Some things are hard to calculate in dollars and cents. NASA's space programs definitely fall into this category.

The agency has an enormous annual budget, and its portfolio includes powerful spacecraft, telescopes and weather and asteroid forecasting.

It's difficult to measure the scientific and material gains born from its basic research that have entered everyday life, such as memory foam, scratch-resistant lenses or home air purifiers.

But while the Artemis II mission made history when the Orion capsule carried four astronauts farther away from Earth than any humans in history, many questioned the cost and overall point of space travel.

Artemis II, Orion and $93 billion

During its 10-day mission, much attention has focused on Artemis II's onboard toilet. Not only has it malfunctioned, but it also cost a reported $23 million (€19.6 million).  

As with past projects, Artemis II was designed by NASA but assembled by aerospace companies such as Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin.

Building and launching a single Orion crew capsule costs around $1 billion, according to a report by NASA's inspector general published in November 2021.

Add to that $300 million for the "service module" that provides power and life support, which was supplied by the European Space Agency.

The launch vehicle, including its rocket boosters — called the Space Launch System — costs around $2.2 billion, and finally there is another $570 million for the necessary ground infrastructure, including mobile launchers.

That means each flight of Artemis I through IV costs around $4.1 billion.

The report admonished the agency for its lack of reliable accounting, but still came up with a projected estimate of $93 billion for the Artemis project up to 2025.

What do Americans get for their money?

NASA is the most famous space agency in the world and has had some spectacular ups and downs. It has received more than $1.9 trillion in cumulative funding since 1958 when adjusted for inflation.

In his first term, President Donald Trump pushed to get NASA back to the moon. But in his second term, he proposed cutting its 2026 budget by nearly 25%, though most of these requests were rejected by Congress.

Simultaneously, the agency was scarred by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its efforts to cut federal workers. Around 4,000 employees have left or will soon leave, around a fifth of its former workforce.

In December, Trump doubled down on his push to return to the moon and signed an executive order to expand US presence in space. It aims to have Americans back on the moon by 2028 and a permanent lunar outpost set up by 2030 — including nuclear reactors — to serve as a stepping stone for human missions to Mars.

Pride and US national security

Americans are generally supportive of NASA, but are more skeptical when it comes to human missions to space. A majority of US politicians, on the other hand, have long been fans.

At the dawn of the space age, many in Congress saw it as a duty to beat the Soviet Union.

Today, many see a need for the US to take the lead in planetary exploration and low Earth orbit where thousands of satellites and the International Space Station silently move.

"Make no mistake, we are in a new space race with China," warned Senator Ted Cruz at a Senate committee hearing in fall 2025.  

"China has made no secret of its goals," said Cruz. "It is investing heavily in its space capabilities, maintaining a permanent presence in low Earth orbit with its Tiangong station and working to plant its flag on the Moon by 2030."

To fund this "new space race," Congress allocated NASA $24.4 billion for 2026, which is around 0.35% of all federal spending.

The agency's budget request for 2027 is a much reduced $18.8 billion and is the Trump administration's second attempt to cut funding by nearly 25%.

The plan envisions cuts for scientific research and the International Space Station, and a big increase for exploration, which aligns with a focus on the moon and Mars. Most industry watchers think Congress will keep funding at the same level.

Commercial space interests and long timelines

It is not just governments that have their eyes on the sky. The growth of commercial space companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, or the talk of data centers in space, means a larger space economy is coming online.  

SpaceX will play an important role in future missions to the moon.  Its Starlink division is responsible for many of the estimated 10,000 satellites overhead. Uncontrolled space debris is a growing concern.

"Space has changed completely over the last couple of years," said Joseph Aschbacher, director general of the European Space Agency, in an interview with DW at the World Economic Forum in January.

Strong commercial actors and governments are realizing how important space is, says Aschbacher. Autonomy and independence are more important than ever and require more investments in defense and security.

At the same time, space projects often require 10 years or more to get off the ground.

"Space has become so strategic, so important, so commercially interesting that we have to really change gear literally and work very differently," said Aschbacher.

Combining these interests and huge investments will be a challenge. Persuading governments, companies and taxpayers to get on board may require an extraordinary effort.

Edited by: Rob Mudge