The moon itself does not wax and wane as frequently as American public opinion on its space program, which seems to shift faster than a Falcon 9 booster landing. The Artemis 2 astronauts had barely dried off before a chorus declared the program a waste of money, arguing that SpaceX does it better and taxpayers should just invest there instead of in 'old fuddy duddy' contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman. While nakedly endorsing a company rumored to be pursuing an IPO in 2026 is certainly a choice, this critique conveniently ignores an inconvenient truth: commercial space companies need the government to go first.
This was true for low Earth orbit (LEO) and remains true for cislunar and interplanetary missions. Writing off Artemis 2 as a waste misunderstands both government funding and its goals. In 2026, the government's role is to lay groundwork, prove missions work, and build infrastructure to de-risk economic activities, just as it did for the LEO economy. There was no profit in Artemis 2's flight around the moon, but that was the point - not everything must be, and accomplishments in science, technology, and geopolitical prestige often aren't.
The perennial struggle with the 'why' of the space program is a symptom of a tumor present since 1961. In a capitalist society, we look for profit. Another unpopular truth is that the United States is only seriously motivated to go to space when pushed by an adversary, as in the 1960s with the Soviet Union and today with China. Arguments that NASA yields only marginal consumer upgrades are an outgrowth of this: Americans get serious about space travel mainly when another country we don't like might go first.
A popular criticism tries to link Artemis's budget to inflation and the struggles of everyday Americans. The truth is more bureaucratic: the Trump administration proposed significant cuts to NASA's budget in its FY2026 request, only to have all reductions rejected during the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That legislation included $10.08 billion for programs including Artemis 4 and 5, the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, and the International Space Station. Connecting a 2025 budget to 2026 inflation shows a profound misunderstanding of the federal budget process.
Yes, SpaceX's technical accomplishments are many and it deserves credit for reducing launch costs. A pure capitalist might note that SpaceX captured the majority of global launch demand. But what is that demand? In 2025, there were 193 LEO launches from the U.S. (China had 93). Of those, 88% (170 launches) were by SpaceX. Of SpaceX's 170 launches, 77% (127 launches) were to launch Starlink satellites or simulators. So, SpaceX has captured majority demand largely because it is creating that demand. Only 43 of its 170 launches carried something not related to Starlink.
In October 2025, then-Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy made a major, under-reported announcement: setbacks in SpaceX's delivery of a lunar lander could result in the company's exclusion from future lunar missions. SpaceX has a $2.9 billion government contract for this lander, but Duffy said the government would not 'wait for one company.' Setbacks are part of large projects, but holding up SpaceX as the one company that knows how to get to the moon ignores inconvenient data. SpaceX is exceptionally good at launching satellites into LEO. It has yet to prove it can get to the moon. The Space Launch System rockets were delivered by Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Teledyne Brown Engineering. The Orion spacecraft was delivered by Northrop Grumman and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Not SpaceX.
Some may argue that SpaceX's Starlink revenue model will allow it to go to cislunar space cheaper than the government, implying the company will turn profits toward low-yield missions rather than back to investors. This, too, shows a profound misunderstanding of how private, for-profit companies work. We cannot leave it to the altruism of billionaires and investors to create the conditions for a sustained presence in space.
The commercial space industry took off once launch cost per kilogram dropped and risk dropped to an acceptable level. The economic value of LEO is clear. The drivers to go to the moon and Mars are less clear. Economic projections for cislunar and interplanetary space stretch into the trillions, yet no commercial company has taken the risk to bring that value to earth. The technology exists, so what's the hold up?
Government missions do not seek profit. They seek to prove concepts, demonstrate success, and build the infrastructure required to bring down the risk of commercial activities beyond LEO. Trying to classify government space programs against for-profit companies, particularly those seeking an IPO, misses the point. The truth is, these innovative space companies still need the government to go first.
The debate around Artemis is not about whether SpaceX can do it better. It's about a country struggling with the 'why.' Are we going to the moon only because China might get there first? Or to create the conditions and infrastructure for a sustained cislunar presence? SpaceX may well be the primary company generating economic value there, but as of this writing, it is struggling to fulfill an almost $3 billion government contract to do just that. There is value in going first, even at a higher price. But before making that value judgement, we need to decide why we are doing this. Just to beat an adversary will not be sufficient.
Nick Reese is the COO of Optica Labs, an artificial intelligence assurance company based in Washington DC. He was the director of emerging technology policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from 2019 to 2023 and is a professor of emerging technology at the NYU Center for Global Affairs.