The vote was along party lines, with the Republicans approving and the Democrats opposing. As expected, while the overall budget was maintained, the Republicans went along with the sense of Trump’s cuts — and the desires of NASA administrator Jared Isaacman — by shifting money from science to exploration within the budget.

The subcommittee bill provides $8.926 billion for human exploration, an increase of about $400 million above the request, and the request itself favors exploration. … The subcommittee’s bill raises the FY2027 level for [NASA science] to $6 billion, but that’s still a $1.3 billion reduction from current spending as Ranking Member Grace Meng (D-New York) pointed out.

The bill also agreed with Trump’s proposal to eliminate NASA’s STEM education office, something Isaacman had repeatedly testified was redundant and a waste of money.

In other words, the committee is giving Isaacman more flexibility with the money it is giving him, as I predicted.

This is only the first step in the budget process. The budget still has to be approved by the full House, the Senate, and the President. Expect changes.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host Ambassador of Ireland to the United States of America Geraldine Byrne Nason; Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment Peter Burke, T.D., of Ireland; and U.S. Department of State officials for the ceremony.

As I predicted yestesday when Morocco signed the accords, the success of the Artemis-2 mission around the Moon has prompted a number of smaller third world countries to finally sign the accords, and thus should expect more signings to follow. Ireland illustrates this. There will be more soon.

The full list of nations in this American space alliance is as follows:

Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

“On behalf of President Donald J Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” reads a 24 April email from Mary Sprowls of the presidential personnel office to each NSB member. “Thank you for your service.”

The article at the link, from the journal Science, takes the typical one-sided propaganda press anti-Trump view, interviewing only those who oppose Trump and spending most of its time screaming “He’s destroying science!”

A wider view would ask this: Is there a reason that the president of the United States, elected by the American people, might have reasons to question the management of this board? At the moment the federal government is running a deficit that is back-breaking, and this board publicly criticized Trump’s effort to rein in spending when he proposed a 55% cut in NSF’s budget. If they are not going to cooperate with their boss, then maybe they should leave, and not let the door hit them as they head out.

The Science article also included this howler: “the mass firing is the latest indication that the White House is ignoring the board’s authority and dictating policies at NSF.” Um, who elected them? No one. In fact, they were appointed by the president himself, and he is the only one with the constitutional authority to decide these matters.

Expect court suits of course, with some lower level unelected judge somewhere attempting to take over running the executive branch by demanding these board members remain in power, defying the elected president of the U.S.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman will host Ambassador Dina Kawar of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and U.S. Department of State Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Ruth Perry for the ceremony.

Jordan becomes the 63rd nation to sign the accords. It also joins Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates from the Arab Middle East. While it is certainly wise to not trust any nation controlled by Islam, having these nations allied with us in space will help mitigate the worst aspects of their religion. That they are also joining a space alliance that includes Israel is another indication that they are realizing that their future is better aligned with Israel than against it.

The full list of nations in this American space alliance is as follows:

Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

The contract covers ground management and integration for the service’s Resilient Missile Warning and Tracking program, according to a March 19 statement from Space Systems Command. Kratos will provide the systems used to operate the satellites after launch, including sending commands, receiving sensor data and processing that information for delivery to military operators.

The work supports a constellation being deployed in phases. The first 12 satellites, known as Epoch 1, are being built by Millennium Space Systems, a Boeing subsidiary. A second set of 10 satellites, called Epoch 2, is under contract to BAE Systems. Launches are expected over the next several years.

The method in which this entire constellation is being built and operated once again highlights the profound transformation that has occurred in how the Pentagon works in space since the formation of the Space Force. Beforehand, when the Air Force ran the military’s space operations, it would attempt to design and build everything, and the satellites built would be big and expensive, and take years to complete. Generally, little got built for a lot of money. Moreover, the upper management of the Air Force was in general not interested in space projects, and often gave these projects lower priority.

The Space Force was created during Trump’s first term to change this, giving the military an agency focused on its space needs. It was also designed to put those in charge who had been advocating going from these big gold-plated satellites that were few in number to many small satellites built quickly and cheaply by the private sector.

This new missile warning and tracking constellation demonstrates that this transition is largely complete. It is being built quickly by two different satellite companies, and will be maintained on the ground by a third.

Note: Kratos also builds the hypersonic test vehicles that Rocket Lab launches on its HASTE suborbital rocket. It will soon also fly those vehicles on a Firefly rocket.

FCC chairman Brendan Carr this week didn’t simply make a public statement yesterday against Amazon, as I reported earlier today. The day earlier, on March 10th, he did an hour-long interview with Breibart News, providing a more complete summary of the FCC’s overall agenda since the change of administrations from Joe Biden to Donald Trump.

You can watch that interview here. To put it mildly, the shift in policy and approach at the FCC is significant, and appears to be generally moving in the right direction.

To understand the context, we need to first review the FCC’s approach during the Biden administration. My regular readers will remember the many stories during that time describing the FCC’s aggressive effort to expand its regulatory power, in many cases in areas completely exceeding its fundamental statutory authority. For example, it proposed new regulations designed to tell satellite companies how and when to de-orbit their satellites. It also wanted to its own bureaucracy for imposing those regulations, and went ahead and created it without any congressional approval. It also under Biden attempted to limit satellite operations that the astronomy community opposed, an action that was once again outside its statute authority.

Overall, the goal of the FCC under Biden was to expand the power of the administrative state, in as many areas as possible. And though there was push back from Congress, as long as a Democrat was president it was clear that this power-grab was going to grow exponentially.

After the 2024 election, however a Democrat was no longer president. Trump quickly moved in 2025 to squash the FCC’s power grab, with a stated public goal to instead streamline FCC regulations and speed license approvals.

Carr’s interview earlier this week essentially gave us an update on that Trump policy, and it appears this new anti-regulatory policy is moving forward, with a goal to eliminate ten regulations for every one regulation added. According to Carr:

We’ve gone through the FCC Code of Federal Regulations, which is our rule book. … We took each component of it and went to all the bureaus and offices, and we had everyone go through it page by page: which rule is outdated, which rule can we get rid of, which rule can we cut in half?

So far, we’ve gotten rid of, I think, just over 1,000 regulations. I think it’s 130,000 words that have been cut—300 pages that have been reduced from this Code of Federal Regulations. We’re just going to keep going to get rid of outdated, unnecessary regulations.

We’ve also taken a look at what we call dormant dockets—proceedings the FCC started and left open that create a regulatory overhang. We’ve closed, I think, something like 2,000 separate inactive proceedings at this point.

It’s one of our most productive efforts. We’re ahead of schedule on the 10-to-1 regulation requirement from the administration, where you get rid of 10 regulations for every one that you do.

This is the opposite of what was done under Biden and what was expected from Kamala Harris had she won the election. And this streamlining can only have a positive effect on the satellite and communications industry, as it will ease the burdens faced by both old and new companies.

We must still ask if this is Trump’s FCC: “Nice business
you got here. Shame if something happened to it.”

Not all is sunshine however. During this interview Carr did indicate several areas where the FCC under Trump is aggressively applying its power, though that effort seems more appropriate to the commission’s specific purpose. The FCC is working to force companies to locate their customer service call centers in the U.S. It is trying to limit robo-calls, and eliminate those that are scams. It wants to make broadcast sports events more readily available to the public, even if the owners of those events wish to do otherwise.

And it has already banned foreign-built drones from the U.S. If you want to get a license to sell a drone in the U.S., you have to build it here.

These new regulations should certainly be questioned, because anytime you give government bureaucrats power in any area there is the risk they will overuse those powers. At the same time, these Trump-era FCC policies do seem more focused towards helping American business and its citizenry. Rather than limit what Americans can do, these policies appear designed to help them, while working to limit the actions of the bad actors.

The trend is positive, but only time will tell whether it produces healthy fruit or dies on the vine.

Second, as much as there might be legal precedents that allow President Trump to initiate this action without direct congressional approval, it continues a dangerous trend ceding power away from Congress and to the presidency, in direct opposition to the intentions of the Founding Fathers in their writing of the Constitution. They very much were opposed to giving any president the power to start a war unilaterally.

Click here and here for original videos.

Having stated the reasonable objections to this military action, however, we must now take a look at the two images to the right to see its immediate and very positive consequences. Both pictures are from videos of very spontaneous demonstrations on February 28, 2026 by Iranian refugees celebrating the American/Israeli attacks against Iran.

The top picture is a screen capture from a demonstration in Georgetown, DC. The bottom picture is a screen capture from a demonstration in Austin, Texas.

Note the flags in both pictures. There are numerous flags of Iran (the version during the Shah’s rule, not the version from the Islamic Revolution). There are many American flags, of course, since these demonstrations are in America.

What is most revealing however are the Israeli flags, being enthusiastically waved by Iranians. Clearly the decades of hate against Israel and Jews by the mullahs in Iran has not had any impact on these Iranian refugees. In fact, in the video of the bottom picture they are chanting “Thank you, Bibi!”, referring to Israel’s leader Benjamin Netanyahu as the camera pans across the crowd.

Moreover, these demonstrations took place in two Democratic Party strongholds, cities where pro-Hamas demonstrations have been routine, including rioting and violence against Jews and anyone who dared suggest Israel’s actions in Gaza might be justified.

Nor are these two demonstrations an exception. They have been the rule across the United States and Europe, as well as in Iran itself. The public — the ordinary people for whom governments are meant to serve — seem very much in favor of what President Trump and Netanyahu are doing in Iran. And they are expressing that support of both America and Israel quite unequivocally. If this doesn’t indicate to the world that Israel and the rest of the Middle East can live together in peace and mutual cooperation, nothing can.

This conclusion is further supported by the response by almost every Arab nation in the Middle East, most of whom started off quite willing to let the U.S. and Israel do this deed, with no opposition or with covert support. Now, because of Iran’s indiscriminate attacks on Arab nations, they have all publicly joined the war, allying themselves not with the Islamic nation of Iran but with the U.S. and Israel.

I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia soon signs the Abraham Accords. Nor would I be surprised if most of the last remaining Arab nations that have not yet done so join Saudi Arabia.

We could very well be seeing a major realignment of alliances in the Middle East that could really really harbinger the beginnings of real peace in that region. Imagine: Israel at peace with all its neighbors, because the Arabs have finally recognized that it is to their own best interest to do so as well.

BEAD was part of the Biden administration’s bipartisan infrastructure act – originally a $42 billion program to bring broadband internet to areas of the country with little or no broadband access. The Trump administration eliminated other infrastructure act programs, and cut BEAD outlays to $21 billion, along with rule changes to allow satellite providers.

SpaceX applied for BEAD funds in 2025. The company won $733 million worth of BEAD projects nationwide, including $109 million in Texas.

Initially the Biden administration awarded SpaceX almost a billion dollar grant, because its Starlink constellation was the only broadband outlet actually doing the job. Then Musk began to campaign for Republicans, and suddenly the Biden administration pulled that grant, saying absurdly that SpaceX was failing to provide its service to rural areas, when that was exactly what it was doing.

Now SpaceX wants BEAD to ease some of its requirements, and wants these grant funds upfront.

I say, this whole BEAD program is a waste of taxpayer money and a perfect example of crony capitalism. I’m glad Trump cut it in half, but that wasn’t good enough. It should be shut down entirely. SpaceX doesn’t need this handout. It is making money hand-over-fist on its own.

In a diplomatic meeting between Oman and U.S. state department in Oman, Oman officials announced their Sultan wants his country to sign the Artemis Accords.

The two sides discussed means of maximising the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement between the two countries and augmenting American investments in sectors of priority for the Sultanate of Oman. These sectors include the digital economy, technology and space, in addition to mining, logistics, aviation and infrastructure.

Cooperation in the fields of education and culture was also discussed, particularly educational programmes, academic and professional exchange and investment in research and innovation. The two sides further exchanged views and positions on a number of regional and international issues, emphasising the importance of backing efforts for peace, stability and development.

During the dialogue, the Omani side announced the Sultanate of Oman’s approval to join the ‘Artemis Accords’ for space exploration. A cooperation statement on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States of America was also signed. [emphasis mine]

Much of this is diplomatic blather, meaning little. While I would expect the Trump administration welcome Oman as an Artemis Accord partner, in the talks related to the highlighted first paragraph above it likely demanded some concessions first. Free trade in Oman is going to require some protection for American technology.

For example, right now State Department rules make it difficult if not impossible to launch American satellites or rockets from Oman’s proposed spaceport in Duqm, rules imposed because Oman cannot be trusted. I expect the State Department is demanding total security control from U.S. entities on any launch before agreeing to an Oman Artemis Accord agreement.

NASA, along with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), announced Tuesday a renewed commitment to their longstanding partnership to support the research and development of a fission surface power system for use on the Moon under the Artemis campaign and future NASA missions to Mars.

A recently signed memorandum of understanding between the agencies solidifies this collaboration and advances President Trump’s vision of American space superiority by deploying nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including the development of a lunar surface reactor by 2030. This effort ensures the United States leads the world in space exploration and commerce. [emphasis mine]

Wanna bet? I’m laying odds that this joint government effort will end up being delayed and overbudget. In fact, the highlighted phrase suggests this work is already experiencing delays and budget overruns. Why else make a big deal about “a renewed commitment”?

The review involved a long meeting at NASA with NASA engineers, several outside but very qualified critics, as well as two reporters (for transparency).

Convened in a ninth-floor conference room at NASA Headquarters known as the Program Review Center, the meeting lasted for more than three hours. Isaacman attended much of it, though he stepped out from time to time to handle an ongoing crisis involving an unwell astronaut on orbit. He was flanked by the agency’s associate administrator, Amit Kshatriya; the agency’s chief of staff, Jackie Jester; and Lori Glaze, the acting associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate. The heat shield experts joined virtually from Houston, along with Orion Program Manager Howard Hu.

Isaacman made it clear at the outset that, after reviewing the data and discussing the matter with NASA engineers, he accepted the agency’s decision to fly Artemis II as planned. The team had his full confidence, and he hoped that by making the same experts available to Camarda and Olivas, it would ease some of their concerns.

My readers know that I have been strongly opposed to flying Artemis-2 manned, an opposition I expressed in an op-ed at PJMedia only yesterday. However, after reading this Ars Technica report, my fears are allayed somewhat by this quote:

However, toward the end of the meeting, the NASA team agreed to discuss something that “no one really liked to talk about.” This was an analysis of what would happen to Orion if large sections of the heat shield failed completely during Artemis II. Formally, this is known as a “damage tolerance evaluation,” the engineers said. Informally, it’s known as “What if we’re wrong.”

The Avcoat blocks, which are about 1.5 inches thick, are laminated onto a thick composite base of the Orion spacecraft. Inside this is a titanium framework that carries the load of the vehicle. The NASA engineers wanted to understand what would happen if large chunks of the heat shield were stripped away entirely from the composite base of Orion. So they subjected this base material to high energies for periods of 10 seconds up to 10 minutes, which is longer than the period of heating Artemis II will experience during reentry.

What they found is that, in the event of such a failure, the structure of Orion would remain solid, the crew would be safe within, and the vehicle could still land in a water-tight manner in the Pacific Ocean.

“We have the data to say, on our worst day, we’re able to deal with that if we got to that point,” one of the NASA engineers said.

This additional data is certainly reassuring. It likely means the astronauts are at less risk that previously thought.

At the same time, NASA’s approach during this whole process deserves no credit. The engineering is faulty, and they have taken the wrong approach to fixing the problem, letting schedule determine that actions.

The right approach would have been to immediately replace this heat shield in 2023, once they were aware of the issue, and fly Artemis-2 unmanned with a newly designed heat shield.

That approach, as correct as it is, would have however immediately forced a one-to-two year delay in the program, and that was something Trump and Congress would not allow. Even now they continue to pressure NASA to proceed with these manned lunar missions immediately, if not yesterday.

Thus, not surprisingly, the real fault here lies with our elected officials. They need those photo ops, even if it means they might kill someone in the process.

PJ Media this evening published an op-ed I prepared this week in a last desperate effort to convince both President Trump and NASA administrator Jared Isaacman to rethink the manned nature of the Artemis-2 mission scheduled to launch sometime in the next three months.

President Trump and NASA Administrator Isaacman: Please Take the Crew Off of Artemis II

Nothing I say in this op-ed will be unfamiliar to my readers. I choose to farm it to PJ Media because I wanted it to get as much exposure as possible. As big as my audience is becoming, from 4 to 6 million hits per month, PJ Media has a wider reach.

I also decided in the op-ed to make no general arguments against SLS or Orion. Though my opposition to them is long standing and well known, this is not the time to fight that battle. My goal was simply to get NASA to put engineering ahead of schedule, so as to avoid the possibility of it repeating another Apollo 1 fire or Challenger accident.

I doubt at this point this op-ed will make a difference, but to paraphrase a quote written by Gordon Dickson in his wonderful science fiction book Way of the Pilgrim, there was a hand pushing me from behind, forcing me forward. I had no choice. The image of Orion’s heat shield to the right, after the 2022 return from the Moon, required action.

The White House today released a new executive order that has the typically grand title these type of orders usually have: “Ensuring American Space Superiority”. That it was released one day after Jared Isaacman was confirmed as NASA administrator by the Senate was no accident, as this executive order demands a lot of action by him, with a clear focus on reshaping and better structuring the entire manned exploration program of the space agency.

The order begins about outlining some basic goals. It demands that the U.S. return to the Moon by 2028, establish the “initial elements” a base there by 2030, and do so by “enhancing sustainability and cost-effectiveness of launch and exploration architectures, including enabling commercial launch services and prioritizing lunar exploration.” It also demands this commercial civilian exploration occur in the context of American security concerns.

Above all, the order demands that these goals focus on “growing a vibrant commercial space economy through the power of American free enterprise,” in order to attract “at least $50 billion of additional investment in American space markets by 2028, and increasing launch and reentry cadence through new and upgraded facilities, improved efficiency, and policy reforms.”

To achieve these goals, the order then outlines a number of actions required by the NASA administrator, the secretaries of Commerce, War, and State, as well as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP), all coordinated by the assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST).

All of this is unsurprising. Much of it is not much different than the basic general space goals that every administration has touted for decades. Among this generality however was one very specific item, a demand to complete within 90 days the following review:

by the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of NASA, in consultation with the Director of OMB, of their respective major space acquisition programs to identify any such programs that are more than 30 percent behind schedule based on the program’s acquisition baseline, 30 percent over cost based on the program’s baseline, unable to meet any key performance parameters, or unaligned with the priorities in this order, along with a description of their planned mitigation or remediation efforts.

If that isn’t a very precise description of SLS and Orion, I don’t know what is. It appears this executive order is quite specifically laying the political groundwork for ending both, and to do so the Trump administration wants this report on hand to show both Congress and the public. Note too that the report isn’t simply supposed to identify these over-budget and behind schedule programs, but to outline the “planned mitigation or remediation efforts”, efforts that must work to “grow a vibrant commercial space economy through the power of American free enterprise.”

In other words, Trump wants Isaacman to work up a new Artemis program that he can present to Congress, no longer relying on a government-owned rocket (SLS). It is also likely that Isaacman and Trump discussed this entire strategy during their meetings leading up to Trump’s renomination of Isaacman.

What will that new plan entail? You can bet, based on the order’s focus on private enterprise, that it will involve SpaceX, with a strong dash of Blue Origin on the side. It will also include the many American startups planning the first launch of new rockets in 2026 (Rocket Lab, Relativity, Stoke Space) as well as others already established (Firefly and Northrop Grumman). That plan is also going to include the four commercial space station projects under development, as well as all the other peripheral industries involved.

Damage to Orion heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”

And you can also bet it will outline the phasing out of SLS, Orion, and possibly Lunar Gateway, as quickly as possible. It might not cancel the already scheduled and funded next three Artemis SLS/Orion missions, but it is also very likely it will recommend that these programs be cancelled thereafter.

The deadline for the release of this report, 90 days from today or the middle of March, also suggests it is intended as a weapon for not only cancelling later SLS/Orion missions, but for forcing a change on the Artemis-2 mission, scheduled for the February-April 2026 time frame. That mission plans to fly four astronauts around the Moon, launched on SLS and flying inside an Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield (see the image to the right) and an untested environmental system. To fly such a manned mission with such questionable equipment is unconscionable, and appears to be another example of NASA putting scheduling ahead of good engineering and safety, as it did with Challenger and Columbia.

The deadline for this report suggests that Trump’s executive order today is precisely aimed at providing Isaacman the political clout he needs to pull those astronauts from that mission, for legitimate safety concerns. When he releases this report in March, he will do so with great fanfare, in a manner that will allow him to take such a politically charged action. All he needs to do is make sure Artemis-2 does not launch beforehand, a delay of only a matter of weeks.

Be prepared for political fireworks come March.

The Senate today finally confirmed Jared Isaacman to be the next NASA administrator, by a vote of 67 to 30.

All of the opposition came from Democrats, who fear Isaacman will eliminate several NASA centers in their states, centers that for decades have accomplished little but be jobs programs sucking money from the American taxpayer.

During hearings and private meetings with the senators Isaacman denied he had any intention to do this. In fact, the 62-page policy document Isaacman had written outlining his plans when he was first nominated for this position back in the spring makes it clear that is not his goal.

Instead, an honest read of that document shows that Isaacman has approached this position as administrator like the businessman he is. He intends to review every aspect of NASA’s operations and to restructure them to run more efficiently. For one example, he plans to eliminate the numerous “deputies” that every manager at NASA has been given. The managers should do the work, not hire a flunky to do it for them.

He also plans to review the next two Artemis missions, specifically looking at the Orion capsule and the questions relating to its heat shield and its untested environmental system. The concern that I and many others have expressed is that this capsule is not ready yet for a manned mission. The heat shield showed significant and unexpected damage on its return to Earth from its first unmanned mission around the Moon in 2022. Rather than replace it or redesign it, NASA has decided to push ahead and fly four astronauts on it around the Moon no later than April 2026. The agency’s solution will be to change the capsule’s flight path to reduce stress on the shield, a solution that might work but remains untested. It is also willing to fly the astronauts in a capsule with a untested environmental system. This NASA decision to push ahead is so it can meet the goal of Trump and Congress to get humans back on the Moon ahead of the Chinese, and hopefully within Trump’s present term of office.

In other words, NASA management is once again putting schedule ahead of safety and engineering, as it did with Challenger and again with Columbia.

It appears that Isaacman will at least review this situation. Whether he will have the courage to take the astronauts off that mission however remains unknown. He will certainly face fierce opposition from Trump and Congress if he does so.

President Trump’s Golden Dome czar says he has held “one-vs.-one” talks with more than 300 private companies in recent months to hash out the secretive architecture of the futuristic missile defense shield that the administration is determined to put into operation over the entire U.S. homeland by mid-2028.

In his first public remarks since being named to the position in June, Gen. Michael A. Guetlein, vice chief of space operations at the U.S. Space Force, told an audience at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum that although the layered design of the Golden Dome remains classified, he is confident that “our industry partners have a pretty good insight into what we’re doing.”

The project, which remains mostly cloaked in secrecy, received $24.5 billion in funding this year from Congress, with that number expected to rise considerably in later years.

My sense from Guetlein’s remarks is that right now the project is simply gathering already existing missile defense assets under one roof in order to get something operational by 2028 as ordered by Trump. Guetlein is also getting the enthusiastic support of the industry — which sees big bucks flowing their way from Golden Dome in the coming years. Many of the new space startups have been shifting operations from civilian space to this military project in anticipation of this funding.

While the concept is not unreasonable, considering the success seen with the Pentagon’s Patriot system and Israel’s Iron Dome, the secret structure so far of Golden Dome is almost guaranteed to lend itself to corruption and wasteful spending, a systemic problem within our present federal government.

Nothing that happened at yesterday’s Senate hearing of Jared Isaacman’s nomination to be NASA’s next administrator was a surprise, or very significant, even if most media reports attempted to imply what happened had some importance. Here are just a small sampling:

• CNN: Trump’s NASA pick faces questions on leaked ‘Project Athena’ plan in rare second confirmation hearing
• UPI: NASA nominee Jared Isaacman affirms need to beat China to moon
• Washington Times: Jared Isaacman, Trump’s NASA nominee, sees lunar landing, space base as crucial to national security
• The Hill: NASA nominee refuses to say if Musk was in room when Trump offered job
• Space News: Isaacman, senators emphasize urgency in returning humans to the moon
• Reuters: Trump’s NASA pick stresses moon race urgency, pressed on Musk ties in Senate hearing

To be fair, all of these reports focused on simply reporting what happened during the hearing, and the headlines above actually provide a good summary. Isaacman committed to the Artemis program, touted SLS and Orion as the fastest way to get Americans back to the Moon ahead of the Chinese, and dotted all the “i”s and crossed all the “t”s required to convince the senators he will continue the pork projects they so dearly love. He also dodged efforts by several partisan Democrats to imply Isaacman’s past business dealings with Musk and SpaceX posed some sort of conflict of interest.

What none of the news reports did — and I am going to do now — is take a deeper look. Did anything Isaacman promise in connection with NASA and its Artemis program mean anything in the long run? Is the race to get back to the Moon ahead of China of any importance?

I say without fear that all of this is blather, and means nothing in the long run. The American space program is no longer being run by NASA, and all of NASA’s present plans with Artemis, using SLS, Orion, and the Lunar Gateway station, are ephemeral, transitory, and will by history be seen as inconsequential by future space historians.

It is very simple. Even if the next few Artemis missions fly as planned, with no problems, all they will accomplish will be to put a few humans on the Moon for a very short time, with no long lasting impact. SLS and Orion as designed can do nothing more than repeat Apollo, plant a flag, provide some politicians some cool photo ops, but do nothing to establish the United States in space, building real colonies on the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids.

You see, NASA’s Artemis program is nothing more than a very expensive toy for politicians, allowing them to strut like proud roosters before the media, claiming they’ve made America a leader in space, when all they’ve really done is spend a lot of money on a one-off project that builds nothing substantial or permanent.

Yesterday’s hearing was simply another example of this, a vapid photo op for these politicians with no real substance. As summarized cogently by Marcia Smith at SpacePolicyOnline.com:

Ultimately, the hearing unveiled no big surprises and most members seem strongly supportive of the nomination. The committee vote on Monday is at 5:30 pm ET, just as Senators return to Washington for next week’s work. Seven other unrelated nominations are on the docket. When it will go before the full Senate is unknown, but the committee’s leadership is eager to get him confirmed.

In other words, this was nothing more than a performance for the cameras, as Isaacman’s nomination was assured even before the hearing began.

Superheavy after the October 2024 flight,
safely captured during the very first attempt

So what is America’s real space program? I’ve said this more than a few times recently, because the political game described above acts to distract us from reality, but the real American space program is now being run almost entirely by SpaceX. It is building the rocket (Starship) that will make colonization of the Moon and Mars possible. It has the rocket (Falcon 9) that is making a profitable orbital space industry possible.

And most important of all, it has the cash in its own pocket to pay for this. It doesn’t need to cater to the whims and quid pro quos demanded of Washington senators and congressmen to get the funding to pay for Starship. It gets that revenue from Starlink, and in fact those annual revenues are right now getting close to matching NASA’s own annual budget.

Nor is SpaceX alone in this. The American aerospace private sector is across the board becoming increasingly independent from NASA. It now has two rockets that are reusable (SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Blue Origin’s New Glenn), and by next year will have three more (SpaceX’s Starship, Rocket Lab’s Neutron, and Stoke Space’s Nova).

The American space stations under development

That private sector is also building four commercial private space stations, with one (Vast) planning the launch of its first demo station by next year. And that station is being funded entirely with private investment capital.

Multiple American companies are also now making money on orbiting constellations that provide high resolution data and imaging of the Earth, for commercial and government customers. Other companies are making money providing satellite companies tug and robotic servicing.

And even more significant, there are now companies flying recoverable capsules designed expressly to produce products in orbit for sale on Earth, with Varda leading the way. Large amounts of investment capital has been pouring into this new industry, because investors see large amounts of profits from the products it will produce.

Soon to wave in many places not on Earth

The future in space is quite bright, and this isn’t because Jared Isaacman yesterday committed NASA to beating China back to the Moon. It is bright because numerous free Americans are creating their own dreams in space, and making a lot of money as they do so.

And most important of all, despite SpaceX’s present dominance, the American space effort is varied, competitive, and widespread. Its growth is occurring industry wide, with many players all competing for profit. And it is increasingly independent from government funding.

So, it is nice Jared Isaacman will soon be NASA’s next administrator. And it is good that he intends to reshape the agency to make it more effective. But in the end, the real space program is elsewhere, among ordinary Americans following their own dreams. And it will be those Americans, not NASA, that will colonize the solar system for the United States.

Today Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced that the Commerce committee he heads will vote on the re-nomination of Jared Isaacman for NASA administration on December 8, 2025, only five days after tomorrow’s renomination hearing.

It appears Cruz and his committee is pushing to get Isaacman approved as quickly as possible. At least one Republican senator, John Cornyn (R-Texas) has met with Isaacman again and gotten his commitment to move the space shuttle Discovery to Texas, as mandated by the budget bill passed several months ago. That commitment was likely a quid pro quo by Cornyn to get his vote for Isaacman.

Once Isaacman is approved by Cruz’s committee, the Senate could vote at any time. Whether it will do so before the end of the year remains unknown, as it would likely require a special session as the Senate is expected to be in recess until after the new year.

If it does not, it will likely give Isaacman very little time to review the next Artemis mission, tentatively schedule for launch as early as February 2026, carrying four astronauts around the Moon on a Orion capsule with a questionable heat shield and an untested environmental system.

The Air Force announced late yesterday [pdf] that it will now allow SpaceX to launch its Starship/Superheavy rocket at Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral in Florida (as shown on the map to the right) as many as 76 times per year, with twice that number of landings.

The DAF [Department of Air Force] decision authorizes SpaceX to use SLC-37 at CCSFS [Cape Canaveral Space Force Station] to support Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations, including the redevelopment of SLC-37 and the other infrastructure improvements required and analyzed in the FEIS [Final Environmental Impact Statement]. Under this ROD [record of decision], upon execution of the real property agreement and associated documentation, and as analyzed in the FEIS while adhering to the mitigation measures specified in Appendix A to this ROD, SpaceX is authorized to: (1) undertake construction activities necessary to re-develop SLC-37 and associated infrastructure for Starship Super Heavy operations; (2) conduct prelaunch operations, including the transportation of launch vehicle components and static fire tests; and (3) conduct up to 76 launches and 152 landings annually once a supplemental analysis of airspace impacts by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is completed. [emphasi mine]

The deal also requires SpaceX to do some road upgrades in order to transport the rocket from its Gigabay to the launch tower. The company immediately announced on X yesterday that it has already begun construction, and expects to have three pads in Florida before all is done.

The final environmental impact statement [pdf] was released on November 20, 2025, and concluded in more than 200 pages that there will be no significant impact from these launch operations, something that should be self-evident after more than three-quarters of century of rocketry at the Cape. The existence of the spaceport acts to protect wildlife, because it limits development across a wide area.

The report suggested that some turtle species and one mouse specie might “affected adversely”, but it it also appears that risk was considered minor and not enough to block development. To deal with this however the impact statement requires SpaceX to do a number of mitigation actions, similar to what it is required to do at Boca Chica.

One fact must be recognized, based on the red tape and delays experienced by SpaceX during the Biden administration. Had Kamala Harris and the cadre that ran the White House under Biden had been in office now, this approval would almost certainly have not happened, or if it did, it would have likely been delayed for a considerable amount of time, into next year at the earliest. It is certain that Trump is clearing the path to prevent red tape and the administrative state from slowing things down unnecessarily.

This announcement also strengthens the likelihood that SpaceX will do at least one launch of Starship/Superheavy from Florida in 2026. And if not then, by 2027 for sure.

[O]n a very personal note, I didn’t grow up very religious at all — my mother’s family, we celebrate Christmas. My father’s family, we celebrated Hanukkah. But I can tell you, having gone to space twice and looking back on our planet, looking at the stars around us, it is very hard not to be spiritual.

But it was only recently, in the last couple weeks that I was inspired for the first time in a very long time to pick up the Bible, and I’ll tell you why.

It’s because of Charlie, and it’s for Charlie, and there’s millions others just like me. Thank you.”

One of the theories as to why Trump withdrew Isaacman’s nomination in May was because of Isaacman’s past political and financial support for numerous Democratic Party candidates, along with his apparent support for DEI at his companies. It was speculated that once Trump learned of these associations during the confirmation process he decided Isaacman was not trustworthy and dumped him.

I wonder now if Isaacman changed Trump’s mind when they met several times in the past few weeks by talking about Kirk’s assassination and how it had changed Isaacman. I can easily see how that would have influenced Trump.

This is also another case of the Democrats and their most radical and public cohort doing a good job of alienating another former Democrat, simply by advocating and committing violence against those who disagree. They did it to Trump and Elon Musk, both former Democrats, and apparently they have done it to Isaacman as well.

Revenue over the first nine months of this year rose 20% to €1.75 billion while losses mounted to €55 million so far in 2025. Part of the problem was the Trump administration reassessment of spending that had been decided last year, including the delay of contract renewals and decisions on new awards, Chief Executive Officer Adel Al-Saleh said. Large contracts have also been delayed by the longest congressional budget standoff in US history, now in its sixth week, he said. “We’re experiencing timing delays in some contract awards due to the continuing resolution and subsequent government shutdown,” Al-Saleh said on a conference call with stock analysts.

The company remains in the black, and it expects to make up these losses from other customers. It is also in the process of completing its purchase of the satellite company Intelsat, which has also impacted its profits.

The article notes one interesting aspect of this Luxembourg company, that reflects the unique approach to tax dollars by that nation’s government: “Luxembourg taxpayers own one-sixth of SES shares, but wield a third of the voting power after underwriting its creation four decades ago.” The government doesn’t simply spend its tax revenue, like most governments. It treats that revenue as investment capital, and uses it to make money for the benefit of its citizens.

If only more governments would take this approach!

The administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal includes a one-third reduction to the National Reconnaissance Office’s commercial imagery procurement, a move that has rippled through companies like BlackSky that rely heavily on government intelligence contracts. The cuts specifically affect the Electro-Optical Commercial Layer (EOCL) program — an NRO initiative to buy satellite imagery from commercial providers.

BlackSky reported $19.6 million in third-quarter revenue, missing analyst expectations and down from the previous quarter. Chief Executive Brian O’Toole told analysts the reduction stemmed from adjustments to the company’s EOCL contract “to reflect the potential baseline budget submitted by the administration.”

Sound terrible, eh? Not so fast.

Despite the domestic headwinds, BlackSky is seeing a sharp uptick in overseas business. The company said international sales now account for about half of total revenue, up from 40% a year ago. O’Toole said foreign demand is “outpacing our U.S. government business” and that the company expects international sales to exceed U.S. sales for the first time in 2026.

Blacksky is of course blocked from selling its high resolution reconnaissance imagery to hostile powers, but there are plenty of American allies out there who want this data.

The situation is simple. When American companies are given the freedom to produce, they will create products of value. And the sky won’t fall if the federal government can no longer be their main customer.

President Donald Trump late yesterday announced that he has renominated billionaire Jared Isaacman as his nominee to become the administrator of NASA.

Just as Trump had given no reasons why he had withdrawn Isaacman’s nomination in late May, in his announcement yesterday Trump made no effort to explain why he had changed his mind.

One week ago I would have said that Isaacman’s nomination would proceed very quickly to a vote in the Senate, as he had already been vetted completely in the spring and was fully expected to be confirmed within days when Trump pulled the nomination. Now however I expect the Senate might want to bring Isaacman back for questioning in response to the leak this week of a policy paper he had written in the spring outlining his plans for NASA should he be approved.

That paper, still not released to the public, apparently contained a lot of specifics about Isaacman’s plans to reshape NASA that appeared to raise the hackles of the many swamp creatures in DC that live off the government trough. Isaacman addressed that leak in a very long and very detailed tweet yesterday that outlined in detailed but general terms what his goals were in that paper, and it could be his reasoning in this tweet that convinced Trump to renominate him. As Isaacman concluded:

This plan never favored any one vendor, never recommended closing centers, or directed the cancellation of programs before objectives were achieved. The plan valued human exploration as much as scientific discovery. It was written as a starting place to give NASA, international partners, and the commercial sector the best chance for long-term success. The more I see the imperfections of politics and the lengths people will go, the more I want to serve and be part of the solution… because I love NASA and I love my country

These speculations however are all worthless. As we really don’t know the exact reasons why Trump pulled the nomination in May, it is difficult to guess why Trump changed his mind now.

It will be interesting to see how the Senate responds to this new Trump decision.

What was surprising was how different those opinions were, and who said what. Strangely, the two men took positions that appeared to be fundamentally different than the presidents they represented.

Charles Bolden

Charles Bolden was administrator during Barack Obama’s presidency. Though that administration supported the transition to capitalism, it also was generally unenthusiastic about space exploration. Obama tasked Bolden with making NASA a Muslim outreach program, and in proposing a new goal for NASA he picked going to an asteroid, something no one in NASA or the space industry thought sensible. Not surprisingly, it never happened.

Bolden’s comments about Artemis however was surprisingly in line with what I have been proposing since December 2024, de-emphasize any effort to get back to the Moon and instead work to build up a thriving and very robust competitive space industry in low Earth orbit:

Duffy’s current messaging is insisting it’ll be accomplished before Trump’s term ends in January 2029, but Bolden isn’t buying it. “We cannot make it if we say we’ve got to do it by the end of the term or we’re going to do it before the Chinese. That doesn’t help industry.”

Instead the focus needs to be on what we’re trying to accomplish. “We may not make it by 2030, but that’s okay with me as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have. That’s what’s most important. That we live up to what we said we were going to do and we deliver for the rest of the world. Because the Chinese are not going to bring the rest of the world with them to the Moon. They don’t operate that way.” [emphasis mine]

In other words, the federal government should focus on helping that space industry grow, because a vibrant space industry will make colonizing the Moon and Mars far easier. And forget about fake deadlines. They don’t happen, and only act to distort what you are trying to accomplish.

Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator during Trump’s first term, continued to lambast SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander contract, saying it wasn’t getting the job done on time, and in order to beat the Chinese he demanded instead that the government begin a big government-controlled project to build a lander instead.

Jim Bridenstine

Bridenstine is arguing for the country to go “all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible. … And if the goal is to beat China to the Moon, we need to have a program that is, in fact, you know, dare I say, a Defense Production Act kind of program. We’re going all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible with a team that would be a small team with authorities — maybe authorities put together by an executive order from the President of the United States — that this is a national security imperative that we’re going to beat China to the Moon, and in order to get that done, we need to have a small Skunk Works-type organization that can be in charge and make that lander come to reality.”

To put it more succinctly, private enterprise on its own can’t do it. What we need is another big budget “Manhattan Project”, run by the government (with lots of cash).

This is the exact opposite of the capitalism model that Bridenstine accelerated with great energy during Trump’s first term. It also makes no sense, especially because we have decades of evidence that such government big projects never happen on time, and go significantly over budget as they do so.

It appears the opinions of both men are based on their present status in the industry. Bolden is essentially retired, so he can say anything. When I met him at an event a few years ago and gave him a copy of my 2017 policy paper, Capitalism in Space, he said he was aware of it and liked its ideas. His comments yesterday confirm that stance.

Bridenstine meanwhile is another kettle of fish. After leaving NASA, he formed a lobbying company dubbed The Artemis Group, with ULA its biggest donor. It appears he is now touting policy ideas to help those donors, even if the ideas he is pushing make no sense.

The report, which apparently comes from a government agency aimed at encouraging industry in Latvia, also noted that Latvia had this year also became a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty.

Because of the government shutdown, there has been as yet no confirmation of Latvia’s signing. If confirmed, the full list of Artemis Accords signatories is as follows: The full list of nations who have signed the accords: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

With this signing, not only have all the former European subject nations to the Soviet Union joined, so have Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, all three of which were occupied and made part of the Soviet Union against their will after World War II. These events suggest that Russia’s neighbors really don’t like the bully that lives next door. It also suggests they are less fearful of it, as they are now willing to ally themselves with the U.S., located on the other side of the globe.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser is suing President Donald Trump’s administration over its “retaliatory” decision to relocate U.S. Space Command from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado on Wednesday, Weiser wrote that the president “could not have been clearer about his motivations” for the move, citing Trump’s comments during the Oval Office announcement last month acknowledging that Colorado’s elections, which he falsely described as “crooked,” were a “big factor” in his decision.

That admission makes Trump’s decision to vacate Space Command’s temporary location in Colorado — the latest twist in a years-long battle over the permanent home of Space Force headquarters — an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty, Weiser said in a press conference. “The executive branch isn’t allowed to punish, retaliate, or seek to coerce states who lawfully exercise powers that are reserved to them,” Weiser said. “And that includes the power to oversee the time, place and manner of elections.”

Weiser’s lawsuit has little chance of winning in court. No state can tell the federal government where to place its facilities, no matter what the reason. The suit is mainly a crumb Weiser is throwing to his local Democratic Party supporters, showing them he as is equally controlled by Trump Derangement Syndrome as they are.

I should note that I also strongly disagree with Trump’s decision in this case. It will cost a lot of money, and will gain us nothing. The military’s space operations have been based in Colorado for more than a half century. Though a major reorganization of this bureaucratic structure is warranted, it would be far better to reorganize it there, rather than try to recreate it elsewhere.

ExoTerra’s proprietary technology delivers precise maneuvering, extended lifetimes and high efficiency delta-V – essential for spacecraft across national defense architecture layers that must be able to reposition, avoid threats and sustain mission advantage.

…ExoTerra’s Halo thruster technology is proven aboard DARPA Blackjack ACES spacecraft and the company recently supplied York Space Systems with 21 propulsion modules for the Space Development Agency Transport Layer. The company also has contracts with commercial companies and organizations such as NASA.

Voyager Space began as a space station startup, acting as the lead company in the consortium building the Starlab station. Since then it has diversified its operations to make money in other space-related areas. This acquisition appears aimed at increasing Voyager’s ability to win contracts in connection with the military’s Golden Dome project.

The full list of nations who have signed the accords: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukraine, the United States and Uruguay.

The State Department tweet announcing this agreement says it the nations “are committed to principles of safe and transparent space exploration,” a relatively meaningless statement. It remains unknown whether Trump will use this alliance to get around the Outer Space Treaty’s restrictions on private property in space, as the original goal of the accords appeared to be during Trump’s first administration. So far it appears Trump is largely uninterested in this subject in his second term.

If this is so, then it is possible this alliance in future years would actually act to limit freedom in space. Despite its founding under the concept of constitutional limited rule, the culture of the American government has been quite hostile to this concept in recent decades. We cannot be confident it will support freedom and limited government in the future, on Earth or in space. And because future colonists will have less leverage on Earth, expect that government to be more abusive to those distant space-farers.

It is up to Trump to fix this. He has the opportunity to set precedents that could shape the future in space significantly. It remains very unclear whether he realizes this.

The timing of both announcements strongly suggests the lawsuits are a coordinated effort. The discrimination suit protests the demand of the Trump administration that government employees come back to the office to work. The suit says the agency has not made reasonable accommodation for the suing employees to work at home. It also appears that the lead employee in the suit has made it a habit of doing so, having already won $30K in a settlement of a 2024 lawsuit.

The second suit is of course more significant, as it challenges the president’s power.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to invalidate Executive Order 14343, issued by President Trump on Aug. 28. The order excludes NASA and five other agencies from coverage under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS), effectively terminating their union representation rights on the grounds of “national security”.

According to the complaint, the Trump Administration justified the exclusion by claiming these agencies have a primary function of national security work and that collective bargaining is inconsistent with those requirements. A White House Fact Sheet accompanying the order stated that collective bargaining “can delay the implementation of time-sensitive national security measures”.

IFPTE vehemently disputes this characterization. The union argues that NASA’s primary mission is “not national security,” but rather scientific exploration for the “benefit of all humanity”. The complaint cites the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which states that “activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all humankind”.

The existence of all these government unions comes originally from an executive order by President John Kennedy. It seems Trump should have the right to cancel that order. The lawsuit also argues no, that Trump is acting beyond his legal authority.

Isn’t it interesting how presidents who are Democrats always have the power to issue executive orders n matter how outrageous (such as was done frequently by Obama and Biden), but Republican presidents like Trump do not.

As expected, Elon Musk responded yesterday with anger and insults to the announcement by interim NASA administrator Sean Duffy that he will consider other manned lunar landers besides Starship for the first Artemis landing on the Moon.

And as expected, our brainless and generally uneducated propaganda press grabbed the shiny object that Duffy had put out with this announcement to focus entirely on the public spat. Here is just a sampling of the typical reports:

• Axios: Musk rages at Trump’s Transportation head on X: He “is trying to kill NASA!”
• CNBC: Musk blasts Duffy after Artemis contract spat: He ‘is trying to kill NASA!’
• The Hill: Elon Musk: Sean ‘Dummy’ shouldn’t run NASA
• Politico: ‘Sean Dummy’: Musk and Duffy brawl over the future of NASA
• Washington Examiner: Musk says Trump transportation chief ‘Sean Dummy’ trying to ‘kill’ NASA
• Bloomberg: Musk Lobs Insults as NASA Hopeful Isaacman Praises Leader Duffy
• Ars Technica: Elon Musk just declared war on NASA’s acting administrator, apparently
• NBC: Elon Musk goes on a tirade after NASA says it will seek moon landers from SpaceX rivals

Not one of these articles reported the fact that Duffy’s announcement also included an admission that NASA is now delaying this manned Moon mission until 2028. Not one went into any depth as to why this program is delayed, if they discussed it at all. And any articles that did discuss the program’s overall slow pace, the focus was always entirely on SpaceX, as if its Starship program was the sole cause of all the problems. Essentially, they picked up Duffy’s talking points and ran with them, blindly. In fact, for almost all of these articles, it appeared as if the reporter was writing about NASA’s Artemis program for the first time, and really knew nothing about it.

Only the Ars Technica story attempted some thoughtful analysis, but it focused on the office politics of choosing NASA’s next administrator, missing entirely the fundamentals of this story, that the Artemis program is and has always been a mess, and that Duffy’s decision will do nothing to fix the problem.

Musk of course foolishly played into Duffy’s hands by reacting so violently, with insults, helping Duffy distract from the real issues. At the same time, Musk also spoke truth with this one tweet:

SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry. Moreover, Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission. Mark my words.

Duffy has done nothing to fix the fundamental problems with the Artemis program. It still relies on SLS, a flawed rocket that is too expensive, too cumbersome, and lacks sufficient power for the job. It is still relies on the Orion capsule to ferry astronauts to lunar orbit, even though its heat shield is fundamentally flawed and no in-space test of its environmental system (which keeps the astronauts alive) has yet occurred. It is still focused on depending on the Lunar Gateway space station for its long term lunar exploration, even though that station will not be manned regularly, is behind schedule, and is in an orbit that makes it more expensive in fuel to get to the lunar surface.

The program has no coherence. Its management has been a mess from the start, with every component (except SpaceX’s) going significantly over budget and behind schedule.

Damage to Orion’s heat shield caused during re-entry in 2022,
including “cavities resulting from the loss of large chunks”.
Nor has this issue been fixed.

And worst of all, it has made the schedule as its primary focus for when things will happen, not good engineering. Both Trump and Duffy want that manned lunar landing to occur before Trump leaves office, and to do it they will put four astronauts in Orion to circle the Moon next spring, even though its heat shield is not trustworthy and its environmental systems are untested. The schedule demands it! Doing another unmanned mission with a fixed heat shield would require another year of development, and make a lunar landing by 2028 impossible.

Musk is hinting at these issues with his tweet above. If that mission kills the astronauts, a distinct possibility, then this whole house of cards will collapse, and the feds are going to have to find another alternative. And SpaceX is the only one around providing it.

The new framework centers on two defining pursuits: Planetary Defense, safeguarding our world from cosmic hazards, and Exoplanetary Research, seeking to understand distant worlds and the potential for life beyond Earth.

Declines in federal research funding, coupled with uncertainty about future national priorities, have impacted research institutions across the country. At the same time, Lowell’s historic reliance on internal funding to sustain research is no longer a viable long-term model. To ensure stability and growth, the Observatory will focus its efforts on key scientific areas while building new endowments to support the scientists and technology that drive discovery.

Essentially, it can no longer depend on easy federal cash (thank you Donald Trump!), and thus needs to actually do real research work in fields that others consider important. It will also abandon its “traditional academic tenure system.” Scientists who use the facility will now have to earn that right, in a case-by-case basis. And such researchers will have to be funded by “private, endowed support.”

In other words, Lowell is returning to the model that had been used by American researchers for most of the nation’s history, until World War II, getting their funding from private sources rather than the federal teat.

We should expect therefore the work at Lowell to become more effective and focused, something it has not been for decades.