Category: The moon

Landing spacecraft on the moon could contaminate ancient clues about how life may have originated on Earth, a new study finds.

As NASA continues on with its plan of sending astronauts back to the moon with the Artemis program, researchers are exploring what possible unintended consequences may arise from humans visiting the lunar surface. For instance, Artemis IV will land astronauts near the moon's south pole and the agency has future plans for building a longer-term moon base on the lunar surface, which would require many more trips. And indeed, a new study has found the exhaust from spacecraft involved with these landings could expel enough methane to contaminate the moon's surface — possibly destroying molecules that could help to explain how life may have originated on Earth.

"We are trying to protect science and our investment in space," senior study author Silvio Sinibaldi, the planetary protection officer at the European Space Agency, said in a statement. "Our activity can actually hinder scientific exploration."

While experts have had concerns for some time about how rocket launches on Earth pollute our planet and atmosphere, scientists have only really considered this issue with our own planet. This is especially because we haven't been to the moon's surface in over 50 years; concerns of accidental effects of a lunar landing simply haven't been top-of-mind. That's what makes this new study so important. It points to a potential issue that could mean that future moon landings might actually be detrimental to science.

Life's clues on the moon?

So why do we think the signs of life could be hiding on the moon? It's actually hiding in ice. Dark craters near the moon's poles, which exist in perpetual shadow, hold ancient ice. This ice is thought to contain material from asteroids and comets that smashed into the moon billions of years ago. Trapped in lunar ice to this day, these bits of ancient collisions could include what the researchers describe as "prebiotic organic molecules," or molecules that could have preceded life on Earth.

It's thought that these molecules from asteroid and comet visitors could have sparked life on Earth, and by studying those possibly trapped on the moon, researchers could be looking at the molecules that ended up combining and creating life as we know it.

The molecular history of life on Earth is pretty much nonexistent on our own planet, as it was largely destroyed by the billions of years of changes we've experienced. But the moon has remained mostly unchanged, so these wells of ice are a uniquely-preserved sampling of pre-life molecules.

"We know we have organic molecules in the solar system — in asteroids, for example," Sinibaldi said. "But how they came to perform specific functions like they do in biological matter is a gap we need to fill."

This ice exists in a somewhat fragile ecosystem, so left alone in darkness, this ice isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But with Artemis, NASA is planning on sending crewed landers to the moon's south pole. That might pose a problem. With computer models in this new study, researchers have shown that the methane exhaust from these landers could very quickly and permanently contaminate this ancient ice, destroying the molecular evidence sealed within.

Inside the simulations

In those computer models, the researchers simulated how methane, the main organic component expelled by planned lunar landers, would spread across the moon's surface after a landing at the south pole. While the simulations included the effects of solar wind and radiation, the moon's lack of an atmosphere caused the methane to spread incredibly quickly, reaching the moon's north pole in under two lunar days.

Within one lunar week (which is roughly seven months on Earth), over half the methane was trapped at the moon's cold polar areas, with a whopping 42% of the substance trapped at the south pole compared to 12% at the north pole. This methane could collect in the same cold pockets where ice and ancient molecules have been collected for billions of years, possibly contaminating this finite, scientific evidence.

"Their trajectories are basically ballistic," lead author Francisca Paiva, a physicist at Instituto Superior Técnico in Portugal, said in the statement. "They just hop around from one point to another."

In better news, there may be a way to circumvent some of this methane disturbance. For instance, the study suggests it's possible that by choosing colder landing sites, scientists can avoid having the methane travel as quickly or as far. Additional simulations are needed to better understand how exhaust compounds travel on the moon, however, as well as the risks that this poses for scientific investigations and if there are other materials lunar trips will involve that could contaminate the environment. Above all, the new study's team emphasizes that as we push toward future lunar exploration, it is key to balance our dreams of settling the moon with preserving its priceless history.

"We have laws regulating contamination of Earth environments like Antarctica and national parks," Paiva said. "I think the moon is an environment as valuable as those."

This work was described in a study published last year in the journal the American Geophysical Union.

The success of NASA's future moon base depends in large part on mission design, which should allow astronauts to work together well in a way independent from psychological training, a new study asserts.

The goal of the study was to identify "specific conditions" for mission success and to look for any "red flags" that may stand in the way, lead investigator Anamaria Berea, a computational social scientist at George Mason University (GMU), told Space.com via email. (The first author of the PLOS ONE study, which was published in May, was GMU's Raymond Vera.)

The team conducted the research using agent-based models, which are tools for computational simulations in fields ranging from the study of bird flocks to the spread of disease, Berea said. While a lot of modern-day AI "trains" or "learns" to extrapolate from information provided in a data set, agent-based modeling instead uses a data set to "understand emergent phenomena that don't have one single cause or direct cause," she said.

The study team considered scenarios for how many astronauts would be on the moon base and how often resupply missions would occur. In an "initial case," for example, the assumed mission duration was three months, with a single resupply run at Month 2 with food, water, air and a fresh group of astronauts.

Using a complex probability analysis known as a Monte Carlo simulation, the model astronauts in this scenario showed a productivity rate of about 20% against their expected tasks, "which is acceptable for a typical manufacturing process," the authors noted.

This productivity rate doesn't take into account anything unexpected that may crop up during the mission, the authors added. "The low task completion rate suggests that, on average, teams are having challenges to overcoming psychological stressors and environmental disruptions," they wrote.

Lessons from the International Space Station

NASA tracks productivity a little differently on the International Space Station (ISS). The agency uses a metric called "utilization," which largely refers to the amount of crew time and number of scientific investigations that are performed on the space station during an increment or expedition. As of 2014, the ISS program suggested that ideal utilization should be 35 hours per crew per week when there are three people working on the U.S. part of the space station, and 68.5 hours if there are four or more. (The Russian side of the ISS works largely independently in this respect.)

"NASA has generally met or exceeded this goal and set a high of 120 average hours per week devoted to research from October 2019 to April 2020," NASA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which has been tracking all of these productivity figures, stated in a report published in September 2024.

"Starting March 2022 through March 2023, the latest published data, we have seen utilization near 90 hours per week," the OIG noted. "In addition to the hours spent per week on research, the number of scientific investigations performed on-orbit has increased."

Figure 1 of the OIG report also shows both crew time and scientific investigations increasing, as a trend, between 2000 and 2023, suggesting that utilization of the space station is continuing to grow. And this is despite periodic and documented disruptions that required astronauts to take a step back from being productive, such as emergency ammonia leaks requiring spacewalks, the 9/11 disaster, or sheltering in place during brief contingencies such as space debris passing within a few miles of the station.

Not all crew time can be used for utilization even if all goes well, however, as the station requires normal maintenance like cleaning, and astronauts also need daily time for sleep, meals and a little relaxation. Additionally, utilization tends to increase with larger crews on the space station compared with smaller ones, as maintenance becomes less of a burden with more hands to take on these tasks.

But "lack of redundancy" in key supply items to the space station does pose a risk to utilization, the OIG has noted. As just one example, SpaceX Crew Dragon capsules and Roscosmos Soyuz spacecraft are the only two vehicles that bring astronauts to the station right now. "The lack of redundancy and limited capabilities of both cargo and crew transportation increase the risk to NASA's current and future ability to bring critical supplies, science, and crew to and from the station to maintain safe operations and full utilization of the ISS," the OIG wrote in the report.

Isolated environments

Those of us who have been on long car rides in a group, or who remember being in tight quarters with roommates or family during the pandemic, have some idea of what an isolated, confined environment (ICE) feels like: crowded, with limited resources, and possessing few connections with the outside world. Space serves as just one example of a true ICE; isolated research bases (like in Antarctica) or submarines have also been studied in the literature, according to a separate 2021 study in the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

Put simply, ICE refers to a location where humans must work to a high standard in isolated and often dangerous circumstances, with only long-distance support (if possible) from a mission control or its equivalent. And, as the new study points out, a moon base would be a complex example of an isolated environment — one featuring not only resident astronauts but also rovers, other robots and occasional visiting crews.

"The premise for our modeling approach came from trying to understand better the human factors involved in crewed space missions, particularly the deep-space ones, for which we don't have a lot of historical data," Berea said.

That's because only a handful of people have traveled beyond low Earth orbit — the two dozen who flew to lunar realms on Apollo missions in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and the four astronauts of NASA's Artemis 2 flight around the moon this past April.

"We ran various scenarios of space mission durations, number of astronauts, potentially unforeseen circumstances that can happen on the lunar surface or the habitat," she said. The model suggested the missions with the highest probability of success would include six astronauts working on the moon at a time, with fresh supplies coming from Earth every two weeks, and no extreme fluctuations in the environment from things like radiation or a micrometeorite impact.

"In contrast, the worst-case scenario consists of four astronauts on the moon at one time, only one month resupply window between Earth and moon, and moderate to high adverse environmental probabilities," Berea said. And, when asked if training is a factor in mitigating adverse effects, she did not necessarily agree that the years of work NASA and other agency astronauts put in would be more effective than shorter-duration training used for moon base analogs.

"People can be very, very well trained, but for long-duration or deep-space missions, there will always be a human factor involved," she said. "We looked at combinations of skills and personalities in a team of astronauts, and there is a fine line between having a team that is too small and a team that is too large, and there are synergies and emergent behaviors that come from people interacting with each other and with their environment.

"The team is more than the sum of its people," she continued. "The best ways to overcome these is not by more training, but by fine-tuning other aspects of the missions: the duration of the mission, the frequency of resupply missions, and the contingency plans for accidents and unforeseen conditions in extreme environments."

NASA, however, puts its ISS crews through many years of remote environment training long before they float through the space station hatch — and Artemis 2 commander Reid Wiseman told The New Yorker that extensive psychosocial training led to the obvious closeness seen live among his own four lunar crewmates despite tight quarters (and vent line issues that led to occasional toilet trouble).

That psychological intervention during training was by design. "Preparation starts by recruiting mentally healthy people and then providing training to help them deal with potential situations and issues," wrote the Canadian Space Agency of this training, citing NASA protocols. "Astronauts repeat this training often enough that they can anticipate their own reactions and those of their teammates. They also receive constant support from teams on the ground and have access to a variety of tools to help them deal with potentially difficult situations."

Berea noted, however, that psychology forms a part (but is not the focus) of her teams' simulation, including considering NASA TLX (task load index) scores and data, which measures coping and stress for astronauts. The researchers also considered case studies from analogs including Antarctic research missions and time aboard submarines or oil rigs, as some examples.

"We need to pay attention not only to the astronauts, but the team as a whole, and each team and space mission are unique. We will not be able to model these with statistics or AI," she said. "But what we can do is to make sure that before we send any human to live and work on the moon, that we understand well the complexity of interactions and scenarios they will face during the mission, and we can help with that."

Humanity has likely dreamed of flight since the very beginning, marveling at birds soaring overhead and trying to puzzle out their seemingly magical secret.

We made some halting steps over the centuries — getting kites aloft in ancient China, for example, and drawing up ambitious but unrealized flying machines during the Renaissance — but our boots were still firmly rooted on the ground when the United States of America was born on July 4, 1776.

Things changed just a few years later, however. In November 1783, a hot-air balloon designed by the Montgolfier brothers carried two men on a 25-minute flight over Paris, beginning our species' exploration of the heavens.

Another 120 years passed before we managed to fly with a powered, heavier-than-air craft, a milestone notched by the Wright brothers in North Carolina on Dec. 17, 1903. Remarkably, it took us less than half that long to make the jump from the sky to the final frontier, which cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin did for the first time on April 12, 1961.

Eight years later, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon — a remarkable achievement that was the climactic moment of the Cold War space race between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Over the next three and a half years, five more Apollo missions landed on Earth's nearest neighbor, leaving behind flags, footprints and defunct machinery. Now, more than half a century later, our species is gearing up to go back — but this time, in a much different way.

NASA wants to build a base near the moon's south pole over the next decade or so, an ambitious project the agency is undertaking via its Artemis program. And this is not an end in itself; NASA believes the knowledge gained from establishing such an outpost will help humanity make the next giant leap — to Mars.

The ball is rolling on Artemis, with two successful missions already in the books. Artemis I launched an uncrewed Orion capsule to lunar orbit and back in late 2022, and Artemis II sent four astronauts on a loop around the moon this past April. Next up is Artemis III, which will test docking procedures with one or both of the Artemis program's lunar landers (SpaceX's Starship and Blue Origin's Blue Moon) in Earth orbit in 2027. If all goes well with that flight, Artemis IV will put astronauts down near the lunar south pole, possibly as soon as 2028. (That timeline is far from guaranteed, however, as much development work remains. For example, neither Starship nor Blue Moon has yet reached Earth orbit or been cleared to carry humans.)

This is all happening in the context of a new space race, this time with China. The nation plans to land astronauts on the moon by 2030 and has been ticking boxes that keep this timeline within reach. And China aims to build a base of its own — also near the moon's south pole, which is thought to be rich in water ice — in collaboration with Russia and other partners.

What does all of this mean for the United States? Well, the nation came of age industrially after the Wright brothers' historic flight and has been a leader in aerospace tech and exploration ever since. The U.S. can accomplish amazing things in the final frontier, especially when pushed by a rival, so the years just after its 250th birthday may be quite eventful indeed. Stay tuned!

After Americans declared independence on July 4, 1776, a waning gibbous moon rose in the night sky. To the people celebrating the birth of a new nation, it would have looked much the same as the moon we see today. But there was one subtle difference: 250 years ago, the moon was about 31 feet (9.4 meters) closer to Earth than it is now.

"The moon is currently drifting away from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters [1.5 inches] per year, which is coincidentally roughly the same speed at which human fingernails grow," says Seth McGowan, president of the Adirondack Sky Center & Observatory in Tupper Lake, New York.

That 31 feet may sound significant, but against the moon's average distance from Earth of 238,855 miles (384,400 km), it's effectively nothing. In fact, the moon's elliptical orbit causes its distance from Earth to vary by about 26,000 miles (43,000 km) every month as it moves between perigee, its closest point to Earth, and apogee, its farthest. "The tiny 31-foot shift over 250 years is entirely swallowed up by that massive monthly variance," says McGowan. But while the moon itself looked much as it does today, the world beneath it was very different.

How Americans used the moon in 1776

Colonial Americans depended on the moon in ways that are easy to forget in an age of electric light and digital clocks. Travelers planned journeys around how much moonlight would be available on a given night. Farmers and Indigenous peoples consulted lunar cycles to anticipate seasonal changes. Mariners tracked the moon's pull on the tides. Even military planners considered lunar illumination — during the Revolutionary War, a moonlit night could aid troop movement and navigation, but it could also expose an army's position to enemy forces. The moon helped people organize their activities in an era when daily life remained closely tied to the natural world.

One of the most popular publications of the colonial era was the almanac. Long before weather apps — or even standardized timekeeping — Americans turned to these annual guides for practical information about moon phases, moonrise and moonset times, eclipses, tides, and seasonal events. Publications such as Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanack" helped popularize the format decades before independence, while later titles, such as "The Old Farmer's Almanac," first published in 1792, continued the tradition.

What astronomers knew about the moon in 1776

By the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, astronomers already understood a surprising amount about Earth's nearest neighbor. More than 160 years earlier, Galileo's telescopic observations had revealed mountains, valleys, and craters on the lunar surface, overturning the ancient notion that heavenly bodies were perfect spheres. Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravitation had since explained why the moon orbited Earth and why tides occurred.

While astronomers could predict eclipses and chart the moon's movements with impressive accuracy, they had never seen the moon's far side, had no idea how it formed, and couldn't say with confidence what it was made of. All of that would come centuries later — and there are still many lunar unknowns today.

How Apollo astronauts revealed the moon's slow escape

During the Apollo missions, we learned an extraordinary amount of new information about the moon, including the rate at which it's moving away from Earth. Apollo astronauts installed retroreflectors — special mirrors designed to bounce light directly back toward its source—on the lunar surface. Scientists then fired lasers at those reflectors to measure how long it takes the light to return, allowing them to calculate the Earth-moon distance with extraordinary precision. (Fun fact: We continue to use the retroreflectors today!) Those measurements revealed that the moon is receding from Earth at about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) per year.

"The moon's gravity pulls on Earth's oceans, creating a tidal bulge," says McGowan. "Because Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits us, that ocean bulge pulls slightly ahead of the moon, acting like a cosmic gravitational leash that accelerates the moon into a higher, wider orbit. In doing so, the Earth's rotation slows ever so slightly — about 2.3 milliseconds per century. "Back in 1776, a day on Earth was about 5.75 milliseconds shorter than it is now," says McGowan.

This effect is imperceptible on human timescales, but over millions of years, it will have dramatic consequences. Eventually, the moon will appear too small in Earth's sky to completely cover the sun, ending the era of total solar eclipses and leaving only annular, or "ring of fire," eclipses in their place. The moon will never completely free itself from Earth, though — physics dictates that the drift will stop after about 15 billion years. And well before that, in about 5 billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant, consuming both the Earth and the moon entirely.

Jared Isaacman is doing his best to spur his country on to sporting glory.

The NASA chief announced on Tuesday (June 30) that the agency will send a FIFA World Cup 2026 soccer ball to the moon if the U.S. men's national team manages to win the tournament, which is going on right now.

"So, a little bit of motivation for the United States here on this one," Isaacman said during a livestreamed press event on Tuesday. "We're going to one-up Alan Shepard in the golf game on the lunar surface, and we're going to get the soccer ball there."

Shepard famously smuggled two golf balls and an improvised club onto the Apollo 14 mission, which he commanded. On Feb. 6, 1971, the NASA astronaut hit those balls on the moon, becoming the first person ever to play a sport on another world.

The soccer-ball plan, by contrast, would be a sanctioned affair; Isaacman and Carlos García-Galán, manager of NASA's Moon Base program, are both behind it.

"I don't know which lander it'll wind up going in," Isaacman said during Tuesday's event, the second of the agency's monthly updates about its plans to build a crewed outpost near the lunar south pole via its Artemis program.

Turning to García-Galán, he added, "I'll leave that to you guys, to handle the payload."

"We will take on that challenge," García-Galán replied. "It will be super exciting to do that if they win. Good luck."

The U.S. men's team will probably need some luck to win the World Cup, an every-four-year event that's currently being jointly hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The American men have won just two knockout-round games in the entire history of the tournament, and one of those came in 1930, during the first-ever World Cup.

The 2026 team has performed better than most of its predecessors to this point, however; the Americans won their four-team group to advance to the single-elimination stage, beating both Paraguay and Australia before losing a meaningless game to Turkiye. (The U.S. had already clinched the group win at that point.)

The U.S. plays Bosnia-Herzegovina in a Round of 32 match on Wednesday (July 1). To hoist the World Cup trophy, the Americans would have to win that game, then four more after that, likely against some perennial soccer powers.

If they make it to the quarterfinals, for example, they'll likely face Spain, which won the World Cup in 2010 — a potential matchup flagged by García-Galán, who's from Málaga.

The U.S. women's soccer team has enjoyed a great deal more success at the international level, winning four of the nine FIFA Women's World Cups to date. (The women's tournament, which is also held every four years, was first played in 1991.)

A moon mission wouldn't be the first trip off Earth for the official FIFA World Cup 2026 soccer ball. NASA also sent one of the balls to the International Space Station, where astronauts played with it in the Kibo module.

"We're working to inspire the next generation by showing how space exploration inspires innovation in sports science — and everyday life," the agency said via X on June 20, in a post that included video of the off-Earth action.

NASA provided an Artemis update today (June 30), announcing new lunar landing contracts for its Moon Base initiative and a surprise new possible rover mission that could be headed to the moon's south pole.

During the second monthly update that NASA has provided for its moon base plans, the agency named Astrobotic, Firefly Aerospace and Intuitive Machines as the providers of four robotic landers that will deliver scientific payloads to the surface of the moon, as NASA tests and expands the technologies needed for a permanent human outpost.

"This is this drawing on the playbook that worked very well for NASA during the 1960s," NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said during the livestreamed update, explaining the experiential approach to a crewed lunar return. "We didn't just jump right to Apollo 11."

Isaacman also announced the potential repurposing of an engineering development model built to mirror the agency's Perseverance and Curiosity rovers on Mars. "There is another," Isaacman said, quoting Yoda's line from "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back."

That test rover is called PROMISE, short for "Polar Rover for Observation, Mapping, and In-Situ Exploration" (though it was formerly known as Optimism). PROMISE was developed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California, where it has been used as a test platform for fixes or commands that engineers want to try on the ground before permanently sending them to Perseverance and Curiosity. Now, NASA wants to send PROMISE on a mission of its own.

Though sending PROMISE to the moon would leave Perseverance and Curiosity — both of which remain active on Mars — without an Earth-based testbed, Isaacman thinks it would be worth it.

"We've had years now of experience operating the two rovers on the surface of Mars, and we've got this hardware that the taxpayers have invested a lot in," he said. "So the question was posed: 'What if we send it to the moon?'"

With a little refurbishment, PROMISE would help advance NASA's lunar plans, Isaacman added. Like Perseverance and Curiosity, the test rover is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), which converts heat from naturally decaying radioactive material into electricity. So it wouldn't require sunlight to operate — a real benefit on the moon, where most locations experience long stretches of darkness. (NASA plans to build its Artemis base near the moon's south pole, which is thought to harbor an abundance of water ice and also has a relatively complex lighting environment.)

The other robots currently in the works to launch on future missions to the moon, including the landers announced during today's update, are all solar powered. Through 2029, NASA hopes to launch up to 20 such missions as part of the CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) initiative to support the first phase of the agency's moon base plans, and the landers announced today will be some of the first in that lineup.

Already expected this year was Blue Origin's Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo lander. It's slated to launch on the company's New Glenn rocket, which exploded last month during an engine test. That anomaly has complicated the Blue Moon timeline, though Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp has voiced confidence that New Glenn will launch again this year.

Two lunar deliveries were awarded to Astrobotic's Griffin 1 lander, one of which will fly Astrolab's FLIP rover the surface of the moon in the second half of 2026. Contracts to Firefly and Intuitive Machines call for the use of their Blue Ghost and Nova C landers, respectively, on CLPS missions in the next few years.

Each CLPS lander mission will carry at least three NASA payloads. The Stereo Camera for Lunar Plume Surface Studies (SCALPSS) array will study lander engine exhaust plume effects on lunar dust, to better predict landing requirements and prevent erosion and dangerous ejecta; a Laser Retroreflector Array (LRA) will test landers' ability to determine positioning and navigate using lasers and reflectors; and a Linear Energy Transfer Spectrometer (LETS) will measure radiation in the space around the moon and different areas on its surface.

"We know a lot about the moon, some of the south pole, but nothing like what we need to learn before we send humans there and we actually build a moon base," Carlos Garcia-Golan, NASA's Moon Base program manager, said during today's event. "So putting different assets on the surface, prospecting, understanding the environment and the places where we want to go [is] super critical."

Garcia-Golan is on board with the PROMISE moon plan as well. While it might sound crazy to send a spare Mars rover to the moon, it's the kind of crazy that NASA should be doing, he said. After all, JPL's motto is "Dare mighty things."

"We are in the business of the near impossible, so why not?" Garcia-Golan said.

Update for 5:30 p.m. ET on June 30: During its Moon Base update today (June 30), NASA revealed a handful of new lunar-lander contracts and announced that it's considering launching a spare Mars rover to the moon. Read all about it here.

NASA will provide an update about its moon base plans this afternoon (June 30), and you can watch it live.

Agency chief Jared Isaacman and Carlos García-Galán, the manager for NASA's moon base program, "will discuss the next set of awards for new lunar lander missions and preview upcoming opportunities as the agency works toward building a sustained presence on the moon," NASA officials wrote in a media advisory.

The event will begin today at 2:30 p.m. EDT (1830 GMT). You can watch it live here at Space.com, courtesy of NASA, or directly via the agency.

The moon base is a core piece of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to establish a permanent, sustainable human presence on and around Earth's nearest neighbor over the next decade or so.

The Artemis architecture previously called for the assembly of a small space station in lunar orbit called Gateway. In late March, however, Isaacman announced that NASA was pausing its Gateway plans and instead focusing on building a surface outpost.

That base will be constructed near the lunar south pole, which is thought to harbor large amounts of water ice, a key resource that can be used for life support and also be split into hydrogen and oxygen to provide rocket fuel.

Construction of the base will require a variety of work by robotic lunar rovers and landers. Presumably, today's press conference will shine some more light on that work and reveal which companies will be contracted to do it.

NASA has launched two Artemis missions to date. Artemis 1 sent an uncrewed Orion capsule to lunar orbit and back in late 2022, and Artemis 2 launched four astronauts around the moon this past April.

NASA is currently gearing up for Artemis 3, a crewed mission that will test docking procedures between Orion and one or two privately developed lunar landers in Earth orbit.

The agency aims to launch Artemis 3 in mid-2027. If all goes well with that flight, Artemis 4 will land astronauts near the lunar south pole, potentially as early as late 2028.

Earth's moon is due for a human-made impact this August courtesy of a spent SpaceX Falcon 9 upper stage.

The Falcon 9 upper stage is left over from the launch that sent Firefly's Blue Ghost-1 lander to the moon on Jan. 15, 2025 by way of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative. Also sent moonward on that flight was the Hakuto-R Mission 2, called Resilience, a robotic lunar lander developed by the Japanese company ispace.

This striking event is expected to occur close to Einstein Crater near the moon's western limb and could be visible by ground and space-based telescopes. Varying forecasts have sparked debate on whether or not we'll be able to see the rocket body slam into the moon on Aug. 5, and, if so, how both citizen scientists and astronomers can best observe it it.

'This wonderful environment of the moon'

The consequences of this rocket mission's leftover hardware is on target for a "limb shot," meaning it could strike the far western edge of the moon. Another possible impact site is Bell Crater, just out of sight on the moon's far side.

Earlier this month, NASA's Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute (SSERVI) hosted a discussion with experts regarding the approaching impact. Taking part in the meeting of moon-watching specialists was Brian Day, SSERVI's lead for citizen science and community development.

"One of the things that is really important here with this impact that is coming up is it serves as a reminder to us that the moon is a dynamic environment. We think of it as being static. It is not. It is being whacked. It is changing," Day said.

Citizen scientists can actually get involved to help understand the dynamic environment of the moon thanks to the Impact Flash! program, said Day.

"And that can be done either with instrumentation you have in your own backyard or you can use ours in orbit around the moon," Day added. "This impact is a great reminder of this wonderful environment of the moon."

Moon viewing maybe

But will the impact be visible from Earth? Any assured answer is in a hedge-your-bet, yes/no mind bender.

"I've gone from 'probably' to 'probably not,' and more recently, to 'maybe,'" said Bill Gray of Project Pluto, creator of a telescope-tracking application used worldwide by professional and amateur astronomers alike to keep tabs on asteroids, comets, and other near-Earth objects.

It was Gray's work with Project Pluto that got the word out about the roughly four metric ton Falcon 9 upper stage intersection with the moon at over two kilometers a second. In September 2025, his software for computing orbits analyzed the observations and projected an impact with the moon on Aug. 5, 2026.

"Even though we have tracked it since launch, our idea of when and where it's going to hit are currently fuzzy by minutes and dozens of kilometers," Gray said. "But we will refine that and get an idea of where it's going to hit."

Out on a limb

"I think it's going to be very subtle. I think it's going to be very, very hard to see, if not impossible. But there's always a chance," said William Cooke, program manager of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Cooke quickly added that, along with a rapid-fire impact flash, the upper stage impact will kick up huge amounts of lunar regolith, the dust that coats the surface of the moon.

"It will excavate that out of the crater and this may create a plume that will be illuminated by the sun," Cooke said. "So, it's not only important to look for the impact flash, but if this occurs close enough to the limb, you may be able to see that plume of material rising, and that would be significant as well."

Time and inclination

Still, concerning the spotting of that over-the-limb plume, it remains a guessing game.

How much material might be lofted, and how high will it go? Given the moon's one-sixth gravity, how long will it take for that material to fall back onto the lunar surface?

"So, no good feeling for how long the plume will be up there," Cooke said.

Putting aside all the unknowns, it is Cooke's view that "if you've got the time and the inclination, it might be worth a look."

Regarding the possibility of seeing the ejecta plume, Gray of Project Pluto, later told Space.com he agreed. "We pretty much shrugged about this and said "we dunno' and we should look and see if we can observe it."

On-location orbiters

Speaking of time and inclination, there is an on-location witness to the before and after results from the rocket stage plummeting into the moon.

Brent Garry is the project scientist for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. LRO will be passing over the projected crash site about seven days prior to the impact and about seven days after the impact, Garry said.

"After the impact we might have a little bit more knowledge of where it is. We can do some additional targeting about a week after the impact and get some targeting over where the site is," said Garry.

Different observers

This event emphasizes that when you're looking for impact flashes on the moon, either anthropogenic or natural, there's a need for as many observers as possible, said SSERVO's Day.

"Because these flashes are so short, they can very much mimic a cosmic ray impact on your detector and just be a sudden blip," said Day.

What really helps researcher's distinguish between cosmic ray impacts and actual flashes on the moon is to have different observers in different locations observing that flash at the same time, Day said.

"And if you see that, if you have that coincidence of events," Day said, "that's one of the reasons why we like to have as many people looking as possible."

If you stand outside the old Corn Exchange in Bristol, you'll see a clock with two minute hands above the entrance. One hand is set to London time, the other to Bristol's — ten minutes behind. The lag is because the sun reaches its peak over the second city a little bit after the first.

Of course, when it comes to scheduling anything with bounds beyond one city, having two poses an issue. This is why, in 1840, the British company Great Western Railway imposed what it called "Railway Time" across its whole network of trains, establishing Greenwich Mean Time as the first standardized time. And it's still the time zone used in the U.K. today. However, when several towns refused to adopt the time established by the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, the solution was to use two minute hands instead of one. And so the three-handed clock came to be.

That compromise could soon repeat itself in a less likely location: the moon.

The U.S. and China, the two largest space powers, disagree on what time it is on the moon. That's a problem because experts say satellites from one country will be unable to coordinate with spacecraft from the other during future space missions — which could risk accidents.

The White House has tasked NASA with establishing Coordinated Lunar Time (LTC) as a universal time on the moon, which would set the standard for NASA's LunaNet satellite system. But China has other ideas.

China's Chang'e Program, named after the Goddess who flew from the Earth to the moon in Chinese folklore, is the only space program with active lunar relay satellites, Queqiao-1 and Queqiao-2. These relay satellites are the first basis of a moon-wide GPS system meant for future space missions could rely on, meaning they compete with NASA's LunaNet — and because of the way GPS works, these satellites will need a standardized time situation. China is also the only space power to have landed spacecraft on the far side of the moon, where radio signals from Earth are blocked, proving it can coordinate landings without relying on commands from home.

In other words, while the U.S. surpasses China in terms of total space missions, the relay satellites could give China the edge when it comes to establishing the first lunar GPS system for future moon landings. China also hasn't agreed to use LTC for this system, raising the prospect that timekeeping standards could diverge.

Moon Race 2.0

Last year, experts warned U.S. Senators that China is set to win the moon race — the 21st century race to secure lunar resources establish a human presence on the moon — unless space operations receive more funding. Scientists further pointed out funding issues that could impact U.S. leadership in the lunar arena and wavering political commitment to Gateway, the space station intended to serve the Artemis moon program.

Private space-faring companies are also looking to governments to set international standards before spending money on expensive equipment. If China sets the standards before the US, private companies might gear with investments for Chinese customers, giving the country the edge over competitors.

"If everybody has their own standards, the complication increases for the user and manufacturers," says Bijunath Patla, a theoretical physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). "So there is a chance of making some mistakes, errors, and interchanging, and then having a mishap."

GPS works by having satellites broadcast time signals. If the clocks on the satellites disagree, even by a microsecond, the GPS positioning can shift by hundreds of meters. In an emergency landing, that difference could prove expensive, or even fatal in the case of a human spaceflight mission.

If you take out the cellphone in your pocket, or look at the right-hand corner of your laptop to check the time, the precise time has been coordinated by hundreds of atomic clocks.

Atomic clocks created by NIST measure the oscillation of microwaves, the upwards and downwards swings of energy. Cesium atoms in the clocks absorb microwave energy only when oscillations reach 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.

Because all cesium atoms are the same, every atomic clock measures the exact same second as every other atomic clock. Their invention led to the universal standard of time we use today, superseding the time set by the Royal Greenwich Observatory in the 1800s.

International Atomic Time developed from the atomic clock, set by NIST’s optical "lattice clocks" and "cesium fountain clocks”, with the recently invented “nuclear clock” set to make the standard even more precise by ticking according to the fluctuations of thorium-229 nuclei.

The time on our screens comes from over 80 countries working with their own atomic clocks to work out the time. The U.S. Naval Observatory is one of these, submitting the time of its atomic clocks in Washington D.C. and Colorado to an international timekeeping organization in France.

Based in a suburb of Paris, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) collects the time from dozens of scientific labs across the world and uses the input from their atomic clocks to produce the weighted average time, what we call Coordinated Universal Time (UTC).

BIPM sends back corrections to each country, which recalibrate their own clocks to UTC. Countries beam these corrections to their satellites, which then transmit the standardised time to cell towers. The result appears on our phones.

But while our timekeeping methods are universal, time itself is not.

Spacetime

If the international atomic standard had been running since the Big Bang, NIST claims, it would not have gained or lost a single second since the universe began.

The way we experience time depends on gravity. The gravity we feel on Earth is determined by the mass and radius of our planet. Away from the Earth's gravity, spacetime behaves differently.

If one identical twin stayed on Earth, but the other travelled to a black hole, where matter is compressed, then both would experience time differently. Should the twin in the black hole take an atomic clock, and somehow survive, they would return to Earth to find that their twin had died, along with everyone they knew. Hundreds of millions of years would have passed by, according to the clock that remained on Earth, whereas their atomic clock would have ticked away only a short time.

"That person's time is being slowed down by gravity, their time is ticking slower," says Patla. "It's the same thing with the Earth and the moon. The clocks really tick faster."

Because of the physics of spacetime, coordinating missions with satellites away from the Earth's gravity gets increasingly difficult.

On the moon, clocks run around 56 microseconds faster than clocks on Earth. While everyone agrees on the math, not everyone agrees on who should wind the clock.

Because of the difference, space powers need to agree to convert the discrepancy into UTC, or an equivalent that works on satellites coordinating space missions. Without agreement, engineering equipment that relies on GPS could diverge, and missions could prove dangerous in the years ahead, particularly with the projected increase in space landings.

Aiming to land a crew on the moon by 2030, the Chinese space agency plans to establish a moon base by 2035, from which asteroid mining operations or future missions to Mars could be prepared. Atomic clocks on Mars tick about 477 microseconds faster per day, leading to suggestions of a Mars time zone. But Patla says a separate time zone for Mars may prove too complicated.

About time

Almost all space powers are targeting the south pole of the moon, where loads of frozen water presumably found there can be converted to hydrogen to use as rocket fuel for future space missions. Exiting the moon is less fuel-consuming than exiting the Earth's atmosphere, though assembling rockets on the moon has never been attempted.

But the south pole of the moon is scarred by impact craters and jagged mountains, which could make landing there more risky. In a historic moment, India was the first nation to land a spacecraft there in 2023 — and hundreds of launches from various countries are scheduled over the coming decades to achieve the same feat. As these launch attempts start to happen, converting between differing satellite times in an emergency could prove dangerous.

Luckily, there's more collaboration between the agencies than some might suspect. NIST has check-ins with China's Purple Mountain Observatory, which according to Patla are purely advisory, so the two countries can better coordinate their activities in space.

China has announced its own mathematical framework for timekeeping, the Lunar Time Ephemeris (or LTE440), which could complement NASA’s Lunar Time, building towards a more robust conversion between the two countries. The math and physics are not in dispute, Patla adds, a fact that should give policymakers some comfort.

"Most of the world uses UTC, and so there is an incentive for everybody to take the best route to get there," says Patla. "If we want to have a lunar economy and if we want to have a sustained presence on the moon, then the standards would be helpful to link moon time to Earth time."

GOLDEN, Colorado — The moon is in need of good and accurate artists!

As NASA's Artemis program hits its stride, and in a few years "reboots" our moon with a human presence, there's an urgent need to guard against artistic misrepresentations of the lunar landscape, experts say.

We've all seen those alluring lunar renderings of vehicles and astronauts bounding about while setting up equipment and putting in place a moon base.

Reality versus depictions

"We are telling the public the moon is easy — it is not!"

That's the matter-of-fact warning from Daniel Britt, the Pegasus Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences in the Department of Physics at the University of Central Florida. He's also the director of the Center for Lunar and Asteroid Surface Science.

Britt spoke about and showcased artists' misconceptions during a "reality versus depictions of the lunar surface" talk here at a Space Resources Roundtable, held from June 2 to June 5 on the campus of the Colorado School of Mines.

"I wish I could say that engineers and managers know better, but they don't. We are training a generation of engineers to not worry about terrain. If the artists are getting it wrong, it is our fault. Let's stop fooling ourselves," Britt said.

Well versed in what the lunar surface truly offers, Britt scolded a number of arty accounts of lunar territory promulgated by both NASA and commercial space ventures. He spotlighted what's wrong with those pictures — for starters, small craters and ever-present lunar dust, along with dirty astronauts, dirty equipment and dirty habitats.

Facts of life

A flat, dustless moon is not the one we are sending Artemis astronauts to, said Britt. Crews will experience coarse terrain, pervasive dust, and a surface unlike anything here on Earth. These are the facts of life on the moon, he said.

The Apollo moon-landing missions learned this first hand. But those astronauts explored equatorial areas. The Artemis program is targeting the lunar south polar region, which will be tough to deal with thanks to the low angle of the sun.

"When you look into the sun, it will be blasting into your face. But at least you'll see the shadow of that crater you are about to trip into," said Britt. "But looking down-sun, you won't see diddly squat."

"There's need to stop deluding ourselves," Britt told Space.com, advocating the creation of a 1-to-10 scoring system for lunar art, with prizes for the worst and best visualizations

"What I want to do is land on the moon way safer and easier," he added, "so you need to ask yourself what's missing from these depictions. We are training the public to think this is easy."

False impression

To support his concern, Britt spotlighted both Apollo moonwalker-taken imagery and the scenery as projected by artists, be it using paint brush or artificial intelligence-guided computer work.

"The sun angle washes out the rough terrain. Almost all the pictures taken from the surface give the very false impression of a flat, gentle terrain," Britt said. "The reality is that the lunar surface is heavily cratered, rough, very dusty and covered in regolith."

Most Apollo surface images were taken "down-sun" because looking "up-sun" was hard. "This leaves a very false impression of a flat moon with gentle terrain," Britt said.

Tilt problems

Apollo was pretty lucky, Britt said, observing that several of the six human moon landings experienced tilt problems. For instance, Apollo 14 experienced a 7-degree tilt on landing, and Apollo 15 had an 11-degree tilt on touchdown.

Apollo 11 had to dodge a boulder field. Apollo 12 and Apollo 16 landed on the edge of big craters. "Even small craters can be meters deep," said Britt, recalling problems encountered by astronauts on their descent to the moon.

"The dust went as far as I could see in any direction and completely obliterated craters and anything else … I couldn't tell what was underneath me," astronaut Pete Conrad said during an Apollo 12 debriefing. "I knew I was in a generally good area, and I was just going to have to bite the bullet and land, because I couldn't tell whether there was a crater down there or not."

Similarly, Apollo 16 commander John Young said: "I couldn't judge slope out the window worth a hoot, and that's the truth. Even down low. The ground looks flat, but I'm sure it would look flat if it had been a 6-8 degree slope, too. I don't see any way around that."

Getting it wrong

A flat, crater-free, dustless moon is a staple of imagery issued by NASA, the European Space Agency, other space agencies, and even private space firms, said Britt.

"Yes, these are artists' impressions," Britt said, "but somebody is telling the artists what to draw. I love the idea of landing and operating on a moon without dust, small craters, and rough terrain. However, we see the misconception of a flat, gentle moon everywhere."

"Commercial providers are just as bad. No dust, almost no small craters, no tipping problems. Yes, these are artists' impressions, and they are getting it wrong," said Britt. "NASA knows better. All these people should know better, but don't. Let's not fool the public. We owe them better data."