Moon there’s theoretically enough to power the planet for centuries.

There’s also a lot to learn by going back to the Moon. By analyzing the Apollo samples, we were able to find similarities between rocks from Earth and the Moon, leading to the prevailing theory that the Moon formed from a colossal impact between an early Earth and a Mars-sized body named Theia. More samples and longer missions could reveal much about our solar system’s history.

The Moon also serves as a test site for future Mars missions. In 1962, John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech, where he said, “We choose to go to the Moon… not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard.” He also adds, ‘and because it is not quite as hard as going to Mars.’ I’m pretty sure he said that. Maintaining a human presence on another world is still speculative, and the Moon’s proximity makes it a safer place to develop and test the necessary technologies. If something goes wrong, we at least have a chance to rescue the crew–unlike on Mars, which is 200 times farther and only accessible during a launch window that occurs once every two years.

The New Space Race

Exciting stuff, but why does this still feel like it’s coming out of nowhere? Well, it isn’t entirely sudden. China began its Chang’e program in 2004, and the US announced its Constellation Project in 2005, aiming to put Americans back on the Moon and then Mars. While Constellation was canceled in 2010, China pressed on, achieving a soft landing with Chang’e 3 in 2013–the first since the Soviet Luna 24 in 1976.

The US responded with the Artemis program in 2017, aiming for a sustained lunar presence. Since then, missions have rapidly accelerated:

2019: China’s Chang’e 4 makes the first soft landing on the Moon’s far side.

2020: Chang’e 5 returns samples from the far side.

2022: NASA’s Artemis I completes an uncrewed lunar flyby.

2023: India’s Chandrayaan-3 achieves soft landing, making India the fourth country to do so.

2024: Japan becomes the fifth country to achieve soft landing with its SLIM mission; China’s Chang’e 6 collects samples from the lunar south pole; Intuitive Machines’ Odysseus becomes the first private soft-lander, followed by Athena in 2025.

Looking ahead, China aims for a crewed landing by 2030 and a permanent base by 2035. The US plans Artemis II (crewed flyby) for 2026 and Artemis III (crewed landing) for 2027. Artemis IV, a collaboration with Europe, Japan, and private companies, will establish Gateway, a lunar-orbiting space station. Russian, Israeli, Emirati, and over 100 other missions are also in the pipeline.

The Drama

The modern space race is dominated by two coalitions: the US (with Europe and Japan) and China (with Russia). Each seeks to establish a foothold on the Moon, echoing Cold War dynamics. The US, wary of China’s rapid progress, fears losing access to lunar resources. Former NASA administrator Bill Nelson has voiced concerns about China’s claims to disputed territory, referencing the government’s assertive actions in the South China Sea.

Legally, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty–signed by the US, China, Russia, and others–prohibits national ownership of the Moon. However, interpretations of the treaty differ. The US argues that while territory can’t be claimed, extracted resources can be owned. The US also supports “safety zones,” which prevent interference with a nation’s lunar operations, which China views as de facto territorial claims. These and other guidelines for the civil governance and use of outer space are outlined in the Artemis Accords of 2020, which currently has 54 signatory nations–China and Russia not being on that list. Essentially, neither side trusts the other to act with integrity, and so we’ll truly only know what happens when boots start to hit the regolith.

Who’s in the Lead?

Based on proposed timelines, the US has a slight lead, but the situation is fluid. China is new to crewed lunar missions, but its program is advancing rapidly. The US, meanwhile, is infamous for its political volatility–policies from one administration are often torn to shreds by the next. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, has also called the Moon “a distraction,” despite holding multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA to construct launch hardware and landers for the Artemis missions.

The next decade will be pivotal. The outcome of this new space race remains uncertain, but the hope is that, regardless of which nation “wins,” humanity as a whole will benefit.