Banner by Colton Siatkowski

To the Moon and Back: A Recap of the Artemis Missions

By Emma Moran

“Hey, Em. Em. Emmmmmmm!”

I pull myself away from my homework and look across the table. A friend of mine is sitting there, and once she gets my attention, she turns around her laptop and points at it. An article is open on her screen. “So, the Artemis missions … ”

“Yeah?”

“What’s the point? Like, why are we going back to the moon?”

I open my mouth to answer her, then pause … The only answer that comes to mind is — “for science!” — which may be an answer that satisfies me, but will definitely not convince her of much. I sit there in silence, racking my brain for a better answer. 

But all I can say is, “I’m not exactly sure … ”

“You don’t know?” she asks. I wince at the emphasis on “you” — I am not the only one who’s noticed the irony in the astronomy major not knowing the answer to her question. 

“Not really … ”

“Oh.” 

She turns her computer around, looking mildly disappointed. But soon, she gets back to work, presumably forgetting the conservation. I didn’t — I can’t, it’s sticking with me — why are we going back to the moon?

According to NASA’s mission statement about the Artemis missions, there are three main reasons behind putting people back on the moon: the first is discovery; the second, economic opportunity; and the third, to inspire the next generation.

What are the Artemis missions? Well, these missions, named after the Greek goddess of the moon, are NASA’s program to return humans to the moon and start the next generation of space exploration. Revealed back in 2018, the mission recently completed its first major step through the launch of Artemis 1. The uncrewed, multistage rocket was launched from the Kennedy Space Center on Nov. 14. After exiting the Earth’s atmosphere, the shuttle split, releasing the Orion Capsule, the spacecraft that will eventually bring people back to the moon. Then, with a final boost from Artemis 1, the Orion Capsule completed a 1.3 million-mile flight, returning safely back to Earth on Dec. 11.

However, achieving this successful flight did not come without difficulty. See, the Artemis 1 was scheduled to launch back in September 2022, but environmental hazards, such as Hurricane Ian, pushed the launch back to November. This has resulted in all future missions being delayed; Artemis 2, the mission that will actually bring people back to the moon, hasn’t even been scheduled yet. Despite the setbacks, NASA remains optimistic that they will have humans back on the moon within the next decade.

Now, unlike NASA’s Apollo missions, which were shorter and focused on scoping out specific areas of the moon, the Artemis missions plan to be long-term, with intent of future deep space exploration. For example, NASA is building two lunar base camps, the Gateway satellite and an unnamed lunar south pole base. The Gateway satellite, which is a more advanced version of the International Space Station, will stay in orbit around the moon and serve as an outpost that supports both long-term stays on the moon and, in the future, will hopefully be used as a rest stop for missions beyond. The second is a base camp near the lunar south pole. This base camp will actually house astronauts on the moon, and would be able to independently support the astronauts for two months. While two months seems like a short trip, the longest of the Apollo missions only lasted three days on the moon; in comparison, two months is a long time.

Beyond that, Artemis’ mission statement has three core reasons for returning, and its first, discovery, is the classic “for science!!!” answer. For example, one of the biggest scientific goals of Artemis is collecting more samples. Why? Even though NASA obtained 400 kilograms of samples (mostly moon rocks and dust) from the Apollo missions, the additional 150 kilograms of samples from Artemis will allow scientists back on Earth to learn even more about the history of the moon, our Earth, and the rest of the solar system, while simultaneously strengthening their theories and simulations.

Another section of research will study the living conditions of the moon. Here, astronauts are planning to use the buried ice found in the lunar poles and other readily found compounds in the lunar soil, such as methane, to be broken down into essential supplies, such as water or fuel. Also, scientists want to further research the effects of both deep-space radiation and lunar temperature extremes on the human body, so they can better protect both current and future astronauts.

Other scientific goals include understanding planetary processes, examining the impact history of the moon, and attempting to understand lunar pole volatiles, or projectiles which are formed from elements and compounds with low boiling points (e.g. water, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide) that originate from the moon’s poles. 

The second reason that NASA cites for the missions is economic opportunity. The Space Agency claims that people in all 50 states are at work building Deep Space Exploration Systems (DSES), which is NASA’s term for their spacecrafts. For example, a DSES that is currently being built is the Orion Spacecraft, a shuttle that will bring humans to the moon. Also, various aerospace companies are involved in the designing and manufacturing process, with NASA having contracts with over three thousand suppliers, including large companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin. These companies and suppliers already have thousands of employees, and as the industry grows with Artemis, more and more opportunities and jobs will open up in these fields, further enhancing the economic impacts of the missions.

Finally, NASA’s third reason is to inspire a new generation. That means exactly what it sounds like: with human beings back on the moon, more people will be inspired to pursue careers in science. Such trends were certainly true after the Apollo missions, for during and after Apollo’s launch, there was a significant rise in people studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which led to more educational support for those programs.

More importantly, the Artemis missions will bring both female and non-white astronauts to the moon for the first time. This move is especially important because every astronaut to step foot on the moon so far – and the majority of astronauts in general – have been white men. Studies have proven that when marginalized groups do not see themselves represented in careers, they are more likely to internalize the belief that they are not meant to pursue them. So, the hope is that NASA’s diverse crew of astronauts will inspire more people of color and women to pursue careers in astronomy, aerospace, and STEM.

Another important aspect coming from the Artemis missions is the Artemis Accords, which is the latest piece of legislation regarding space travel. The Accords, based on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, establish a common set of principles to govern the future of space exploration. Some of the principles include implications for preserving the history of space, rules for releasing scientific data, and ideas for the utilization of the mined/found resources. Despite more than a dozen countries signing these accords, they have also generated some criticism. Some countries claim that the Accords are too centered on the United States. Some scientists have raised concerns that the Accords contradict some aspects of the Outer Space Treaty, such as the treaty’s disapproval of countries claiming celestial objects.

Scientists and national leaders are not the only ones with objections surrounding the missions, though. After reading through NASA’s reasoning, most people would agree that humanity should return to the moon. However, some will disagree. They will say that returning to the moon is a waste of time and other resources. “We’ve already been to the moon,” they’ll say. “So why go back?” That question has a simple answer: technology and science have evolved so much in the past few decades, giving us an opportunity for new discoveries and pushing those boundaries even further. 

Another argument is that the Artemis missions are a waste of money, and there are better causes that could use the funding. This is true, to an extent. There are many problems in the world, such as food insecurity, that could be solved with the proper funding. My argument is this: why must the money for solving these problems come from the sciences? Can’t we take money from other places so we can both improve conditions on Earth and continue exploring beyond it?

For example, current statistics show that hunger in the U.S. can be solved with $25 billion. That is more than NASA’s budget (which was $24.04 billion in 2022), and taking the money from there will destroy the entire space program, or at least hinder it from making any meaningful progress. However, the U.S. defense budget for 2022 was approximately $800 billion. We could take the money from there and, in the grand scheme of things, barely cause a dent. 

In all, the Apollo missions changed the world, and while that is a dramatic statement, it is not an untrue one. The Artemis missions may not have as large of an impact as the first-ever mission to the moon, however, the changes they will bring are just as important. As someone who has loved space enough to dedicate her entire future to it, I cannot wait to see what Artemis brings both for the future of astronomy and humanity itself.