Artemis II | Mission moon

An irony hides in the context of the NASA Artemis II launch on April 2. The U.S. has both openly and in internal reports cast the Artemis programme to return American astronauts to the moon as part of a race against China. But as China in Space editor Jack Congram has pointed out, China does not believe it is racing the U.S. to the moon.

Also read: NASA Artemis II launch highlights

Instead, it has developed its programme to send Chinese astronauts (taikonauts) to the moon as part of a national programme, with ties to local industries and developmental goals. The Chinese Government is thus committed to funding the programme and providing political support for it, allowing it to advance at a steady pace — one that has evidently unnerved the U.S.

Under pressure, NASA, in its public messaging at least, has responded by describing its priorities and urgency in terms of being in a race with the China National Space Administration (CNSA), with the U.S. state providing vacillating support for those priorities: swinging one way because of the costs, then the other because ‘beating’ China offers the prospect of projecting American supremacy in at least one high-technology domain, after having that undermined in semiconductor and clean energy.

Editorial | On the Artemis II launch

The irony? As Mr. Congram put it, the liberal democracy “sees the moon as a proving ground in a geopolitical contest”, with commercial connotations tacked on, while the party state “views it as an extension of long-term science-driven development”. Perhaps this is not an irony at all given the success of China’s state-directed techno-nationalist development in the last half century, or perhaps CNSA’s apparent indifference to NASA’s efforts is rooted in secure knowledge that it is, in fact, ahead. Either way, China is giving the U.S. more than a run for its money.

Chinese pressure

And if the Chinese pressure is taken away, the U.S. may lose the sole reason it is in such a rush to return American astronauts to the moon. Politicians, policymakers, and pundits have mentioned research and exploration, but they don’t seem to be driving forces. In fact, as astrophysicist Erika Nesvold has observed, neither the U.S. government nor NASA has formally articulated what is so objectionable about allowing Chinese astronauts on the moon first (a stand reminiscent of U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech on the same day, April 2, about why he went to war against Iran.)

This extended preamble may be necessary to understand the NASA Artemis programme because, in general, the sights and sounds of any sufficiently ‘large’ space mission can spark enough awe and wonder to blow away sceptical thoughts. The spectacle alone can seem sufficient reason to do it.

When the 98-m-tall Space Launch System (SLS) rocket lifted off with the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts early on April 2, there were cheers on the ground and around the world. These machines were products of a sophisticated engineering effort. The rocket’s core stage was powered by four RS-25 engines and two five-part boosters that together exerted more liftoff thrust than the workhorse of the Apollo missions.

This configuration was required to support the Orion crew capsule, which has been integrated with the European Service Module to provide propulsion and life-support systems. Orion is a little larger than a Maruti Suzuki Swift, weighs 11 tonnes (26 tonnes including the service module), can sustain a crew of four for 21 days, includes an advanced launch abort system for crew safety, and uses modern avionics and touchscreen interfaces instead of the largely analogue controls of earlier spacecraft. The capsule’s 5-metre-wide heat shield is also the largest of its kind.

There is in all of us a tendency to equate one country’s achievement in spaceflight as being indicative of what humans as a species are capable of. Space is hard and the astronauts who ‘survive’ it are (technically) proof that we can all survive it. But as much as this tendency is justified and lends itself to gratifying romanticisms, it bears remembering that at least for now the Artemis programme is a flawed representative of the human aspirations for space.