NASA's Artemis program, designed to return astronauts to the moon more than fifty years after Neil Armstrong's historic landing, has raised significant concerns about its costs and feasibility. To date, the program has nearly consumed $100 billion without a single launch, prompting calls for a reevaluation from the next U.S. president.

As an advocate for science and space exploration, I am increasingly troubled by what seems to be a monumental misuse of taxpayer funds in the Artemis initiative. The mission appears to be more politically motivated than scientifically grounded. With advancements in technology, robots can perform many tasks on the moon that humans currently undertake, such as collecting samples and conducting measurements. The expenses involved in sending people to the moon, along with the logistics of potential rescue operations, are exorbitant.

One glaring example of the financial mismanagement is the Space Launch System (SLS), NASA's primary rocket for the Artemis missions. The agency's inspector general estimates that the SLS program has already spent around $23.8 billion, with each launch projected to cost at least $4 billion—four times the initial estimates. Unlike SpaceX’s rockets, which are reusable and significantly cheaper, the SLS can only launch approximately once every two years.

Even if the SLS is completed, it may not have the necessary power to actually land astronauts on the moon. Instead, it will place its capsule, Orion, into a near-rectilinear halo orbit, requiring a separate landing spacecraft to take astronauts to the lunar surface. Currently, Orion itself has issues, such as a faulty heat shield, despite the massive $20 billion investment.

The complications don't end there. NASA plans to introduce a new space station called the Gateway, projected to cost over $5 billion to build, with annual maintenance costs reaching around $1 billion. However, its purpose remains unclear. The plan involves docking the Orion capsule at the Gateway before astronauts transfer to a lander, leaving some crew members to observe from the station.

Moreover, NASA is facing delays and budget overruns with the Gateway project. The Block 1B stage of the SLS, necessary for Gateway operations, is six years behind schedule and expected to cost an additional $5.7 billion, raising the launch cost by about $1 billion each time. To facilitate this, a new launch tower, ML-2, is being constructed, with costs ballooning to $2.7 billion—over seven times the original estimate.

Ironically, all of these plans may be unnecessary. The reusable SpaceX Starship could transport cargo and robots directly to the moon at a fraction of the cost, making NASA's complicated Artemis approach seem outdated. SpaceX's successful landing of the Starship booster highlights its potential to outperform NASA's current strategy.

As Artemis continues to drain NASA's budget, other promising scientific projects, such as the Veritas mission to Venus and the NEO Surveyor telescope aimed at detecting hazardous asteroids, are being canceled or postponed.

Taxpayers and Congress should critically assess what is being accomplished with their money. The incoming president must be held accountable for the future direction of NASA and its missions.