Why is sending humans to the Moon so challenging?

For the same reason it would be hard the build the pyramids today, it would cost a lot of money and there is not a compelling enough reason to pay for it.

TL;DR

NASA’s Artemis II mission, set for 2025, will send four astronauts on a 10-day journey around the moon, marking the first crewed mission beyond Earth’s orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. This mission will test the new Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, crucial for future lunar exploration. While the Artemis program aims to eventually reach Mars, the journey to the moon faces challenges, including technical issues with the Orion capsule and significant cost overruns. Despite advanced technology, today’s missions emphasize astronaut safety, slowing the pace of space exploration.

After reading the article, Harry gained more than 4.5k upvotes with this comment: “It was so hard to do the first time, and now we’re trying it again with much higher safety standards and a much lower tolerance for risk. Plus, the plan is to stay on the surface longer than a few days, which requires a whole different level of equipment.” Don’t forget to discuss your thoughts about this mission in the comment section below!

_________________________

In 1972, the Apollo 17 astronauts had no idea they would be the last humans to travel deep into space for over half a century. Since then, while various presidents have planned lunar missions, no astronauts have left Earth’s orbit. However, NASA is gearing up to change that with the Artemis II flight, set for 2025. Why has it taken so long?

Artemis II mirrors Apollo 8, a mission from 1968 when three astronauts orbited the moon and returned without landing. This time, four astronauts will embark on a 10-day journey, marking the first crewed test of NASA’s new Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft. Despite decades of technological advances, this mission still presents significant challenges.

John F. Kennedy’s famous 1962 speech encapsulated the drive behind space exploration, urging Americans to do hard things, and this mindset persists today. Ironically, going to the moon now might be even harder than before.

The Artemis program has faced delays, cost overruns, and unforeseen technical problems, issues not uncommon in modern-day large-scale projects like subway systems or highway construction. This raises the question: is it actually more difficult to build great things now? And why is it taking so long to replicate a feat the U.S. accomplished over 50 years ago?

The Artemis program isn’t just about revisiting the moon. According to Matthew Ramsey, mission manager for Artemis II, “In the end, our stated goal is Mars.” But such ambitious goals can only be tackled in stages. Following the uncrewed Artemis I mission in 2022, Artemis II will send people back around the moon. Future missions aim to establish a long-term presence on the lunar surface and build the Lunar Gateway, a space station orbiting the moon.

The Orion capsule for the upcoming Artemis II mission undergoes testing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
David Wellendorf/NASA

Despite these grand ambitions, the program’s audit from NASA’s inspector general highlights serious issues. By 2025, Artemis will have cost $93 billion—much more than anticipated. Technical problems with the Orion capsule, such as unexpected heat shield erosion, melted bolts, and power system anomalies, pose significant risks to future crews. The mission also faces hardware, data, and communication challenges, along with unforeseen damage from Artemis I’s launch, adding an extra $26 million to repair costs.

It’s perplexing that going to the moon now feels more challenging than before, given we’ve done it before. Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute, notes that the world has changed since the U.S. was in a space race with the Soviet Union. Back then, space exploration had clear geopolitical motivations, and the U.S. was willing to spend enormous sums of money on the Apollo program. Today, NASA’s budget is significantly smaller, spread across many projects beyond human spaceflight.

John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University, explains that there’s less political urgency to return to the moon. The absence of a clear national interest means less financial support for a “moonshot” effort like Apollo. Moreover, space missions today involve international collaborations, which, while beneficial, also slow things down.

Zane Wolf (data visualization), Brown Bird Design (spacecraft illustrations)

Still, the biggest challenge remains that the U.S. has not been to the moon in decades. As Scott Pace puts it, “We stopped, and then we forgot.” Building a new program is like running a marathon after decades of inactivity—it’s harder than before.

Adding to this complexity is the fact that technology has advanced. Rockets may still rely on the same basic principles, but they’re now outfitted with far more sophisticated systems. Companies like Boeing, which built the Saturn V rocket for Apollo, are involved in building the SLS, but today’s methods—like using computer-controlled machining and friction welding—differ from those used during Apollo. Even so, repurposing old space shuttle technology for Artemis has proven to be more costly and difficult than anticipated.

Similarly, Aerojet Rocketdyne, responsible for building Artemis’s engines, has faced its own challenges adapting old designs for new purposes. For instance, the engines must withstand extreme heat and radiation that are more intense than what was experienced during space shuttle missions. The same goes for the Orion spacecraft, designed with a focus on astronaut safety. Lockheed Martin has ensured that Orion is prepared for the high temperatures and forces it will face, but the recent Artemis I mission revealed unexpected issues, like the capsule’s degraded heat shield.

The core stage of the Space Launch System rocket traveled from NASA’s New Orleans assembly facility to Kennedy Space Center in July 2024. It will be readied there for the Artemis II mission.
Ben Smegelsky/NASA

Another factor complicating space missions is that society’s attitude toward risk has changed. Today, there’s more focus on keeping astronauts safe, and any major incident could derail the Artemis program altogether. This contrasts sharply with the 1960s, when, despite the Apollo I fire that killed three astronauts, there was little public outcry to cancel the program.

The delays and budget overruns seen in Artemis are not unique to space exploration. Other large projects, like New York’s subway system or nuclear weapons modernization, have also faced increasing costs and longer timelines. According to public policy expert Leah Brooks, these issues stem in part from modern requirements to consider citizen input and environmental impacts, processes that were bypassed in the past.

In the end, while the Artemis program may be slower and more expensive than Apollo, it’s likely to be safer and better understood. This more measured approach, which incorporates international collaboration, public input, and advanced safety measures, reflects the changing times. And while we may not be racing to the moon like in the 1960s, today’s missions still embody Kennedy’s challenge to do hard things.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GaryK
Guest
GaryK
1 month ago

Wait until the Chinese set up a permanent station on the moon, you won’t believe how quickly other nations will have it too.

Paul
Guest
Paul
1 month ago

Because it was so hard to do the first time, and now we are trying it again with much high safety standards and a much lower tolerance for risk.

Plus the plan is to stay on the surface for longer than a few days, which requires a whole different level of equipment.

Daniel
Guest
Daniel
1 month ago

Follow the money. NASA’s budget peaked during the Apollo program in the 1960s. After the United States won the race to the Moon, space exploration lost political support and NASA’s budget was cut significantly. Since the 1970s, NASA has hovered between 1% and 0.4% of all U.S. government spending. In 1966 NASA’s budget was 4.41% of the total federal budget.

Jane
Guest
Jane
1 month ago

Our level of risk was astronomically greater back in the 60s vs now

Plus there was a national pride for the space race. An us vs them mentality against the USSR. It’s incredible what the country can do when the entire country rallies behind something

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top