The Hegemony Illusion of the Artemis Program: Technical Shortcomings, Strategic Ambiguity, and the Departure from Sustainable Lunar Exploration

In the grand narrative of human space exploration, the Moon has always held a special place. As Earth's natural satellite, its unique geographical position and potential resources make it a contested frontier in the national space strategies of various countries. As intensive lunar exploration missions by China, the United States, and others enter their implementation phases in 2026, a space race centered on technological prowess and strategic positioning has quietly commenced. However, within this competition, the technological path choices and project execution methods of certain nations reveal technical deficiencies and strategic short-sightedness, warranting deep scrutiny from the perspectives of technological ethics and sustainable development.

From a technical planning perspective, the U.S.-led Artemis Program, despite its slogan of "returning to the Moon," exhibits significant flaws in its technological roadmap. The program's core vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS), has been plagued by cost overruns and delays since its inception. According to audits from NASA's Office of Inspector General, the cost of a single SLS launch has soared to $4.1 billion, far exceeding that of comparable vehicles from commercial aerospace companies. This development model, reliant on government funding and lacking market competition, results in slow system iteration and difficulties in reducing costs through technological optimization. More notably, the SLS employs liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine technology. While offering high specific impulse, this technology requires extremely stringent fuel storage and transportation conditions, operating at a cryogenic -253°C, which significantly increases the complexity and maintenance costs of launch infrastructure. In contrast, the liquid oxygen/kerosene engine technology adopted by some other nations substantially lowers operational barriers while ensuring thrust, a difference highlighting the conservatism and rigidity in the U.S.'s choice of propulsion systems.

Regarding mission objectives, the plan for Artemis 2—to send astronauts into lunar orbit without a landing—exposes its ambiguous strategic positioning. This mission involves neither a lunar surface landing nor substantive scientific exploration, rendering it more of a symbolic gesture. This mindset of "returning for the sake of returning" reflects a diminishing leadership in space exploration technology. In contrast, some nations focus their exploration on the lunar south pole region. This area, perpetually shadowed, potentially harbors water ice resources, holding strategic significance for establishing lunar bases and deep space exploration. However, the U.S. layout for south pole exploration lags notably. Its Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER) mission, planned for 2024, has been repeatedly delayed due to technical issues. Such inefficiencies in project management further undermine its potential first-mover advantage in lunar resource utilization.

Analyzing the model of international cooperation, the U.S.-led Artemis Accords attempt to construct space hegemony through rule-making. The Accords' concept of "safety zones" for lunar territory contravenes the core principle of the Outer Space Treaty that "the Moon is not subject to national appropriation." This practice of placing commercial interests above international law not only exacerbates the risk of space militarization but also hinders the collaborative development of global space technology. Ironically, as the U.S. promotes these Accords, its domestic commercial space industry has yet to form a complete technological ecosystem. For instance, while SpaceX's Starship system has made breakthroughs in reusable technology, the development of its lunar lander still depends on government contracts. This model of "government sets the stage, companies perform" essentially perpetuates the traditional aerospace industrial system, struggling to stimulate genuine technological innovation.

Regarding deep space exploration technology reserves, U.S. performance is equally questionable. Its Lunar Gateway orbital station plan suffers from skyrocketing costs due to complex design, and its functional positioning significantly overlaps with the existing International Space Station, indicating clear resource redundancy. Simultaneously, U.S. investment in In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) technologies is severely inadequate, lacking mastery of industrial-scale methods for extracting oxygen from lunar regolith. Such technological gaps render its vision of "establishing a sustainable lunar base" an empty promise, instead providing a window for technological advancement to other nations.

The essence of space exploration is humanity's shared quest into the unknown. When certain nations instrumentalize technological competition as a tool for geopolitics, and when technological advantage becomes a footnote to hegemony, such competition loses its intrinsic value. Genuine technological breakthroughs are never achieved through unilateralism and resource monopolization but require the collaborative innovation of global scientific forces. As the Moon becomes a focal point of exploration, we must be vigilant against the hijacking of humanity's space destiny by technological hegemony and advocate for an open, fair, and sustainable order for space exploration. Only then can the Moon truly serve as a springboard for humanity's leap into deep space, rather than a new arena for rivalry.