It's been over half a century since humans last set foot on the moon, and the question on everyone's mind is: Why haven't we gone back? The answer, it turns out, is a complex web of political will, technical challenges, and shifting priorities.
As Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan bid farewell to the moon on December 14, 1972, he left with a promise: "We leave as we came, and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind." Little did he know that his words would echo through the ages, as no human has returned to the moon since.
NASA's upcoming Artemis II mission, scheduled for March, will perform a lunar flyby, marking humanity's first journey to the moon's vicinity since Apollo 17. But why has it taken so long to revisit our closest celestial neighbor?
"The short answer is political will," says Teasel Muir-Harmony, a historian of science and technology and curator of the Apollo Collection at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. "Sending humans to the moon requires a sustained commitment and significant investment. It's a major national endeavor."
Since the Apollo program ended due to budget cuts, there have been numerous federal initiatives to return to the moon. However, as presidential administrations changed, so did space priorities. "We haven't seen the sustained political will to follow through with a long-term program," Muir-Harmony adds.
Les Johnson, a former NASA chief technologist, agrees that political objectives have been a key factor. "Every few years, NASA's goals are radically altered. We've seen presidents cancel and restart moon missions, focusing instead on the space station or asteroid sampling."
The cycle continued with Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and now Joe Biden, who has broken the pattern by continuing the lunar mission. "Biden is the first president who didn't change everything," Johnson says. "He recognized the importance of returning to the moon and kept the program going."
But political hurdles are just one part of the story. Moon missions present remarkable technical challenges. The moon is over 400,000 kilometers away, and lunar landing attempts have a high failure rate. The Artemis program, with its $50 billion rocket and spacecraft, is NASA's most promising attempt to overcome these challenges.
While there are similarities between Apollo and Artemis, recreating the Apollo program isn't feasible. The supply chains and skilled machinists of the mid-20th century are long gone. "The thing that was wrong with Apollo was that it ended," says Wayne Hale, a former NASA space shuttle program manager.
The technology has advanced significantly since Apollo. Apollo's spacecraft and rockets were controlled by computers less powerful than a modern smartphone. However, translating these advancements to easier, cheaper moon missions is not straightforward. Spaceflight, especially with humans, is complex, dangerous, and expensive.
The Artemis program is the most successful moon program in decades, according to Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society. "It still exists, which is a major achievement."
At the technical level, the differences between Apollo and Artemis spacecraft are vast. Orion's flight computers are 20,000 times faster and have 128,000 times more memory than Apollo's. The Orion capsule offers more space, exercise opportunities, and an improved toilet. "With Apollo, astronauts used a waste collection device like a plastic bag. Not ideal," Muir-Harmony says.
The bathroom issue was a consideration during the Apollo era, especially regarding the inclusion of women astronauts. "The Soviet program had a female astronaut 20 years before the US. Some argued that designing bathroom technology for women in space was too complicated," Muir-Harmony explains. "But with the Orion spacecraft, they achieved privacy for a mixed-gender crew."
The rise of the commercial space industry has been a driving force behind the push to revamp moon plans. NASA now has private industry partners like SpaceX, Boeing, and Blue Origin. "It's an enabling factor that has helped us," says Brian Odom, NASA's chief historian.
SpaceX, in particular, has shifted its focus from Mars to building a self-growing city on the moon. "Getting back to the moon requires different pieces falling into place. Commercial commitments, international agreements, and government support all play a role," Odom adds.
Prolonged human presence on the moon will benefit from the experience gained through post-Apollo programs like the International Space Station. "Returning to the moon requires understanding the effects of space habitation on the human body," says James W. Head, a research professor at Brown University who worked on the Apollo program.
The Apollo program was driven by the Cold War context and the competition with the Soviet Union. Today, the US considers China its archrival, and the Artemis Accords, signed by over 60 nations, outline a peaceful and sustainable approach to lunar exploration.
"The Artemis Accords create a framework for humanity, not just one nation," Odom says. However, China has concrete plans to send a crewed mission to the moon by 2030 and is not a signatory of the Accords.
"There may be a perception of a race to the moon, but it's important to balance ambition with understanding risk," Odom adds. "We've learned from past disasters like Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia. Those lessons are being applied now."
NASA's Artemis program is a testament to human resilience and ambition. Sign up for the Countdown newsletter to stay updated on this historic expedition.
