NASA Bilks Taxpayers $6 Billion for Handful of Red Rocks

Policymakers want a chunk of the Red Planet, even if that comes with a bigger chunk of red ink. On January 7, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that they’re still trying to figure out the best way to get 30 titanium tubes containing rock samples from Mars to Earth. One approach would rely on a conventional landing and ascent strategy for lifting off the samples, while the other strategy would rely on not-yet-developed commercial launch and landing technologies.

No matter which path NASA chooses, taxpayers will pay dearly. Even with the less pricey commercial version, taxpayers will pay $5.8 billion — at the very least. And, because the commercial technology isn’t quite there yet, costs could easily skyrocket after NASA is airlocked into that approach. NASA needs to quit jetting into budget black holes and spend below the stratosphere.

To NASA administrators, $5.8 billion may sound cheap for Martian sample recovery. But, that’s only because the program was originally slated to cost taxpayers much more. The agency had pressed pause on sample recovery after an independent review board concluded in September 2023 that the original recovery plan involving multiple spacecraft would cost taxpayers $11 billion. Compared to that astronomical figure, a sub-$6 billion sounds like a bargain.

In moving toward these debt-for-dust schemes, policymakers seldom stop and ask whether it’s necessary to collect these Martian samples right away. Mars rovers such as Perseverance and Curiosity already conduct advanced scientific analysis on Martian soil and rocks using onboard instruments. While it’s certainly true that Earth-based laboratories would provide a more thorough analysis, that may not be the case for very long. As technology progresses, in-situ analysis on Mars itself will become even more sophisticated, reducing the need to bring samples back to Earth. As a 2022 analysis by Aarhus University and University of the Basque Country researchers concludes, “the complexity of the analytical instruments included in the payload of the landers and rovers has increased with years.” This has enabled more complex research into “the great diversity of organic molecules (persistent and volatiles) on Mars … as the different instruments implemented in the payloads were contributing significantly.” Greater access to data and data sharing from rover landings over time has also fueled increased research.

Rather than weigh the merits of on-site analysis versus sample recovery, NASA is full speed ahead on the latter. And, when it comes to outer space spending, this galactic boondoggle is just the outer edge of the Kuiper Belt.

The Artemis III mission is slated to bring humans to the moon for the first time since the Apollo landings. The Artemis IV mission will ferry astronauts to a new space station orbiting the moon. These plans do not come cheap. In January 2024 testimony to Congress, NASA acting Inspector General (IG) George Scott estimated that the Artemis program’s total costs through 2025 could eclipse $93 billion. That figure excludes tens of billions of dollars in research and development costs, in addition to any unforeseen costs related to the lunar space station. It’s a foregone conclusion that space spending through 2030 will far surpass $100 billion. However, concrete estimates are few and far between. As Scott notes, “decision makers will have limited knowledge into the full scope of…costs until an estimate is created.”

Meanwhile, delays abound. In January 2024, NASA leadership officially bumped the date of Artemis III from late 2025 to September 2026, citing technical and safety-related delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) seems to anticipate further delays. According to a November report by the watchdog, “if development took as long as the average for NASA major projects, the Artemis III mission would likely occur in early 2027.” If anything, the project has been unusually slow; “some flight tests have been delayed” and “a significant amount of complex work remains.”

Policymakers need to get their heads out of the clouds and realize that these programs are the galactic equivalent to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” It’s time for lawmakers to get their priorities straight and scale back NASA’s many costly missions. Taxpayers’ wallets do not stretch to infinity and beyond.