FY 2026 NASA Budget (May 2nd and 30th 2025)

[eeergo]

Of course the Senet is going to try to save these programs because they are jobs programs.

Of course, jobs are bad, especially if they serve anyone else apart from who needs them the least.


Of course, space industries feed from meteorites and auroras, not from hard-working professionals trained in one of the most demanding, no-nonsense professional sectors that exist with -until recently at least- one of the highest and most stable returns of investment anywhere, and extraordinary society-wide benefits spinoff rates.


Of course, we can only expand our space exploration initiatives if we first reduce the ranks of those developing, promoting and communicating them.

[Probably Fine]

Of course the Senet is going to try to save these programs because they are jobs programs.

Of course, jobs are bad, especially if they serve anyone else apart from who needs them the least.


Of course, space industries feed from meteorites and auroras, not from hard-working professionals trained in one of the most demanding, no-nonsense professional sectors that exist with -until recently at least- one of the highest and most stable returns of investment anywhere, and extraordinary society-wide benefits spinoff rates.


Of course, we can only expand our space exploration initiatives if we first reduce the ranks of those developing, promoting and communicating them.

I'm sitting at that one bar in Merritt Island (IYKYK) and if you send me some info I'll buy you a couple beers for that comment. Thanks.

[eeergo]

Of course the Senet is going to try to save these programs because they are jobs programs.

Of course, jobs are bad, especially if they serve anyone else apart from who needs them the least.


Of course, space industries feed from meteorites and auroras, not from hard-working professionals trained in one of the most demanding, no-nonsense professional sectors that exist with -until recently at least- one of the highest and most stable returns of investment anywhere, and extraordinary society-wide benefits spinoff rates.


Of course, we can only expand our space exploration initiatives if we first reduce the ranks of those developing, promoting and communicating them.

I'm sitting at that one bar in Merritt Island (IYKYK) and if you send me some info I'll buy you a couple beers for that comment. Thanks.

Finds me across the Pond, but I'll cheer to that offering and will reciprocate with a bottle of Italian wine if you find yourself in Europe sometime Thanks to you, sir.

Comment just flowed out effortlessly though.

It gets tiring to reach home at midnight, after finishing a maddening week spent fighting to get things to make a minimal amount of sense during all-week-long daily 12h marathon meetings across 5 countries, 2 major projects, 3 competing companies and several institutional clients, made bearable only thanks to exceptional colleagues with shared idealism towards space exploration and science, in the midst of all the regrettable nonsense that has most of us in the space sector in disarray... only to have to read the nth asinine clueless slogan against the people that make possible the very topic we all are supposed to care for in here.

[Jim]

Of course, we can only expand our space exploration initiatives if we first reduce the ranks of those developing, promoting and communicating them.

Reduce the ranks of those squandering money.
a.  SLS is a waste, no matter what
b. It is over manned.  Every other launch vehicle is done with less workers and have higher launch rates.
look at the employment numbers vs ULA, BO, SpaceX and the return on it

[mlindner]

To be clear, I'm talking about the additional Artemis 4 and Artemis 5 missions being re-funded and Gateway. I'm fine with doing Artemis 3 as it satisfies people worried about "losing" to China (despite the fact we beat them there over 50 years ago).

YOU are fine. Not many people share your view. The Soviet Union launched a man into space in the 60s, yet Russia would be "losing" against other spacefaring nations if they didn't have Soyuz now (and some argue they're already losing since their capabilities haven't evolved "enough").

The people who defend the SLS are in the very small minority. To the point that everyone knows about them and they're lightning rods. The comparison with Soyuz makes no sense because the Soyuz isn't racing anyone. If anything the Soyuz comparison matches what I'm talking about. If Russia only had Angara and their competitor had something like Soyuz, everyone would say that Russia was losing. (SLS is the Angara here. Launches rarely, doesn't carry the payloads people need, and is overly expensive.)

Relying on SLS to get astronauts to the Moon is what actually makes you lose to China because of the extremely limited launch rates of the SLS system with the available funding. While we launch every 2 years (at best) for additional flags and footprints missions they'll be flying multiple missions to the Moon and starting to set up their own lunar base. Note how China has no plans for a lunar orbital station, because such an idea is pointless.

Curious why the majority of the world's space leadership thinks otherwise, but you pontificate about this OPINION like it's the only authoritative, self-evident conclusion. Spoiler: it's not.

China's plans beyond their first Moon landings (which are anyway still quite fuzzy, at least publicly) are conceptual at best. They could conceivably land on the Moon before this decade is out and still have time to develop a lunar orbital station Gateway style with a few years of advance notice if it suited them.

Huh? The majority of the world's space leadership doesn't care about the SLS at all. They care only about whatever partnership agreements they have with the US continue. They don't care _how_ they continue.

China plans to build their moon base _by_ 2035. And they have expressed no interest in building a Gateway style station, which makes sense as Gateway only exists for political reasons

SLS MUST be ditched as soon as practicable with the job of actually launching humans handed over to something that can launch more frequently. Support for SLS comes from loyalty, blind faith, support for pork barrel, and maybe for some some form of childish hatred for the idea of partnering with Musk. Oh and I'll throw in people who's jobs rest on the money river continuing to flow. I'm not sure which one you are.

Since you highlight it so much: no, it MUST NOT. In fact, I would say money MUST stop being siphoned off to wasteful private enterprises with questionable hypergrowth scaling plans propped up on little more than wishful thinking and turbo-VC free money (with a 70% public-sector downpayment first, of course), while profiting from the few SpaceX-like unicorn success stories without giving them too much leverage that may come to bite the pursuit of general good (as we're seeing these last few days), and making sure the space program continues spinning off technology development, scientific data sharing and transfer of knowledge to the public realm so that its return on investment to societies on Earth is what it used to be (and the reason why most taxpayers accept paying for it in the first place). And SLS, like it or not, is currently the technology that has the most down-to-earth plan to put humans on and around the Moon (or as close as we can without -wrongfully, IMO- rely on fully-privatized initiatives for the last-mile delivery).

You can save your considerations of how to categorize me for your private musings: it's ad-hominem, it's off-topic, nobody is really interested, and frankly it's childish. I'm not really interested in thinking what "tribe" to reciprocally put you in.

Good grief. Where to start. First off private space enterprises are not predicated on "hypergrowth scaling plans". Secondly, no they do not have 70% public-sector down-payments. Thirdly, the majority of any VC companies fail. That is their nature and is the norm and should be expected. Just like various space companies from around SpaceX's time period failed or were acquired. VC companies failing is not a mark of VCs being bad at their job. Failure is normal. Fourthly, the entire point of any research in government is to send it to the private industry, and no, the point is not to keep them small. It's to make them grow as big as possible to increase the tax base and provide people jobs.

On SLS, it doesn't even reach that level. Nothing SLS is doing is producing research that is valuable for spinning off to the private industry, other than standing as a shining example of what private industry should passionately avoid. It's not much better than paying people to dig holes in the ground and fill them in again. Secondly, you say that SLS is for putting humans on the moon, but it can't even do that. It can't even send them into a low lunar orbit. It's completely inept in its purpose.

If we don't we drop SLS we really will lose the Moon, and Mars for that matter.

And as a side note, the laughable image always springs to mind of NASA Astronauts sitting around twiddling their fingers for multiple years waiting for their next SLS launch to ferry them to their useless moon orbital station while private companies contract Starship to repeatedly land on the moon and set up their own industries there.

NASA and SpaceX should be working together toward joint goals and NASA should be partnering as maximally as possible with SpaceX to achieve its own goals. If SpaceX develops anything at all they should leap at the chance to use it and expand upon it.

How we SURELY lose the Moon in this decade if not for the rest of our lifetimes, is by gutting NASA by 50%, cancelling the only working option (globally, no less) to put humans on and around the Moon in the foreseeable future with a well-studied plan, and betting everything will be fine on the problematically fuzzy pet project of one of the least reliable personalities worldwide. THAT IS blind faith and misplaced loyalty if there's one such example, especially if you believe the "lunar industry" nonsense in any kind of short term, along with redirecting the "pork barrel" stream somewhere else with far poorer practices, with no reduction in flow.

Don't put me in the camp defending cuts to NASA. I haven't and I won't. Cutting SLS is not "gutting NASA". Cutting SLS is enabling NASA to do more with the budget they have, instead of wasting money on the hog that is SLS, reassigning the SLS budget to other parts of NASA, putting time and effort into researching things that actually need to be researched or that private industry will not or cannot do. Nothing SLS does is something that private industry cannot.

Again, SLS cannot put humans on the moon or even around the moon in a low lunar orbit. It's a joy ride to a high lunar orbit to sort of fake it and say that we did it. It doesn't achieve any goals and it doesn't work toward any goals that we care about in the future. The whole plan only becomes something when you add HLS, which is what will actually enable everything of relevance.

That is exactly the blind faith I'm talking about. You think the SLS will enable things when it cannot in fact do anything of any usefulness at all.

What do you think happens if we keep using SLS? That it'll magically get better suddenly? That it'll suddenly start launching a whole bunch? That it'll grow landing legs and suddenly become capable of landing hardware on the moon for use for building a base? Where do you think the NASA budget is going to come from to build all those lunar base payloads?

Kill SLS early and fast, as soon as it's served its political purpose, and move on to building real things that will advance the state of the art. Stop using ancient and decrepit Shuttle technology from long before I was even born.

I want NASA doing MORE things not LESS. SLS is a path towards NASA doing LESS.

[Jimmy_C]

SLS and Artemis are irrelevant to anything else funded by Congress. Congress doesn’t care about science or exploration. They care about prestige that they can take credit for, whether that’s workers in their state or some grand achievement that they think their voters understand. Congress will fund science as long as it gets them those political points.

If you cut SLS funding, Congress isn’t going to fund other programs with more money. They will just use it for some other project in their state. That’s why DIRECT ultimately failed. That’s why Venturestar was cancelled. That’s why Apollo was cancelled. Sure, there were program issues and technical reasons, but that’s ok for politicians. Those projects just didn’t matter enough to the voters (even Apollo after a few Moonshots).

Money is not the limiting factor when it comes to Congress. Despite their claims otherwise, politicians’ actions have consistently proven that money is no object to projects that get them elected.

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post:

Why is Ted Cruz releasing budget reconciliation text?  He's the CJS chairman, which is the authorizing committee.  Why isn't the CJS appropriations subcommittee, or the appropriations committee in the main, releasing this?

Because, for whatever reason, the Senate leadership decided to allow/invite authorization committees like Cruz’s to offer up language for the Senate’s version of the reconciliation bill.  For whatever reason, the House leadership did not do the same:

In both chambers, specific committees were assigned to come up with proposals to increase or decrease spending to meet previously set targets. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee wasn’t one of the House committees involved in the process, but the Senate Commerce committee is.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-committee-wants-to-keep-gateway-sls-and-orion/

Cruz’s specific language is not important on its own.  It may or may not make the final Senate version of the reconciliation bill.  It may or may not make the final reconciliation bill after negotiations with the House.  The entire reconciliation bill itself may get sidelined (although I imagine Trump II will threaten Republicans until something passes).

But like I warned upthread, Cruz’s language is a clear, unambiguous signal that Orion/SLS supporters in Congress will take advantage of the fact that Trump’s FY26 budget already takes care of Orion/SLS thru Artemis III by funding Artemis IV+ flights and supporting activities in the FY26 reconciliation bill, appropriations, and/or CR.  This, combined with the Trump/Musk breakup this week, all but guarantees that the transition off Orion/SLS to something else has been kicked to the next Administration.

With Orion/SLS surviving thru Artemis IV or later, the question now becomes whether development of an alternative to Orion/SLS is supported during the remainder of Trump II so that the next Administration has something to work with.  It’s hard to say for sure so soon after the Trump/Musk breakup.  But active Trump II support for the Commercial Moon/Mars line is probably less secure than it was before.  It’s now hard to see a Trump II push for human Mars with Musk’s Starship being the leading/only option.  And commercial lunar may just fall off the map with no personal Trump interest, Musk now wary of further government involvement in SpaceX that is not on the critical path to Mars, and no other competitors that could field human lunar capabilities before the end of Trump II.  It’s even possible that Trump II or SpaceX could walk away from the Lunar Starship HLS contract.  Such are the vagaries of governments run by personalities over institutions.

Of course, even without the Trump/Musk breakup, Trump II may have been an ineffective lobbyist for Commercial Moon/Mars.  Trump I wilted when Shelby opposed Bridenstine’s study of Orion on F9/Centaur.  Same sort of thing may have the inevitable result during Trump II, even without the Trump/Musk breakup.  Obama and Bush II were similarly ineffective in getting NASA civil human space exploration set on a course other than Shuttle workforce/infrastructure make-work.  It’s a tragic and perennial problem.

[Star One]

A European prospective on the proposed cuts to the NASA budget.

Prof Sir Martin Sweeting, head of the UK space firm Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, and co-author of a Royal Society report on the future of space says that while the development was "unwelcome", there may be an upside for Europe as it takes greater responsibility for its own space exploration programme.

"Maybe we have been too reliant on Nasa the big player to carry a lot of the emphasis in space," he told BBC News.

"It is an opportunity to think about how Europe wants to get a better balance in its space activities."

But there is much more downside for Europe in the short term. As well as the return of Mars samples and its Rover, ESA risks reduced access to the International Space Station if it is wound down, and the budget cuts cancel Nasa's extensive contributions to its successor,  the Lunar Gateway, a multinational space station planned for orbit around the Moon.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87jq0djw00o

[eeergo]

For whomever needs an even clearer outlook at this egregiousness:


NASA's disastrous 2026 budget proposal in… | The Planetary Society

[mlindner]

For an alternative perspective on the budget cuts from our would-have-been Administrator.

I know the community is frustrated by the proposed budget environment--but that doesn’t mean you throw up your hands and say 'the hell with it'. First, very little of it is within NASA’s control. It’s the President’s budget, Congress enacts it--and if they don’t--well we end up in a unique CR/OMB environment. And for what it is worth, the deficit is out of control--the national debt is pushing $37 trillion--we are not going to print our way out of it, so government reduction in spending is inevitable. The focus should be on what is in NASA’s control. Whether it’s $19B or $25B, a billion is still a billion—and a lot can be done with those dollars.  Hell, adjusted for inflation the entire Manhattan project over 4 years was ~30B. What doesn’t help the agency or the broader community is meeting every challenge with, ‘Well, the budget’s getting cut, science is being gutted, NASA is decimated, so game over.’ That mindset gets us nowhere.

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1932610585969242153

[Oersted]

Why we need a robust space science budget...

Cosmic Dawn (NASA+ Original Documentary), full length documentary on JWST:

[catdlr]

NASA Budget Cut Proposal 06/2025 - a major hit to American leadership in space

Jun 18, 2025
A proposed 24% NASA budget cut passed in the House of Representatives as part of a "reconciliation" bill, now awaiting Senate action.  Major cuts were made to science programs and the Artemis lunar landing program beyond the "flags and footprints" short visit in mission 3.  Funding for the International Space Station (ISS) will be cut back, as well budgets for education and public affairs.  Most new or incomplete programs will be eliminated, such as Mars Sample Return, Venus probes, future space telescopes, and nuclear propulsion.  19 active science programs will be stopped - meaning that the spacecraft are already launched, so that most of the money is already spent.

The National Space Society (NSS) strongly opposes overall cuts to NASA's budget, favoring increases instead.  But it agrees with transitioning away from the SLS rocket and other Artemis vehicles, towards commercial programs. It also agrees that the Mars Sample Return is proving too costly, so we might as well wait for humans to return the samples taken by the Perseverance rover.

NSS also wants to see us return to stay on the Moon, with permanent lunar and Mars bases, not one-off "flags and footprints" missions.  NSS also wants to maintain ISS operations, for a seamless transition to commercial alternatives, rather than abandoning microgravity research to the Chinese space station. 

There may be time to fix this, since the Senate is now working through changes in the House proposed budget.  Unfortunately, some proposals such as one by Ted Cruz add back funding only for the wasteful "pork".
In any case, NASA will be rudderless and get picked apart with no unified voice until a new NASA administrator is appointed.

[allinone]

Why we need a robust space science budget...

Cosmic Dawn (NASA+ Original Documentary), full length documentary on JWST:

Another reason everyone forgets is all the businesses that are waiting for NASA budgets. There are so many companies all relying on NASA to fund certain projects. Now that is all waiting which can't last forever as the small businesses don't have the time our resources to wait it out.

It will be better if they come up with a final budget sooner than later. But I think the NASA budget is a goner for now and people need to figure out alternatives.

Lets all hope for an increase.

[Star One]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Something was missing at the American Astronomical Society's 246th meeting this year, a conference sometimes referred to as the "Superbowl of Astronomy."

It's a meeting that brings many of the country's most renowned scientists into the same room to share what they've been working on and thinking about lately; as you can imagine, that tends to organically foster brand new ideas for exploring the universe. Being at these events, you can almost feel study blueprints sprouting up all around you in real-time. It's electric.

But this summer, NASA wasn't there. And in fact, the National Science Foundation cancelled its planned talk at the meeting, too.

…

The agency, for instance, cancelled its International Space Station Research and Development Conference that was scheduled for the end of July in Seattle and withdrew its participation from the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC).

Space.com reached out to NASA to question why they decided to pull out of the AAS conference and whether they intend to cancel any future conference attendances.

"NASA is evaluating our spending and prioritizing resources as we adjust our exploration objectives toward a renewed focus on human exploration to the moon and Mars. We'll continue to evaluate conference participation on a case-by-case basis," Bethany Stevens, a NASA spokesperson, told Space.com.

https://www.space.com/astronomy/nasas-been-pulling-out-of-major-astronomy-meetings-and-scientists-are-feeling-the-effects

[abaddon]

While the Musk v Trump sideshow has kicked off again, the Senate has now narrowly passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" on a 51-50 vote with VP JD Vance breaking the tie.  It remains to be seen what, if any alterations were made to the bill to get it through the Senate, but it seems likely the NASA portion of it outlined above is likely the same.

The result, if this is the case, is that NASA has been absolutely gutted in everything except for Exploration (SLS/HLS).  If the House comes to an agreement with the Senate, this is going to be a transformational moment for NASA, and not in a good way.

Space science is a massive loser today (and in the future; this isn't damage easily or in many cases possible to be undone), and it's a damn shame.

[jstrotha0975]

NASA is going to have to shop for the best prices now, no more fraud, waste, and abuse cost plus contracts. Cry me a river.

[kenny008]

NASA is going to have to shop for the best prices now, no more fraud, waste, and abuse cost plus contracts. Cry me a river.

This bill did not address waste, fraud and abuse (which there is surely plenty of waste to address).  It cut vital programs entirely.  No opportunity to "shop around".  Just axed them, and ceded leadership in these areas to China.
These cuts will be felt for a decade, if not longer.

[eeergo]

NASA is going to have to shop for the best prices now, no more fraud, waste, and abuse cost plus contracts. Cry me a river.

Way to parrot slogans. You realize any savings from that purported "NASA shopping around" (impossible to carry out in practice in most cases, and anyway the agency is not directed towards that, as the poster above has pointed out) are completely obliterated by orders of magnitude by much increased military spending?

Heck, they just budgeted TWICE the *whole, current* NASA budget for *new* privatized ICE detention camps, and OVER EIGHT TIMES the whole proposed NASA budget JUST as an increase for immigration crackdowns. But sure, skimping on aerospace contracts would mean much in face of that.

By the way, "fraud", "waste" and "abuse" are nouns. The qualifiers you look for are fraudulent, wasteful and abusive, but it would hammer in the slogan less effectively, wouldn't it?

[yg1968]

While the Musk v Trump sideshow has kicked off again, the Senate has now narrowly passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" on a 51-50 vote with VP JD Vance breaking the tie.  It remains to be seen what, if any alterations were made to the bill to get it through the Senate, but it seems likely the NASA portion of it outlined above is likely the same.

The result, if this is the case, is that NASA has been absolutely gutted in everything except for Exploration (SLS/HLS).  If the House comes to an agreement with the Senate, this is going to be a transformational moment for NASA, and not in a good way.

Space science is a massive loser today (and in the future; this isn't damage easily or in many cases possible to be undone), and it's a damn shame.

There has been no cuts. The Big Beautiful bill is not related to the FY26 Appropriations bills. Incidentally, the Big Beautiful bill hasn't passed both houses since the House and Senate versions are different.

[abaddon]

While the Musk v Trump sideshow has kicked off again, the Senate has now narrowly passed the "Big Beautiful Bill" on a 51-50 vote with VP JD Vance breaking the tie.  It remains to be seen what, if any alterations were made to the bill to get it through the Senate, but it seems likely the NASA portion of it outlined above is likely the same.

The result, if this is the case, is that NASA has been absolutely gutted in everything except for Exploration (SLS/HLS).  If the House comes to an agreement with the Senate, this is going to be a transformational moment for NASA, and not in a good way.

Space science is a massive loser today (and in the future; this isn't damage easily or in many cases possible to be undone), and it's a damn shame.

There has been no cuts. The Big Beautiful bill is not related to the FY26 Appropriations bills. Incidentally, the Big Beautiful bill hasn't passed both houses since the House and Senate versions are different.

When all the dust settles, we can see where the NASA budget stands.  Incidentally, I already mentioned the House and Senate need to reconcile the bill, so no need to make the same point I already made.