Let’s be real for a second. Most of us grew up looking at those grainy, black-and-white photos of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and just assumed that by the year 2026, we’d have a Starbucks in the Sea of Tranquility. It feels weird, doesn't it? We have iPhones that possess more computing power than the entire Apollo mission combined, yet we haven't sent a human back to the lunar surface since Gene Cernan climbed into the Lunar Module in 1972. Getting back on the moon isn’t just a matter of "doing it again." It’s a massive, multi-billion dollar headache involving physics, politics, and some really annoying dust.
We’re finally close. Honestly. But the road there is messy.
NASA’s Artemis program is the vehicle for this return, but it’s not your grandfather's Apollo. Back in the sixties, the goal was simple: beat the Soviets, plant a flag, and get home before the decade was out. Now? We're trying to stay. That shift from "sprint" to "marathon" is why the deadlines keep sliding. If you've been following the news, you know Artemis II is supposed to loop humans around the moon soon, with Artemis III actually landing boots on the ground. But if you’re betting your mortgage on a specific month in 2026 or 2027, you might want to hold off. Space is hard, and building a sustainable presence is even harder.
The Rocket Problem: Why SLS and Starship are Total Opposites
To get back on the moon, you need a ridiculous amount of thrust. NASA built the Space Launch System (SLS). It’s basically a "greatest hits" album of Space Shuttle technology. It’s huge. It’s powerful. It’s also incredibly expensive—we're talking about $2 billion per launch. Some critics, including folks at various think tanks and even former NASA officials, call it a "jobs program" because it uses contractors spread across all 50 states. It’s a traditional, expendable rocket. You use it once, and it splashes into the ocean.
Then there’s SpaceX.
Elon Musk’s Starship is the wild card. Unlike the SLS, Starship is designed to be fully reusable. It’s currently being tested in Boca Chica, Texas, and the philosophy there is "fail fast, learn faster." They blow things up. A lot. NASA has actually contracted SpaceX to use a modified version of Starship as the Human Landing System (HLS). This creates a weird dynamic: NASA builds the big rocket to get the astronauts away from Earth, but they need a private company’s "elevator" to actually get from lunar orbit down to the surface. If Starship isn't ready, nobody is going back on the moon. Period.
The technical hurdles for Starship are insane. It has to refuel in low Earth orbit. Imagine trying to park two massive school buses in the dark, while they’re moving at 17,000 miles per hour, and then pumping thousands of gallons of cryogenic fuel from one to the other. We’ve never done that at this scale. NASA’s Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have been pretty blunt about the risks here. If the orbital refueling doesn't work, the whole plan for Artemis III falls apart like a house of cards.
That Annoying, Sharp, Electric Moon Dust
You’d think the vacuum of space or the radiation would be the biggest killers. Nope. It’s the dirt. Lunar regolith is a nightmare. On Earth, weathering from wind and water rounds off the edges of sand and dust particles. On the moon? There’s no atmosphere. The dust is basically tiny shards of glass and volcanic rock. It’s jagged. It’s abrasive.
During the Apollo missions, the dust ate through the outer layers of space suits. It jammed vacuum seals. It smelled like spent gunpowder, according to the astronauts who accidentally tracked it into the cabin.
Getting back on the moon for a "long-term stay" means figuring out how to stop this stuff from destroying our tech. It’s also statically charged. Because of the constant bombardment of solar radiation, the dust clings to everything. Engineers are currently looking at "electrodynamic dust shields"—essentially using electric curtains to repel the grime—but it’s still very much in the experimental phase. If we can't solve the dust issue, our lunar habitats will last about as long as a cheap tent in a hurricane.
The South Pole and the Hunt for Ice
Why are we going to the South Pole this time? Why not go back to the nice, flat equatorial regions where Apollo landed?
The answer is water.
In the permanently shadowed craters of the lunar South Pole, temperatures drop to levels colder than Pluto. We’ve found evidence of water ice there. This is the "oil" of the solar system. If you have water, you have oxygen to breathe. You have water to drink. Most importantly, you can break water ($H_2O$) down into hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel.
Going back on the moon is actually a pit stop for Mars. If we can harvest ice on the moon, we don't have to carry all our fuel from Earth. Lifting fuel out of Earth's deep gravity well is the most expensive part of space travel. Launching from the moon is like launching from a curb instead of a skyscraper.
The Geopolitics of the "New Space Race"
It’s not just NASA anymore. China is moving fast. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) has been landing rovers on the far side of the moon and returning samples to Earth with impressive precision. They’ve stated they want their own taikonauts on the lunar surface by 2030.
This has lit a fire under Washington. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has been vocal about the fact that we are in a race. There’s a fear—whether justified or not—that if China establishes a base first, they might claim the "prime real estate" near the water-rich craters. The Artemis Accords were created to establish a set of rules for lunar exploration, but not everyone has signed them. Russia is teaming up with China for an International Lunar Research Station (ILRS).
It’s basically the Cold War 2.0, but with better cameras.
Living on the Moon is Harder Than You Think
Let's talk about the biological toll. Humans aren't meant to live in 1/6th gravity. We know from International Space Station (ISS) data that muscles atrophy and bones lose density in zero-G, but we don't actually know what happens over two years in partial gravity. Does your heart stay strong enough? Do your eyeballs change shape (a real thing that happens to astronauts)?
✨ Don't miss: Why the Landkreuzer P 1000 Ratte Was the Most Ridiculous Idea of World War II
Then there's the radiation. Outside the Earth’s magnetic field, you’re getting cooked by cosmic rays and solar flares. To get back on the moon permanently, we’ll likely have to bury our habitats under several feet of lunar soil or build them inside lava tubes—giant underground caves formed by ancient volcanic activity. It’s not exactly the "glass domes with a view" we were promised in 1950s sci-fi. It's more like being a high-tech mole.
The Cost of Going Back
Money is the biggest hurdle. NASA's budget is a rounding error compared to the total US federal budget, usually less than 0.5%. During Apollo, it was closer to 4%. People often ask, "Why spend money up there when we have problems down here?"
The counter-argument from economists and scientists is that the money isn't being "spent in space." It's spent right here on Earth. It pays for engineers, welders, software developers, and janitors. The technologies developed for Apollo gave us everything from freeze-dried food to the integrated circuits in your phone. The push to get back on the moon is currently driving massive innovations in battery tech, autonomous mining, and remote medicine.
Actionable Steps for the Future
If you want to keep up with the progress of our return to the lunar surface, don't just wait for the evening news. The "space industry" is more transparent than it used to be, but you have to know where to look.
👉 See also: How to Check if Your Password Was Leaked Without Getting Scammed
- Track the "Flight Readiness Reviews": Before any Artemis launch, NASA holds a FRR. This is where the real "go/no-go" decisions happen. If you see an FRR get delayed, the launch date is almost certainly moving.
- Follow the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS): These are small, private robotic missions (like those from Intuitive Machines or Astrobotic) that are heading to the moon before the humans do. They are the "scouts." Their success or failure tells us a lot about the landing conditions.
- Watch the Starship Tests: SpaceX’s progress is the single biggest variable. If they successfully demonstrate orbital refueling in 2025 or 2026, the timeline for humans getting back on the moon accelerates dramatically.
- Check the Artemis Accords Map: See which countries are joining. The more international cooperation we have, the more likely the funding stays stable regardless of who is in the White House.
The reality of being back on the moon is that it won't be a single "one small step" moment. It's going to be a slow, grinding process of building infrastructure, failing, fixing things, and eventually, hopefully, staying. We aren't just visiting this time. We’re moving in. Sorta.