![\"The](\"https:\/\/s.yimg.com\/ny\/api\/res\/1.2\/yzjbIuJ4SX3R8W_PKTJCFQ--\/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MDtjZj13ZWJw\/https:\/\/d29szjachogqwa.cloudfront.net\/images\/user-uploaded\/2026-02-01t123626z_1515687270_rc2ycjap0wy5_rtrmadp_3_space-moon-artemis_1188.jpg\")
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nAmbition<\/h2>\n
Despite some superficial similarities, the Artemis program isn\u2019t really Apollo, part two. Apollo sought to put people (briefly) on the moon. Artemis aspires to establish a permanent base there \u2014 a base that astronauts can later use as a stepping stone to Mars.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s a much more ambitious goal, and it defines every facet of Artemis: the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that propels the astronauts beyond Earth\u2019s atmosphere; the Orion spacecraft in which the four of them can spend 21 days;\u00a0separate next-generation space suits for launch and entry as well surface exploration; robotic landers carried on commercial rockets that deliver equipment to the moon itself; and finally, the reusable rocket-and-human-lander system \u2014 either SpaceX\u2019s Starship or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon \u2014 that will eventually orbit the moon and dock with Orion before transporting the Artemis crew to and from the surface.<\/p>\n
In short, there are more moving parts now than there were in the 1960s, which means more potential delays.<\/p>\n
Motivation<\/h2>\n
In the 1960s, the U.S. was competing with the Soviet Union in an existential space race. Cold War conventional wisdom decreed that whichever superpower arrived on the moon first would reinforce its military dominance \u2014 and project precisely the kind of soft power that could sway newly independent countries to choose democracy over communism.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a certain clarity about one-on-one competition, and the U.S. immediately mobilized around beating the Soviets to the moon. Now that clarity is gone. In its place is a more nebulous (and less pressing) objective: international cooperation in the name of scientific discovery. Japan, Canada, the United Arab Emirates and the European Space Agency are all collaborating with the United States on Artemis.<\/p>\n
As a result, one president\u2019s spaceflight plans are often canceled by the next, only to be resurrected later in a different form, and delays accrue while countries do the important work of getting on the same page about the future of space and contributing hardware to the cause.<\/p>\n
Money<\/h2>\n
Between 2012 and 2025, the U.S. spent roughly $93 billion on the Artemis program. Total spending is expected to top $105 billion by 2028, the year the first Artemis astronauts are supposed to land on the moon.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s no small sum. But Apollo cost more than three times as much: about $320 billion in today\u2019s dollars,\u00a0according to the Planetary Society. Likewise, about 4% of the federal budget went to NASA in the Apollo era. Today the space agency is lucky to get 1%.<\/p>\n
Experts say that shift is sensible. \u201cThere\u2019s no reason to spend money like it was a war,\u201d John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University and founder of the Space Policy Institute, told Scientific American. \u201cThere\u2019s really no national interest or political interest that provides the foundation for that kind of mobilization at this point.\u201d<\/p>\n
But sensible or not, less funding almost always means slower progress.<\/p>\n Given the scientific, cooperative nature of today\u2019s moon missions \u2014 not to mention all the advances in computer modeling since the 1960s \u2014 it would be irresponsible for NASA\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>to consider every possible safety consequence of Artemis \u2014 to the astronauts themselves and to the broader environment.<\/p>\n This wasn\u2019t quite the case during the Apollo era. Back then, swashbuckling fighter pilots were converted to astronauts and rocketed into space much in the way they\u2019d previously been deployed to war: with the knowledge that they were doing something very, very dangerous. The risk was worth the reward (i.e., winning the space race).<\/p>\n But today engineers can run detailed simulations on Orion\u2019s materials and the stresses the capsule will be under, including high temperatures and intense acceleration forces \u2014 and that\u2019s exactly what they\u2019ve been doing for years.<\/p>\n Even then, Artemis I \u2014 an uncrewed moon-orbiting mission launched in 2022 \u2014 showed that Orion\u2019s heat shield broke down differently than predicted; that bolts on the spacecraft faced \u201cunexpected melting and erosion\u201d; and that the power system experienced anomalies that could endanger the future crew.<\/p>\n It took time for NASA to resolve these issues \u2014 just as it will take time to address any issues with, say, Orion\u2019s life support systems that arise during its first crewed mission. Building earthbound infrastructure is slower and more expensive today than it was in the 1960s; so too is exploring the cosmos.<\/p>\n Some would argue that the tradeoff is worth it. \u201cFor Artemis, having a more robust rocket system, asking people what they think, keeping people safer and working with global partners are probably better for this world \u2014 even if they don\u2019t result in expedience off-world,\u201d Scientific American concluded in its recent story on the subject.<\/p>\n Put another way: At least NASA is still doing hard things, even if they\u2019ve gotten (a lot) harder.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On Sept. 12 1962, President John F. Kennedy\u00a0famously declared\u00a0that the United States would \u201cgo to the moon \u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":2936,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[73,9,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nasa","category-science","category-tech"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2935"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2935\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2937,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2935\/revisions\/2937"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.cedritech.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"The](\"https:\/\/s.yimg.com\/ny\/api\/res\/1.2\/.isfv2_3wh0EI7iR_KWvvw--\/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MDtoPTY0MDtjZj13ZWJw\/https:\/\/d29szjachogqwa.cloudfront.net\/images\/user-uploaded\/gettyimages-2252867035_5018.jpg\")
<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nSafety<\/h2>\n