NASA’s Artemis II mission, launching in April 2026, is bringing the Moon back into the global spotlight. This successful mission featured four astronauts orbiting the Moon and safely returning to Earth, marking a pivotal step toward NASA’s ambitious objective of establishing a permanent lunar base.

For those who recall the Apollo missions of the 1960s and ’70s, a critical question arises: why are we sending humans back to the Moon?

The Vision for a First Moon Base

There are numerous scientific reasons for a lunar return, including the collection of samples that help us understand the formation of our solar system. By placing telescopes on the Moon, we can observe celestial bodies with clearer images, free from Earth’s atmospheric distortions. However, in recent years, geopolitical factors have overshadowed these scientific interests.

The U.S. decision to send humans back to the Moon is largely a strategic response to rising tensions with China, which has openly expressed its aim to develop a scientific research base on the lunar surface, accelerating its robotic and manned lunar exploration initiatives over the past two decades.

Initiated in 2017, the Artemis program is a clear reaction to these geopolitical dynamics. The United States strives to establish a permanent Moon base ahead of China, with U.S. Senator Ted Cruz characterizing this effort as the “space race of the 21st century.”

Images and footage from the Artemis II mission are captivating, yet the underlying motivations often remain unaddressed.

This geopolitical backdrop is not new, according to Dr. Priyanka Dopade, a researcher in sustainable space engineering at the University of Auckland.

“Space and geopolitics have always been intertwined,” she remarks. “What’s new is the push for a sustained human presence on the Moon, supported by companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.”

“The scientific rationale is less compelling compared to robotic exploration or projects like the Lunar Gateway, which has significant European contributions,” she adds. “However, it could facilitate scientific advancements compared to a manned moon base.”

“Funding for U.S. science missions may face cuts, and there’s potential for the complete cancellation of the Gateway program. This indicates that geopolitical and economic factors are taking precedence over scientific curiosity.”

While NASA promotes the Artemis program for its scientific merits, the driving forces behind it are territorial claims and the pursuit of lunar resources like water ice.

Dr. Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist from Oxford University, recently acknowledged the varying motivations for the Artemis mission, highlighting captivating images of Earth from Artemis II.

“These visuals are stunning, yet they lean more towards art than scientific documentation,” she explains. “The mission’s driving force has been political and economic rather than scientific. We are, once again, engaged in a space race, with the U.S. eager to outpace China in lunar exploration.”

Chris Lee, a former chief scientist at the British Space Agency, characterized the Artemis program as “an iron geopolitical hand in a velvet glove.”

Even renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, a vocal proponent of U.S. space initiatives, acknowledged in a recent CBC interview that the primary focus of this mission is to outdo China in lunar endeavors.

While he underscored the significance of Artemis II’s achievements, including sending astronauts further into space than ever before, he emphasized the unseen global challenges at play.

“Geopolitical forces are motivating these developments,” he notes. “This aspect is often overlooked.”

Ownership and the Moon’s Future

Funding the space program relies on sustained public interest, and the Artemis II mission has undoubtedly garnered this support. Yet, it has also masked ongoing debates about lunar ownership and usage rights.

According to the Outer Space Treaty, no nation can claim sovereignty over the Moon or build military bases there. Nevertheless, the U.S. recently spearheaded an agreement—signed by over 60 nations—the Artemis Accords, which is a non-binding agreement related to lunar exploration.

This accords pledges commitment to the peaceful use of the Moon and the sharing of scientific data, while also permitting resource extraction and the establishment of “safe zones” around operational areas, effectively allowing nations to exert control over certain lunar regions.

Resource extraction permissions are particularly contentious. The discovery of accessible water ice on the Moon is crucial for sustaining human life and establishing long-term bases, as this resource is essential for both drinking and fuel production.

While many would support the use of water ice by astronauts, the question of how other resources will be extracted and regulated remains unanswered.

The Moon is known to contain rare earth elements, including helium-3, useful as fuel, but the exact quantities and availability of these resources remain uncertain. There are currently no restrictions preventing private firms from mining lunar resources and returning them to Earth for profit.

The only barrier is the significant technical challenges involved in lunar landings, as seen in the limited successes of private companies like Intuitive Machines, ispace, and SpaceIL.

“There’s nothing to stop NASA, the Chinese space agency, or any commercial entity from landing on the Moon and claiming mining rights,” states Smethurst.

Besides the resources available, the Moon also holds strategic significance, serving as an ideal base for future deep space exploration, including Mars missions or Earth observation tasks. Furthermore, the far side of the Moon presents an opportunity to develop technologies shielded from surveillance.

The Moon’s potential monetary value will remain speculative until more detailed information about its resources and strategic applications is gathered. The ongoing race to the Moon currently centers around asserting rights over potentially valuable assets.

“The real question is who stands to gain from all this? Historically, government-led space exploration, even when politically driven, has yielded benefits for society through innovations like GPS during the Cold War,” notes Dopade. “However, as profit-driven commercial entities increase their involvement, concerns emerge regarding whether such innovations will serve the broader public good or merely widen existing inequalities.”

Read More: