Imagine a world where the Soviet Union beat the U.S. to the moon, sparking a renewed space race and leading to a permanent lunar base. This isn’t just a plot from the Apple TV series For All Mankind—it’s a reminder of how audacious and groundbreaking the Apollo program truly was. But here’s where it gets controversial: Why, after achieving such a monumental feat in just eight years, has NASA struggled for two decades to return to the moon? And this is the part most people miss: It’s not just about technology or funding—it’s about a deeper issue of declining American state capacity and political gridlock.**
In the 1960s, the U.S. was a global symbol of modernity, mastering complex projects like the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway system, and, of course, landing on the moon. President Kennedy’s bold vision in 1961 became reality in 1969 with Apollo 11, showcasing not just technological prowess but also the government’s ability to mobilize resources and take enormous risks. Fast forward to today, and the story is starkly different. Despite having world-leading tech companies and a dominant military, the U.S. has stumbled on projects like high-speed rail, healthcare.gov, and rural broadband expansion. What happened?
NASA’s Artemis program, the latest effort to return humans to the moon, is a case study in these challenges. Launched in the wake of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003, Artemis was supposed to land astronauts on the moon by 2020. Instead, it’s faced delays, cost overruns, and technical hurdles. The Space Launch System (SLS), built on repurposed Space Shuttle parts, has cost over $4 billion per launch and suffered years of delays. Artemis I finally flew in 2022, but landing humans on the moon by the end of this decade seems optimistic at best.
But here’s the real kicker: The problem isn’t just NASA’s internal capacity. The agency is still staffed with brilliant engineers and administrators. The root issue is what’s known as “state capture”—political mandates from Congress that prioritize local jobs and reelection over innovation and efficiency. For example, the Constellation program, Artemis’s predecessor, was underfunded and unsustainable, yet it survived due to political pressure from states and contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Even when NASA tried to innovate with the Commercial Crew program, which introduced competition and fixed-cost contracts, it faced resistance from old-school aerospace giants.
SpaceX’s success with its Crew Dragon, which has flown nearly 70 people in 18 missions, contrasts sharply with Boeing’s Starliner, which stranded astronauts on the International Space Station for nine months. Is it time to rethink how we fund and manage space exploration?
Another factor is complacency. After the moon landing, the U.S. shifted focus to making space travel routine with the Space Shuttle program. But it neither became cheap nor safe, as the Columbia and Challenger disasters tragically demonstrated. Today, even competition with China—which built the world’s largest high-speed rail network in less than a decade—hasn’t reignited public interest in moon missions. Are Americans losing their appetite for grand, ambitious projects?
The Artemis program’s struggles are emblematic of a broader decline in American state capacity. Congress, while claiming to support moon missions, often prioritizes local interests over national goals. This isn’t about “unelected bureaucrats” running amok—it’s about bureaucrats being hamstrung by short-sighted political mandates. The Apollo program succeeded because NASA had a clear, overriding goal and the freedom to achieve it. Today, experts are often overruled by political compromises.
Here’s a thought-provoking question: If Americans want to restore their ability to tackle big, complex projects, should they give bureaucrats more autonomy and funding, or is political oversight the necessary check on their power? Let’s debate this in the comments.
Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University and author of Liberalism and Its Discontents, argues that restoring state capacity requires empowering experts, adequate funding, and removing political barriers. To follow his insights and support this work, subscribe to Persuasion and join the conversation on X, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
