June 5, 20254 min readThe Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space ProgramsA vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programsBy Lee Billings edited by Dean VisserElon Musk (left) and President Donald Trump (right) seemed to be on good terms during a press briefing in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, but the event proved to be the calm before a social media storm. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFor several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the world’s most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core.The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk’s fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump’s nomination of Musk’s close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as “a disgusting abomination.”Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump—without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president’s threat, SpaceX “will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”)Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It’s the main way NASA’s astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing’s glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency’s plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis III mission.Trump’s and Musk’s retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX’s constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile-defense plan.Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump’s influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an “illegal alien” who “should be deported from the country immediately.”NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency’s press secretary Bethany Stevens: “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” Stevens wrote. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk’s electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5’s trading day: Tesla’s share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla’s stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won’t be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation’s deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.

Billionaire Elon Musk has countered president Donald Trump's threat to "terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," in spectacular fashion: by threatening to cut off the United States' access to outer space."In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk tweeted.But it didn't take him long to blink. A few hours later — and after the publication of this story — Musk reversed course, agreeing to "cool off" and saying that "we won't decommission Dragon."That's not surprising. As executives at SpaceX no doubt desperately tried to explain to him after the dustup, the company would be in terrible danger without all the money it gets from NASA.And if Musk were to make good on his threat, the United States' space program could experience a setback of epic proportions. SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has quickly become the de facto method for NASA astronauts to travel to the International Space Station.In other words, the threat could prevent American astronauts from visiting the space station — especially considering that the only other American option, Boeing's Starliner, is likely still years away from becoming a viable alternative, if ever.It was a significant escalation in a major falling out between the world's most powerful man and its richest one. The pair have been openly feuding about Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill," culminating in threats and personal attacks.The collateral damage of the feud could be enormous, particularly for the US space program.Ars Technica's Eric Berger suggested that Trump ripping up Musk's government contracts "would both end the International Space Station and simultaneously provide no way to safely deorbit it.""This just gets better and better," Musk replied in a laughing emoji-laden tweet. "Go ahead, make my day…"The news comes after the Trump administration abruptly pulled its nominee for the NASA administrator role, Jared Isaacman.Isaacman, who was hand-picked by Musk, has been to space twice with the help of SpaceX.The news greatly angered Musk, causing him to go on a crusade against Trump's tax bill.Musk's latest threats to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft could put the Trump administration and NASA in an extremely unfortunate position. Apart from Boeing's much-maligned Starliner, which has yet to complete a successful crewed mission to the ISS, the only alternative to send astronauts to the space station is Russia's Soyuz spacecraft.While the station's days are already numbered — NASA recently awarded SpaceX a contract to decommission the orbital lab in 2030 — continuing operations could prove extremely difficult without Dragon.But whether Musk will make good on his threat remains to be seen, especially considering the billionaire has a lengthy track record of making empty promises.Apart from vowing to decommission Dragon, Musk also attempted to smear Trump's name by arguing that he's "in the Epstein files.""This is the real reason they have not been made public," he tweeted. "Have a nice day, DJT!"Musk is clearly out for blood, even officially calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by his vice president JD Vance.Who will emerge victorious is anybody's guess. If there's one certainty, it won't be NASA. The agency is expected to be hit by brutal cuts that could lay waste to dozens of space missions.Share This Article

June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”

The drama between US president Donald Trump and his former buddy-in-chief Elon Musk is far from over.As ABC reported today, now that he's been summarily retired from the White House, the billionaire SpaceX boss has been privately venting his frustrations at Trump. One particularly stinging betrayal, per the network's reporting: Trump's sudden withdrawal of Musk's buddy and financial benefactor, Jared Isaacman, from consideration to be the next NASA administrator.As the day progressed, Musk's tension with Trump exploded into public view as history's richest man tweeted or amplified no less than 25 posts blasting Trump's "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill, which takes the form of yet another piece of legislation meant to gut assistance for the poorest Americans while siphoning money to the ultra-wealthy.However, that isn't Musk's issue with the package. Instead, his commentary is centered on the bill's impact on the US national deficit — something he tried and failed to curb in any meaningful way during his time as a pay-to-play government operative.On X-formerly-Twitter, Musk's frenzied posts range from Rand Paul interview clips to hysterical conspiracy peddling. ("America is in the fast lane to debt slavery," he fomented at one point.)"Call your Senator, call your Congressman, bankrupting America is NOT ok!" Musk urged his 220 million followers on X-formerly-Twitter. "KILL the BILL."The tech titan also went out of his way to amplify some low-res footage of Warren Buffett explaining his theoretical plan to reduce the deficit. "Anytime there's a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection," the investor suggested, to which Musk replied that "this is the way."Needless to say, a month ago — or even a week — this type of assault on Trump by Musk would have been unthinkable. The bill is also a baffling hill for the tech mogul to die on, especially considering that government spending is what made his tech dynasty possible in the first place. It's more plausible, as Axios notes, that national debt is a smokescreen for other issues nearer to Musk's heart. Most notably, the big beautiful bill is set to cut the electric vehicle tax credits that made Tesla the automotive giant it is today. (Confusingly, as recently as last year, Musk was publicly calling for an end to the tax credit — but that was before his activities in the White House eviscerated Tesla's brand image and sent it deeply into the red.)Of course, that raises another intriguing possibility: that at least some portion of Musk's rage at Trump is essentially kayfabe, with Musk betting that a break from the president could resuscitate at least some enthusiasm for the Tesla brand among the left-leaning customers that he's successfully turned off over the past year.If so, it's not hard to imagine Musk instead accidentally alienating more or less everybody — failing to get the environmental left back on board, but also creating a powerful enemy with Trump, who holds immense power over the government contracts and policy that keep Musk's business empire afloat.More on politics: Elon Musk’s Dad Slams His Son's Whimpering Failure at PoliticsShare This Article

NASA's next mission will be to find a new agency leader, following a dramatic reversal from President Donald Trump. In a post made on Truth Social, the president withdrew his nomination of Jared Isaacman as the head of NASA. As first reported by Semafor, the pullback comes just a few days before Isaacman was due in front of the US Senate for a confirmation vote. Trump detailed in the post that he will soon announce another nominee who is more aligned with the president's mission and will "put America First in Space." Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that it was "essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda." According to The New York Times, unnamed sources attribute the withdrawal to Isaacman's previous donations to "prominent Democrats." Besides his role as CEO of payment processing company Shift4, Isaacman has been venturing into the world of commercial space travel. The billionaire businessman has been to space twice now, even serving as the mission commander of the Polaris Dawn mission that was operated by SpaceX and saw the first commercial spacewalk. Isaacman was known as a close ally of Elon Musk, who is the CEO of SpaceX and recently left his White House role as an adviser to the president.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/space/trump-makes-a-last-minute-backtrack-on-his-pick-to-lead-nasa-153253836.html?src=rss

Not A Super Announcement Trump pulls Isaacman nomination for space. Source: “NASA is f***ed” "NASA's budget request is just a going-out-of-business mode" without Isaacman. Eric Berger – May 31, 2025 5:22 pm | 59 Jared Isaacman during training at SpaceX before the Polaris Dawn mission. Credit: SpaceX Jared Isaacman during training at SpaceX before the Polaris Dawn mission. Credit: SpaceX Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The Trump administration has confirmed that it is pulling the nomination of private astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. First reported by Semafor, the decision appears to have been made because Isaacman was not politically loyal enough to the Trump Administration. "The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump’s bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars," Liz Huston, a White House Spokesperson, said in a statement released Saturday. "It's essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda and a replacement will be announced directly by President Trump soon." The US Senate Commerce Committee approved Issacman's nomination by a vote of 19 to 9 one month ago, advancing his candidacy to the floor of the US Senate, with unanimous support from Republicans in that April vote. Approval was anticipated after the Memorial Day Holiday. But the tide started to turn against Isaacman late this past week, with the first rumblings of problems coming on Friday, May 30. Not MAGA enough On Saturday, far-right political activist Laura Loomer said on X, "Deep State operatives are trying to derail President Trump’s NASA Administrator pick Jared Isaacman before his Senate confirmation vote this week." This was the first public sign that Isaacman's candidacy was imperiled. So what happened? The waters of MAGA run murky, and the political machinations of the Trump administration are abstruse. However, the timing of Isaacman's derailment coincides with the recent departure of SpaceX founder Elon Musk from Washington. Musk had a central role in the Trump Administration during its first four months. In an interview on Tuesday, Musk told Ars that he has now "significantly" reduced his involvement in politics. Musk was a key factor behind Isaacman's nomination as NASA administrator, and with his backing, Isaacman was able to skip some of the party purity tests that have been applied to other Trump administration nominees. One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats. He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget. Musk's role in the government was highly controversial, winning him enemies both among opponents of Trump's "Make America Great Again" agenda as well as inside the administration. One source told Ars that, with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination. The loss of Isaacman is almost certainly a blow to NASA, which faces substantial budget cuts. The Trump Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2026, released Friday, seeks $18.8 billion for the agency next year—a 24 percent cut from the agency's budget of $24.8 billion for FY 2025. Going out of business? Isaacman is generally well-liked in the space community and is known to care deeply about space exploration. Officials within the space agency—and the larger space community—hoped that having him as NASA's leader would help the agency restore some of these cuts. Now? "NASA is f---ed," one current leader in the agency told Ars on Saturday. "NASA's budget request is just a going-out-of-business mode without Jared there to innovate," a former senior NASA leader said. The Trump administration did not immediately name a new nominee, but two people told Ars that former US Air Force Lieutenant General Steven L. Kwast may be near the top of the list. Now retired, Kwast has a distinguished record in the Air Force and is politically loyal to Trump and MAGA. However, his background seems to be far less oriented toward NASA's civil space mission and far more focused on seeing space as a battlefield—decidedly not an arena for cooperation and peaceful exploration. Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 59 Comments

COTS is back on the menu If Congress actually cancels the SLS rocket, what happens next? Here's what NASA's exploration plans would actually look like if the White House got its way. Eric Berger – May 13, 2025 3:49 pm | 9 A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA A technician works on the Orion spacecraft, atop the SLS rocket, in January 2022. Credit: NASA Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more The White House Office of Management and Budget dropped its "skinny" budget proposal for the federal government earlier this month, and the headline news for the US space program was the cancellation of three major programs: the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and Lunar Gateway. Opinions across the space community vary widely about the utility of these programs—one friend in the industry predicted a future without them to be so dire that Artemis III would be the last US human spaceflight of our lifetimes. But there can be no question that if such changes are made they would mark the most radical remaking of NASA in two decades. This report, based on interviews with multiple sources inside and out of the Trump administration, seeks to explain what the White House is trying to do with Moon and Mars exploration, what this means for NASA and US spaceflight, and whether it could succeed. Will it actually happen? The first question is whether these changes proposed by the White House will be accepted by the US Congress. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have backed Orion for two decades, the SLS rocket for 15 years, and the Gateway for 10 years. Will they finally give up programs that have been such a reliable source of good-paying jobs for so long? In general, the answer appears to be yes. We saw the outlines of a deal during the confirmation hearing for private astronaut Jared Isaacman to become the next NASA administrator in April. He was asked repeatedly whether he intended to use the SLS rocket and Orion for Artemis II (a lunar fly around) and Artemis III (lunar landing). Isaacman said he did. However nothing was said about using this (very costly) space hardware for Artemis IV and beyond. Congress did not ask, presumably because it knows the answer. And that answer, as we saw in the president's skinny budget, is that the rocket and spacecraft will be killed after Artemis III. This is a pragmatic time to do it, as canceling the programs after Artemis III saves NASA billions of dollars in upgrading the rocket for a singular purpose: assembling a Lunar Gateway of questionable use. But this will not be a normal budget process. The full budget request from the White House is unlikely to come out before June, and it will probably be bogged down in Congress. One of the few levers that Democrats in Congress presently have is the requirement of 60 Senators to pass appropriations bills. So compromise is necessary, and a final budget may very well not pass by the October 1 start of the next fiscal year. Then, should Congress not acquiesce to the budget request, there is the added threat of the White House Office of Management and Budget to use "impoundment" to withhold funding and implement its budget priorities. This process would very quickly get bogged down in the courts, and no one really knows how the Supreme Court would rule. Leadership alignment To date, the budget process for NASA has not been led by space policy officials. Rather, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and its leader, Russell Vought, have set priorities and funding. This has led to "budget driven" policy that has resulted in steep cuts to science that often don't make much sense (i.e. ending funding for the completed Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope). However there soon will be some important voices to implement a more sound space policy and speak for NASA's priorities, rather than those of budget cutters. One of these is President Trump's nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman. He is awaiting floor time in the US Senate for a final vote. That could happen during the next week or two, allowing Isaacman to become the space agency's administrator and begin to play an important role in decision-making. But Isaacman will need allies in the White House itself to carry out sweeping space policy changes. To that end, the report in Politico last week—which Ars has confirmed—that there will be a National Space Council established in the coming months is important. Led by Vice President JD Vance, the space council will provide a counterweight to Vought's budget-driven process. Thus, by this summer, there should be key leadership in place to set space policy that advances the country's exploration goals. But what are those goals? What happens to Artemis After the Artemis III mission the natural question is, what would come next if the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are canceled? The most likely answer is that NASA turns to an old but successful playbook: COTS. This stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation System and was created by NASA two decades ago to develop cargo transport systems (eventually this became SpaceX's Dragon and Northrop's Cygnus spacecraft) for the International Space Station. Since then NASA has adopted this same model for crew services as well as other commercial programs. Under the COTS model, NASA provides funding and guidance to private companies to develop their own spacecraft, rockets, and services, and then buys those at a "market" rate. The idea of a Lunar COTS program is not new. NASA employees explored the concept in a research paper a decade ago, finding that "a future (Lunar) COTS program has the great potential of enabling development of cost-effective, commercial capabilities and establishing a thriving cislunar economy which will lead the way to an economical and sustainable approach for future human missions to Mars." Sources indicate NASA would go to industry and seek an "end-to-end" solution for lunar missions. That is, an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth. One of the bidders would certainly be SpaceX, with its Starship vehicle already having been validated during the Artemis III mission. Crews could launch from Earth either in Dragon or Starship. Blue Origin is the other obvious bidder. The company might partner with Lockheed Martin to commercialize the Orion spacecraft or use the crew vehicle it is developing internally. Other companies could also participate. The point is that NASA would seek to buy astronaut transportation to the Moon, just as it already is doing with cargo and science experiments through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. The extent of an Artemis lunar surface presence would be determined by several factors, including the cost and safety of this transportation program and whether there are meaningful things for astronauts to do on the Moon. What about Mars? The skinny budget contained some intriguing language about Mars exploration: "By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient." This was, in fact, the only budget increase proposed by the Trump White House. So what does it mean? No one is saying for sure, but this funding would probably offer a starting point for a robust Mars COTS program. This would begin with cargo missions to Mars. But eventually it would expand to include crewed missions, thus fulfilling Trump's promise to land humans on the red planet. Is this a gift to Elon Musk? Critics will certainly cast it as such, and that is understandable. But the plan would be open to any interested companies, and there are several. Rocket Lab, for example, has already expressed its interest in sending cargo missions to Mars. Impulse Space, too, has said it is building a spacecraft to ferry cargo to Mars and land there. The Trump budget proposal also kills a key element of NASA's Mars exploration plans, the robotic Mars Sample Return mission to bring rocks and soil from the red planet to Earth in the 2030s. However, this program was already frozen by the Biden administration because of delays and cost overruns. Sources said the goal of this budget cut, rather than having a single $8 billion Mars Sample Return mission, is to create an ecosystem in which such missions are frequent. The benefit of opening a pathway to Mars with commercial companies is that it would allow for not just a single Mars Sample Return mission, but multiple efforts at a lower cost. "The fact is we want to land large things, including crew cabins, on the Moon and Mars and bring them back to Earth," one Republican space policy consultant said. "Instead of building a series of expensive bespoke robotic landers to do science, let's develop cost-effective reusable landers that can, with minimal changes, support both cargo and crew missions to the Moon and Mars." Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger Senior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 9 Comments