The Senate, led by Ted Cruz, endorses NASA’s failed SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway
Let’s all go bankrupt! A bill introduced today by Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, rejects the Trump budget plan to phase out NASA’s failed SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway programs that have cost so far tens of billions for decades without accomplishing anything, and instead expands funding over the next decade to these and many other projects and agencies at NASA.
The bill would allocate $2.6 billion to Lunar Gateway, $4.1 billion to build two more SLS rockets, $20 million to build one more Orion capsule, $1.25 billion more for ISS to continue its operations as is, and $1 billion to upgrade or expand facilities at five NASA centers in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.
This pork-laden bill would also fund a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter for $700 million and add $325 million to the $843 million contract NASA has with SpaceX to build the de-orbit vehicle for bringing ISS down in a controlled manner once it is retired.
What this bill tells us is that these Senators, led by “lying” Ted Cruz (to use the nickname Trump pinned on him during the 2016 presidential election campaign), are still unwilling to face the realities of the national debt, and want to spend money we don’t have in order to make believe they are grand explorers sending Americans into space. Instead, these idiots are simply funneling cash to their states in order to bribe voters to vote for them.
As Elon Musk so correctly noted, there is an election coming in 2026. Maybe it is time to throw them all out.
What this bill also tells us is that Trump is going to find it very difficult to get the budget under control. The Senate doesn’t care if the country goes bankrupt. They intend to spend our money like it grows on trees, to hell with the future. Shame on them.
Sadly, these senators know they have the backing of almost the entire press corp, which is why they are doing this. They figure they will get great press for “saving” NASA, even if it bankrupts the country. Worse, it appears the press is all for helping them do so.
R.I.P. America.
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.
Let’s all go bankrupt! A bill introduced today by Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, rejects the Trump budget plan to phase out NASA’s failed SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway programs that have cost so far tens of billions for decades without accomplishing anything, and instead expands funding over the next decade to these and many other projects and agencies at NASA.
The bill would allocate $2.6 billion to Lunar Gateway, $4.1 billion to build two more SLS rockets, $20 million to build one more Orion capsule, $1.25 billion more for ISS to continue its operations as is, and $1 billion to upgrade or expand facilities at five NASA centers in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana.
This pork-laden bill would also fund a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter for $700 million and add $325 million to the $843 million contract NASA has with SpaceX to build the de-orbit vehicle for bringing ISS down in a controlled manner once it is retired.
What this bill tells us is that these Senators, led by “lying” Ted Cruz (to use the nickname Trump pinned on him during the 2016 presidential election campaign), are still unwilling to face the realities of the national debt, and want to spend money we don’t have in order to make believe they are grand explorers sending Americans into space. Instead, these idiots are simply funneling cash to their states in order to bribe voters to vote for them.
As Elon Musk so correctly noted, there is an election coming in 2026. Maybe it is time to throw them all out.
What this bill also tells us is that Trump is going to find it very difficult to get the budget under control. The Senate doesn’t care if the country goes bankrupt. They intend to spend our money like it grows on trees, to hell with the future. Shame on them.
Sadly, these senators know they have the backing of almost the entire press corp, which is why they are doing this. They figure they will get great press for “saving” NASA, even if it bankrupts the country. Worse, it appears the press is all for helping them do so.
R.I.P. America.
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.
“there is a difference between the black and white of business and the shades of gray and horse trading in politics”
I think its called it making the sausage.
The system and the process are the only solution.
I was always skeptical that the deference Trump had been receiving from Hill Republicans would not crumble once it came to granular appropriations like the NASA budget….
Note that Cruz and his colleagues don’t say much of anything about the science directorate cuts, beyond the insistence on the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, which in turn is a telling indirect support for Mars Sample Return. But almost all of the science missions being whacked are managed at NASA centers in blue states represented mostly by blue congressmen. Mars Sample Return, however, bids to have a significant red state presence. In short, it’s about pork.
The Ted Cruz principles at work seem to be just pork and jingo. Jingo and pork. A result that neither the Trump Administration nor the NASA science establishment will be happy with — which might be the only thing they agree on.
I love Ted on 99% of what he says and does, but he’s 100% wrong on this one.
We can’t get Ted out of office for nearly six years as he was re-elected in 2024. I am from Texas and I did vote for him because the Democrat opponent would have been horrible for this country.
More proof that this a jabs program, and dar more important than science.
Break up NASA.
Grrrr. Jobs, not jabs.
Since NASA spending is discretionary then Cruz’ plan must be directed towards the appropriations bills to come.
Ted Cruz is a perfect example of the politicians who say all the right things during the re-election cycle and then quietly turn on everything they claimed to hold dear.
It’s time people start waking up and voting accordingly.
It’s about choosing the best INDIVIDUALS, not simply going with whomever has a D or R next to their name.
See lyin’ *** Ted Cruz as exhibit A.
”What this bill also tells us is that Trump is going to find it very difficult to get the budget under control.”
Trump doesn’t _want_ to get the budget under control. His Big Beautiful Bill adds $5 trillion to the national debt. That’s what the dust-up with Elon Musk was about. Before that, Trump attacked and threatened to primary the Republican congressmen who tried to add spending cuts to it.
You attack a man as a liar, one who is bankrupting and even killing America while praising a man adding 500 times Ted’s bill to the national debt. It’s hard to take seriously.
One thing that gives me hope is the idea that SpaceX can afford its own Mars program at this point.
As long as Elon doesn’t do a Howard Hughes, and the USG doesn’t return to the unconventional warfare it conducted against Musk during the previous administration. (Definitely a non-zero chance of either or both happening.)
Another thing that gives me hope is the AI Apocalypse, already in progress. It’s going to obsolete a vast number of things we consider critical and worth fighting over. On the other hand, occasionally it also fills me with a cold dread. Change is both thrilling and frightening.
mkent: The “Big Beautiful Bill” I agree is a monstrosity, but that fact is largely shaped by the budget rules and the very narrow Republican majority right now. Trump’s 2026 budget proposal, which is where the real fight will be, clearly shows he is making an effort to bring that budget under control (as clearly shown by what the White House proposes for NASA).
I recognize this distinction. You should also. Neither of us like ugliness of the present bill, but we also need to recognize that changing this situation is not going to be easy, and will occur in steps.
Musk’s complaints are just one aspect of this fight, and it is a good one. Those who demand cuts get the most attention, and that is going to help get the cuts through in the end.
“Cutbacks for thee–but not for me?”
In the political lexicon, “pork” is defined as any money not spent on Elon, like a Moon Rocket that actually flew.
Still pushing the SLS boondoggle, Jeff? It cannot fly often enough, isn’t reusable and is vastly too expensive.
What money is US.gov spending on Starship?
1. We all know what the definition of “pork” is, and why SLS falls under its rubric.
2. SLS has flown exactly…once. Successfully, yes, but only once. Two and a half years ago. Starship has flown to orbit 7 times. The orbit intersected the atmosphere, by design, so it never completed a full earth orbit. But it’s not accurate to say it has never flown.
3. The truth is, and I think I may even speak for Bob here, most of us would be uneasy seeing very much money going to Starship — precisely because we do not want it too much under any government control. SpaceX is at the point where it can make it to Mars without NASA largesse.
Richard M: You speak for me as well. If you reread my policy paper, Capitalism in Space, one of my recommendations was that the government should NOT fund private space fully, and it should not do so generously. Musk has now created the situation we have always dreamed of. He is making enough money to not need ANY government money at all. He’ll take it of course, if he sell them his product, but only on his terms.
Senator Cruise is losing it.
It’s part of the tax pan, if it passes, to give every baby born during the Trump administration in United States 1000 dollars. It will be invested in one of his donors portfolios until the children turn 18 at which time it will be heavily taxed. (Unless Government loses the lockbox key? Again)
Giving away taxpayer money is the Democrats bread and butter, now the Republicans are doing it?
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-introduces-the-invest-america-act
Marshall is not Washington..it is Marshall.
If they were Army, or Marines–would you dog them so?
They have no horns on their heads–like me, they fear the Greens..and legal animism.
I wish you could meet them.
Neither they nor I wanted things to be so ugly.
For years…YEARS…they had the Dan Golden’s call them everything but children of God
They actually got an Apollo 8 done on flat budgets…but instead of a pat on the back-we were trashed
Do you not know how hurtful that is to folks who love this nation as much as you do?
The government takes $5 trillion from us each year. During Biden’s 4 years they were spending an additional $3 trillion a year they borrowed. So to stay in budget and pay down the debt the government would really have to cut all spending by 50%.
This is how the government spends our money:
PERCENTAGE / CATEGORY
22% – Social Security
14% – Net Interest
13% – Health
13% – Medicare
13% – National Defense
11% – Income Security
5% – Veterans Benefits and Services
3% – Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
2% – Transportation
1% – Natural Resources and Environment
3% – Other
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/
The largest expense is Social Security at 22%. Social Security, Health, Medicare, Income Security added together are 59%.
I’m betting if waste and fraud were eliminated that that would reduce spending by 50%. When Musk bought Twitter he laid of 80% of the workers and the company ran fine. Government is even more inefficient.
But I agree with Robert that it doesn’t look like government has the honesty and integrity to do this.
Jeff Wright: Apollo 8 was more than half a century ago.. NO ONE who did that has worked at Marshall now for possibly thirty years, more likely more.
The real question is “What have you done for us lately?” What you HAVE done is given us a cumbersome rocket that can’t fly more than once every year at best, is too expensive to afford, can’t get sufficient payload into orbit to do the job, and most of all, uses old expendable technology that is clearly obsolete. And you created this expensive piece of junk by spending about $60 billion, taking two decades to do it.
So, Marshall employees can cry in their hankies all they want, but they ain’t going to get much sympathy from the taxpayer. They sold us a bad product, and the taxpayer is very unhappy.
And let me add, that Ted Cruz wants to throw more good money after this garbage while bankrupting the country tells me that any good opinion I once had for him (in 2016 he was my preferred choice for president) was a very bad mistake.
Like Bob Z says:
If you are whining about the BBB then you are not doing your research and do not understand the situation.
It cannot do what you want it to do. But within the confines of the rules it does a lot. So stop whining and be grateful for what it can do.
Where you have to focus are the appropriations bills. Now Congress goes into recess in August ( have they not heard of air conditioning???) which wastes a whole month. I doubt they can get a new NASA administrator selected, interviewed, and confirmed in the 3 months of sessions before September 30th. MAYBE they can do it if Petro is selected except that will be a huge fight because a lot of Congresscritters know that she will ice their fave programs.
Just look at what Cruz proposes and what Trump suggests: I figure Petro will do what Trump wants. So confirming her will be a tough fight.
But for now, Trump is better off not appointing anyone. Petro is in charge, FY25 ends on September 30. I expect another CR because Congress is just slovenly. If Congress does not pass the NASA appropriations bill and does not put in specific line items to save programs, before September 30, I suspect (don’t know for certain) that Petro can ice whatever program she wants.
Remember that at least half of what a politician proposes is just for general consumption to stay in power. They more than likely do not believe in it or even expect it to happen.
They want to be popular.
But the MAGA movement proves what is really popular. The left cries and fools the weak right into doing things like this to try to make the people happy. Those people are just the vocal minority of loons and the media that amplifies their voices.
Ted needs to remember what movement won the last election. And gather the courage to believe that staying that course is the best for the people.
The goal of politicians is to create a dependent relationship between government and voters. They do so with carrots (jobs programs and welfare) and sticks (coercive laws and police power).
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is packaging. Cruz is just letting the mask slip.
Trump is revolutionary in that he (a) isn’t a career politician and (b) he had life outside politics and will have one again after he leaves office.
To Robert Z–a bad product is what fails in flight
Falcon didn’t take this long—you are letting your libertarian bias do your thinking for you.
One post at NSF bears repeating:
“Before Trump and Musk’s falling out I’d said SpaceX would’ve experienced some favoritism when bidding for Golden Dome contracts. This falling out should level playing field which could benefit RL and other GD contract bidders.”
“One thing this feud has show is how fickle leadership of private companies can be. Having controlling interest in SpaceX Musk can do and say what he wants. If SpaceX was publicly traded company board would’ve fired him for recent comments.”
“The same risk applies to Blue but given Bezos is more level headed I doubt he would knowing upset his main customer. Now government contract managers may think twice about Blue because of its ownership.”
“Of all launch companies only RL is publicly traded. ULA indirectly through Boeing and LM. Firefly is privately owned by private equity company so controlled by board where common sense should be in play.”
“The other downside to privately owned companies like SpaceX and Blue is what happens when owner dies. When Paul Allen died the estate had no interest in rockets and sold off Stratolaunch which wasn’t profitable at time. Blue relies on the Bezos cash cow to stay operational. SpaceX is profitable but decision making with controlling shares tied up in estate legal battles for years could make things difficult.”
From
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46744.msg2692538#msg2692538
This explains why there should be in-house expertise.
“What have you done for us lately?” You ask
What would you allow them to do? You complain they don’t do much–and want to cut them so they can do less?
That’s why we had to rely on Russians—the R-7 is obsolete…but it works—and we wound up forced to use it.
R-7 and SLS are examples of how how extant technology is worth far more than sugerplum concepts like Starship that work better in your ideology than in real life.
Last I heard 75.6 billion in impact is more than SLS $60 in cost:
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/new-report-shows-nasas-75-6-billion-boost-to-us-economy/
Now, could it be that your libertarian ideology is threatened because of this one example of government that works?
If it was SLS that truly “never worked” by blowing up before putting one pound of payload up there–you would be less forgiving.
Buy cheap–get cheap
I will add that I have some sympathy for the folks at Marshall. They and their mission were distorted and perverted by Congress. Instead of assigning money based on delivering systems on time and on budget, they and all of NASA were incentivized to ignore deadlines and pad every budget. No one in NASA had the vision to see the burgeoning private sector becoming a threat until it was too late.
Then Marshall folks likely were particularly vulnerable as my home place Tennessee Valley was ground zero for the New Deal, which imbedded the notion that providing employment was the main job of government.
Not saying the private folks aren’t subject to political pressure, but they generally don’t have congressmen directing the design of a their systems.
To Jeff Wright–a bad product is what fails to perform.
You keep comparing SLS with Starship. The correct comparison is with Falcon Heavy.
FH has similar performance as SLS, and has flown eleven times. Eleven. All flights completely successful. Brought to you by libertarians. Brought to you by capitalists. If you want a flight, simply contract with Space X.
I imagine you are saying “Falcon Heavy can’t fly a moon landing in one launch!” Well, neither can SLS.
MSFS did wonderful work, once upon a time. But Saturn V was sixty-five years ago. Sixty-five. Since then, MSFS has been hamstrung by politicians playing at engineering. It’s a shame. If your goal is to actually get into space, better to rely on people who build and fly rockets in order to make money. People like SpaceX, and Blue Origin, and all the other capitalists.
Steve Golson: Heh. How could we forget Falcon Heavy in this discussion?!
Note the per flight cost as well. SpaceX charges I think from $100 to $200 million for Falcon Heavy launches, depending on customer requirements. SLS at a minimum costs $1 billion per launch, though some have said its cost can be as much as $14 billion per launch if you consider the development costs as well.
The mood in MAGA Land is palpable this weekend. I will note just one example which stuck with me, a post yesterday afternoon (650,000 views so far) on X by Jack Posobiec: “America can survive a budget deficit. It cannot survive a mass invasion.”
And I think that’s where just about all of Trump’s base is right now. Come to that, if polling is to be believed, a fair number of independent voters, too, since this is the issue where Trump still polls the best.
I don’t say this to endorse it, just to take note of it. I think this was already the case before the de facto insurrection erupted in Los Angeles this weekend, but it’s surely got to be pegging the meter up to 11 right now. Rightly or wrongly, people feel existential about the immigration issue in a way they still don’t about the debt. I think that’s a key reason why Elon had lost his fight before he even started it. And given the extremely low salience of space policy for Trump (or indeed, just about any) voters, it is why Ted Cruz and his colleagues will not suffer any adverse political consequences for this mantelpiece of NASA pork stocking stuffers. If Ted can stay on the right side of the immigration discourse (and he made a point of going on Hannity the other day to do just that), I think he’s gonna be golden.
And I think he knows it.
One more thought: Isaacman has been taking a beating from certain persons on X the last few days.
I’m struck by the class he continues to show in responding to it all, in spite of everything that’s happened to him. For example:
Not one harsh word against Trump.
Maybe, as our host has mused, Isaacman, and NASA, are better off for him not having been administrator of the agency. It’s hard to evaluate that right now. But he has shown that he is a man who is willing to put the greater good ahead of himself. And I will admit, that I wish some more of this would rub off on Elon Musk and Donald Trump.
Gary wrote: “Instead of assigning money based on delivering systems on time and on budget, they and all of NASA were incentivized to ignore deadlines and pad every budget.”
That does not sound like a reason to have sympathy but a reason to think of Marshall as a porkbarrel-laden NASA center. If all of NASA ignores schedules and exceeds budgets, then there is plenty of trimming that can be done to save taxpayer money and still have an active national space program.
The people at Marshall and at NASA’s other centers could be better off working for commercial space companies, where they can make serious contributions to the exploration of and expansion into space. Most likely they work at NASA because that is what they wanted to do. That is why I got into aerospace, and I am disappointed that I only got to contribute incremental advancements. I got to work on some good projects, but in retrospect the government ones could have been more efficient, allowing for money to be saved or for money to be spent on additional exploration efforts. .
______________
Falcon Heavy, according to Wikipedia:
– 63,800 kg (140,700 lb) when fully expended (comparable (2/3) to SLS block 1, expended)
– 57,000 kg (126,000 lb) with boosters recovered
– <50,000 kg (110,000 lb) with boosters and core recovered
SLS, according to Wikipedia:
– Block 1: 95,000 kg (209,000 lb)
– Block 1B: 105,000 kg (231,000 lb)
– Block 2: 130,000 kg (290,000 lb) (comparable (2/3) to Starship block 3, recovered)
Starship, according to Wikipedia:
– Block 3*: 200 t (440,000 lb) (comparable (3/2) to SLS block 2, expended)
– Block 3 Expendable: 400 t (880,000 lb) (comparable (3X) to SLS block 2, expended — costing less and launching more often)
_________________
* Can development models have block numbers? If so, then why wasn't Starhopper the Block 1 Starship? Or maybe SN2 through 7(?) should have been block 1.
Edward: Including SLS’s Block 1B and 2 is absurd. They don’t exist and wouldn’t for years, assuming they don’t get eliminated in budget talks. And as of now, their future looks very dim, as even Cruz isn’t pushing for them really.
With Falcon Heavy however all versions exist. For pennies compared to SLS you can buy several and easily get the same poundage into orbit.
Except…he rather *has* to be pushing for at least the Block IB, doesn’t he?
The bill text that Cruz put forward this week expressly funds the Artemis IV and V missions, expressly dictating in turn that these would be flown with the Space Launch System:
“(3) $4,100,000,000 for expenses related to meeting the requirements of section 10812 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Au6 thorization Act of 2022 (51 U.S.C. 20301; Public Law 117–167) for the procurement, transportation, integration, operation, and other necessary expenses of the Space Launch System for Artemis Missions IV and V, of which not less than $1,025,000,000 shall be obligated for each of fiscal years 2026, 2027, 2028, and 2029.”
Link (text is on page 20): https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/AD3D04CF-52B4-411F-854B-44C55ABBADDA
But there are only two Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stages (ICPS) left in NASA’s store, and those are reserved for the Artemis II and III missions — these will be the last Block I stacks. NASA no longer has any means of acquiring more ICPS’s from ULA, since the Delta IV manufacturing line has been shut down. So if NASA must fly the Artemis IV and Artemis V missions with the SLS, it has no choice but to do so with Block IB SLS stacks. So this means in turn that NASA would have no choice but to complete development of the Exploration Upper Stage, and ensure production of two (2) EUS stages for these two Artemis missions. In turn, of course, this would also mean that the Mobile Launcher 2 must be completed and deployed, because only ML-2 is compatible with the Block IB SLS.
It seems bizarre to spend all that money and effort to develop a new block of a rocket you supposedly only intend to fly twice. Unless, of course, you really mean to fly it more than twice. Or you have a higher priority that you think justifies such a remarkable amount of waste.
Richard M: Ugh. More reasons to consider Cruz a waste as well.
Hello Bob,
Indeed. :sigh:
Since I’m sort of on the subject of Jared Isaacman, there was an exchange earlier today on X that is worth noting. Chris Combs, a rather vocal professor of aerospace engineering at UTSA, took umbrage at something Isaacman said in the podcast last week, and made a rather hasty assumption about what he thought Jared was really saying when he said: “Show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” Combs opened fire:
Jared noticed. And he replied:
https://x.com/rookisaacman/status/1932124311781040170
Wow.
”You only think you know me. I was prepared to personally cover the cost to launch Roman–if that’s what it took to get to the science.”
That’s interesting. I wonder if that’s the reason OMB backed down between the earlier leaked passback that defunded Roman and the skinny budget that did not.
Re: Isaacman offering to personally fund the launch of Roman…
Thinking about this some more, I wonder if this is what led to his nomination being withdrawn. The optics of Trump’s cancelling a finished $4.5 billion telescope only to have his billionaire NASA administrator personally fund its launch would not be good. Maybe that’s the act of “disloyalty” that kicked off his dismissal.
Jared expands on that tweet some more:
https://xcancel.com/rookisaacman/status/1932154469674078527#m
I think he could have been a compelling, reforming administrator. But such was not to be.
There was a lot of blowback on that, and I suspect that’s why it didn’t make it into the final PBR. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect Jared never said anything about paying for Roman out of pocket until now.
Robert Zimmerman,
“Including SLS’s Block 1B and 2 is absurd.”
I included the vaporware and the Starship to show that at best SLS could never be nearly as useful as Starship. The original discussion only mentions Falcon Heavy.
You and I are convinced that SLS is useless, but there are those who still believe that it should be kept as a jobs program. We hear about that a few times a week, here on BTB.
Jeff Wright Mentioned golden dome.
Contractors are lining up at the trough to feast on more government money that Trump is offering. To have it completed in three years, when none of the planning or infrastructure has been even created yet.
Everyone knows that the technology is not there, that this is pork in the trillions that won’t work with technology that’s obsolete in the age of supersonic missiles, and submarine boomers (that are undetectable until too late) just miles from the targets. When billion dollar bombers can be taken out by thousand dollar drones. (because they are left out in the open by treaty)
I am hesitant to recommend anything on NPR, but the approach of physics and logic without emotion appeals to the thinking mind, of all insurmountable problems that must be overcome to make it work… (Assuming the vulnerabilities can be addressed…) The concept is far beyond feasibility.
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/06/06/president-trump-golden-dome-laws-of-physics
When NATO’s proxy country Ukraine attacked Russia heartland recently, it may have been a step too far. Civilians were killed leading Putin to declare Ukraine ‘s president a terrorist… And the way countries deal with terrorism is by targeting the very top.
Recent events feels more and more like a distraction from other larger events elsewhere, perhaps to the control the news cycle the way the Democrats did for years.
Are events happening faster than the politicians can control or spin it? It feels reactionary, not planned. The tail is wagging the dog.