Understanding Trump’s proposed NASA cuts, in the larger context of the overall federal budget
U.S. debt as of June 4, 2025. Click for original.
For my entire life it has always been the same: Whenever any politician or elected official proposes any cuts to the federal budget, and most especially when those cuts are aimed at a popular government agency like NASA, the news reports in the mainstream press are uniformly hostile.
Trump’s proposal to cut NASA’s budget by 24% in 2026 has been no different. Here are just a few headlines:
- Ars Technica: Some parts of Trump’s proposed budget for NASA are literally draconian
- Sky & Telescope: Proposed NASA Budget Would Gut Space Science, Jobs
- New York Times: Scientific Discoveries, and Dreams, in the Balance
- Mother Jones: Donald Trump’s Proposed Budget Would Gut American Science
- Science: Dozens of active and planned NASA spacecraft killed in Trump budget request
- Space News: NASA budget would cancel dozens of science missions, lay off thousands
This list is only a sampling, but they are typical of almost all the reporting now and that always happens when big cuts are proposed in any government program. The spin is always the same: “These cuts are horrible, their acceptance would be the act of a barbarian, and by doing so will certainly cause the fall of civilization!”
Above all, the focus is always on the cuts themselves, and never on the larger picture.
I am not going to do that. I have reviewed in detail the proposed cuts to NASA, and am now going to take a detailed look, but will do so by considering the larger context of the overall federal budget and the need to get its spending under control.
And out of control that budget is, as indicated by the screen capture above of today’s US Debt Clock. The United States is bankrupt. If we don’t gain some control over federal spending in a very near future some very bad things are going to happen, and soon. And those bad things will likely shut down luxury items like NASA entirely, not just impose some cuts to its overall budget.
All Trump is doing is attempting a first stab at this problem. The real question is whether he has made a rational and reasonable attempt, or whether it should be revised in some manner.
This is the perspective I bring to this issue. I just wish others would do the same.
Click for larger more readable version
First, let’s look at what has Trump proposed. His basic proposal [pdf] is to cut NASA’s budget in 2026 by 24%, reducing it from just under $25 billion in 2025 to just under $19 billion in 2026.
Is this reasonable? I have to say, based simply on the state of the debt and deficit, it seems completely reasonable. Furthermore, based on NASA’s own generally poor use of its funding in recent years, with almost all of its projects going over budget and behind schedule almost routinely — sometimes by billions of dollars — these cuts seem reasonable as well. Moreover, this budget reduction merely brings NASA’s budget back to what it was in 2017. NASA was able to do quite a lot then with that amount of money. There is no reason it can’t function with that amount now.
The question then becomes: Has the Trump administration distributed the cuts within NASA in a rational and sensible way?
My overall sense of these cuts, based on my review of the full budget proposal [pdf], can be summed up in one word, “Yes.”
If you go through this budget line by line, several overall managerial strategies become obvious. First, the White House looked at each NASA line item and decided to fund it only if it supported the agency’s fundamental goal of space exploration and manned spaceflight. Projects that did not contribute to this focus were canceled. Others that did support these goals actually got more funding.
Second, the agency reviewed everything with an eye to increasing operational efficiency. Numerous duplicate programs are either eliminated or consolidated. While many news reports focus solely on the canceled programs, a closer look shows that many aren’t actually being cancelled, but are being consolidated into similar programs found elsewhere within NASA.
This review also took a hard look at many big projects, such as SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway, and recognized that these projects are doing little to achieve NASA’s primary goal of space exploration. SLS and Orion cost too much and cannot possibly launch often enough to make any manned program possible. Lunar Gateway meanwhile has no real purpose and doesn’t serve these goals well. All are to be eliminated.
Similarly, the Mars Sample Return Mission was cancelled because it was overbudget, behind schedule, and incoherently managed. There was no possibility it could do what it said, based on NASA’s plans. Better to dump it entirely so as to spend the money more effectively elsewhere.
The budget proposal was also brutal towards NASA’s educational programs, cancelling them entirely. The reasoning was simple.
NASA’s primary role is space exploration and, similar to prior generations that were inspired by the Apollo lunar landings, NASA will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting, ambitious space missions. No funding is requested for Space Grant, EPSCoR, MUREP, and Next Gen STEM.
In other words, rather than spend money on education directly, NASA will fund actual space exploration, which in turn will do more to inspire kids than these bureaucratic efforts. This is what happened in the 1960s. There is no reason it can’t happen now.
Third, the renewed focus on space exploration and manned spaceflight meant that some programs needed more funds. The big news has been the decision to spend an additional $1 billion on manned spaceflight, with a shift of focus that now includes both the Moon and Mars. Less noticed however were the budget increases for planetary defense (dealing with the threat of an asteroid impact) and space weather. The latter is not only aimed at better protecting Earth technology from a sudden powerful flares from the Sun, but it will also better protect astronauts from radiation when they travel in interplanetary space.
Thus, my careful review of the entire budget proposal reveals it to be rational and thoughtful attempt to gain control of the NASA budget, to refocus the agency’s efforts where it belongs, and to make the agency more efficient in doing so.
Having said that, there are of course places where we can argue specifics. For example, the budget ends funding for several functioning and very useful in-space facilities, such as the Chandra X-Ray Observatory ($69.6 million per year) and the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory ($6 million per year). It also cuts funding to Osiris-Apex ($14.5 million per year), presently on its way to rendezvous with the potentially dangerous asteroid Apophis. These particular cuts, especially for the latter two, seem penny-wise-pound-foolish, as to keep them operating is relatively cheap. It should be possible to find money for them elsewhere.
I am sure others can find other projects they think should not be cut. If so however we cannot demand that NASA increase its budget to fund our pet projects. Other cuts must be found to pay for them. For example, I think NASA could save many millions by consolidating many of its very centers located scattered across the country. Some could be eliminated entirely. The cost savings just in overhead could fund these important missions already in space.
And if eliminating centers isn’t possible (at least for now), there are many other overhead costs at NASA that should be reviewed again. For example, NASA has a line item of half a billion dollars for what it calls “Mission Enabling Services,” but in reading the description of what it does, it seems to me that there is a lot of bureaucratic waste here that can be cut or eliminated:
Mission Enabling Services (MES) ensure NASA mission success with foundational support services using enterprise service delivery, while promoting engagement to enhance problem solving and agile responses to evolving requirements. Using an enterprise approach, the MES program eliminates duplicative capabilities, provides opportunities for employees to collaborate across geographic boundaries, and remains agile to shifting demands and surge requirements, while ensuring the health, safety, and security of NASA people, property, and the public. Missions rely on MES’ institutional capabilities to accomplish their objectives. Enterprise management ensures that critical agency operations are strategic, mission-focused, agile, and streamlined.
A lot of words that say practically nothing. When I read this kind of bureaucratic jargon, my immediate instincts say it is providing nothing of value, and should be eliminated entirely.
Janet Petro, acting NASA administrator
The bottom line is that this Trump budget is not evil or barbaric. It does what few in government, in academia, and in Washingtion have wanted to do in years. It faces the reality of the deficit and attempts to deal with it. It seems to me it deserves a hearing on that basis, rather than the typical “We’re all gonna die and civilization will end if these cuts are passed!” tactics seen for decades.
One last note: This budget proposal seems to have been shepherded largely by the acting administrator of NASA, Janet Petro. It appears she was told by the White House to cut the budget by 1/4, and she then went through NASA’s spending with a fine tooth comb, finding as best as she could what was needed and what could be cut. This effort on her part recommends her highly for the job. Her background, having previously been head of the Kennedy Space Center, recommends her as well. She knows the inner workings of NASA.
It could very well be that Trump was so impressed by her effort putting this budget together that this was a factor in his decision to withdraw Jared Isaacman’s nomination. Trump might have decided he was better off with this NASA insider running things, especially because she apparently is 100% behind his own goals.
Minor addendum: I realized while working out at the gym after completing this essay that those who haven’t read my earlier work might wonder why I seem so unconcerned about these cuts at NASA, despite being a big advocate of space exploration. For some clarification, see this essay earlier in the week: Trump’s NASA budget cuts and rejection of Jared Isaacman for NASA administrator signal a very bright future for American space. The conclusion is the most important part.
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
When Dubya blew a trillion on Iraq–where were the fiscal hawks then?
What does that have to do with the $2.5 trillion dollar annual deficits that are eating our lunch right now?
Response to JW: Depending whose BS #’s you believe, the second Gulf War cost $819b – 2.9T. It was all payback for 9-11. How much was that worth to you? For the general public, quite a bit, as they supported the enterprise for the next 7-8 years until O’Bama.
The question here is what do we do with the rest of the budget? The manned side has been the worst command oriented and poorly performing part. Commercializing it is a no brainer especially if Mars is funded entirely privately. The science side is trickier, though not without its budgetary debacles (Mars sample return, for instance), that might be done better with a commercial manned mission.
The question then becomes how to fund and better yet prioritize the pure science / exploration missions? My guess is a series of grants for specific returns. NASA becomes what it should have been in the first place, a scheduling adn priority setting apparat. Cheers –
I agree that NASA needs some cuts. These all seem rational. Goodbye Gateway (what a dumb idea that was).
However, I do think a few things should stay. The educational outreach needs to have a much smaller footprint, but it should remain. I remember getting the 8×10 photo sets they used to send out. Get back to that sort of engagement. No need to send gobs of stuff. Just a few simple things that create excitement.
The ELaNa project has created many engineers through its launching of CubeSats. There should remain a way for universities to get ride-share opportunities, even if it isn’t a direct item.
That’s it. Close facilities. Remove duplication and get back to spaceflight. Sounds like a good plan.
Joe: I’m going to hammering this point endlessly I know, but just because you want to keep some things at NASA is not enough, no matter how good you think they are. You need to suggest something else that can be cut instead. I did so in my essay. Do you have any suggestions?
Just demanding we keep things isn’t good enough anymore, because that’s what we’ve been doing for decades, and the result is a gigantic debt and an out-of-control federal government. We need to be more responsible.
Speaking of Isaacman, today we have his first substantive comments about the collapse of his nomination, courtesy of a podcast interview he did this morning, reported by Jeff Foust at Space News. This seemed like the most appropriate recent thread in which to share it…
Of course, we still can’t assume that we have the full story.
At any rate, the second part of the Foust article goes into some detail about what Isaacman was hoping to do with NASA, and there are some thoughtful ideas in there. “You have dozens of layers of leadership. Everybody’s got a deputy. I would have deleted all of that.”
https://spacenews.com/isaacman-people-with-axes-to-grind-about-musk-caused-withdrawn-nasa-nomination/
We can’t cut NASA or anything – trillions will die. I am sick of the whining, crying, and lies.
The simple fact is the country is de-facto bankrupt. >$800 billion in interest is unsustainable. Unsustainable. Everyone uses that word, but “it can’t happen here”. It can, is, and will. Some estimates are we can kiss everything goodbye in about a decade.
You go Janet. Don’t throw good money after bad, save the Republic. Real sorry we’re $35 trillion in debt. Can’t lower rates or you’ll get inflation, can’t print money or you’ll get inflation, can’t pay the interest without lowering rates or printing money – What are we supposed to do?
Richard M: Isaacman’s plans for NASA, as stated in this interview, sound good. In fact, I wonder how many “deputies” Petro’s budget cut. If not many, that would be the first place to start to find money for things like Chandra, Osiris-Rex, and Swift.
Hello Bob,
Indeed!
Big beautiful bill seems to not address this budgetary issue.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Friedberg, from the all in podcast, interviews Isaacman
https://youtu.be/6YdOjoaQTOQ?si=7XRtnJKGH4dDDFrS
Isaacman is very impressive in the interview. Says federal spending is out of control. Says he would have made the NASA cuts work. In terms of Bob saying Trump came to like Janet Petro, well Isaacman sounds very intelligent, is well accomplished, wanted the NASA job, was going to make the cuts work, got along with the Senate and is an excellent public communicator. If Petro can match what Jared has to offer, there must be another high ranking position she could fill.
Very disturbing that Friedberg, who is very well connected in the tech bro wing of the Trump coalition, alludes to anti Elon sentiment as the reason for the Isaacman nomination to be withdrawn. Trump is the one who has to answer for the decisions he is making. Cutting NASA is necessary. But it is Trump who has said there will be no cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Now, Elon is being cut out because he opposes the excess spending? Almost too ridiculous to accept as true. Yet, what the heck is going on?
Robert,
I think you are missing an issue. NASA’s budget expanding or contracting is less of a concern than the total budget. I’d like to look over other departments for cuts to fund the programs you list, as well as nuclear thermal propulsion. It’s a matter of priorities.
“Mission Enabling Services”
As someone who used to write nonsense descriptions as a joke between me and a co-worker that actually meant nothing but impressed a full-of-himself boss, I’m lucky my eyes didn’t fall out from rolling while trying to read it.
A later IT job dealt with entire ‘War & Peace’ style procedures that had so much extra un-related information (like the history of their part in the company and vague multiple choice questions that the 5 people in my office could each come up with a case for each of the 5 answers) that they were pretty much un-readable and un-usable. At one point I ended up being asked to rewrite them. Each procedure got it’s own write-up from start to finish in under 5 total pages of both step-by-step and a matching flow chart with possible related trouble shooting. And, since they were intended for people that had to have a basic understanding of IT in general to even get hired, I left out things like plugging power cords in and turning machines on. Everything was simple, basic and had no fancy words to confuse or attempt to impress anyone. KISS at it’s finest.
OmegaPaladin: My intention in this essay was to focus solely on NASA, because I am well versed in the subject (I am a space historian after all) and because it serves as a prime example of what it appears Trump and the White House is trying to do across the entire federal budget.
For sure, savings in other places could pay for stuff we want at NASA but playing that game at this point defeats the main goal, getting the federal budget under control. We have to stop playing that game, and accept the reality that large cuts have to be made, across the board. I want space exploration, but I also know that none of that can happen if the entire country goes bankrupt. We need to fix the federal government for all our sakes.
I was not previously aware that there even was such a thing as MES within NASA. Given that NASA manifests none of the ostensible characteristics MES is allegedly there to facilitate, MES (very appropriate acronym pronunciation) is obviously a bureaucratic tumor initiated and nurtured by internal NASA empire builders and should be excised entirely. A half-billion dollars would keep all of the current probes on the chopping block in service and cover some worthy new efforts as well.
When it comes to closure of NASA centers the two obvious targets are Langley and MSFC. Langley is entirely duplicative, both in work pursued and in facilities, to other centers that are both newer, in better physical shape and more capable. The Langley physical plant is said to be in an advanced state of decrepitude pretty much across the board. Close and bulldoze.
Ditto for the much larger MSFC. With SLS, Orion and Gateway about to enter hospice care, most of what MSFC does is going away. What little it does that is worth keeping can be transferred to other centers.
Barely a half-step behind Langley and MSFC on the list of centers deserving closure is Goddard. It has proven increasingly profligate and managerially incompetent during this century. If not outright closure, Goddard needs, at a minimum, a complete replacement – and downsizing – of its management cadre.
For those who may have missed it: Keith Cowing of NASA Watch has co-authored an op-ed at the Houston Chronicle decrying the Trump budget cuts. The short summary is: “NASA is already great.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/space-trump-nasa-budget-china-usa-world-20358016.php
It became clear some time ago, unfortunately, that Keith, along with the unhappy NASA employees for whom he serves as a public mouthpiece, has become a vivid embodiment of Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. It’s not that Keith doesn’t still have some genuine enthusiasm for the actual, nominal mission of the agency; but it’s always framed, as it is here, in a devotion to the institution itself. Any actual criticisms Keith directs at that institution these days are peripheral ones (invariably, that 1) NASA is terrible at PR, or 2) NASA isn’t standing up to Trump). For Keith and colleagues, there’s nothing really wrong with NASA. What it really needs is just more funding. The institution has become an end in itself.
And the result is, that any good he does in poking NASA’s dismal PR office is overwhelmed by his enabling of the far greater institutional dysfunction that prevails in many parts of NASA. There’s room for constructive criticism of the Trump FY2026 budget — our kind host offers that here, in fact — but you won’t get it from Keith Cowing. He’s here for the institution.
Dick,
As we all know too well, MSFC is a hard target for budget cutting sorties, thanks to Alabama’s, uh, energetic congressional delegation over the last few decades. Trump/Vought don’t seem to be killing it so much as gutting it, though. Maybe that sets it up for a kill later? But I don’t know when Trump will have more leverage to do these kinds of things than right now.
I have always thought that MSFC *could* have a legitimate mission doing advanced propulsion research — the kind of tech that it would be hard for a commercial space company to close a business case on. That would at least accord with the letter and spirit of NASA’s authorizing statute where the “research” part of the mission is concerned. The Trump budget basically wiped that out too, though, zeroing out DRACO. (See the Ars Technica story from Berger and Clark on this from this weekend.) And maybe there’s an argument for that. But I guess my sense is that if we can’t close Marshall, I would at least like to force it back into something like its original, pre-Apollo mission.
I’m sure all this is going to mightily provoke our friend Mr Wright, though.
By the way, I want to second Steve’s recommendation of the Isaacman interview. It really is worth your time.
If you just want the meat of Jared’s discussion of what’s wrong with NASA, and how he might have tried to fix it, and what he thought about the Trump budget, listen to just the section from 16:37 to 48.30.
With the jack Parsons and Barbara Crowley legacies at NASA, it’s not surprising, if you FOUGHT with them AND the feds in the 90’s trying to get the facts out about Mars and several other bodies flying around the inner solar system, and Tom Van Flandern’s research (which was “blown away” by the algorical “inventing” the internet). And DON’T get me started about Gene Schumacher and Apollo 17…..
Yes keeping those flying missions going is small potatoes as far as funding goes. So it would seem reasonable to fund them. But there’s a political/emotional side to this too:
Every organization has to take a hit. Otherwise one organization will whine and moan and wonder why someone else caught a break but they didn’t. If everyone takes a haircut there will be less moaning. I’m not talking about the moans from the “the world will end and trillions will die” crowd, but sensible people.
Now if Petro is selected and if it’s true that Petro will do whatever Trump wants her to do, then Trump has saved himself a world of trouble by dumping Isaacman. This is because it essentially cuts Congress out. Unless Congress puts a line item in the budget appropriations that specifically says “Project Small-Potatoes will not be cut and will be funded to the tune of $XYZ dollars” – like Hubble’s line item for instance – then all Trump needs to do is order Project Small-Potatoes ended and it will be ended. Doesn’t matter who lobby’s which congresscritter. Doesn’t matter how many letters are written. Doesn’t matter what any congresscritter wants or thinks. Doesn’t matter what the scientists say. Nobody has to be convinced.
Saville: Nice addition to my essay.
Are you talking about impoundment here? Because if you are….the court precedent on that isn’t promising for that.
But either way, given that the White House has made such a show of killing so many missions in its PBR, and given what it has already done with DOGE-related swings of the axe….you better bet that Congressional leadership will write the appropriation as specifically as possible to ensure that the missions they want to keep will get funded.
(For what it’s worth, our friend VSECOTSPE discusses his attempt to do this sort of thing with the NASA budget back when he was at the OMB for Bush, and how it blew up in his face: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=62717.msg2686540#msg2686540 )
Richard M: Saville is not talking about impoundment. Any project created by an agency that is not specified in the budget bill can just as easily be eliminated entirely by the agency.
At the same time, Congress has a long history of adding such projects when presidents in the past tried to end them. Thus, the track record of our federal budget always rising endlessly.
NERVA is Lucy and the football. Wish they would finally put some hardware in space for testing.
Hi Bob,
Thanks, it was not quite clear to me.
But in the current circumstances….yes, I think the White House must expect that the interested space state legislators will go the extra miles to ensure that their pet missions are kept going and funded, which, as Saville notes, they have done with things like Hubble in past years.
Again, though….I am not aware of a single NASA budget proposal that has ever escaped contact with Congress completely intact.
Richard M wrote, “Again, though….I am not aware of a single NASA budget proposal that has ever escaped contact with Congress completely intact.”
Neither have I. However, the situation now is very different. Trump is blasting budget cuts at Congress at all levels in the full budget proposal, not just NASA. I think it will be very difficult for Congress to address every cut by adding it specifically to the passed budget, especially because the public very clearly wants the budget cut. There is a mid-term election coming, and a failure to make a significant impact on the deficit will not sell well this time.
If you won’t cut defense, Medicare, Medicaid or Social security, you are not serious about controlling spending. The government is essentially a public insurance company with a significant defense business. Cut everything else and we would still be in trouble. The reason we need the other cuts is to make the necessary reforms in the above programs palatable.
Cloudy: Yup.
I remember getting the 8×10 photo sets they used to send out. Get back to that sort of engagement. No need to send gobs of stuff.
How retro. “send”? what is this “send” of which you speak? It’s all on the Intertubes. No need to send anything. Just go get whatever you want.
I just made the mistake on sneaking a peak on X just now and….jeez. What a mistake that was.
If Trump were Andy Jackson, his and Elon’s seconds would be busy marking out the South Lawn for a duel with pistols at dawn tomorrow.
I keep telling myself this every election since…1992. Every time, the voters keep proving me wrong.
I think the typical MAGA voter does worry about the deficit, quite a bit. I think quite a lot of MAGA voters care even more about even the hint of a cut to their Medicare or Social Security (or if they are merely Gen X, the threat to what will soon be their Medicare or Social Security). And it’s hard to find congressmen without the last name “Paul” who do not care about headlines involving “layoffs of hundreds of high paying jobs in my district.”
Sorry, Bob, I can’t help indulging my inner cynic just now. :(
I do hope there’s a budget neutral way to save some of these ongoing missions. I’ll leave it at that.
Fasten your seatbelts, everyone. The ride is about to get a lot rougher. The spat between Trump and Musk that began with Isaacman’s nomination being withdrawn has escalated into a full-blown Twitter war.
Trump is threatening to cancel Elon’s government contracts, and Musk has responded by threatening to decommission SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft immediately.
I don’t think either will actually happen, but what actually will happen probably won’t be good either.
At least the BBB is not just a continuing resolution that keeps upping the debt till infinity.
No CR has ever reduced the budget.
I’m not taking sides here, but….I’m left to hope that Gwynne Shotwell can stage an intervention tonight.
Well….Ted Cruz has just released his “legislative directives” for NASA on Thursday. And…maybe none of us should have been surprised at the results. Take it away, Eric Berger:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/06/senate-response-to-white-house-budget-for-nasa-keep-sls-nix-science/
The themes emerging here seem to be “pork” and “jingo.” Somehow, Ted and his colleagues seem to have picked the worst of all possible worlds. But that’s pretty much what the U.S. Senate has been doing for the last twenty years, isn’t it?
I do not like that Elon is talking about subsidies for the oil and gas companies like it is a real thing. The big “subsidy” is the government blocks lawsuits which fault the industry for global warming. Like Exxon is forcing the consumer to heat their home or fill the gas tank. The other advantages are accelerated depreciation, dept of energy R&D programs and foreign tax credits. Those subsidies are in place to increase investment which returns a much greater amount of tax revenue and economic activity.
Richard M,
Cowing is a left-statist and, as such, will always, at the end of the day, defend state agencies. He also has a long record of banning anyone who calls him out on his nonsense – me among that legion. As a result, I think both his traffic and his former prominence in the on-line space “community” have dwindled hugely. I haven’t looked at his site in years and I can’t remember the last time anyone on any other forum cited anything from it. Except for the fact that he has always seemed in love with the sound of his own voice I would have expected Cowing to have long since done what Doug Messier finally did – find a credulous buyer for a dying property and cash out.
Re: MSFC – There has never, in living memory, been a public taste for federal budget cutting as strong as that now in evidence. At the same time, the fabled AL Congressional delegation has never been weaker. Trump and his people – particularly Russ Vought – need to strike ruthlessly while they can.
Re: Musk vs. Trump – The first few days are always the worst in any dustup involving Trump vs…. anyone. Volodomyr Zelenskyy is an instructive example. Trump always proposes doing something completely draconian in keeping with his ‘Art of the Deal’ negotiating strategy – start by threatening to take something significant away from one’s opposite number before giving it back to get what he actually wants. It’s how he slapped NATO around during his first administration. It’s how he has approached trade negotiations in his second – wielding tariffs as a war club. The threat to cancel SpaceX’s contracts is thoroughly in keeping with past practice. But I don’t expect it to stick any more than Trump’s initial cutoff of aid to Ukraine stuck once Trump actually understood the real situation anent Russia and Putin and also realized the limitations of his leverage in the whole affair. Trump is sometimes ill-informed and mistaken going into a particular confrontation, but he seems not to be uneducable – unlike, say, the Democratic Party.
Shotwell should, indeed, stage an intervention, but it needs to target Trump far more than Musk. Shotwell should, at a minimum, bring in Petro, Hegseth and Guetlein – three established Trump loyalists – to explain to their sometimes mercurial boss that cancelling SpaceX’s government contracts means abandoning ISS, disabling DoD’s ability to launch more than a trickle of milsats for several years and breaking up Golden Dome on the ways.
In parallel, she should also recruit Cruz after getting Elon to agree to produce a Starship-based replacement for SLS-Orion, gratis, in return for an increased cadence of NASA Artemis missions using this vehicle – which JSC will oversee – starting with Artemis IV.
Shotwell has long since demonstrated she has some non-trivial Art of the Deal chops her ownself. Orchestrating such a coup would be the high point of an already brilliant career.
“Re: Musk vs. Trump ”
Just sit back and enjoy the show.
All for public consumption.
“Elon Musk agreed that he and President Trump should “make peace.”
Petulant billionaire does not understand that there is a difference between the black and white of business and the shades of gray and horse trading in politics? Can Elon be that naive and idealistic? Remember, he just a short while ago was a Obama / Joe Biden supporter.
And or the entire dust up was a fabrication about publicly / symbolically separating Elon from Trump for stockholder / business purposes.
(You already missed the dip)
Trust none of them at this level.
Will $20 billion help?
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/icymi-administrator-lee-zeldin-finds-gold-bars-epa-stacey-abrams-connected-group-biden
(be careful when reading, could result in extreme head shaking)
Robert wrote in his posted essay: “It faces the reality of the deficit and attempts to deal with it. It seems to me it deserves a hearing on that basis, rather than the typical ‘We’re all gonna die and civilization will end if these cuts are passed!’ tactics seen for decades.”
If the cuts are passed, then there will be some people whose jobs are likely to go away, but many of them should be able to work for the many startups that have formed in the past quarter century. Death is certain, but not from these cuts. Civilization will merely replace the necessary parts that are cut with commerce or philanthropy. Indeed, most of the entire federal budget could be replaced by commerce or philanthropy, and most of it once was. Somehow, the federal government got into areas of life that are none of its business and that we used to cover all by ourselves. At one time, We the People were responsible citizens, able to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, but now we seem to lean on government for everything.
In fact, that is how we missed out on half a century of commerce in space and benefits from space. We convinced ourselves that NASA would provide results based upon the ideas that were presented by Walt Disney and Werner von Braun as well as provide advancements similar to the dream of Arthur Clark and Stanley Kubrick. Instead, government did what government does, and we were disappointed. Keeping NASA as it is now only perpetuates that disappointment. NASA needs to change its role and usefulness for America’s citizens.
“It appears [Janet Petro] was told by the White House to cut the budget by 1/4, and she then went through NASA’s spending with a fine tooth comb, finding as best as she could what was needed and what could be cut. This effort on her part recommends her highly for the job. Her background, having previously been head of the Kennedy Space Center, recommends her as well. She knows the inner workings of NASA.”
It looks like she takes instruction well. In another thread, some people seemed to think that one could be loyal or competent, but not both. Petro shows signs of both.
Cutting new projects or projects already in process in favor of probes that are already launched, yet have passed their intended lives, tends to risk losing the science gained in the future from the new projects. Cut the ones that make least sense or are otherwise poorly managed (e.g. over budget or behind schedule). Keep the good projects, even if they are past their original lifespan. The more efficient the project, the more we want to keep it. Poorly managed projects result in the loss of other science opportunities, which is one of the biggest complaints I have with the Webb telescope.
Now that we have We the People doing our own commercial utilizations of space, NASA’s role necessarily must change. When it was the only space operator, except for the occasional communication company, it had the burden of doing virtually everything in space. Exploration, surveys, science, utilization, and all the other benefits space were the responsibility of NASA. Now, however, we have many, many others putting their own resources into finding ways to do all that we can do in space, at least all that will provide profit, benefit, or knowledge from space.
NASA was always lousy at providing commercial products, and it even abandoned providing services to produce pharmaceuticals for the benefit of we earthlings.
ad astra lucrum