Photo courtesy of NASA/Photo by Bill Ingalls
Does Success of
Artemis & Orion
Signal New
Space Race?
| published May 12, 2026 |
By R. Alan Clanton
Thursday Review editor
On April 10, 2026, the Orion spacecraft and its crew of four astronauts landed safely in the Pacific Ocean just off the coast of San Diego. Their return to Earth capped-off a successful mission which included a full range of tests of the SLS (Space Launch System), the Orion spacecraft, and all technological aspects of the Artemis II program.
The members of the Orion crew were the first humans to return to the moon since the close of the Apollo program in 1972, when NASA astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt—the 11th and 12th humans to set foot on the moon—took their last steps on the lunar surface.
By the time the Artemis II mission wrapped up and the four Orion crew members had safely splashed down, the scientific successes were numerous and the records set were substantial. For one, the crew members travelled farther from Earth than any humans before, beating the previous record holders of the Apollo 8 crew.
And though they did not land on the moon, the data gathered was impressive, and the images captured by the Orion crew were among the most remarkable ever seen, including dramatic, revealing photos of the dark side of the moon. The launch itself was important, as it demonstrated both the reliability and durability of the largest rocket system ever built (larger even than the mighty Saturn V rockets of the Apollo program, and the powerful Space Shuttle rockets), and the now fully integrated system’s ability to fly and navigate with hyper-precision and reliability.
By the time the four astronauts—Americans Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Canadian Jeremy Hansen—returned to Earth, they had traveled more than 695,000 miles in ten days, and had effectively completed 100% of the checklist of tests needed to take the Orion program to its next stages.
The success of the Artemis II mission solidifies the groundwork, as it were, of the ambitious plans for space travel in this century: more trips to the moon, including landing humans on the lunar soil as early as 2028; construction of a base on the moon; unmanned missions to Mars; and then that most elusive step: manned missions to the Red Planet, presumably within the next twenty years. Most aspects of the Orion program and the Artemis program have been developed for the larger goal of long-distance space travel, and returning to the moon is only that first deep stride.
But much depends on the collective desire to see space exploration as an essential part of the human need to know and learn, and during the last 18 months a major struggle has been at work in Washington and in other places over the costs of the U.S. space program. Deep cuts to NASA’s budget have been proposed by the White House, and there has been pushback against these potential cuts by the House and the Senate. The outcome of these budgeting skirmishes will clearly impact how NASA moves forward with its plans over the next few years.
NASA administrator Jared Isaacman has insisted that his agency can perform more work with fewer dollars if needed, but clearly NASA’s ambitious goals regarding the moon and eventually Mars are dependent on large commitments money over the next decade. In recent weeks, Isaacman has walked a very precarious line, remaining diplomatic throughout the budget back-and-forths; 2026 has proven to be problematic as unforeseen costs—most notably a very costly war with Iran—have wreaked havoc on federal spending.
According to the website for The Planetary Society—a public interest and space science advocacy organization—the proposed cuts by the Trump administration could be as deep as 47%. The Planetary Society notes that as a result of the deep spending cuts, some 53 missions might be dumped, and some of these may be essential for the advancement of the Artemis and Orion programs, even if private companies pick up some of that slack.
In a letter to key House and Senate members on the CJS (Commerce-Justice-Science) subcommittee, The Planetary Society and its partners called the cuts “draconian,” and noted that “robust space science is essential to sustain [this] progress and ensure we explore not just with human courage, but with the scientific knowledge that makes exploration meaningful.” The letter was sent to Senators Jerry Moran and Chris Van Hollen, and to Representatives Hal Rogers and Grace Meng.
As has been reported in other media (and here in Thursday Review), this year’s NASA budget wrangling is very similar to what happened last year. Some analysts have pointed to Trump administration appointees who generally and reactively look for the "softest" spots in the total package of federal spending to make deep cuts, and science is often viewed askance by some fiscal hawks. Then there is the contentious issue of climate change—something for which Trump, as both a candidate and as President—contends is overstated, and he has sometimes blamed NASA for feeding its data into the political storms. Then, as some science and space advocates have always pointed out with a kind of sad inevitability, space exploration is a costly extravagance when seen alongside other hardships in the daily news: crumbling infrastructure, lagging health care benefits, strained social services, the day-to-day lapses in “home science” (why is my internet so slow?). When there are potholes to fix and not enough teachers in the schools, why is money being spent on voyages to Mars?
In the 1960s, the “race” to get humans on the moon was understood to be part of the larger struggle between democracy and communism, between the United States and the Soviet Union—two competing superpower systems engaged in an epic battle for technological and scientific supremacy during some of the chilliest days of the Cold War. If there is a current sprint to place humans again on the lunar surface, it may exist primarily between the United States and China. China’s space program has been progressing from its infancy and into the next logical steps steadily over the last decade, and among China’s stated ambitions is placing its own astronauts on the moon, and eventually building its own base there. Even if the U.S. falters in its goal to have humans on the moon by 2028, the Chinese will likely make their own deadline of having their people on the lunar surface by 2030.
In the meantime, no moon base is possible without a steady stream of essential life-supporting supplies. Starting back in 2008 the thinking about the moon shifted into a higher gear after the discovery of frozen water by India’s Chandrayaan-1 Lunar Probe. NASA’s own moon probes detected the same areas of water ice near the moon’s north and south Polar Regions—enough ice, in theory, to supply what would be needed for drinking, for material handling, for scientific purposes, and for the easy production of oxygen. This single discovery was enough to get numerous private sector companies to begin to do their own advanced thinking and planning for how to make money from the moon.
The crew of Artemis II also engaged in a lot of photography of the moon. On April 6, working as a team as they passed closely around the moon, they captured some 7,000 digital images of the lunar surface, and also an real-deal self-imposed eclipse. On that one day, from their Orion spacecraft, the crew took more pictures that all the photos taken by every Apollo mission—from Apollo 8 through Apollo 17. The high resolution of these images (as compared to the analog 35 mm film used by the Apollo astronauts) will give scientists in Earth a much more detailed understanding of the lunar surface, and especially some areas of the dark side of the moon.
There is also the most critical human test: ability to endure and survive long voyages in space. Though the recent Orion crew was only in space ten days, this was a start. Other astronauts have spent much longer in weightlessness while aboard the International Space Station, including NASA astronauts Frank Rubio (with 371 consecutive days in space), Mark Vande Hei (at 355 days), and Scott Kelly (340 days). Artemis II crew member Christina Koch has the fourth longest consecutive days in space with 328 total (though her recent Orion mission is not part of that total), most of those days spent aboard the International Space Station as part of Expedition 59, 60, and 61.
Any voyage by humans to Mars will require measuring the trip in months, not days, and endurance in space for these long distances will be a key to any Mars mission. The Artemis and Orion programs have been crafted to test, sharpen, and effectively master these complex and demanding goals—likely using the moon as a support base for future Mars missions.
In the meantime, Isaacman insists that—despite the buffeting from budget constraints and the potential for more cuts—NASA can reach another of its key goals of constructing a semi-permanent base (limited though it may be) on the surface of the moon by 2030, complete with smooth paved surfaces, supplies, storage facilities, and robotic mechanisms to manage construction even if no humans are present. This may seem a stretch indeed, but Isaacman is incorporating into his strategy the partnerships with private (presumably for-profit) companies, some of whom are already developing the tools, testing the technologies, and constructing the very robots needed to make a moon base possible.
Other major contractors are pressing their teams to have equipment ready in as little as two years. Axiom Space, a contractor charged with developing and testing new spacesuits for lunar surface use, are working feverishly to have their new AxEMU lunar suit fully tested and ready by 2028. Axiom's $228 million contract calls for four fully functional suits to be delivered in the spring of 2028, but at least one suit ready for zero gravity testing aboard the International Space Station next year.
More importantly, just as during the Apollo program of the late 1960s, NASA must outsource some critical functions. Both Elon Musk’s Space-X and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are effectively competing to create the next lunar lander. Both companies face a firm goal of having their first functional designs ready within roughly the next 15 months, and ready for actual deployment to the moon in only two years—a daunting task. Isaacman has told lawmakers and the media that he embraces the idea of two sets of lunar landers, one by each of the major developers.
Isaacman is not territorial about space, and even highly ecumenical about orbital space. In his view, the more the merrier from U.S. companies and U.S. partners outside of government funding.
“I’ve pounded the table for a long time,” he told lawmakers, “on how imperative it is for us to unlock a true orbital economy, to fund the future we all want to see in space someday.” There will be no space stations, space hotels, or space pizza joints if we are totally reliant on taxpayer money.
With Vladimir Putin’s Russia mired in its fourth year of a costly war in Ukraine, the main challenger to U.S. dominance on the moon is now China. Unlike the budget ups-and-downs faced by NASA, China’s space agency (China National Space Administration, or CNSA) is operating full-tilt and with generous funding from the government in Beijing. China makes no secret of its ambitions to advance its space program on all fronts, as a military component and flexing of muscles, as an economic pathway, and for the dazzling prestige any successful missions will offer. China also knows that any research it conducts will burnish its overall technological advantages in practically all other areas of high tech manufacturing and development.
Beijing has no intention of cutting spending on its space program, and by all accounts China’s funding and investment will likely continue to ramp up as it progresses. Beijing will also redirect its best and brightest minds—whenever needed—directly into its space research, and nudge whatever industrial resources are needed to make its moon landings successful.
China’s space program is moving at a methodical pace—not particularly fast, but with deliberate speed, and careful and exacting steps, and with a singular purpose and centralized political purpose. China’s Long March 10 rockets have the capacity to get crews of three astronauts into space; atop the Long March 10 are the Mengzhou (“Dream Boat”) spacecraft, which will ferry the Chinese astronauts to lunar orbit. Its lunar lander, Lanyue, is already is its final stages of being tested, and China has multiple missions already scheduled (one this year) to send rovers and probes to both polar areas of the moon to analyze the water ice and make tests of the soil. China’s space program may also be on the verge of wrapping-up development of its hardware and its robotic systems designed to quickly and safely convert that water into oxygen.
As Isaacman has told reporters in recent months, the difference between when the next Americans set foot on the moon and when the Chinese get there with their astronauts may come down to months or weeks, not years. In the meantime, Isaacman hopes that the dazzling success of the Artemis II mission will provide not just short-term joy for Americans, but a new long-range form of inspiration about “that next generation of pioneers.”
Related Thursday Review articles:
Artemis II Circles Moon, Sets Records; By R. Alan Clanton, Thursday Review editor; April 7, 2026.