NASA Gets a $10 Billion Windfall From the 'Big Beautiful Bill'
Rather than reducing government's role in space travel, the bills shovels more taxpayer money into an agency that is being outperformed by the private sector.

The pork-barrel spending of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) doesn't just fund terrestrial programs like military spending and immigration enforcement, it also rockets taxpayer money to outer space. Under the bill, which the president signed into law on Friday, NASA will receive nearly $10 billion, $7.4 billion of which will be allocated to finance the agency's Moon to Mars program.
The Moon to Mars program launched in November 2022 to establish humanity's presence "on and around the Moon before embarking on the first human missions to Mars" in the coming decades, according to NASA. To that end, the OBBBA allocates $700 million for the "procurement…of a high-performance Mars telecommunications orbiter," $2.6 billion for the Gateway lunar space station, and $4.1 billion for the Artemis IV and V missions, currently scheduled to launch in 2028 and 2029, respectively.
The prospect of a lunar colony and a Mars expedition may seem intriguing, but the OBBBA's funding for these objectives will likely lead to even more wasteful spending at NASA.
Since its launch in 2017, the Artemis program has completed just one mission: Artemis I, a 25-day unmanned lunar orbital flight in December 2022. Artemis II and III, which will actually carry humans to the moon, are scheduled for April 2026 and mid-2027, respectively. Though it's yet to transport anyone to space, the cost of the Artemis program is expected to reach $93 billion through FY 2025.
In July, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that three Artemis projects were responsible for nearly $7 billion in cost overruns since the agency began measuring the cost of NASA's major projects in 2009. This accounts for roughly half of all cost overruns across NASA's 53 current projects, according to the GAO.
The Gateway lunar space station, with a baseline cost estimate of $5.3 billion, is intended to be a "multi-purpose" outpost for moon-based missions, serving as a launch point for further explorations in space. Initially scheduled to launch in 2022, it's now expected to launch its first components in December 2027, according to a 2024 GAO report.
While the federal government has struggled to be efficient in its endeavors into space, the private sector has achieved remarkable success. SpaceX has completed several manned and unmanned missions faster and cheaper than NASA. A 2022 study comparing NASA and SpaceX missions showed that SpaceX's platform strategy is 10 times cheaper and twice as fast as NASA's traditional project approach. The same study found that SpaceX had an average cost overrun of 1.1 percent across its 16 missions. In NASA's 118 missions, the agency's average cost overrun was 90 percent. The success of their partnership landed SpaceX a key role in NASA's Artemis campaign, developing the agency's Starship Human Landing System.
With SpaceX's successes and a flood of private financing into the aeronautical industry—globally, private equity firms invested $8.6 billion in the sector in 2024—it's hard to see why the federal government still plays a leading role in space exploration. Rather than reducing the scope of government in space travel, the OBBBA shovels more taxpayer dollars into an agency that's been surpassed by its competitors in the private sector.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
We have to win the space race!
Yeah. I thought we'd won it in 1969.
That was just regionals?
NASA's Senate Launch System is a joke. It recycles leftover Space Shuttle boosters, it's 60-year-old Saturn V technology, each launch is completely expendable, costs $4B, and they only plan one shot a year. That's what Artemis is based on, last time I paid attention.
And frankly, who gives a shit about Mars crawlers? Sure, they're only a $billion each, and that's only $4 per adult, but all they really do is send back new pictures of the same shit and incite more articles on the possible presence of water ... somewhere ... some time a billion years ago ... that are later forgotten because they don't stand up.
Stop spending. Just plain STOP.
Trump's no more serious about cutting spending than any President since Coolidge.
We will keep looking for life on Mars until we accidentally introduce it - and then we can pretend we discovered it.
Well they can't do business with Musk now that he outed himself as a Marxist by criticizing Trump.
Poor sarc.
God you're dumb.
https://people.com/elon-musk-walks-back-threat-to-decommission-spacex-dragon-spacecraft-11749781
Pour Sarc.
Poor sarcbot.
Odd.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nasa-senior-staff-doge-cuts-b2785941.html
Maybe they will be able to accomplish something other than DEI and climate alarmism now.
Doubt it.
This budget increase proves Trump has no intention of reining in spending, overall or at NASA.
1. Do you think Trump requested the additional spending, or was it a congresscritter that will financially benefit?
2. If Trump didn’t request it, should he have vetoed the whole bill because of this particular pork?
I'd say at the very least not claim there is no pork in the bill and maybe call out some of the Porkies instead of attacking people like Massie for trying to fight back against it.
Agreed.
Edit: but you still didn’t answer my question.
1. No idea, 50/50. Could see him wanting big beautiful rockets or maybe Tuberville or Britt (Huntsville connects).
2. This particular no, but I think yes overall when it didn't come in balanced or even god forbid under budget so we can start paying down the debt.
Does Trump claim credit for this bill? Does he make promises about how beautiful it is and how much money it will save?
Then he gets credit for the failures too.
I prefer to stick to reality despite Trump’s braggadocio, but you do you.
The reality that credit and blame go together? Yeah, that's not you.
MYTH: “There’s too much ‘pork’ in this bill.”
FACT: There’s no pork in the bill.
- according to White House.
LMAO. Nothing left to cut, my ass.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-10000-toilet-seat-cover-doesnt-pass-smell-test-dod-flushing-taxpayer
How much do you think a Space Force toilet is going to cost?
The bill cuts NASA funding by about 40%. This extra money does not make up for that.
Also, NASA's plan is stupid. The "Lunar Gateway" makes zero sense. We managed to land on the moon without one before. It is a waste of money.
I hate Musk, but his approach with SpaceX is far more economical and reliable than the NASA plan.
The Lunar Gateway has to do with where they plan to land on the moon, which is where they think there are water ice deposits. These areas are not accessible by Apollo flight plans..
We are not flying Apollo missions. We have landed on all parts of the moon.
False
The six Apollo landing sites are all on the near side of the Moon, near the equator. They are located in the maria (dark, basaltic plains)
"We are not flying Apollo missions."
I believe that was what I was getting at.
"We have landed on all parts of the moon."
Not manned missions.
Isn't NASA Space X's biggest single customer?
Not even close. Starlink might be. SpaceX made 140 or so launches last year, almost all commercial.
Starlink provides 80% of spacex revenue.
"Rather than reducing government's role in space travel..."
How about eliminating the government's role in space travel altogether, or am I asking for the earth, moon and stars?
Yaaaaawn !! you sad nothing when
Biden roasted for sending South Africa $8 billion to shut down coal plants: ‘Weapon-grade lunacy’
The president said coal-fired power plants would be replaced with renewable energy sources
By Alexander Hall
Published December 15, 2022 5:00am EST
What a waste indeed...
But I find it humorous how the complaints went from TRILLIONS (ARP) to under 100-BILLION and 150-MILLION. I'd say the factor of complaint is getting better.