Artemis 2.0: A model for really winning the new moon race

Private Lunar Landings Mark New Era in Space Exploration

Currently, the remnants of three commercial spacecraft reside on the lunar surface, with an additional one lost in Earth’s orbit. This series of endeavors underscores a remarkable shift in space exploration, highlighting the growing role of the private sector in reaching for the moon and beyond.

The initial attempt was made by Israel’s Beresheet probe, which unfortunately crashed upon lunar impact in 2019. Subsequently, Astrobotic’s Peregrine lander encountered an anomaly and was deliberately guided to disintegrate in Earth’s atmosphere in early 2024. Following these setbacks, Intuitive Machines’ Odysseus achieved a historic milestone as the first private vehicle to successfully touch down on the moon. However, the landing was more forceful than anticipated, curtailing its operational lifespan. Undeterred, Intuitive Machines launched Athena earlier this month, which landed on its side but still managed to achieve critical mission objectives before its power depleted. Finally, Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost mission realized complete success, achieving a soft landing, maintaining communication, and transmitting impressive imagery and valuable data.

Evolving Private Space Race

This flurry of activity is just the prelude. The U.S.-Japanese iSpace team is preparing for its lunar landing attempt, signaling yet another significant step in what is rapidly becoming a genuine space race driven by private companies.

Without considering historical parallels, the progress of these ventures might appear underwhelming. However, looking back at the nascent stages of the original space race, both the Soviet Union and the United States faced numerous setbacks, with approximately 20 failures, including at least three missions that missed the moon entirely.

These contemporary space companies readily acknowledge that they are building upon the groundwork laid by pioneers and benefiting from a vast reservoir of knowledge and technology unavailable to their forerunners. Nevertheless, this moment is undeniably historic. These preliminary steps are preparing the ground for humanity’s significant expansion into the solar system.

Policy, Not Technology, Hinders Progress

It is easy to critique from afar and offer unsolicited advice to companies actively engaged in this challenging arena. Yet, their commitment to action is what truly matters.

Since 1988, I have dedicated my efforts towards facilitating a human return to the moon – through policy work, advocacy, investment, and initiating space startups via SpaceFund. After decades of inertia, we are finally witnessing tangible progress. However, at this juncture, the primary impediment is no longer technical; it is now political and psychological.

Some advocate for prioritizing Mars exploration. I understand this perspective—I have even championed it in a separate SpaceNews article. While the advocate for Mars has valid points, limiting our focus to Mars alone is shortsighted. We are capable of a broader approach. We can concurrently advance initiatives in low Earth orbit (LEO), lunar exploration, and ventures beyond. We do not need to make limiting choices.

Government Obstacles to Space Development

For decades, space endeavors in the U.S. and internationally have been constrained by a restrictive, linear methodology: a single, centralized program at a time, influenced and distorted by political shifts, and executed via a bureaucratic system characterized by slow progress.

This approach is not merely inefficient—it is fundamentally undemocratic. It elucidates why the U.S. human space program has advanced so slowly since the Apollo era. If NASA remains the exclusive entity managing space activities for the American populace, and political realities necessitate prioritizing one major program at a time, then gradual advancement is inevitable. Understanding this is crucial to comprehending the current perceived rivalry with China to be the next nation to land humans on the moon. Had the American space program adopted a more effective strategy, such a competitive scenario might not exist. Instead, we could be welcoming new entrants into a collaborative space landscape.

The conventional American model is not conducive to frontier expansion. Yet, this framework has dominated U.S. space discussions for over half a century. This is illogical. Imagine if, after initial westward exploration beyond the Mississippi, the government had established a single government-operated “Frontier Station,” accessible only by a single government “River Shuttle.” Consider if, following the invention of the airplane, we had created one government-controlled airline, with flight routes subject to Congressional approval—one route at a time.

This fundamental flaw was inherent in the Apollo program. Confronted with the Soviet Union’s state-controlled space program, the U.S. mirrored it with its own state-managed equivalent. We surpassed the Soviets in mobilization, yet we could not sustain the achieved momentum. Why? Because government-run programs in democracies are contingent upon sustained political will. When public enthusiasm diminishes, funding subsequently declines.

This is why the present lunar race is significant. While governments still hold a prominent role, decades of advocacy have initiated a gradual shift in LEO to encourage a greater number of participants. This transition must not only persist but also serve as the foundation for our renewed lunar endeavors. A substantial and thoroughly supported transfer of leadership to the private sector is paramount to ensuring not just a return to the moon, but a sustained presence.

CLPS Program: A Blueprint for Future Lunar Missions

The small robotic landers currently on the moon affirm that NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program represents a successful strategy. CLPS injected crucial funding and technical assistance into pioneering lunar initiatives—comparatively overshadowed by the extensive and bureaucratic Artemis 1.0 “Return to the moon” program.

In stark contrast to the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued Artemis, CLPS is demonstrating an exceptional outcome: even reported “failures” within this model incur significantly lower costs compared to conventional government-managed robotic missions. And instead of progressing towards the same constrained lunar trajectory as Artemis 1.0, each achievement in this innovative partnership broadens the pathway for U.S. commercial activity on the moon.

The current moment is not just about building upon this advancement—but exponentially expanding it.

Artemis 2.0: Pioneering Lunar Development

NASA’s function regarding lunar exploration must be re-evaluated. Mirroring the evolving landscape in LEO, Congress must redirect funding and strategic priorities to position the facilitation of private sector initiatives as the central tenet of U.S. lunar policy. These pioneering endeavors should no longer be subsidiary to the Artemis-Apollo replication. The time has come to prioritize American enterprise and empower private sector leadership.

We must transition beyond the state-centric Apollo model and embrace what I term Artemis 2.0—a strategically coordinated government and private sector initiative to establish a robust lunar industrial base and transportation infrastructure within a decade.

Artemis 2.0, in contrast to originating from NASA’s centralized command structure, would be a lunar program conceived around entrepreneurs, innovators, and free-market principles. This program would leverage a comprehensive system of government incentives and support—ranging from technology development to anchor tenancy, data acquisition, and tax benefits—to catalyze the “Moon Boom” that should have materialized following Apollo.

Simultaneously, NASA can redirect its primary focus towards achieving the first human landing on Mars. Even if the initial Mars mission is relatively fast-paced, the skills and knowledge acquired on the moon will be indispensable for further space exploration.

Seize the Moment for Lunar Expansion

The spacecraft that did not reach their intended destinations are not failures, but rather, they are indicators of progress. They demonstrate the feasibility of these endeavors, proving that we are making lunar access increasingly attainable.

I urge Congress, the White House, and the governments of all free nations to endorse the cessation of Artemis 1.0 and its replacement with a truly American enterprise-driven Artemis 2.0—fully and without delay.

Regarding competition with China, our response should evolve:

• Let them plant a flag and take a selfie on the moon, if they desire. We have already accomplished that milestone. Our focus is now on Mars.
• If they aim to “claim” prime lunar territories and exploit lunar resources, so be it. American companies and institutions will be in direct competition for the most advantageous locations.
• If they intend to construct a state-operated “industrial park,” that is their prerogative. We will be establishing the first authentic lunar settlement—for free individuals and enterprises.

The giant leap envisioned by Neil Armstrong in 1969 never fully materialized. This was not due to a lack of capability, but rather the absence of an American-style plan to facilitate it. NASA fulfilled its assigned role perfectly. However, its current mandate needs reevaluation.

We can enact this change immediately.

We can manage multiple objectives concurrently—advance in LEO, return to the moon robustly, and initiate deeper solar system exploration.

We simply need to remain true to our core principles—unleash the power of private enterprise—and we will not only take a giant leap, we will truly soar into the cosmos!