Why Commercial Space Should Lead the U.S. Return to the Moon

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The United States’ current path toward returning humans to the Moon—primarily through NASA’s Artemis program—is facing mounting financial and logistical difficulties. Anchored by the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion capsule, and supporting legacy infrastructure, the program has suffered from persistent cost overruns, technical issues, and extended delays. A policy paper by Rand Simberg, published by the Reason Foundation, advocates for replacing this outdated approach with a commercial space-led strategy based on reusable technology, competitive contracting, and flexible mission architecture. This article presents the key points of the study and outlines a practical path forward. The original paper can be accessed here.

The Problems with NASA’s Current Lunar Program

Excessive Costs and Delays

The Artemis program was conceived with the intention of building upon NASA’s legacy. However, it has instead inherited many of the inefficiencies of past programs. By 2025, the program’s cumulative costs are projected to reach $93 billion, with each Artemis mission potentially costing around $4.1 billion. These numbers are driven largely by the use of sole-source, cost-plus contracts that do not incentivize efficiency or innovation.

One major component, the SLS rocket, is not reusable and relies on technology that dates back to the Space Shuttle era. Its main engines—the RS-25—were originally designed for multiple flights, but are now expended after each use. This results in each engine costing upwards of $100 million. Similarly, the Orion spacecraft, while intended to carry astronauts to lunar orbit, has experienced technical setbacks, including issues with its heat shield.

Outdated Infrastructure

The Artemis architecture depends heavily on infrastructure carried over from previous NASA missions. For example, the Mobile Launcher 2 (ML-2), required for future SLS missions, has ballooned in cost to nearly $3 billion, six times its original estimate. Unlike modern launch systems developed by commercial companies, NASA’s infrastructure remains inflexible, costly, and inefficient.

Design Constraints and Technical Inefficiencies

The SLS vehicle uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, which, while technically efficient, lead to larger tanks, more structural mass, and increased drag. Its reliance on solid rocket boosters (SRBs) causes intense acoustic vibration, limiting the kinds of payloads it can carry. Furthermore, SLS and Orion require intermediary stops such as the Gateway, a planned lunar orbital platform that adds to the complexity and cost without offering clear benefits for near-term lunar missions.

The Case for a Commercial Space Strategy

Proven Capability and Cost Efficiency

Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and United Launch Alliance have made significant progress in developing reliable, reusable rockets. The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have demonstrated a strong safety and performance record, with hundreds of successful launches. These systems offer dramatically lower costs: for example, a Falcon Heavy launch is estimated at around $100 million, compared to over $4 billion for an SLS launch.

The emerging Starship system, currently undergoing flight testing, promises to be fully reusable and capable of carrying more than 100 metric tons to orbit at a fraction of current government costs. Blue Origin’s New Glenn and ULA’s Vulcan Centaur also show strong potential for delivering payloads to lunar orbit efficiently.

Modular and Flexible Mission Architecture

Instead of a single, costly launch carrying all mission elements, the commercial approach relies on multiple launches of smaller payloads—equipment, fuel, habitats—that can be assembled in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or lunar orbit. This modular strategy mirrors logistics methods used successfully in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS)and enables redundancy and resilience. If a payload is lost, the mission doesn’t fail entirely—it’s simply replaced.

This architecture allows commercial vehicles like Crew Dragon, Blue Moon, or Starship’s Human Landing System (HLS) variant to be integrated as needed, based on mission requirements.

Benefits of Transitioning to Commercial Leadership

Massive Cost Savings

By replacing the current architecture with commercial alternatives, NASA could potentially save up to $5.25 billion annually. These savings come from ending expenditures on SLS, Orion, EUS (Exploration Upper Stage), the new launch tower, and Gateway. These funds could then be reinvested in a commercial partnership program that mirrors the successful Commercial Crew Program, which has already demonstrated lower costs and faster development timelines.

Increased Launch Cadence and Improved Reliability

A high flight rate enhances launch reliability through repetition, training, and iterative improvement. SpaceX has proven this with its rapid flight schedule for Falcon 9. Conversely, SLS has only launched once since its development began more than a decade ago, and it cannot support the tempo needed for sustained lunar exploration.

Commercial systems allow for multiple launches per year, enabling frequent resupply and broader mission planning. With enough flights, the loss of any single payload becomes manageable, and insurance costs decrease due to demonstrated reliability.

Technological Modernization

Private companies adopt modern technologies and are unburdened by legacy systems or political workforce commitments. This has led to significant innovation in reusability, propulsion, and manufacturing techniques. The competition among providers also drives rapid evolution in spacecraft design, making the sector more agile than NASA’s cost-plus environment.

Strategic Global Leadership

By embracing the commercial space sector, the U.S. can maintain a leading role in the global space race. China’s Chang’e program has demonstrated serious interest in lunar resource extraction and long-term presence. The U.S. can respond with a decentralized, market-driven space infrastructure that is flexible, scalable, and economically sustainable.

Key Recommendations

• Immediately cancel the SLS, Orion, and associated infrastructure (ML-2, EUS) to free up resources.
• Transition NASA’s lunar goals to a public-private partnership model using existing commercial providers.
• Encourage mission designs that assume multiple launches, in-orbit assembly, and payload redundancy.
• Adopt fixed-price contracting to increase accountability and reduce costs.
• Reallocate legacy NASA and contractor workforces to support scientific research, systems integration, and oversight roles.

Summary

The current government-led approach to returning humans to the Moon has proven financially and operationally unsustainable. With over a decade of delays and tens of billions spent on legacy systems, the Artemis program risks becoming an expensive historical echo rather than a forward-looking achievement. The commercial space sector, by contrast, offers tested vehicles, demonstrated reliability, and an economic model suited for the 21st century.

By shifting leadership of lunar return efforts to private companies, supported through structured partnerships with NASA, the United States can accelerate its lunar objectives, reduce taxpayer burden, and establish a resilient presence on the Moon. Such a shift would not just be a policy correction—it would represent a strategic realignment that leverages American innovation, enhances competitiveness, and redefines what is possible in space exploration. The original policy study, titled Why Commercial Space Should Lead the U.S. Return to the Moon, is available here.

What Questions Does This Article Answer

• What are the main challenges facing NASA’s Artemis program for returning humans to the Moon?
• How do the costs and technical issues of the Artemis program compare to potential commercial space solutions?
• What are the key disadvantages of relying on the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule for lunar missions?
• Why is the existing NASA infrastructure considered outdated and inefficient for current space missions?
• How do commercially developed space launch systems offer better cost efficiency and capability?
• What benefits does a modular and flexible mission architecture offer for lunar exploration?
• What are the financial advantages of transitioning to a commercial space strategy for lunar missions?
• How might increased launch cadence and improved reliability be achieved through commercial space systems?
• What are the strategic benefits of the U.S. embracing commercial space initiatives for lunar exploration?
• What are the key recommendations for transitioning NASA’s lunar exploration strategy to a commercial model?

Last update on 2025-12-21 / Affiliate links / Images from Amazon Product Advertising API