THE WORLD IS A STAGE

SEARCHING FOR SPACE: ON FLYING TO THE MOON, MARS, AND BEYOND

THOMAS COLLINS

April 14, 2026

Here we explore the quiet shift from exploration to habitation, from reaching space to attempting to remain there, and the assumptions embedded in that transition. As Artemis II revives the language of return and Mars absorbs our projected futures, it asks whether we are truly moving outward or simply extending, with greater technical precision, the same unresolved conditions we have yet to confront on Earth.

---

The announcement of the Artemis space program had the quality of something already decided, something that would proceed with or without enthusiasm, like a dinner reservation made weeks in advance and kept out of vague obligation rather than actual excitement. A return, they said. Not a beginning. Not even quite an experiment. A return. As if the Moon had been holding our place in line. This was presented as reassuring.

I had been thinking about space in the way one thinks about certain images that have outlived their original meaning. The Earth floating in blackness, blue and improbably intact. The horizon curving just enough to suggest that we are, in fact, on something finite. The voice from mission control, always composed, as if nothing truly unexpected could occur. It all had the qualities of something rehearsed, even when it first happened. The photographs from the Apollo program did not feel historical so much as inevitable. As if the Moon had always been photographed that way, and we had merely caught up with it.

First rule of space: take a sample, leave the question.

So when the language of return surfaced, it did not feel like a reopening of possibility. It felt like a continuation of something that had never fully stopped, only paused long enough for us to forget the details. The difference, of course, is not where we are going but why. Back then, it was about proving something—to an adversary, to a population, to history. Now, the stated reasons are more diffuse. Science, certainly. Technology, always. Preparation for something further away, which is to say, further removed from immediate scrutiny. Mars has the advantage of distance; it can absorb a great deal of ambition without requiring immediate accountability. But beneath this, there is another shift, one that is rarely articulated directly. Space is no longer only something to reach. It is something to stay in.

The word “colonization” appears carefully, often dressed in more neutral language. “Sustained presence.” “Habitat development.” “Resource utilization.” This, or similar phrasing, suggests a desire to avoid historical echoes, but the structure of the idea remains intact. We are not just visiting. We are considering what it would mean to remain. This is where the tone changes, because the idea arrives at a moment when the condition of the Earth is no longer background but problem: climate instability, resource strain, a general sense that the systems we depend on are operating with less margin than we once assumed. The planet has not exactly been “used up,” but it has begun to show signs of fatigue, and we have become increasingly adept at noticing them. Which is precisely when the conversation about elsewhere becomes more confident.

Earth, the original closed system.

It is difficult not to see the symmetry. We have, historically, responded to limits by moving outward. When one space becomes constrained, another is identified. This pattern is familiar enough to feel almost procedural. And now, faced with planetary-scale constraints, the outward movement has acquired a new dimension. The next place is not across an ocean but beyond the atmosphere.

The problem is that this next place is not, in any recognizable sense, a place. The Moon is not waiting to be inhabited. Mars is not a delayed version of Earth, pending development. These are environments that do not support life and show no inclination to begin doing so. To exist there is to construct systems that replace everything the Earth provides automatically and to maintain that system continuously, without interruption, without failure. It is less a matter of settling than of installing. One imagines the future colonist stepping not onto new soil but into a controlled environment, checking the seals, monitoring the oxygen levels, confirming that the machinery responsible for keeping them alive is functioning within acceptable parameters. The horizon, if visible at all, is something to be observed through layers of protection. This does not resemble expansion. It is constant maintenance.

That we are “moving on” begins to look less like a plan and more like a narrative convenience. We are not leaving Earth behind. We are attempting to reproduce a version of it in places where it does not exist, using technologies that depend entirely on the continued functioning of the planet we claim to be superseding. It is, in this sense, a profoundly Earth-bound activity. Which raises a slightly impolite question. If we cannot organize ourselves sustainably on a planet that already supports life, with breathable air, stable gravity, and a self-regulating climate system that has functioned for millennia, what exactly are we expecting to achieve on one that offers none of these features as a starting point?

The Moon, now scheduled for redevelopment.

The usual answer is that space will force us to become better. That the constraints are so extreme, the margins so narrow, that cooperation becomes necessary, efficiency unavoidable, waste unthinkable. The argument is appealing. It suggests that difficulty produces virtue, that the absence of alternatives sharpens our capacity to act collectively. It is also, one suspects, naive. The systems that are building the infrastructure for space are the same systems that have brought us to the current condition on Earth. The same incentives, the same distributions of power, the same tendency to externalize costs and internalize gains. There is no moment at which these dissolve simply because the background has changed from blue to black.

If anything, the enclosure of space habitats may intensify them. Limited resources, controlled environments, access determined by criteria that are unlikely to be entirely egalitarian. Colonization, in this context, risks becoming less a shared human project than a highly managed extension of existing inequalities. The Moon as gated community. Mars as premium real estate with limited oxygen. This is, admittedly, a slightly ungenerous way of putting it, but it has the advantage of clarity.

The more generous version is that space functions as a mirror. That by leaving Earth, even temporarily, we gain a perspective that is otherwise unavailable. The Earth appears not as a collection of territories but as a single object, finite and isolated. The so-called overview effect is often described in these terms: a sudden recognition of unity, of fragility, of the fact that there is nowhere else. It is a compelling idea, a familiar image. We have seen the photographs. They circulate widely, reproduced to the point of abstraction. The Earth, luminous against darkness, has become a kind of visual shorthand for everything we are supposed to feel about it. And yet, the existence of the image has not produced the transformation it promises. The systems remain. The behaviors continue. The image is absorbed. Which suggests that seeing, even from a distance, is not sufficient.

Mars, minus the brochure.

The astronauts on Artemis II are experiencing this view directly. They will orbit the Moon, not land on it, maintaining a distance that feels both cautious and precise. It is a return that stops short of contact, a gesture that preserves the object as object. There is something almost discreet about this. To orbit is to acknowledge presence without insisting on occupation. It is, in its way, a modest act. Or at least it appears so when compared to the more ambitious projections that surround it. Because the larger conversation does not stop at orbit. It moves quickly, almost reflexively, to permanence. Bases, habitats, infrastructure. The language shifts from mission to settlement, from duration to continuity.

And with that shift, the underlying assumption becomes clearer: that the next step after return is not reflection but installation. Which brings us back to the original discomfort: the sense that, having pushed one system to its limits, we are preparing to extend it elsewhere rather than fundamentally altering it. There is a certain wit, if one is inclined to see it, in the idea that the solution to living unsustainably on Earth is to attempt to live sustainably in an environment that is, by definition, unsustainable. It suggests a faith in technology that borders on the theological. Given sufficient ingenuity, any constraint can be overcome, any environment made habitable, any problem deferred.

Climate change, no longer theoretical.

The difficulty is that this faith does not eliminate dependency. It redistributes it. A space habitat is a closed system, but it is not a self-originating one. It depends on supply chains and continuous intervention. It is, in effect, a highly visible demonstration of how much effort is required to replicate what the Earth provides without asking. Air, water, temperature, and pressure become problems to be solved rather than conditions to be taken for granted. In this sense, space colonization is less an escape from Earth than a prolonged acknowledgment of its complexity. Every system we build elsewhere is an admission that we do not fully understand, and cannot easily reproduce, the one we already have.

Which is why the idea of a “next place” begins to dissolve under scrutiny. There is no next place. There are only extensions—extensions that remain tethered, materially and conceptually, to the original. To go to space, then, is not to move on but to carry on. To bring with us the structures, assumptions, and contradictions that define life on Earth and to encounter them in an environment that offers no buffer, no margin, no illusion of independence. It is, if anything, a more concentrated version of the same condition.

Escape velocity, marketed as progress.

The astronauts inside the capsule of Artemis II are inhabiting a small, controlled world moving through a space that does not register their presence. Every system is monitored, every resource accounted for. Survival depends not on the generosity of the environment but on the precision of the technology. It is difficult not to see this as a metaphor, although it is also simply a fact. A self-contained world, carrying everything it needs, and everything it cannot leave behind. Including, inevitably, the idea that there might be somewhere else to go. And the quieter realization that there is not.

Thomas Collins (b. July 20, 1969, in Houston) studied physics at MIT. He works for a European aerospace subcontractor, drafting contingency narratives for systems expected to fail in environments where failure cannot be addressed, and has developed a preference for scenarios in which no intervention is possible.

Cover image: Sitting on Mars, still thinking about Earth.