There is no official NASA list of the “most expensive missions.” The answer changes with the definition of a mission, the costs included, the dollar year, and whether a multi-mission human-spaceflight architecture is counted as one program. Using the National Academies’ comparable ranking of large strategic science missions in FY2015 dollars, the Hubble Space Telescope ranks first at $11.288 billion, followed by the James Webb Space Telescope at $8.645 billion.
Those figures are not current-dollar totals. They are estimates with a defined boundary: Hubble includes development and servicing missions but excludes ongoing operations. Recent planetary missions are shown separately using NASA Office of Inspector General life-cycle estimates, because those figures use a different reporting framework.
How this ranking is defined
The main ranking follows the National Academies’ comparison of large strategic NASA science missions. Values are in FY2015 dollars and should not be read as 2026-dollar prices. The report’s figures generally represent major mission expenditures within its stated comparison boundary, not an identical accounting treatment for every historical project. See the National Academies’ mission-cost comparison.
“Life-cycle cost” normally covers formulation, development, launch, operations and sustainment, and closeout. NASA’s Office of Inspector General uses that broad definition for its planetary-mission estimates; the National Academies’ historical table excludes some operations and treats certain launch costs inconsistently, particularly for older Shuttle-era missions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
- Replica of the tile structure
- Detailed cockpit
- Cockpit canopy optionally removable
- 2 crew figures
- Opening cargo bay doors
- Development: design, construction, testing and integration.
- Launch: the rocket and associated processing, integration, tracking and launch support when included by the source.
- Operations: flight control, science operations, communications, data processing and staffing.
- Servicing: crewed repair and upgrade missions, especially important for Hubble.
- Program cost: a wider umbrella that can include several spacecraft, launches, infrastructure and future capability.
International missions also require care. A published figure may represent NASA’s share, total partner spending, or a mixture. The values below retain each source’s stated basis rather than pretending those boundaries are identical.
The five costliest large strategic science missions
| Rank | Mission or mission program | Estimated cost | Cost basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hubble Space Telescope | $11.288 billion | FY2015 dollars; development plus servicing, excluding ongoing operations |
| 2 | James Webb Space Telescope | $8.645 billion | FY2015 dollars; large strategic mission estimate |
| 3 | Viking 1 and 2 | $6.791 billion | FY2015 dollars; combined orbiter-and-lander program |
| 4 | Chandra X-ray Observatory | $3.441 billion | FY2015 dollars; large strategic mission estimate |
| 5 | Cassini-Huygens | $3.189 billion | FY2015 dollars; NASA-led mission estimate |
1. Hubble Space Telescope — $11.288 billion
The National Academies’ estimate places Hubble first when development and multiple servicing missions are counted while ongoing operations are left out. The total therefore includes more than the original observatory: it reflects hardware, logistics and support for Shuttle servicing flights that repaired, upgraded and extended Hubble’s capabilities.
That accounting makes Hubble a special case. A single-use planetary probe cannot accumulate comparable crewed servicing expenses, and adding all of Hubble’s operations years could change its position under another methodology. The defensible claim is that Hubble is the most expensive under this large-science-mission comparison, not that NASA has declared it the most expensive project of any kind.
2. James Webb Space Telescope — $8.645 billion
JWST’s cost reflects a segmented primary mirror, a large deployable sunshield, cryogenic infrared instruments, demanding test programs and a long development period. ESA and the Canadian Space Agency also supplied major hardware and services, so articles can quote different totals depending on whether they report NASA spending, partner contributions, operations or development only.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Rank #2
- READY TO LAUNCH: No assembly required - simply attach an engine (C5-3 recommended) blast off, reaching heights of up to 600 feet! The Estes Space Shuttle is the perfect model rocket for beginners.
- ICONIC DESIGN: This 1:200 scale model faithfully replicates the famous NASA space shuttle and stands at 10.9 inches tall. This iconic workhorse of the American space program soars like the real thing with detachable boosters and gliding orbiter!
- EXPAND YOUR FLEET: Proudly exhibit alongside other iconic Estes 1:200 model rockets such as the Saturn V and SLS models, building your own mini space history museum! Display stand included.
- AGES 10 & UP: NASA’s space shuttle fleet inspired generations, and the Estes Space Shuttle aims to do the same! From the captivating scale replica to the safe and easy flight experience, every element fuels the fire of curiosity and ignites a passion for space in enthusiasts of all ages.
- MODEL ONLY: This listing contains only the space shuttle replica model. For the optimal experience, be sure to purchase Estes C5-3 Engines, recovery wadding, and a launch pad. Enjoy space exploration from the comfort of home!
The comparable National Academies estimate is $8.645 billion in FY2015 dollars. It should not be placed beside a nominal historical figure or an operations-inclusive total without labeling the difference.
3. Viking 1 and 2 — $6.791 billion
“Viking” means a paired Mars campaign: two orbiters and two landers launched as two mission sets. The National Academies combines that architecture at $6.791 billion in FY2015 dollars. Ranking it as one entry is appropriate for a list of major mission programs, but not for a list that counts only individual spacecraft.
4. Chandra X-ray Observatory — $3.441 billion
Chandra required the development of a major X-ray observatory, specialized instruments and substantial launch and integration infrastructure. Its $3.441 billion estimate is in FY2015 dollars. Historical launch-cost treatment was not uniform across missions, so this number is best used within the National Academies’ table rather than as a universal all-in total.
5. Cassini-Huygens — $3.189 billion
Cassini-Huygens combined a large spacecraft and science payload with an interplanetary cruise, Saturn orbit insertion and a long science mission. NASA worked with ESA and the Italian Space Agency. The National Academies’ $3.189 billion figure is therefore not automatically the same as total spending by every partner, nor does it necessarily include every later operating expense.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallRank #3
- NASA Saturn V rocket holds records as the tallest, and heaviest payload launch rocket ever built, and is the starship that can be the perfect gift for adult fans
- With this space shuttle model were made thirteen missions: the twelve NASA Apollo Saturn missions and the launch of Skylab into low Earth orbit in outer space.
- Ugears Saturn 5 3d model ship kit adult is a 1:170 scale of the greatest mechanical wooden puzzles of space the world has seen
- This DIY model kit of the spaceship instantly becomes a treasured part of the Ugears NASA puzzle collection and the larger catalog of Ugears wooden 3d puzzles for adults
- It will be coveted by anyone interested in the Apollo board models, solar system wooden puzzle enthusiasts, who want to build their own rocket kits for adults or spaceship models.
The next tier in the historical list
Immediately after Cassini, the National Academies lists Galileo, Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), WFIRST-related work (the predecessor lineage to the Roman Space Telescope), Europa Clipper and Terra. The accessible summary gives their order but not individual dollar values for each entry, so assigning precise ranks by price would imply a precision the source does not provide.
This ordering also mixes different kinds of entries: Galileo was a long-duration Jupiter mission, Viking was a paired campaign, WFIRST-related work was a developing observatory effort, and Terra is an Earth-observing satellite. “Mission” is therefore a practical label, not a guarantee that every row has the same scope.
Recent planetary missions: NASA OIG life-cycle estimates
A separate NASA Office of Inspector General table provides a useful modern subset. These are life-cycle estimates under the OIG’s planetary-mission framework, not a replacement for the historical National Academies ranking. The figures below are reported in the OIG source’s estimate framework rather than converted into FY2015 dollars.
| Mission | NASA OIG life-cycle estimate | Status of estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Europa Clipper | $4.250 billion | Life-cycle estimate |
| Mars 2020 / Perseverance | $2.7258 billion | Life-cycle estimate |
| Mars Science Laboratory / Curiosity | $2.4763 billion | Life-cycle estimate |
| Dragonfly | $1.8–$2.2 billion | Preliminary estimate; no final Agency Baseline Commitment at the time of the report |
| OSIRIS-REx | $1.1214 billion | Life-cycle estimate |
| Psyche | $996.4 million | Life-cycle estimate |
| Lucy | $981.1 million | Life-cycle estimate |
| InSight | $828.9 million | Life-cycle estimate |
Source: NASA Office of Inspector General, IG-20-023. The OIG also reports that Curiosity’s life-cycle estimate rose from about $1.6 billion to $2.5 billion after a two-year delay. Europa Clipper’s $4.250 billion estimate is higher than the OIG figures for Perseverance and Curiosity, but it should not automatically be inserted above Cassini or Chandra because the accounting periods and cost boundaries differ.
Rank #4
- EMBARK ON A STELLAR ADVENTURE: Touch the stars with Ugears NASA Space Shuttle Discovery, a meticulously crafted wooden model kit designed to whisk you off to the vast expanse of space. This intricate replica captures the essence of the legendary NASA Space Shuttle, offering a superior experience in 3d puzzle exploration. Boasting dynamic features like operable cargo bays and a stunningly detailed Hubble Space Telescope, it stands as the pinnacle among space shuttle model kits for adults.
- ORBITER, TELESCOPE, AND BEYOND: Step into the shoes of a space engineer with this intricate 3D wooden puzzle space shuttle. Enriched with a three-in-one design – the orbiter, a stand, and the satellite, you're set for a grand assembly. Witness the precision of the 1:96 scale model of the Discovery, where cargo bays come alive, offering an unmatched experience for wooden model kits for adults aficionados.
- CELEBRATING AERONAUTIC ACHIEVEMENTS: Dive into the fascinating history of space exploration. Assembling this striking model space shuttle kit lets you relive the monumental journey of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Beyond a simple replica, it exemplifies the pinnacle of what adult model building kits can achieve.
- MASTER THE MECHANICS OF THE COSMOS: Indulge in an assembly journey of this wood model kit for adults. With 315 precision-cut components and a comprehensive guide in 11 languages, this 3d puzzle promises a rewarding building experience, intertwining intricate design with the mysteries of the universe.
- A GIFT THAT TRANSCENDS BOUNDARIES: The Ugears NASA Space Shuttle Discovery is more than just a model; it's an unforgettable gift. Perfect for 3D puzzle enthusiasts, space buffs, and fans of wooden models to build for adults, it can be personalized to craft a unique masterpiece, making it an ideal choice among small gifts for men passionate about space.
Why Artemis is not a normal entry in this ranking
Artemis is a human-exploration architecture, not one spacecraft or one completed science mission. It combines the Space Launch System, Orion, Exploration Ground Systems, lunar landers, Gateway plans, crewed and uncrewed flights, surface systems and supporting infrastructure. SLS is a launch-vehicle program; Orion is a crew spacecraft intended to support multiple missions; ground systems serve an evolving campaign.
GAO’s 2026 assessment says NASA plans to invest at least $70 billion in estimated life-cycle costs across its portfolio of major projects, a portfolio that includes Artemis-related work but is not an Artemis-only total. The same assessment reports at least 36 current major projects, nearly $4.7 billion in cumulative cost growth in the 2025–2026 development portfolio, and Orion responsible for more than half of annual overruns and almost 75% of cumulative overruns reported for that portfolio. These are portfolio statistics, not a single Artemis price tag; see GAO-26-108556.
NASA revised the planned focus of Artemis III, IV and V in 2026 and paused some related projects, so any “total Artemis cost” is especially sensitive to the date and architecture being counted. Exploration Ground Systems alone had more than $3 billion requested for fiscal years 2024–2028 and a February 2024 estimate of about $3.7 billion for operations over fiscal years 2023–2029; GAO notes that this rolling Phase E estimate is not an official full life-cycle baseline because the duration of Artemis operations remains uncertain. See GAO-25-106943.
For the same reason, SLS, Orion and Exploration Ground Systems belong in a separate discussion of large NASA programs. Comparing one SLS launch or one Orion development account with Hubble’s development-plus-servicing total would mix a vehicle, a reusable capability and a mission architecture with a science observatory. GAO has also documented long-standing challenges in making human-spaceflight costs transparent and assigning future shared costs; see GAO-21-105.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Best Value
- HOBBY MODEL KIT – Unassembled model packed in an envelope with easy to follow instructions. Ideal for ages 14 and up.
- NO GLUE OR SOLDER NEEDED – Parts can be easily clipped from the metal sheets. Tweezers are the recommended tool for bending and twisting the connection tabs.
- PREMIUM SERIES SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH KIT - 3 Sheet Model with a moderate difficulty level. Once assembled, dimensions are 3.54 W x 4.13 L x 6.70 H inches. 1:342 Scale.
- FROM STEEL SHEETS TO 3D – Pop out the pieces and connect using tabs and holes. Includes illustrated instructions
- HIGHLY DETAILED ETCHED MODEL – Display your 3D model once completed - collect and build them all.
Why Mars Sample Return is not ranked
Mars Sample Return should be treated as proposed, restructured or uncertain rather than as a completed mission with a settled final cost. Costs already incurred, earlier projections, a revised architecture and future funding needs are different quantities. Perseverance’s cost can be reported as its own OIG life-cycle estimate, but it should not be merged with an unfinalized sample-return system and presented as one confirmed total.
What the rankings actually show
- Servicing changes the comparison: Hubble’s crewed upgrades add a cost category that most robotic probes do not have.
- Mission identity matters: Viking combines four spacecraft, while other entries may be a single observatory or probe.
- Inflation can reverse impressions: a 1970s nominal price is not comparable with a 2020s estimate until both use the same dollar year.
- Human exploration is a different scale: rockets, crew vehicles, landers and ground systems create program costs far beyond one robotic science mission, but they cannot be cleanly collapsed into one mission number.
- Price is not scientific value: cost measures resources and complexity, not the importance, reliability or discoveries produced.
Bottom line
Under the National Academies’ common FY2015-dollar comparison of large strategic science missions, Hubble ranks first at $11.288 billion, JWST second at $8.645 billion and the combined Viking 1-and-2 program third at $6.791 billion. Recent planetary missions have lower OIG life-cycle estimates than those historical leaders, while Artemis is likely more expensive than any individual robotic mission when treated as a complete exploration architecture. It still should not appear as a single ranked mission because its cost covers a changing portfolio of vehicles, infrastructure and flights.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are these NASA figures in today’s dollars?
No. The five historical figures from the National Academies are in FY2015 dollars. The planetary figures are NASA OIG life-cycle estimates reported under a separate framework and are not converted here into a common current-year currency.
Does Hubble’s total include its yearly operations?
The cited National Academies comparison includes development and servicing missions but excludes ongoing operations.
Is Artemis the most expensive NASA mission?
Artemis is a multi-mission human-exploration architecture, not a single mission. Its evolving components and changing plans prevent a stable, apples-to-apples total beside Hubble or Cassini.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
