For the first time in 50 years the US is engaged in a new moon race. The competition this time isn't the Soviet Union, it's China.

But how much of Trump's enthusiasm for space stems from Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire owner of SpaceX, now firmly in orbit around the president?

Now NASA's plan to return Americans to the moon is firmly in the sights of this cost-cutting administration that is also looking to Mars.

"Once the last golf ball was hit on the last Apollo mission on the moon everybody said: 'okay, what do we do now?'" says Sean O’Keefe, former NASA Administrator under former president George W Bush.

After the completion of the International Space Station, and the retirement of the costly and dangerous space shuttle programme, interest slowly returned.

With little justification for repeating the moon shots of the Apollo era, any return would require astronauts to stay longer and test the technologies needed to establish a base on the moon as a stepping-stone to places like Mars.

The Artemis programme, named after Apollo's twin in Greek myth, is NASA's solution. The four-stage programme, in partnership with the European Space Agency and others, aims to test technologies and infrastructure including an orbiting 'Lunar Gateway' to support a human presence on the moon and beyond.

In 2022 the first stage, Artemis I, saw the test of a new rocket and uncrewed lunar module called Orion sent around the moon and back to Earth again.

Artemis II, due to launch in 2026, will take four astronauts, including the first woman and first person of colour, around the moon.

Artemis III, slated for 2027, aims to land astronauts close to the lunar south pole – the first humans to walk on the moon since 1972.

No earlier than 2028, Artemis IV will take another crew of astronauts to the moon. This time they will begin the construction of the Lunar Gateway – a space station in orbit around the moon.

When plans for the Artemis programme were being drawn up many in NASA, including its astronaut corps, were reluctant to 'buy in' hardware for their return to the moon from the private space industry.

US Congress, which must sign off on the billions in funding needed for programmes like Artemis, had its own interests too.

Several of NASA's legacy contractors like Boeing and Northrop Gruman, which built the space shuttle and Apollo-era rockets, are big employers in certain congressional districts. Their representatives lobbied hard to ensure they retained contracts in the new programme – and won.

The result – especially in light of newer, cheaper space launch alternatives – is a bad deal for US taxpayers. In 2023, the US government's financial watchdog, the General Accounting Office, concluded SLS was "unaffordable".

Early on, its opponents in the space industry nicknamed SLS the "Senate Launch System" - they appear to have been right.

Worse still for the Artemis programme, there is a problem with the Orion capsule.

Cracks in its heat shield that emerged after the Artemis I test flight have led to a two-year delay and yet more costs.

Above all, the Artemis programme relies on too many incompatible elements that were commissioned by different groups within NASA and its prime contractors, according to Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer and founder of the Mars Society.

"These pieces do not fit together. They were not designed as a unified whole. Now, there are better ways to go."

But Artemis is in trouble.

The rocket NASA built to serve the programme, the Space Launch System (SLS), is phenomenally expensive. Almost $13bn has been spent developing it so far and its first launch for Artemis is estimated to have cost $4bn.

SLS might be the largest rocket NASA has ever built but it has a serious flaw. While it can put humans into orbit around the moon from a single launch, it can't carry them, their capsule and enough fuel to get them back to Earth again.

As a result, the mission requires a separate moon lander, sent in advance, to wait in orbit around the moon. When the astronauts arrive, they must transfer from Orion into this vehicle for the trip down to the lunar surface.  The lander will then carry them back up to Orion for the ride home.

Why, despite all the technological advances since Apollo 11 astronauts went to the moon on a single Saturn V rocket, do 21st-century astronauts have to essentially change trains in order to get back again?

The answer isn't really rocket science, it's politics.

 Trump and the tech billionaires

The people suggesting those "better ways" now surround Donald Trump in the White House.

Elon Musk is co-heading President Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency.

"If you are coming in with a mandate to seek government efficiency, SLS is a poster child for government inefficiency," says space journalist Eric Berger.

“It should not take 12 years and 25 billion dollars to take existing hardware and make it into a different rocket.”

As axe-wielder-in-chief, Elon Musk is widely expected to have an eye on SLS. But his direct involvement would be controversial as his SpaceX firm would be a leading contender to build an alternative rocket.

"The relationship between the president and the wealthiest guy on the planet isn't desirable in terms of the integrity of the programmes and competitiveness... but it is going to stir the pot."

The future of America's moon mission may also lie in the hands of another tech billionaire and friend of Elon Musk: Jared Isaacman, Trump's pick for NASA administrator.

Isaacman is a keen supporter of the new, more innovative entrants in the US space market like Space X, Rocket Lab and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin.

He also has the unique qualification of being the first civilian to have performed a space walk – on a mission using SpaceX hardware last year that he commanded and paid for.

One of his first acts in the job could be to axe SLS. He's certainly criticised it and the contracts with companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin that have delivered it.

"The bottom line is, these companies have faced little competition for decades and without that competitive pressure, they have become so bloated they can’t take on a fixed-price project without haemorrhaging cash," he posted on X in October 2024.

He's keen to see new entrants like SpaceX challenge "the big defence primes".

“The world needs more companies like these, and fewer from the past, if we want our children to witness NASA astronauts and other astronauts accomplishing great things on the moon, Mars and beyond."

HOW WILL THE US GET BACK TO THE MOON?

1. LAUNCH

The Space Launch System launches Orion spacecraft and four crew into Earth's orbit

2. TRANS-LUNAR INJECTION BURN

Orion fires its engines to leave Earth's orbit and travel towards the moon

3. NEAR-RECTILINEAR HALO ORBIT

Orion swings past the moon into a highly elliptical orbit that 'parks' the spacecraft

4. LANDER AT THE READY

Waiting in the same orbit is SpaceX Starship HLS - launched in advance to support the moon landing

5. LANDER TRANSFER

Orion docks with Starship. Two astronauts transfer across, two remain on Orion

6. LUNAR LANDING

Starship descends to the lunar south pole. Its two crew conduct a six-and-a-half day mission inside and outside Starship.

7. LANDER DEPARTS

Starship's engines blast it back to rendezvous with orbiting Orion

 8. CREW RETURN

After five days of supply and equipment transfer, Orion separates and after several engine burns, returns to Earth

9. SPLASHDOWN

After 30 days in space, Orion re-enters the Earth's atmosphere to splashdown in the Pacific Ocean

In the Apollo era, there was only one way to get to the moon: on a big rocket designed by NASA and built with taxpayers' money.

Now there are options including reusable, and more affordable, rockets built by self-financing space firms that could be modified to carry the Artemis Orion capsule.

Elon Musk’s Starship rocket is still being tested, but is a credible alternative. 

It's designed to be reusable and is much cheaper to launch. While it can't carry as much weight all the way to the moon as SLS, it could make multiple refuelling flights and still get its human payload there for less.

What's more, a modified Starship has already been chosen as the lander in the current Artemis plans, making SpaceX a simpler choice.

Blue Origin's new heavy-lifting rocket New Glenn could also carry Orion into orbit.

All this poses a challenge for President Trump, and the billionaire tech bros who now control the fate of America's moon ambitions.

Failing to address the eye-watering costs of the SLS rocket risks making a mockery of government efficiency. But choosing to cancel a major part of the Artemis programme risks delays as new plans and hardware are developed.

Is it a risk Trump, keen to see America dominate space, is willing to take?

-SKY NEWS