During the first term of President Trump, he signed the Space 1 Policy Directive, signaling the desire for the administration to bring American astronauts to the moon. This directive, and similar, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with a wider ambition to obtain the United States on Mars.
But are we going to arrive on the moon, not to mention Mars?
While the space race against the barrels of China forward, the White House offered for the first time $ 6 billion in total NASA financing, a reduction of around 24% which, according to experts, is the largest reduction of one year to agency financing in history.
On the support of scientific journalism
If you appreciate this article, plan to support our award -winning journalism by subscription. By buying a subscription, you help to ensure the future of striking stories about discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.
But in the aftermath of President Trump, signing the “Big Beautiful Bill”, which has reintegrated certain funds for the Artemis project, the Congress Credit Committees continued to repel the myriad of administration reduction to NASA, which for the scientific unit of the space agency was in itself a reduction of 47% to around 3.9 billion dollars.
The Senate Committee’s bill has retained the financing of NASA sciences, which is an integral part of the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the chamber’s project divided in half the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate credits committee also firmly rejected the president’s original proposal to end the spatial launch system of Artemis and the Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis 3 assignment.
This conflict and dizzying in both directions concerning the American moon moon project suggest a question: are we engaged in Artemis and the broader objective of understanding space? Or to put it differently: do we want to win this new race on the moon?
The current administration owes us an answer.
There is more than a simple power victory on the Taikonauts of China at stake. This company consists in cement the United States as a technological superpower, a center of understanding and our solar system, and in due time, set us up to be the first to live and work on the moon.
The Americans support this goal. A recent survey of CBS News shows wide support to return astronauts to the moon. But it will be difficult for the administration to reconcile its anti -government expenses message with a full -fledged support from Artemis and related missions.
This is not the first time that the United States has faced such a debate.
In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an investigation into the disastrous Apollo 1 A fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded at Congress.
The citizens concerned across the country offered their theories on the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question which was at the center of the national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place?
“I mean here and now that I think that the Moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,” wrote James P. Smith by Cold Spring Harbor, in a letter hosted in the Washington DC legislative archives ” [the Russians] Go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our life stallions. »»
Others have pressed their representatives not to abandon their support for the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., Declared in his letter to the Anderson committee: “If an landing inhabited by the Soviets first occurs on the moon is not mistaken, political and scientific repercussions will be enormous.”
America today, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial difficulties and conflicts abroad continue to consume the time, energy and resources of our country.
But the value of the Artemis project goes beyond scientific discoveries and the technological progress that awaits. The success of this new Moonshot will at least prevent the domination of the space of adversaries, notably Russia and China, which have joined their own international lunar research station. The two countries have refused to connect to Artemis agreements, a worrying sign that these nations do not agree with our approach to “peaceful” exploration and the use of space.
To be clear, this Artemis is not only a job program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that the future of humanity is one of the stars. Our government should be the only one to orchestrate the way there while inspiring the next generation to continue to explore the depths of space.
But instead of relying on the advantages of the Artemis project, the administration creates obstacles for the mission linked to the Moon.
To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew his appointment of the technological billionaire and the civil astronaut Jared Isaamman to direct the space agency, therefore despite the recent appointment of the Secretary of Transport Sean Duffy as an acting administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing the Artemis project. And despite Duffy’s assurance that Arthis is a critical mission, the message is hollow if the word of the Oval Office does not correspond.
Again, the president initially called at the end of the program launching system of the program and the Orion crew capsule after Artemis 3 Mission for more profitable commercial systems. Trump’s initial budget also called for the termination of the gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and the critical component of the Artemis project infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump defended with his initial space policy directive. The congress has finally financed additional artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill law, but it remains to be seen whether it reflects a lasting change in the commitment of the administration.
The success of Artemis requires prolonged support, and not of the prerogative of critical mission components or the financing of incredibly precious scientific missions of NASA. The scientific programs of Artemis and NASA contribute an extraordinary quantity to the technological power of America, so funding should not be considered as a proposal “either / or”.
It is now time to repel uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As criticisms have pointed out, it is not clear if NASA has a tangible plan to reach the Moon and on the return. The lunar landing system is always at the concept stage. It is a chance for the president to show leadership by intervening and pushing his government to carry out a monumental task, which he could compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first mandate.
The administration must evolve quickly and appoint a leader for NASA which will favor Artemis and its main mission. He must resume plans to clarify the government which forces 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership counts more than ever.
In short, the Artemis project needs financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the will of this administration to fully engage in it.
In Air and space June / July 1989 issue of the magazine commemorating the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 Moon Landing, author Andy Chaikin explained why America had not yet returned. “One of Apollo’s lessons is that the decision to” go somewhere “cannot come from anyone in NASA, or from the defenders of the Moon, or the defenders of March,” he wrote. “It must come from the summit.”
If President Trump supports this moon moon, the Americans deserve a clear justification directly from the oval office. Americans must join the High message, whether it is a technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown or something else.
In the end, the 1967 Spatial Committee of Senator Anderson recommended that the Apollo program will continue, with the warning that improvements should be made. Today, boxes of letters sent to the Apollo 1 The investigation committee is seated at the Center for Legislative Archives de Washington, DC, serving as a time capsule from one of the most controversial debates in America.
Inside one of these boxes, there is a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, from Wataga, ill., Investigating the determination of the United States to go to the moon. He distills himself on the very question with which we are now fighting.
“Can I ask, why?” She wrote.
Tell us, Mr. President.
This is an article of opinion and analysis, and the points of view expressed by the author or the authors are not necessarily those of American scientist.
