Later this month, an inconspicuous 150-kilogram satellite is set to launch into space aboard the SpaceX Transporter 14 mission. Once in orbit, it will test super-accurate next-generation satnav technology designed to make up for the shortcomings of t

Later this month, an inconspicuous 150-kilogram satellite is set to launch into space aboard the SpaceX Transporter 14 mission. Once in orbit, it will test super-accurate next-generation satnav technology designed to make up for the shortcomings of t

Two satellite heavyweights are about to form a European rival to Starlink. But they’ll face an uphill battle to compete with Elon Musk’s firm. Luxembourg-based SES’ proposed $3.1bn takeover of Intelsat is set to get the green light from EU officials, Reuters reports. A final verdict is expected by June 10.   SES first announced plans to acquire Luxembourgish-American rival Intelsat in April 2024, calling it a “transformational merger” that could reshape the satellite internet market. The merged company would have a fleet of more than 100 geostationary and 26 medium Earth orbit satellites. Intelsat would contribute 75 of those probes, which provide a range of services, including TV, radio, satellite internet, and secure communications for governments and militaries. A SES-Intelsat tie-up would create Europe’s second-largest satellite internet provider, after Franco-British firm Eutelsat. Smaller contenders include the UK’s Inmarsat and Spain’s Hisdesat.  Combined, Europe’s satellite firms could offer the continent much-sought alternatives to Musk’s Starlink or Amazon’s Project Kuiper, at a time when tech sovereignty is high on the political agenda.  European leaders are increasingly concerned about relying on Starlink. Their fears have been stoked by reports that US officials threatened to cut off the system in Ukraine if the country didn’t meet their demands on sharing its mineral wealth.   The situation raised doubts about the security implications of Ukraine — and broader Europe — relying on a single, privately owned network whose boss has direct ties to the Trump administration. Eustalstat, SES, Inmarsat, and Hisdesat reportedly entered talks with EU governments in March about providing back-up connectivity to Ukraine.  Despite the SES–Intelsat merger creating a more formidable European player, the new alliance will still face a daunting challenge against Starlink’s dominance.  Musk’s firm dwarfs its competitors in satellite numbers, with over 7,000 in low-Earth orbit (LEO). Its closest rival, Eutelsat, has around 600. Meanwhile, Amazon’s Project Kuiper is planning to deploy a constellation of 3,236 satellites.   Being part of SpaceX also affords Starlink direct access to satellite manufacturing and launch capacity. In contrast, SES and Intelsat depend on third-party launch providers and currently lack a proprietary low-Earth orbit network. While Intelsat has a $250mn agreement to access Eutelsat’s LEO capacity, this reliance on external constellations puts the merged entity at a disadvantage.  Even when combined with Europe’s other players — including Eutelsat, Inmarsat, and Hisdesat — the proposed merger pales in comparison. As European policymakers push for strategic autonomy in space, the SES–Intelsat merger may be a step in the right direction, but it’s still a far cry from a true Starlink rival.

Elon Musk’s sudden breakup with President Trump took over social media on Thursday. But the escalating feud won’t be enough to salvage a Starlink contract with Canada’s Ontario province, which canceled the deal to hit back at Trump’s trade war. Ontario Premier Doug Ford today confirmed to reporters that the Starlink deal is still dead, even though Musk is on the outs with Trump. Ford also couldn’t help but take a shot at the very public demise of the Musk-Trump partnership.“Yes, Starlink is done,” he said. “Are we surprised that they’re not seeing eye-to-eye? I predicted that as soon as that marriage happened. I thought that there would be a divorce real quick.”As for why Ontario won’t revive the deal, Ford indicated that Musk’s past support of Trump and his trade war against Canada went too far. This included Musk tweeting “Canada is not a real country" in response to a petition urging the Canadian government to rescind his citizenship.Recommended by Our Editors“I don’t want to deal with someone who’s attacking our country. And he was one of the number one culprits, Elon Musk. And that’s unacceptable. I can’t do business with someone that’s doing that,” Ford said. SpaceX’s Starlink business was originally supposed to receive a $100 million CAD ($73 million) contract to deploy satellite internet dishes that would connect 15,000 underserved homes and businesses. But in March, Ontario killed the deal to retaliate against Trump’s 25% tariff on Canadian goods. The decision caused anti-Starlink sentiment skyrocketed in the country, but it also undermined Ontario's effort to bring high-speed broadband to rural and remote areas. Still, some Canadian consumers continue to subscribe to and sign up for the satellite internet service, which has been pushing Starlink promotions in the country. In the meantime, Musk’s emerging feud with Trump could trigger some harsh consequences for SpaceX, which receives numerous federal contracts. In a Truth Social post on Thursday, the President said: “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.”

Two satellite heavyweights are about to form a European rival to Starlink. But they’ll face an uphill battle to compete with Elon Musk’s firm. Luxembourg-based SES’ proposed $3.1bn takeover of Intelsat is set to get the green light from EU officials, Reuters reports. A final verdict is expected by June 10.   SES first announced plans to acquire Luxembourgish-American rival Intelsat in April 2024, calling it a “transformational merger” that could reshape the satellite internet market. The merged company would have a fleet of more than 100 geostationary and 26 medium Earth orbit satellites. Intelsat would contribute 75 of those probes, which provide a range of services, including TV, radio, satellite internet, and secure communications for governments and militaries. A SES-Intelsat tie-up would create Europe’s second-largest satellite internet provider, after Franco-British firm Eutelsat. Smaller contenders include the UK’s Inmarsat and Spain’s Hisdesat.  Combined, Europe’s satellite firms could offer the continent much-sought alternatives to Musk’s Starlink or Amazon’s Project Kuiper, at a time when tech sovereignty is high on the political agenda.  European leaders are increasingly concerned about relying on Starlink. Their fears have been stoked by reports that US officials threatened to cut off the system in Ukraine if the country didn’t meet their demands on sharing its mineral wealth.   The situation raised doubts about the security implications of Ukraine — and broader Europe — relying on a single, privately owned network whose boss has direct ties to the Trump administration. Eustalstat, SES, Inmarsat, and Hisdesat reportedly entered talks with EU governments in March about providing back-up connectivity to Ukraine.  Despite the SES–Intelsat merger creating a more formidable European player, the new alliance will still face a daunting challenge against Starlink’s dominance.  Musk’s firm dwarfs its competitors in satellite numbers, with over 7,000 in low-Earth orbit (LEO). Its closest rival, Eutelsat, has around 600. Meanwhile, Amazon’s Project Kuiper is planning to deploy a constellation of 3,236 satellites.   Being part of SpaceX also affords Starlink direct access to satellite manufacturing and launch capacity. In contrast, SES and Intelsat depend on third-party launch providers and currently lack a proprietary low-Earth orbit network. While Intelsat has a $250mn agreement to access Eutelsat’s LEO capacity, this reliance on external constellations puts the merged entity at a disadvantage.  Even when combined with Europe’s other players — including Eutelsat, Inmarsat, and Hisdesat — the proposed merger pales in comparison. As European policymakers push for strategic autonomy in space, the SES–Intelsat merger may be a step in the right direction, but it’s still a far cry from a true Starlink rival.

Workshop on “Harnessing Space-Based Earth Observation and GIS Technologies for Disaster Risk Management”  isro.gov.in

Martian "slope streaks" spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2017. Scientists previously thought these large, discolored features may be signs of running water. (Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona) Mysterious dark streaks flowing across Mars's surface may not be the result of running water after all, a new artificial intelligence (AI) analysis suggests.The streaks, first observed running along Mars's cliffsides and crater walls by NASA's Viking mission in 1976, were long thought by scientists to have formed as a result of the flow of ancient water across the now mostly desiccated planet's surface.But an AI algorithm trained on slope streak observations has revealed a different origin for the streaks — likely being formed from wind and dust, not water. The findings, published May 19 in the journal Nature Communications, could have important implications for where humans choose to explore Mars, and the places they search for evidence of possible ancient life. "That's the advantage of this big data approach," study co-author Adomas Valantinas, a planetary scientist at Brown University, said in a statement. "It helps us to rule out some hypotheses from orbit before we send spacecraft to explore."The sinewy lines are darker than the surrounding Martian ground and extend for hundreds of meters downhill. The shorter-lived of these features are called recurring slope lineae (RSL), and regularly spring up during Mars's warmer spells.This led some planetary scientists to suggest that seasonal temperature fluctuations could be causing ice or frozen aquifers to melt, or humid air to condense, sending streams of salty water trickling down the planet's craters. If this were true, it would make these regions of particular interest to future Mars missions.To investigate this, the scientists behind the study trained a machine learning algorithm on confirmed streak sightings before making it scan through 86,000 satellite images to create a map of 500,000 streak features.RELATED STORIES"Once we had this global map, we could compare it to databases and catalogs of other things like temperature, wind speed, hydration, rock slide activity and other factors." Bickel said. "Then we could look for correlations over hundreds of thousands of cases to better understand the conditions under which these features form."Using the map, the scientists found the streaks were most likely to form in places where wind speed and dust deposition was high, suggesting that they came from layers of fine dust sliding off steep slopes.Other studies have pointed to tantalizing evidence of water and even life on Mars. If the study findings hold up, they could serve as a guide to sift between the Red Planet's useful leads and its red herrings. Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter nowGet the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

© Henrique Ferreira via Unsplash Finding property lines can be tricky, especially for individuals who are looking to purchase or list a home for sale. Conventional techniques, including engaging surveyors, are costly and labor-intensive. As an alternate solution, technology provides apps that profess to show property lines. This raises the question: How precise are these digital resources at demarcating boundary lines? The emergence of an app that shows property lines has revolutionized how property owners, buyers, and real estate professionals interact with land boundaries. These digital tools leverage advanced mapping technologies to provide visual representations of property boundaries, offering a more accessible alternative to traditional surveying methods while raising important questions about their accuracy and reliability. What Are Property Line Apps? Apps that display property lines use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and satellite imagery. They offer users a visual display of land boundaries, most commonly available on smartphones or tablets. These apps are meant to help make property borders easier to identify and are a helpful tool for property owners, real estate agents, and buyers. These applications typically draw information from public records, county assessor data, and other official sources to create digital representations of property boundaries. Many also incorporate user-friendly features like measurement tools, parcel information displays, and the ability to save or share property data with others. How Various Factors Affect Accuracy Several factors impact the reliability of property line apps. First, the source of the data is significant. Apps usually have access to government databases and public records that vary in accuracy based on when the data was last refreshed. Second, GPS technology limitations impact accuracy. Although GPS technology is becoming more advanced, apps might still have discrepancies where tree cover or high buildings block signals from satellites and influence tracking accuracy. The resolution of satellite imagery also plays a crucial role in determining how precisely property lines can be displayed. Higher-resolution images allow for more detailed and accurate boundary placements, while lower-quality imagery may result in less precise representations. Additionally, the frequency of data updates affects whether the app reflects recent property divisions, consolidations, or boundary adjustments. Comparing Traditional Surveying and Apps Professional surveyors approach property line determination using high-precision equipment and established methodologies. This traditional approach yields highly accurate results with precise and legally enforceable boundaries. Apps offer more general information on property lines compared to professional surveys. While they are fast and convenient, they provide no substitute for the precision of a professional survey. App-generated boundaries should not be relied upon as definitive indications of legal property lines. Traditional surveys involve physical measurements taken directly on the property, considering historical markers, neighboring properties, and legal descriptions. In contrast, apps rely on digital interpretations of existing records, which may not account for all the nuances that a professional surveyor would observe in person. Advantages of property line applications App-Generated Property Lines Property line apps may have their limitations, but they do have valuable uses. They are useful for general assessments where an immediate overview of boundaries may be required. The applications also have user-friendly interfaces that allow a wider audience to use these applications and learn technical skills. Additionally, they are often enhanced with more functionalities, such as calculating areas and providing land parcel information, thus expanding their usefulness for users. According to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, these digital tools have significantly increased public access to property information that was previously difficult to obtain without professional assistance. This democratization of property data allows property owners to be more informed about their land assets and helps potential buyers better understand properties of interest before making major decisions. Potential Limitations and Risks Property line apps may be convenient, but they have clear limitations. Since the data relies heavily on public records, data errors are common. It can be outdated or incomplete, which can lead to misunderstandings or disputes. In addition, these apps are incapable of recognizing legal nuances, such as easements or encroachments, which can significantly impact property rights and boundaries. There is also a risk that users might place too much confidence in app-generated boundaries when making important decisions. While these tools can provide helpful guidance, they should not be the sole basis for resolving boundary disputes, building structures near property lines, or making purchase decisions without professional verification. Best Practices for Users Users should follow a few best practices to make the best and most effective use of a property line app. Cross-referencing results with official records verifies data accuracy, minimizing potential inaccuracies. Moreover, when app data is paired with physical inspections, it provides a fuller picture of property lines. Advice from professionals, including surveyors or real estate agents, can also be beneficial, especially for legal transactions. For important matters such as property purchases, boundary disputes, or construction projects near property lines, it’s advisable to use apps as preliminary tools only, following up with professional surveys before making final decisions. Understanding the limitations of these digital tools helps users utilize them appropriately within a broader strategy for property boundary determination. Conclusion Instead, property line apps provide a convenient and accessible way to determine where your land ends and where your neighbor’s begins. Yet, the precision of these tools is contingent on multiple factors such as data sources and technological limitations. Although useful as an initial step, these tools should not be used, and they should not be used for legal purposes, instead of professional surveys. Users can properly contextualize property boundary information by understanding what these applications can and cannot do. Technology continues to shape how we deal with real estate by digitalizing and providing easy access to tools that simplify complex processes. These apps will likely improve accuracy over time and become increasingly integral to property transactions. Until then, users must balance convenience with reliability, ensuring that the information they obtain is helpful and accurate. Smart Technologytechnology by ArchEyes Team Leave a comment

June 3, 20255 min readAre We Ready for Death in Space?NASA has quietly taken steps to prepare for a death in space. We need to ask how nations will deal with this inevitability now, as more people start traveling off the planetBy Peter Cummings edited by Lee Billings SciePro/Science Photo Library/Getty ImagesIn 2012 NASA stealthily slipped a morgue into orbit.No press release. No fanfare. Just a sealed, soft-sided pouch tucked in a cargo shipment to the International Space Station (ISS) alongside freeze-dried meals and scientific gear. Officially, it was called the Human Remains Containment Unit (HRCU). To the untrained eye it looked like a shipping bag for frozen cargo. But to NASA it marked something far more sobering: a major advance in preparing for death beyond Earth.As a kid, I obsessed over how astronauts went to the bathroom in zero gravity. Now, decades later, as a forensic pathologist and a perennial applicant to NASA’s astronaut corps, I find myself fixated on a darker, more haunting question: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.What would happen if an astronaut died out there? Would they be brought home, or would they be left behind? If they expired on some other world, would that be their final resting place? If they passed away on a spacecraft or space station, would their remains be cast off into orbit—or sent on an escape-velocity voyage to the interstellar void?NASA, it turns out, has begun working out most of these answers. And none too soon. Because the question itself is no longer if someone will die in space—but when.A Graying CorpsNo astronaut has ever died of natural causes off-world. In 1971 the three-man crew of the Soviet Soyuz 11 mission asphyxiated in space when their spacecraft depressurized shortly before its automated atmospheric reentry—but their deaths were only discovered once the spacecraft landed on Earth. Similarly, every U.S. spaceflight fatality to date has occurred within Earth’s atmosphere—under gravity, oxygen and a clear national jurisdiction. That matters, because it means every spaceflight mortality has played out in familiar territory.But planned missions are getting longer, with destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. And NASA’s astronaut corps is getting older. The average age now hovers around 50—an age bracket where natural death becomes statistically relevant, even for clean-living fitness buffs. Death in space is no longer a thought experiment. It’s a probability curve—and NASA knows it.In response, the agency is making subtle but decisive moves. The most recent astronaut selection cycle was extended—not only to boost intake but also to attract younger crew members capable of handling future long-duration missions.NASA’s Space MorgueIf someone were to die aboard the ISS today, their body would be placed in the HRCU, which would then be sealed and secured in a nonpressurized area to await eventual return to Earth.The HRCU itself is a modified version of a military-grade body bag designed to store human remains in hazardous environments. It integrates with refrigeration systems already aboard the ISS to slow decomposition and includes odor-control filters and moisture-absorbent linings, as well as reversed zippers for respectful access at the head. There are straps to secure the body in a seat for return, and patches for name tags and national flags.Cadaver tests conducted in 2019 at Sam Houston State University have proved the system durable. Some versions held for over 40 days before decomposition breached the barrier. NASA even drop-tested the bag from 19 feet to simulate a hard landing.But it’s never been used in space. And since no one yet knows how a body decomposes in true microgravity (or, for that matter, on the moon), no one can really say whether the HRCU would preserve tissue well enough for a forensic autopsy.This is a troubling knowledge gap, because in space, a death isn’t just a tragic loss—it’s also a vital data point. Was an astronaut’s demise from a fluke of their physiology, or an unavoidable stroke of cosmic bad luck—or was it instead a consequence of flaws in a space habitat’s myriad systems that might be found and fixed? Future lives may depend on understanding what went wrong, via a proper postmortem investigation.But there’s no medical examiner in orbit. So NASA trains its crews in something called the In-Mission Forensic Sample Collection protocol. The space agency’s astronauts may avoid talking about it, but they all have it memorized: Document everything, ideally with real-time guidance from NASA flight surgeons. Photograph the body. Collect blood and vitreous fluid, as well as hair and tissue samples. Only then can the remains be stowed in the HRCU.NASA has also prepared for death outside the station—on spacewalks, the moon or deep space missions. If a crew member perishes in vacuum but their remains are retrieved, the body is wrapped in a specially designed space shroud.The goal isn’t just a technical matter of preventing contamination. It’s psychological, too, as a way of preserving dignity. Of all the “firsts” any space agency hopes to achieve, the first-ever human corpse drifting into frame on a satellite feed is not among them.If a burial must occur—in lunar regolith or by jettisoning into solar orbit—the body will be dutifully tracked and cataloged, treated forevermore as a hallowed artifact of space history.Such gestures are also of relevance to NASA’s plans for off-world mourning; grief and memorial protocols are now part of official crew training. If a death occurs, surviving astronauts are tasked with holding a simple ceremony to honor the fallen—then to move on with their mission.Uncharted RealmsSo far we’ve only covered the “easy” questions. NASA and others are still grappling with harder ones.Consider the issue of authority over a death and mortal remains. On the ISS, it’s simple: the deceased astronaut’s home country retains jurisdiction. But that clarity fades as destinations grow more distant and the voyages more diverse: What really happens on space-agency missions to the moon, or to Mars? How might rules change for commercial or multinational spaceflights—or, for that matter, the private space stations and interplanetary settlements that are envisioned by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other tech multibillionaires?NASA and its partners have started drafting frameworks, like the Artemis Accords—agreements signed by more than 50 nations to govern behavior in space. But even those don’t address many intimate details of death.What happens, for instance, if foul play is suspected?The Outer Space Treaty, a legal document drafted in 1967 under the United Nations that is humanity’s foundational set of rules for orbit and beyond, doesn’t say.Of course, not everything can be planned for in advance. And NASA has done an extraordinary job of keeping astronauts in orbit alive. But as more people venture into space, and as the frontier stretches to longer voyages and farther destinations, it becomes a statistical certainty that sooner or later someone won’t come home.When that happens, it won’t just be a tragedy. It will be a test. A test of our systems, our ethics and our ability to adapt to a new dimension of mortality. To some, NASA’s preparations for astronautical death may seem merely morbid, even silly—but that couldn’t be further from the truth.Space won’t care of course, whenever it claims more lives. But we will. And rising to that grim occasion with reverence, rigor and grace will define not just policy out in the great beyond—but what it means to be human there, too.

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.”