The Moon Is Back. But Who Is It For?

Twelve people have walked on the moon. All of them are either dead or in their eighties. And for 54 years, we sent no one else.

That changed this spring. The Artemis II crew—Christina Koch, Victor Glover, Jeremy Hansen, and Reid Wiseman—completed humanity's farthest crewed journey from Earth, looping around the moon and returning home. From the window of the Orion spacecraft, Earth was a pale-blue marble against the black. Down here, a NASA officer called what people felt watching it "moon joy." It was a sensation most of us had never experienced firsthand, and one the world hadn't shared in over half a century.

But the glow of that moment raises an uncomfortable question: when we go back for good, what exactly are we going back for?

A Crew Unlike Any Before

Artemis II was never just a mission. It was a statement. Koch became the first woman to fly around the moon. Glover became the first person of color to make the journey. Hansen became the first Canadian to travel lunar-bound. And Wiseman's late wife, Carroll, had her name given to a newly identified bright spot on the moon's surface—a quiet, human detail in an otherwise grand technological narrative.

If the plan holds, Artemis III will follow, then IV, then V. NASA's stated goal is a permanent human presence at the lunar south pole. The agency is thinking in decades now, not missions. That ambition is real. So is the complexity it drags along with it.

The 54-Year Gap Wasn't Empty

When Apollo 17 lifted off the lunar surface in December 1972, public enthusiasm for moon missions didn't vanish—it just changed shape. Government funding dried up. But private ambition quietly moved in.

In 2014, Astrobotic Technology announced a moon-mail service: for $1,600, you could ship a quarter-sized object to the lunar surface. The cargo manifest that eventually loaded onto Peregrine Mission One reads like a time capsule of early-2020s internet culture—a Bitcoin Genesis Plate, a physical Dogecoin, Reddit post printouts, a sticker from a young space enthusiast, and a powdered sports drink sponsored by a Japanese beverage company. The lander never made it. It failed to reach the moon and burned up on reentry, taking everything with it.

Sponsored

Advertise with Us

[email protected]

Sponsored

Astrobotic is planning another launch later this year. The MoonBox personal keepsake service—a successor to the original offering—is already sold out.

This is what the moon became during the long pause: a canvas for commerce. "The march of human progress has come to an inevitable point in its evolution," Atlantic writer Megan Garber observed in 2014. "We're about to use our celestial neighbor as an enormous billboard."

The Resources Underneath the Romance

The commercial interest isn't purely sentimental. The moon is estimated to hold rare metals, water ice (useful for life-support systems and refinable into rocket fuel), and helium-3—a rare isotope on Earth that could theoretically fuel nuclear fusion reactions and, in doing so, replace fossil fuels. The financial stakes are significant enough that multiple governments and private companies are now treating lunar resource extraction as a serious medium-term business proposition.

The infrastructure is already being tested. NASA contracted Nokia to build a 4G cellular network on the lunar surface. It was operational for approximately 25 minutes last year. Lunar Wi-Fi is not a joke. It's a pilot program.

The geopolitical dimension sharpens all of this. China has set a crewed lunar landing target in the 2030s. The echoes of the original Space Race are hard to miss—and worth taking seriously. In the late 1950s, the U.S. actually considered detonating a nuclear bomb on the moon, partly as a show of force against the Soviet Union. The moon has never been purely a place of wonder. It has always also been a place of power.

Two Arguments That Never Go Away

In 1963, two NASA scientists made the case for lunar exploration in The Atlantic. Their reasoning was straightforward: scientific advancement, technological progress, political influence, and an appeal "to the imagination of the student." More than sixty years later, those arguments are essentially unchanged.

So is the counterargument. Why spend billions reaching the moon when Earth's problems—climate change, poverty, crumbling infrastructure—remain unsolved? It's a fair question, and it doesn't have a clean answer. The people asking it aren't wrong. Neither, necessarily, are the people building the rockets.

What's striking is what happened the last time humans went to the moon. Buzz Aldrin stood on the surface and said, "Magnificent desolation." The images that came back—Earth as a fragile, borderless sphere—helped ignite a global environmental movement. Seeing the planet from the outside changed how people thought about protecting it from the inside. Distance, it turns out, can produce clarity.

Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell, in a message recorded before his death and played for the Artemis II crew more than 200,000 miles from home, put it simply: "Don't forget to enjoy the view."

It was advice to astronauts. But it might also be advice to the rest of us—to pause, occasionally, from the arguments about cost and competition and commerce, and remember why the view matters at all.