What’s happening

In the four-year span between 1969 and 1972, 12 American astronauts walked on the moon. No human being, from any nation, has repeated that feat in the more than 50 years that followed.

The United States is hoping to break that streak within the next few years through NASA’s new lunar program, which is being called Artemis. The space agency now anticipates that Artemis III, whose mission is to put astronauts back on the moon’s surface, will be ready for launch by the end of 2026. A precursor to that mission, to send humans on a lap around the moon, is planned for 2025. Both of those missions had initially been scheduled to take place a year earlier, but NASA announced earlier this week that it was pushing them back to allow more time to address “challenges” in the development of spacecraft that will carry astronauts on the journey.

The first moon landing was one of the signature historic events of the 20th century, but interest in putting people on the moon waned quickly after the goal of simply getting there had been accomplished. Today, NASA isn’t hoping to merely make it to the moon, but to lay the groundwork for establishing a “long-term presence” there and eventually use it as a launching pad to send humans to Mars.

The big change that spurred this new, expansive vision for a return to the moon was the discovery of water on the lunar surface, which was only confirmed within the past few years. In theory, water harnessed from icy patches inside deep craters or extracted from the lunar soil could not only provide drinking water for long-term settlements, but also — if split into its component parts — oxygen to breathe and hydrogen for fuel.

Why there’s debate

Proponents of returning to the moon, and eventually being able to stay there, have a long list of reasons for why the effort would be good for the U.S. and humankind more broadly. The possibilities include potentially groundbreaking discoveries about the origins of the solar system, new technological advancements, the chance to mine rare precious elements for use on Earth and even an opportunity to save humanity from extinction if life on Earth becomes unsustainable.

Others argue that the world is already in the early stages of another major space race, this time involving several countries and private companies, and the U.S. has an obligation to lead the way once again. In their eyes, America must be first to successfully establish a human presence on the moon, otherwise our rivals — specifically China — will have the power to decide what happens there and for what purposes.

But skeptics say the idea that humans will ever be able to live on the moon or any other planet is pure fantasy and it makes no sense to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to prove it. There are also concerns that if that dream does somehow become real, the moon could become just another venue for humankind’s insatiable appetite for destruction, greed and conflict.

What’s next

NASA’s chances of meeting its new deadlines for its Artemis missions hinge on the development of its own Orion spacecraft, which will carry astronauts to the moon, and of a lunar lander being built by Elon Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX.

A fourth Artemis mission, to send humans to a proposed space station in the moon’s orbit, is “on track” for 2028, NASA said.

Perspectives

The moon will be a critical proving ground for our plans to travel farther into the solar system

“The Moon could be a place for colonists to get their space legs before humans put down roots on more distant locations like Mars.” — David Warmflash, Upworthy Science

Moon colonies are pure science fiction

“Humans evolved for and adapted to conditions on Earth. Move us off our planet, and we start to fail — physically and psychologically. The cancer risk from cosmic rays and the problems that human bodies experience in microgravity could be deal-breakers on their own. Moreover, there may not be a viable economic case for sustaining a presence on another world.” — Sarah Scoles, Scientific American

Exploring the moon could unlock untold secrets about the solar system

“If you really want to understand the origin of the evolution of the solar system, there is no better place ... to go [than] the moon.” — David Kring, lunar geologist, to NPR

We may end up spending massive amounts of money to do what we already did 50 years ago

“Part of the problem is that it feels a bit like a do-over of Apollo. It’s not supposed to be: In theory it’s the beginning of a sustained presence on the moon, which is an exciting idea. But I have doubts about whether it is sustainable, given the costs and the politics.” — David Grinspoon, astrobiologist, to New York Times

Mankind should always be in pursuit of incredible things

“Stripped to its core, space exploration is about an appeal to hope and a brighter future. Whether or not any specific expedition produces a stunning triumph of science or engineering — even art or culture — NASA must propose to the world that the ongoing exploration fundamentally makes our world a little bit better.” — G. Ryan Faith, SpaceNews

America can’t allow its enemies to command outer space

“The restoration of America’s lunar program has important implications for national security. The new cold war between the United States and China has spawned a new space race. ... If the Chinese are going to militarize space, we cannot allow them to technologically outpace us.” — Alexander Hughes, National Review

Lunar mining may be necessary to sustain quality of life on Earth

“Lunar resources of rare earths are a thousand times more abundant than terrestrial reserves. In fact, lunar development is the only long-term solution to living with our shrinking terrestrial resources.” — Joseph Silk, Princeton University Press

The pursuit of commerce and competition could spoil irreplaceable scientific sites

“We are not trying to block the building of lunar bases. However, there are only a handful of promising sites there and some are incredibly precious scientifically. We need to be very, very careful where we build our mines and bases.” — Richard Green, astronomer at the University of Arizona, to Bangor Daily News

Advanced robots have made human astronauts obsolete

“We are so much more high maintenance than robots. They are less vulnerable to radiation than we are, plus they don’t need food, water or life-support systems. Also, they’re expendable: if, say, a spacecraft blew up on landing, no tears would be shed — we’d simply send another crew of bots.” — Graham Phillips, Sydney Morning Herald

We shouldn’t just assume that NASA can pull off its grand plans for space travel

“This is a wobbly, uncertain start to an effort to return humans to the lunar surface for the first time in a half-century — and could make that return, if it does happen, a very brief one.” — Rebecca Boyle, MIT Technology Review