· 187 comments · Save ·
General Mar 24, 2026 at 2:42 PM

NASA to spend $20 billion on moon base, cancel orbiting lunar station

Posted by Tracheid

https://www.reuters.com/science/nasa-cancel-orbiting-lunar-station-build-moon-base-instead-2026-03-24/
🚩 Report this post

187 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
level1gamer Mar 24, 2026 +770
For reference, the first 6 days of the war in Iran was about $11 billion. So, a moon base costs about the same as two weeks of dropping missiles on Iran.
770
ForceItDeeper Mar 24, 2026 +349
Nah I don’t believe for a second it can be done for $20B
349
ShareGlittering1502 Mar 24, 2026 +160
If you can buy twitter for $44B, you can land on the moon for $20B. Thems the rules
160
EnvironmentalNobody Mar 24, 2026 +16
It’s called their rate. So even if they do a bad job they still get another $20B.
16
jardex22 Mar 25, 2026 +3
According to the headline, that's just the budget for the base, not the launches and landings needed to get there.
3
cromag5150 Mar 25, 2026 +3
That’s how they get ya.
3
OaktownU Mar 25, 2026 +4
If you can dodge a wrench, you can build a moon base
4
afrikatheboldone Mar 24, 2026 +47
I mean, landing on the moon costed the US about 3 billion dollars in today's money. Payload capacity has been increased and we have the technology to land and reuse rockets. It's very possible to do it, the catch however, it will have a maintenance cost that will soon add a bunch of billions to that number per year.
47
Punman_5 Mar 24, 2026 +8
The Apollo program was getting $200 billion/year when adjusted for inflation.
8
c0ltZ Mar 24, 2026 +15
Just getting water on a moon base alone will cost at least $1 billion a year. We've never done mining operations on another planet or moon before.
15
afrikatheboldone Mar 24, 2026 +12
I mean, there's always a start. Though I don't trust Americans on privatizing space mining...
12
Romado Mar 25, 2026 +5
I know a film that has just the answer to this problem.
5
Free_Stomach_6767 Mar 25, 2026 +3
Are you saying theres water beneath the surface of the moon?
3
Fineous40 Mar 24, 2026 +5
Depends on how big the base is.
5
theinternetisnice Mar 24, 2026 +5
That’s all they’re going to SPEND. The rest will be sponsorships like NBA arenas
5
Streamjumper Mar 24, 2026 +5
> sponsorships like NBA arenas ... [Did someone say....](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO3cFz53vs8)
5
Punman_5 Mar 24, 2026 +3
Adjusted for inflation, NASA had a $200 billion/year budget for the Apollo program at its peak funding. That’s what is needed to go to the moon permanently.
3
Impressive-Potato Mar 24, 2026 +7
I don't believe the 11 billion estimate. That must be just the cost of the munitions used.
7
Desistance Mar 24, 2026 +9
People aren't level headed enough to see that 
9
RociBuldidi Mar 24, 2026 +510
Let me guess, one of Trumps sons just invested in a lunar hab building company?
510
[deleted] Mar 24, 2026 +104
[deleted]
104
JaronJervis Mar 24, 2026 +14
Or the Sequel, [The Coming Race](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3038708/) , we all know who 'the race' is.
14
Oregon-Pilot Mar 24, 2026 +11
It’ll be like that f****** idiot CEO who made the carbon fiber sub and got himself and a bunch of others killed.
11
PigletCatapult Mar 25, 2026 +5
Arguably, it is tremendously easier to build a habitat for the moon than a sub to take the pressure at 1500 meters below water. Pressure is vastly different 1 atmosphere difference on the moon vs 375+ atmospheres where the Titan imploded. Distance and resource scarcity are the main problems.
5
NirgalFromMars Mar 24, 2026 +2
Let me guess: they are doing it because they think it's cool and is gonna let them make money and not because it's feasible, convenient, or useful?
2
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +2096
... because, you know, launching from the surface of the moon is so much superior than launching outside any gravity well. Decision by the same government that pays Total 1B for not building a wind park.
2096
Longshot02496 Mar 24, 2026 +401
I mean a lunar base would be required either way. Even with orbital construction of spaceships, where would the raw materials come from?
401
Jesus_Is_My_Gardener Mar 24, 2026 +155
Regolith is a major concern for long-term habitation though. It not only poses a health risk but also excessively wears components in contact with it. Add to the fact that it's electrostatically charged means it's incredibly difficult to keep it completely out of living habitats and that things like hinges, seals and any mechanical components used externally will have a severely shortened lifespan, and increase likelihood of critical failure. While there are some benefits to a ground base there, amongst them the possibility of harvesting water from craters for mission use and fuel generation, a substantial amount of energy and risk will be required going to and from the lunar surface.
155
Longshot02496 Mar 24, 2026 +53
Yes, but you can't just *not* get raw materials from somewhere. And launching from Earth is too expensive. And no, asteroids aren't the solution here, that would be even more effort than accounting for regolith.
53
Jesus_Is_My_Gardener Mar 24, 2026 +31
The only real material of use for a lunar gateway would be ice, assuming we find any substantial quantities that could be collected. Why not harvest them robotically and keep people off the surface? The only thing regolith might be useful for is in burying parts of a habitat to help shield from radiation, assuming you didn't just build in a crater or dig a cavern. But again, there's not a lot of known resources that are useful for the point of why we want a lunar station to begin with. I'm not opposed to sending probes or even teams out to locate usable resources, but that's not necessarily something a ground base will help with. It's not like we're talking about just sending out survey crews on rovers from a base to locate these kinds of resources. They would have to be reached by spacecraft anyway. The one useful resource we would need from the surface is likely to be at the bottom of massive craters in areas of the moon that haven't seen sunlight in millennia. Point is, you vastly overestimate what resources we could even use that are needed for the point of a lunar station anyway. Short of finding a massive deposit of water ice, we still only speculate that it may be present in usable quantities reachable by humans in craters. Send probes, and find the resources first to justify building a ground base.
31
axonxorz Mar 24, 2026 +33
> Send probes, and find the resources first to justify building a ground base. More than just resource extraction, I'd argue a successful lunar base is a prerequisite for a successful Mars base. Mars soil has a very different elemental makeup to lunar regolith, but its mechanical properties are very similar. Figuring out mitigation "locally" will be critical to long-term survival on Mars where the regolith includes fun friends like toxic perchlorates.
33
Defiant-Peace-493 Mar 24, 2026 +8
There's also the matter of low-gravity biology. We have plenty of research on microgravity from the ISS, and some high-gravity studies with centrifuges, but nothing good on humans for low gravity. Although, [this one from two weeks ago is interesting](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aed2258) ... in mice, Mars gravity is enough to reduce some of the negative effects.
8
Rich-Badger-7601 Mar 25, 2026 +7
>Short of finding a massive deposit of water ice I'm willing to open a Rita's on the Moon
7
YungRik666 Mar 24, 2026 +7
They just have to swiffer the moon before they start building.
7
Jeynarl Mar 24, 2026 +3
Still, it turns out moon rocks are a great portal conductor. So now we're gonna see if jumping in and out of these new portals can somehow leech the lunar poison out of a man's bloodstream. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. *[coughs]* Let's all stay positive and do some science.
3
paranormalresearch1 Mar 25, 2026 +2
So will sub- surface habitats be a better alternative?
2
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +82
I thought the USA wanted to catch asteroids made of pure gold and pure iron and so on... That's what they have been promising all the time.
82
Coffee_And_Bikes Mar 24, 2026 +137
The only thing we’re catching is the measles.
137
donnerpartytaconight Mar 24, 2026 +21
But now its Moon Measles.
21
Artistic-Wolverine-6 Mar 24, 2026 +3
Don't forget the Measles, Chlamydia, Gonarhia, Syphilis, Leprosy, Bubonic and Pneumonic Plague, Rabies, Typhus, Chagas Disease, Tuberculosis etc.! Let's not sell yourselves short here! That's RFK's one and only job!
3
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +6
The measles are not even trying to play with them. They just sit there for collection.
6
Yourponydied Mar 24, 2026 +10
How long til we have a belter class?
10
axonxorz Mar 24, 2026 +6
Gotta colonize Mars first and raise a few generations of people with the surname Epstein...
6
Rockky67 Mar 24, 2026 +17
Surprised they haven’t promised capturing an oil asteroid. In 2 weeks.
17
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +13
"You know, I think we're making good progress getting a deal with those green guys sitting on our asteroids and might not have to start a war with them."
13
Longshot02496 Mar 24, 2026 +13
Oh well if the US said it then it must be true
13
efficiens Mar 24, 2026 +56
I am trying to find the line for people who want to get paid for not building windmills.
56
HandsLikePaper Mar 24, 2026 +24
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/23/climate/trump-totalenergies-offshore-wind-cancellation
24
kingtacticool Mar 24, 2026 +17
I wonder what would happen if I just photoshopped a proposal and invoice for a $300 million wind farm and emailed it to whithouse.gov......
17
HandsLikePaper Mar 24, 2026 +3
People have done it before with Google and Facebook, but it did lead to jail time. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706715377/man-pleads-guilty-to-phishing-scheme-that-fleeced-facebook-google-of-100-million
3
kingtacticool Mar 24, 2026 +2
They clearly didn't make the fight campaign contributions
2
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +17
I already tried... It's funny to see that even the German "Windmills of Shame" fascists are secretly buying solar generation stuff like we were running out of fossil fuels. Only their brethren in the USA believe they could change natural laws by ignoring them.
17
kingtacticool Mar 24, 2026 +8
The venn diagram of hubris and stupidity is almost a circle.
8
Deeschuck Mar 24, 2026 +4
Probably easier to gat paid to not grow corn, tbh
4
The_Bitter_Bear Mar 24, 2026 +25
>Decision by the same government that pays Total 1B for not building a wind park. Hey now, let's not leave out some important details. Not building a wind park... Right as they kick off an energy crisis.
25
noseshimself Mar 24, 2026 +11
Everybody knows that nasty wind parks slow down Earth's rotation and that's bad!
11
Wloak Mar 24, 2026 +16
Bad take my man. What would the Gateway do? Serve as a research and observation base for the moon. How are they gathering materials for research? Orbital launches over and over. Gateway would need the same equipment for exploration, sample retrieval, etc. but also need reusable craft to ferry materials to and from the surface. Both will be helpful in the long run but a fixed base is actually more efficient for research purposes, and if it finds a rich helium 3 deposit you have a fuel source for when you launch Gateway and can stop shipping fuel from Earth.
16
R3av3rr Mar 24, 2026 +2
This is the answer right here.
2
d_wib Mar 24, 2026 +17
The main positive would be putting most of the components underground on the moon. Without an atmosphere, micro-meteorites will tear through stuff and cause frequent damage. Burying it under the regolith exposes only a few things like your solar cells for power etc
17
Lowjack_26 Mar 24, 2026 +12
Micrometeorites are a fringe issue; the main problem - which is also solved by going underground - is radiation. Outside of the magnetosphere, the amount of shielding a space station would need to keep the crew safe for long duration habitation would be prohibitively high mass.
12
upsidedownshaggy Mar 24, 2026 +12
We'd need lunar bases either way if we want to do space construction, mainly for rocket fuel refinement. Getting into LEO is the expensive part due to gravity and the fact that on Earth you have to fight against the atmosphere. On the moon you have no atmospheric resistance, and a gravity that's roughly 1/6 of Earth's. It's not entirely unrealistic that having future space vessels land at a lunar fuel refinery would be cheaper than refining the fuel, launching it in a dedicated craft into lunar orbit and having it dock with a station, that then can deliver fuel to crafts that need it.
12
Xszit Mar 24, 2026 +3
Is there even anything on the moon that can be refined into rocket fuel? Serious question. I thought it was just rocks up there.
3
upsidedownshaggy Mar 24, 2026 +9
Yes there is! There’s water ice in the craters located in the polar regions of the moon that are in permanent shadow. This ice can be refined into hydrogen and oxygen required to make liquid rocket propellant using electrolysis.
9
coldchile Mar 26, 2026 +2
Electrolysis is energy expensive, how are we going to produce the energy when there’s no oil refineries on the moon? Checkmate atheists 😎
2
Lowjack_26 Mar 24, 2026 +4
Because building a long-term, habitable facility is so much easier in microgravity than inside a gravity well. There are absolutely NO life-critical issues with prolonged microgravity living and radiation exposure.
4
Hrekires Mar 24, 2026 +524
So... giving SpaceX $20 billion to fund research into the dumbass lunar data centers Elon thought of while on a 2 am bender?
524
JackLaytonsMoustache Mar 24, 2026 +170
He definitely convinced Trump that he can name the moon after himself if they put a base there. 
170
geckosean Mar 24, 2026 +64
Someone probably told him there’s no laws in space so he can diddle all the kids he wants on the moon.
64
Rude_Literature_2860 Mar 24, 2026 +37
I mean, he can do that here already
37
awmaleg Mar 24, 2026 +4
Diapers are less heavy on the moon
4
LostLetter9425 Mar 24, 2026 +6
It's only a matter of time before they carve his name on the surface large enough so that humanity will be forever cursed every time they look up in the sky.
6
Justaboredstoner Mar 24, 2026 +2
If there ever was a reason to blow up the moon…
2
BassLB Mar 24, 2026 +11
I actually think Blue has done a lot more aimed at lunar bases compared to SpaceX
11
Kradget Mar 24, 2026 +13
Everybody knows things you think of while high off your ass on a cocktail of expensive drugs are always brilliant ideas
13
ForbiddenSaga Mar 24, 2026 +9
The great kleptocracy continues
9
RandSumWhere Mar 24, 2026 +3
Mfers actually trying to make the Nazi moon base
3
22stanmanplanjam11 Mar 24, 2026 +2
China said they were going to build a joint lunar base with Russia. Trump needs a lunar base or he will feel left out.
2
RipComfortable7989 Mar 24, 2026 +50
Can anyone explain what actual benefit of being moon bound rather than in orbit offers? The article is bare on any details other than "China is doing in 2030" so it seems like they're simply trying to get there first.
50
Lowjack_26 Mar 24, 2026 +43
A lunar base vs an orbiter is, honestly, a better option in almost every metric. The big problem is **radiation.** The moon is outside of Earth's magnetic field, and so astronauts are exposed to a *lot* of radiation. While it's possible to add shielding to a spacecraft to reduce overall exposure, it's prohibitively expensive for mass due to the diminishing returns of radiation shielding. The other big obstacle is microgravity itself: it's another health risk to the crew *and* a complicating factor for machinery, equipment, and other operations.
43
kstargate-425 Mar 24, 2026 +12
Theyve been working on 3D printing bases out of lunar regolith and dirt which will provide some shielding from radiation, especially if its combined with both digging down and also other materials, even storing water in a shell surrounding the habitat. Either way they have been thinking and researching this stuff for decades and would make sense to move towards practical applications of these ideas for further exploration of the solar system. The moon also has a lot of Titanium in certain regions that are magnitudes greater concentration than anywhere on Earth so Im sure they are thinking about resource extraction as well but thats a huge up front expense and wouldnt be profitable for a long while. Although with Titanium becoming more scarce and processing lead times extending to over a year to sometimes close to 2 depending on demand, it would be a great source for the aerospace industry. Like you said, theres lots of benefits of having a lunar base but Im still not holding my breath as Space is usually the first on the chopping block when the next admin comes in
12
wingspantt Mar 24, 2026 +9
What about building into the ground, with most of the rooms underground? Isn't that better for insulation too? Like a bunker?
9
Lowjack_26 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Yep, that would be the principle, either by building inside of existing tunnels/lava tubes or by bulldozing regolith over a surface structure.
2
ledow Mar 24, 2026 +22
If they wanted to get there first, we'd be there already. They have just realised that it will be expensive and serve no real purpose whereas $20bn in your pocket is $20bn. We aren't going to get any of these "back to the Moon" things done in this decade, and I'd hesistate to promise the next.
22
Obanthered Mar 24, 2026 +7
The main scientific purpose of a moon base is to figure out how humans adapt to low gravity. The ISS has shown how bad microgravity is for human health, but we don’t really know how exposure to low gravity affects human health. Basically everything about the moon is harder than Mars except the moon is 3 days from home. If we figure out how to have healthy people on the Moon we can start thinking realistically about a Mars mission.
7
Long_Serpent Mar 24, 2026 +8
Watch season 1 of *Space Force* on Netflix.
8
Jolly-Bowler-811 Mar 24, 2026 +10
BOOTS ON THE MOON! Literally the first thing I thought of mixed with a bit of "For All Mankind"
10
Long_Serpent Mar 24, 2026 +5
"Actually he tweeted **b**** on the moon**, but we're pretty sure it's a typo"
5
Victor_Wembanyama1 Mar 25, 2026 +2
It’s good to be black in the moon 😊
2
Melancholy_Rainbows Mar 24, 2026 +44
The moon would be an amazing place to set up a space observatory. No atmosphere and no tectonic activity. Plus the lower gravity means you can construct large structures that would collapse under 1G. And when it comes to observatories, bigger is better. But this kinda sounds like not enough money to do much of anything, honestly, let alone in 7 years.
44
atreidesardaukar Mar 24, 2026 +15
Except for the moon dust Edit: it's course, irritating and gets everywhere.
15
Schrodingers_Fist Mar 24, 2026 +6
But if you wanted to spend 20bn (it would not be that lol) on an awesome speace observatory why not spend 5bn less on a second Jame Webb Telescope and sent it in a different direction than the first.
6
Melancholy_Rainbows Mar 24, 2026 +3
Well, because a lunar observatory could be an interferometer, which would give you different data than a telescope. It would be an excellent place for one since they have to be kept in a vacuum anyway. It would also presumably be bigger, since you wouldn’t have to limit it to what can be lifted into orbit on a single rocket. And, as I said, bigger is better.
3
c0ltZ Mar 24, 2026 +3
We often build telescopes/observatories at very high altitudes since the atmosphere is thinner. The moon has no atmosphere, which like you described, would be perfect for an observatory.
3
xhonorate Mar 25, 2026 +2
The bottleneck will never be structural integrity of something we build there. Every pound of material we bring up from Earth exponentially raises the costs and required energy. More weight = more fuel needed = more weight = more fuel… which at a certain point becomes too heavy to escape earth gravity. Unless we are somehow able to refine moon rocks into some more useful materials, anything we build would have to be relatively small and lightweight.
2
PhoenixTineldyer Mar 24, 2026 +153
If they're canceling the orbiting lunar station, then there's absolutely no way they're going to get a moon base on the surface.
153
Clone95 Mar 24, 2026 +17
Lunar Gateway was always pretty dumb so I’m not crazy opposed to it, but it sure is the worst people deciding this stuff
17
Rebelgecko Mar 24, 2026 +2
Lunar Gateway didn't really make sense after they canceled asteroid redirect mission, don't @ me
2
UnitSmall2200 Mar 24, 2026 +50
Yeah sure, only 20 billion. Who believes that c***. Add at least another 0 to it just to get it started. In comparison, ISS was estimated to have cost 150 billion until completion, and this guy thinks a moon base would cost far less in today's dollars. As cool as it would be to have a moon base, it would not be that "c****". I feel like they only do this so Elon can charge more money to send supplies with his rockets. 
50
Powerfury Mar 24, 2026 +8
It will cost 20 billion just to get to the moon lmao
8
MrSnrub_92 Mar 24, 2026 +28
What about the moon bears?
28
fullautohotdog Mar 24, 2026 +15
"More of a shot in the dark, but are we invading Iran today?"
15
Commercial-Fennel219 Mar 24, 2026 +5
yeah, those bears appear to have guns and motorcycles. 
5
awmaleg Mar 24, 2026 +2
Or moon otters?
2
Niceromancer Mar 24, 2026 +2
Nah it's the lunar whales that are the problem. We need whalers on the moon.
2
the7edge Mar 24, 2026 +2
Thats why we need the moon base. We need to stop the lunar bears and their intergalactic drug cartels
2
ThisTheRealLife Mar 24, 2026 +24
Please note that the orbiting lunar station was a joint project with ESA, JAXA, and the Canadian Space Agency - so this decision is also a huge FU to those countries and their tax payers. I don't know why these organizations continue to cooperate with NASA when so many projects just get cancelled.
24
Desistance Mar 24, 2026 +10
According to NASA those partnerships are retained. Which means they probably discussed it.
10
RagnarokToast Mar 24, 2026 +22
Shit I hope it doesn't get attacked by an army of lunar bears.
22
Override9636 Mar 24, 2026 +12
Wizard Alliance!?!
12
Zaius1968 Mar 24, 2026 +8
How about you start with filling potholes…
8
Feeling-Ad-2490 Mar 24, 2026 +4
They're prioritizing filling in the lunar craters first
4
falr687 Mar 24, 2026 +67
We just want free healthcare..... 😫
67
series-hybrid Mar 24, 2026 +26
Free healthcare?...are you insane? That would lower costs when monthly health-plan premiums are replaced by a small income tax increase, and the HMO middlemen profits are eliminated.
26
lordofthehomeless Mar 24, 2026 +5
Don't forget without deductibles there will be some poor billionaire who cant buy their 12th yatch.
5
Electronic_Trade_721 Mar 24, 2026 +6
As a Canadian I feel obliged to tell you that you are already paying more taxes towards healthcare per capita than we are, so your taxes wouldn't even need to rise. You would have to elect better government though.
6
starminder Mar 25, 2026 +4
Look for other places to cut funds from. NASA shouldn’t be on anyone’s list for places to slim the budget. Start with war and military.
4
10Bens Mar 24, 2026 +5
If you live in America you will never have free healthcare.
5
RedQueenNatalie Mar 25, 2026 +2
To be fair, 20B would only equate to $60 per person in healthcare funding and space tech has historically provided WAY more value in return in terms of tech than the cost to fund it initially. It would be massively more expensive to fund free healthcare for everyone but that could be pretty easily paid with a tax that would largely be less than peoples current health insurance premiums.
2
kiPrize_Picture9209 Mar 25, 2026 +2
If you gave all of this money to the UK's public health service, the NHS, it would be spent in 28 days. Adjusted for the US needing a 6x larger health service, it probably wouldn't go much further than a week of healthcare at best. It's not a problem of money, it's a problem of efficiency in government spending.
2
RapNVideoGames Mar 24, 2026 +2
[My sister got bitten by a rat but…](https://youtu.be/goh2x_G0ct4?si=S3QezPXqXxcLWtU-)
2
Lonely_Noyaaa Mar 24, 2026 +5
The Gateway cancellation is more debatable. But doing both at once while also cutting the overall NASA budget by 25% and saying we're going to beat China to the moon is a lot of confidence for a program that's been delayed repeatedly.
5
Carroms Mar 24, 2026 +6
I think the decimal is in the wrong place
6
RespectTheTree Mar 24, 2026 +2
shh, that's how this game works.
2
PaulSarlo Mar 24, 2026 +16
Great. With what ships? It's another check for elon.
16
eldigg Mar 24, 2026 +10
SpaceX is not the only lunar lander. There are two human landers under development (one SpaceX) and half a dozen unmanned (none SpaceX)
10
dontrike Mar 24, 2026 +7
I'm wondering what nonsense Trump said to make this happen.
7
billyray83 Mar 24, 2026 +3
USA wants to claim that sweet lunar territory before China
3
StillFlickering Mar 25, 2026 +4
Weren’t we just deem insolvent by the treasury? Health care is more important than a moon base.
4
AffectionateAd8675 Mar 25, 2026 +4
Yeah....I don't believe this is going to happen. The lunar mission isn't happening anytime soon, and neither is this, because US' wants to run wars not spaceships
4
NPVT Mar 25, 2026 +3
More of an Epstein distraction
3
barney_muffinberg Mar 24, 2026 +9
Prediction: On Zillow for $1 billion 12 months post-construction.
9
ten_year_rebound Mar 24, 2026 +7
I feel like a moon base is such a “dog caught the car” moment. Sure, you did it, but now what? Astronauts are going to live on the moon for months at a time?
7
DickNixon11 Mar 24, 2026 +10
People asked this question about “Why would we build an orbital laboratory” and now that we’ve done it we’ve achieved great things with it.
10
ten_year_rebound Mar 24, 2026 +6
Sure, but an orbital base is certainly easier (relatively, of course), closer, and more efficient than building one on the moon. A lot of the research can still be done on the ISS.
6
jongchajong Mar 25, 2026 +2
What did we achieve with it? Genuine Q
2
Mikestopheles Mar 24, 2026 +3
Are there space bears on the moon? Or is this just a distraction from us bombing Iran again?
3
Responsible-Ad-1086 Mar 24, 2026 +3
Weren’t the DJT stocks going to the moon?
3
Artistic-Wolverine-6 Mar 24, 2026 +3
But I can guarantee that it will be called "Moon Base Alpha" and Trump will claim to have created the name himself! [Moon Base Alpha - Space 1999 TV Show](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_1999)
3
Artistic-Wolverine-6 Mar 24, 2026 +3
I've just realised that they want 10x less to build a moon base, than Donald is wanting for the War with Iran!
3
SoupGod_ Mar 24, 2026 +3
You thought Epstein Island was bad, how about a pedophile Moonbase?
3
QuillQuickcard Mar 24, 2026 +3
Neither of these things are happening within 20 years
3
_Zambayoshi_ Mar 24, 2026 +3
As if 20B will be enough. For 20B you'd probably get a concept of a base.
3
hairy_quadruped Mar 25, 2026 +3
To put this into context, the Trump administration is requesting an extra $200 billion to fund its war on Iran.
3
Sad-Professor-4053 Mar 24, 2026 +6
This will be another grift to pay musk and some other stupid start ups and it will lead no where
6
morbihann Mar 24, 2026 +7
Lol, non of these plans will ever be realized. This is just grifting and wasting money instead of doing proper science.
7
RedFinTinFoilBarb Mar 24, 2026 +5
Elons stupid starship that will never work basically torpedoed the entire Artemis and gateway projects. Cost lots of people their jobs
5
Yeetstation4 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Wouldn't be the first time SLS is cancelled if so.
2
kiPrize_Picture9209 Mar 25, 2026 +3
as compared to the frankenstein's monster that is SLS and spends more than the entire yearly development budget for Starship in a single launch?
3
edfitz83 Mar 24, 2026 +10
Still a massive waste of money.
10
Cetun Mar 24, 2026 +2
And thus concludes another episode of NASA perpetually changing direction mid course.
2
fsactual Mar 24, 2026 +2
That’ll just about cover the cost of the exploratory committee.
2
asisyphus_ Mar 24, 2026 +2
Just making shit up atp
2
zztop610 Mar 24, 2026 +2
How big is this lunar base? 20 billion should buy us maybe 600sq foot with utilities included
2
MrsClaireUnderwood Mar 24, 2026 +2
Friendly reminder that poverty is a choice.
2
hiegear Mar 24, 2026 +2
Stop….. just stop spending money
2
slanderpanther Mar 24, 2026 +2
> The Lunar Gateway station, largely already ​built with contractors Northrop Grumman (NOC.N), opens new tab and Lanteris Space Systems, owned by Intuitive Machines (LUNR.O), opens new tab, was meant to ‌be ⁠a space station parked in a lunar orbit. Repurposing the craft for a lunar surface base is not simple. But renaming it to Trump Lunar Hotel and C***** will be easy.
2
Stavraetos2 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Im so glad because we solved worlds hunger problem gg
2
speedforcelovetrain Mar 24, 2026 +2
Can I buy a house though?
2
Immortal_Tuttle Mar 24, 2026 +2
That's half the price of a few km of Dublin metro project...
2
Kraftwerk_21 Mar 24, 2026 +2
So it’s actually cheaper to build a base on the moon than it is to attack Iran? Who knew?
2
rundownv2 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Will it have a bear problem though?
2
tangcameo Mar 25, 2026 +2
Can we call it Moon Base Alpha?
2
Soaring_Gull_655 Mar 25, 2026 +2
Oh, by the way, the country is broke. https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/us-government-insolvent-fiscal-crisis-fix/?utm_campaign
2
Few_Complaint4396 Mar 25, 2026 +2
"That's no moon, that's a space station!"
2
PrimalNumber Mar 25, 2026 +2
At $20B this will be a “public/private” endeavor where private business can “support” the project for a fee that goes into a trust outside of public view so Trump can get his rake.
2
FrogFlavor Mar 25, 2026 +2
ICE has a budget of $85 billion. They won't be able to make an impermeable border wall with that and NASA won't be able to make a working moon base with 20bil. Total waste of money
2
Natural_Read9357 Mar 25, 2026 +2
20billion of c*** and space pollution.
2
Renaxxus Mar 25, 2026 +2
We’re really good at spending money on everything that’s not a living wage.
2
moonscience Mar 25, 2026 +2
Money would be better spent on time travel at this point.
2
ThatsCaptain2U Mar 25, 2026 +2
Everything, EVERYTHING but universal healthcare… we still don’t even have longterm care covered by Medicare because, and I quote, “it would be too expensive” but they’re building a motherfucking base on the moon.
2
BK_0000 Mar 25, 2026 +2
Neither are going to happen.
2
MapDiscombobulated1 Mar 26, 2026 +2
And, waiting for the cancellation announcement on this smokefest in Five, four, three, two,one..........Pffffft. 
2
Shtankins01 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Can we just have f****** healthcare!?
2
Feeling-Ad-2490 Mar 24, 2026 +2
Only on the moon.
2
VirginiaLuthier Mar 24, 2026 +2
You can't afford food or medicine, but heck, they are going to the moon
2
gottatrusttheengr Mar 24, 2026 +2
I personally worked on Gateway some years ago. Honestly I'm not too surprised or upset the program got cancelled. Working with NASA on this was a "never meet your heroes" moment for me. Program architecture was always questionable but NASA is at least 80% to blame for schedule and cost overruns. The spacecraft was supposed to be fixed firm price, but NASA wanted to run it like a cost-plus project. Program management and systems engineering was terrible, there were constant changes to the requirements that resulted in contract changes every week, we had to do so many things that made zero sense simply because of red tape and bureaucracy. In the end I think my team did a good job and would have finished a capable spacecraft in the next year or so, but honestly if NASA just stuck to the original contract basis we would have finished the thing probably 2 years ago.
2
wspnut Mar 24, 2026 +2
So we could build 10 moon bases if we don't continue this war with Iran?
2
dimsumplatter75 Mar 25, 2026 +2
$20 billion is peanuts. that's how much the US spent on the first week of the war on Iran
2
LotsofSports Mar 24, 2026 +1
That would pay for a lot of healthcare.
1
Throwawy01 Mar 24, 2026 +1
Stop shitting on science when stuff from this would go to help healthcare and other research in general. The last push to land on the moon was the catalyst for the microchip revolution that created the high tech world we live in today, including better healthcare technology. We get more out of NASA than we put in, The real issue is $200 billion that the military asked to keep bombing Iran. You give that money to NASA and the world would be an infinitely better place in a decade vs blowing up hospitals and elementary schools.
1
LotsofSports Mar 24, 2026 +2
Not shitting on science. Shitting on everyone sucking Trump's d***.
2
Longshot02496 Mar 24, 2026 +1
I have more hope in the CNSA or ESA than NASA right now.
1
TheSarcastro Mar 24, 2026 +1
We had a moonbase back in 1999.
1
Hefty-Comparison-801 Mar 24, 2026 +1
So you're telling that the US can build a base on the moon for 1/10th of the cost of what the Pentagon is asking to fund the current war?
1
Felon_musk1939 Mar 24, 2026 +1
The aliens who already have a moon base should pay half.  Or in tune with the current administration: "We're gonna build a moon base and we're getting the aliens to pay for it"
1
edingerc Mar 24, 2026 +1
We never should have had a lunar orbit station. We should put it at L4 or L5, just like Von Braun wanted us to do back in the 60's.
1
siouxbee1434 Mar 24, 2026 +1
Ah, which sycophantic donor needs a way to launder lots of money?
1
← Back to Board