The 2026 NASA Budget

[Yazata]

It probably comes as no surprise to anyone, but now it's official: The Gateway lunar space station is to be eliminated entirely, and SLS and Orion will be canceled after Artemis III (the crewed Moon landing if all goes well.) They also say that they are increasing the human exploration budget in fiscal 2026 by $1 billion, to start Mars planning.

NASA says (highlighting by me):

"Increased commitment to human space exploration in pursuit of exploration of both the Moon and Mars. By allocating more than $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing $1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the budget ensures America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient...

Transition the Artemis campaign to a more sustainable, cost-effective approach to lunar exploration. The SLS (Space Launch System) rocket and Orion capsule will be retired after Artemis III, paving the way for more cost-effective, next-generation commercial systems that will support subsequent NASA lunar missions. The budget also ends the Gateway Program, with the opportunity to repurpose already produced components for use in other missions. International partners will be invited to join these renewed efforts, expanding opportunities for meaningful collaboration on the Moon and Mars."

One part of the new budget that is generating controversy is the fact that NASA's Space Science budget is being cut by ~$2 billion a year. I don't like that (uncrewed space probes are currently NASA's undisputed strength), but it probably isn't as bad as it sounds because most of it is due to the cancellation of the hugely over-budget and behind-schedule Mars Sample Return project. NASA figures that they can get samples back when they send humans to Mars.

Another part of the budget that is generating controversy in some quarters is dramatic cuts in NASA's Earth Science climate-change projects. (That doesn't bother me though. NOAA should properly be doing that stuff, wih NASA focused on space exploration.)

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/presid...ploration/

https://www.nasa.gov/fy-2026-budget-request/

[Syne]

Another part of the budget that is generating controversy in some quarters is dramatic cuts in NASA's Earth Science climate-change projects. (That doesn't bother me though. NOAA should properly be doing that stuff, wih NASA focused on space exploration.)

Talk about mission creep.

[Yazata]

Very good opinion piece from the New York Post. (Good mainly because I agree with it...)

https://nypost.com/2025/05/03/opinion/no...ew-future/

"To ensure the future of spaceflight, NASA must stop building rockets. That counterintuitive notion is borne out by the agency’s sad post-Apollo history.

For the past 50 years, America’s dreams of space exploration have been stymied by NASA’s failure to build an affordable, reliable launch system.

Today, the private sector builds rockets faster, cheaper, and better.

Ending the agency’s sclerotic rocket-building program will be the first of many challenges facing Jared Isaacman, President Trump’s nominee to be NASA administrator, who is expected to be confirmed...

NASA’s biggest obstacle to progress is its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and conjoined Orion capsule. This huge, Apollo-style program was intended to carry US astronauts back to the moon. Unfortunately, the SLS rocket is years behind schedule and billions over budget.

Unlike the reusable rockets being pioneered by SpaceX and other private-sector companies, the SLS is entirely expendable, meaning all the rocket’s components must be discarded during each flight, at enormous expense. NASA’s inspector general estimates each SLS/Orion mission will cost over $4 billion...

NASA’s commercial experiment, meanwhile, has largely been a success; SpaceX rockets carry astronauts to the International Space Station like clockwork, saving US taxpayers billions. And by giving private launch companies an initial market, NASA’s commercial space program helped spawn a promising private spaceflight industry. Congress should stop fighting over SLS pork and let NASA embrace the capabilities these revolutionary vendors offer.

In his Senate confirmation hearing, Isaacman said he wouldn’t shut down the SLS program overnight, but warned that the overpriced rocket is not the best “long-term way to get to and from the moon and Mars.”

He said the SLS should be allowed to fly its next two planned missions, including a moon landing. That’s the right call. It is unlikely NASA and its private partners could cobble together an alternative lunar plan in the short term.

But once US boots touch lunar soil again, the agency should get out of the rocket-building business for good. SpaceX and other vendors will be able to send crews and supplies to the moon — and eventually to Mars — for a fraction of what NASA would spend using its own equipment.

Freed from the need to build expensive space vehicles, the agency will have more resources to devote to genuine exploration and technological research. Then, NASA should be restructured to focus on what it does best: basic R&D, mission planning, and space science..."