NASA’s announcement of the Artemis II crew has reignited global interest in lunar exploration, but for British taxpayers the more immediate question is whether the UK’s own astronaut programme will be worth the cost. The crew, which includes the first woman and first person of colour assigned to a lunar mission, represents a significant symbolic step. Yet the shadow of fiscal reality looms large: this is a venture that, by some estimates, will cost the US taxpayer nearly $100 billion by 2025.
Meanwhile, the UK Space Agency is touting its own ambitions. With a modest £1.8 billion annual budget, the agency hopes to launch a British astronaut to the Moon by the end of the decade. But as a financial editor, I must ask: at what cost to other priorities? The UK’s public debt stands at over £2.5 trillion, and the government’s borrowing costs are rising as gilt yields creep upwards. Every pound spent on space exploration is a pound not spent on healthcare, education, or infrastructure.
The market’s reaction to NASA’s announcement was muted. The S&P 500 barely blinked, and defence stocks saw only a slight uptick. This suggests investors are pricing in the long-term economic benefits of space technology, not the spectacle of crewed missions. The real value lies in satellite communications, Earth observation, and potentially asteroid mining, not in putting boots on the lunar surface.
The UK’s involvement in the Artemis Accords is strategically sound. It opens doors for British firms to bid for contracts, and strengthens ties with the US. But the taxpayer should not be expected to subsidise a vanity project. The government must ensure that any investment in space is geared towards commercial returns, not national pride. Otherwise, the only thing taking off is our national debt.
