The Artemis Experiment

DEI in Space and Its Costs

It’s been half a century since Neil Armstrong’s boots left prints on lunar soil, yet America’s space ambitions appear caught in a bureaucratic quagmire. The Artemis program, NASA’s flagship initiative to return humans to the Moon, has devolved into a cautionary tale of misplaced priorities. In stark contrast, SpaceX—under the steady hand of CEO Gwynne Shotwell—has charted a path defined by technological innovation and relentless meritocracy. The juxtaposition is striking: NASA, fixated on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, languishes under the weight of delays and ballooning costs, while SpaceX rockets to success, fueled by competence and a singular focus on results. The irony? SpaceX is led by one of the most capable executives in aerospace—a woman whose qualifications, not her gender, define her leadership.

The Artemis Experiment: DEI Above All Else

The Artemis program, heralded as a “transformative” return to the Moon, is less a space initiative and more a social engineering experiment. The emphasis on representation has overshadowed the mission’s core objectives. Over 60% of the Artemis crew comprises women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ community—a fact celebrated by NASA’s PR machine and dutifully echoed by outlets like 60 Minutes. Yet conspicuously absent from these accolades is any mention of skill or experience. The program’s leadership mirrors this focus on identity. From Charlie Blackwell-Thompson, the first female launch director, to Eileen Drake at Aerojet Rocketdyne, the message is clear: Artemis is more about who runs the show than whether it succeeds.

This fixation has consequences. Consider the Mobile Launcher-2 platform, an essential piece of Artemis infrastructure. Initially budgeted at $383 million, costs have skyrocketed to $1.8 billion, with delays stretching into 2027. Similarly, the Orion capsule’s costs have nearly doubled to $12.2 billion, while the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket—mockingly dubbed the “Senate Launch System”—has suffered over a decade of delays and $20 billion in development costs. But these overruns and delays come with a revealing subtext. When NASA issued each procurement contract, bidders were explicitly told they would gain an advantage if their programs were led by women and included teams with a certain number of black and LGBTQ members. Unsurprisingly, every winning bidder now fields leadership structures that boast women in all key roles, with these programs having the fewest white men involved in the history of American space exploration. While diversity may check certain ideological boxes, these failures—financial, logistical, and strategic—threaten the credibility of America’s leadership in space, raising troubling questions about misplaced priorities in this most ambitious of endeavors.

Gwynne Shotwell: Proof of Merit’s Primacy

Contrast this with SpaceX, where Gwynne Shotwell’s leadership exemplifies the power of meritocracy. With degrees in engineering and mathematics and decades of experience in aerospace, Shotwell’s qualifications are unimpeachable. Under her stewardship, SpaceX has shattered records and redefined space travel. It achieved the first private orbital launch in 2008, pioneered reusable rocket technology in 2017, and completed an astonishing 130 launches in 2024 alone. These accomplishments speak to a culture that prioritizes results over rhetoric.

Tellingly, SpaceX’s achievements are devoid of identity politics. When 60 Minutes profiled the company, the focus remained on its groundbreaking technologies and the expertise of its team—not the gender or ethnicity of its leadership. This meritocratic ethos has yielded tangible results: reusable rockets that slash costs, a dominant 85% share of global payload launches, and successful manned missions that rival NASA’s capabilities at a fraction of the price.

The Cost of Identity Politics in Space Exploration

NASA’s Artemis program reveals the perils of subordinating merit to identity. While diversity in leadership is laudable when it emerges organically, forcing representation as a primary goal undermines both credibility and effectiveness. The women leading Artemis may well be qualified, but the program’s failures suggest otherwise. And when the focus remains on their gender rather than their achievements, it invites scrutiny they may not deserve.

Moreover, Artemis’s “use-it-and-lose-it” model—eschewing reusable rockets in favor of antiquated expendable designs—epitomizes NASA’s struggle to innovate under outdated leadership. Each Artemis launch costs a staggering $4.2 billion, a figure that underscores not only the inefficiency of prioritizing DEI over technological advancement but also the consequences of leadership ill-suited for the challenges of modern space exploration.

NASA is currently helmed by Administrator Bill Nelson, an 82-year-old former politician who spent decades in Congress. While a nice old man with a distinguished political career, Nelson’s tenure reflects a reluctance to embrace groundbreaking technologies. His decision to reject SpaceX’s innovative reusable rockets in favor of legacy designs dating back to the 1900s suggests that his leadership may be rooted more in nostalgia than in vision. This failure at the top has likely doomed NASA’s plan to return to the Moon, squandering billions in taxpayer dollars and imperiling America’s preeminence in space.

Contrast this with President-elect Trump’s pick to lead NASA: Jared Isaacman, a 41-year-old entrepreneur, accomplished pilot, and seasoned space traveler. Isaacman’s résumé is the embodiment of the forward-thinking leadership NASA desperately needs. As the founder of a multibillion-dollar payment technology firm and operator of the world’s largest commercial fleet of military aircraft, Isaacman has demonstrated an unparalleled ability to innovate and execute. He holds multiple aviation world records, including a speed-around-the-world flight in 2009, and has commanded missions aboard SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Resilience, becoming the first private citizen to perform a spacewalk during the Polaris Dawn mission.

Isaacman’s youth, entrepreneurial spirit, and firsthand experience in spaceflight stand in stark contrast to the current administration’s inertia. With geopolitical rivals like China accelerating their lunar ambitions, America cannot afford the luxury of outdated leadership and misplaced priorities. NASA must pivot toward a future defined by innovation, not indulgence in the past, if it is to reclaim its status as the undisputed leader in space exploration.

The Irony of Shotwell’s Success

The ultimate irony lies in Gwynne Shotwell’s success. Here is a woman who epitomizes competence, yet her rise has nothing to do with gender quotas or DEI mandates. Instead, she has earned her position through decades of demonstrated excellence. Her leadership of SpaceX debunks the progressive narrative that women require institutional favoritism to excel. In fact, Shotwell’s achievements suggest the opposite: merit, not mandates, is the true engine of equality.

Conclusion

The contrast between NASA’s Artemis program and SpaceX’s stellar ascent offers a stark lesson. America’s future in space hinges not on ticking identity boxes but on cultivating a culture of merit. As the Artemis program stumbles under the weight of DEI-driven inefficiencies, SpaceX soars—a testament to what happens when competence is allowed to thrive unencumbered. If America is to reclaim its leadership among the stars, it must abandon the madness of identity politics and return to the timeless principles of meritocracy. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.