Kalin PETKOV
On April 1, 2026, NASA launched the “Artemis 2“ rocket. This is the mission that will return people around the Moon for the first time since the Apollo 11 lunar landing. An event that decades ago would have been a global sensation, has now passed almost by the wayside. Somewhat quietly. Without that feeling that something really big is happening.
And perhaps this is precisely the most telling. Because in parallel with this, humanity spends almost a trillion dollars a year on war.
NASA's budget today is about 25 billion dollars. The Pentagon's budget exceeds 900 billion. The difference is so large that it even ceases to be impressive. And it shouldn't be. This is not just a statistic. This is a choice.
If we go back, the picture is not much different. In 1969, when a man stepped on the moon, NASA had about 4 billion dollars at its disposal - a huge resource for its time. And yet military spending is still higher. At least then there is an explanation. The world is in the midst of the Cold War, there is real fear and the logic seems clear.
Today, this context is gone. The Cold War is part of history. There is no USSR, there is no such type of global confrontation. And yet the military budget is not only not decreasing, but growing.
In 1980, in the era of the space shuttle, NASA was operating with about 5 billion dollars. Military spending, converted into today's money, is already over half a trillion. And then science was in the shadows, but at least there was a feeling that there was competition that was pushing it forward.
Today it looks different. There is no same opponent. But there is the same, even greater expense.
And here comes the moment when one inevitably asks oneself the question - what do people actually get for this money?
With 25 billion dollars, NASA does things that literally move the world forward. Space programs give birth to technologies that then enter medicine, communications, our everyday lives. These are investments that return many times over.
On the other hand, there is 900 billion for defense. Yes, some of it also leads to innovation. But a huge part of it supports a system that, by definition, exists because of threats. And, more importantly, it has an interest in ensuring that those threats do not disappear altogether.
The paradox is hard to ignore, because in 1969, humanity went to the moon in a world filled with fear. Today, when that fear is not the same, we invest even more in it.
If even a small part of that money were redirected, the result would be very different. Ten percent of the Pentagon budget is about $90 billion. That's not an abstract number; it's three times the budget of NASA. That's the difference between slow progress and a real leap - a permanent base on the moon, real steps to Mars. But that's not where the money is going. And frankly, that's the comparison that bothers me the most.
“Artemis 2“ is not just a mission. It's a reminder. It shows what can be achieved with relatively few resources when there is a clear goal. And at the same time it shows how many resources are going in another direction - that of fear, of preparation, of endless "just in case".
Ultimately, the question is not whether we can get to the moon. That has already been proven. The question is why, in a world with such possibilities, we continue to choose to invest more in destruction than in the future. And the answer is because it is a choice.