
To dumbly go where no space budget has gone before
Christopher Cokinos,
Tribune News Service
Reports that the White House may propose nearly a 50% cut to NASA's Science Mission Directorate are both mind-boggling and, if true, nothing short of disastrous. To make those cuts happen — a total of $3.6 billion — NASA would have to close the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, and cancel the mission that will bring back samples of Mars, a mission to Venus and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which is nearly ready to launch. Every space telescope besides the Hubble and the James Webb would be shut down. According to the American Astronomical Society, some cuts would include projects that help us understand the sun's effects on global communications, a potential national security threat. Casey Dreier, the policy advocate for the Pasadena-based Planetary Society, says, 'This is an extinction-level event for the Earth- and space-science communities, upending decades of work and tens of billions in taxpayers' investment.'
In addition, NASA as a whole would see a 20% cut — just as we are moving forward with the Artemis program. Artemis is NASA's step-by-step 'Moon to Mars' human spaceflight campaign. Artemis II is set to launch sometime next year and will send four astronauts on a lunar fly-by, the first time humans have been in close proximity to another celestial body in more than 50 years. While it seems likely that Artemis will continue in some fashion, a 20% overall agency budget cut won't leave any part of NASA unaffected. The president promised a 'golden age of America'; his nominee to head NASA promised a 'golden age of science and discovery.' This would be a return to the dark ages. Taking a blowtorch to space science would also have little effect on the federal budget while setting back American leadership in space — and the inspiration it provides across political divides — by generations.
The Astronomical Society warns that our cutbacks will outsource talent 'to other countries that are increasing their investments in facilities and workforce development.' And, as Dreier points out, spacecraft would be 'left to tumble aimlessly in space' and billions wasted that have already been spent. 'Thousands of bright students across the country,' he wrote recently, 'would be denied careers in science and engineering absent the fellowships and research funds to support them.' Here's the dollars-and-cents context. NASA's budget since the 1970s 'hovers' between 1% and 0.4% of the federal discretionary spending, according to the Planetary Society's analysis, yet for every dollar spent, NASA generates $3 in the national economy. NASA's giveback was worth nearly $76 billion in economic impact in 2023, supporting more than 300,000 jobs. In California alone, NASA and its associated partners in industry and academia provide more than 66,000 jobs, more than $18 billion in economic activity and $1 billion in state tax revenue. NASA's bang-for-the-buck is astronomical, pun intended.
Cutting waste is one thing. Evisceration is another. When it comes to science — from public health to climate change — the current administration is doing the latter, not the former. Meanwhile, China continues its space ambitions, with plans for a human lunar campaign and its own 'sample return' mission to the Red Planet. For now, fortunately, the bipartisan support for NASA seems to be holding. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, led by the Planetary Science Caucus, have spoken out against this attack on NASA. And the Planetary Society has engaged thousands of passionate activists to fight this battle.
Humans yearn for connection to the universe — so we watch launches on social media, we follow the tracks of rovers on Mars and we marvel at creation in pictures transmitted from the James Webb Space Telescope. We borrow telescopes from the public library and look to the heavens. Bending metal — the actual process of making rovers and spaceships and telescopes — drives economic activity. Fascinating results — the data from space science missions — fires the imagination. We choose to go to space — sending humans and probes — and we pursue knowledge because curiosity is our evolutionary heritage. We explore other worlds to know them and, in doing so, we discover more about ourselves. If you agree, let Congress know. That may be the only backstop against dumbly going where no budget has gone before.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sharjah 24
9 hours ago
- Sharjah 24
SpaceX set for next Starship launch after fiery failure
A launch window opens at 6:30 pm (2330 GMT) from the company's Starbase facility near a southern Texas village that recently voted to become a city, also called Starbase. Standing 403 feet (123 meters) tall, Starship is the largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built, and it carries Musk's hopes of making humanity a multi-planetary species. NASA is also counting on a variant of Starship to serve as the crew lander for Artemis 3, the mission to return Americans to the Moon. But the last two tests ended with the upper stages erupting into fiery cascades that sent debris raining down over Caribbean islands and disrupting flights -- piling more pressure onto SpaceX to get it right this time. The company is betting that its aggressive testing approach, which helped it become the dominant force in commercial spaceflight, will once again pay off. Still, it acknowledged in a statement that progress "won't always come in leaps." According to the Wall Street Journal, SpaceX is shifting personnel and resources to the Starship program in a push to have the vehicle ready for a Mars mission as soon as next year.


Arabian Post
12 hours ago
- Arabian Post
UAE Pushes for Trade Deal to Counteract U.S. Metal Tariffs
Arabian Post Staff -Dubai The United Arab Emirates and the United States are preparing to initiate negotiations for a potential bilateral trade agreement aimed at reducing or eliminating tariffs imposed during President Donald Trump's administration on UAE steel and aluminium exports. These tariffs include a baseline 10% duty and a specific 25% tariff on steel and aluminium—which the Trump administration plans to double to 50%. The UAE, whose steel and aluminium are significant non-oil exports and accounted for 8% of U.S. steel and aluminium consumption in 2024, is looking to leverage its history of swiftly concluded trade deals with nations such as India, Turkey, and Australia. While the U.S. may pursue a limited agreement rather than a full free trade pact, it is expected to be labeled a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement , consistent with the UAE's past trade deals. ADVERTISEMENT The UAE, Washington's largest trade partner in the Middle East with $34.4 billion in bilateral trade in 2024, is also a major U.S. investor and security ally, hosting American troops and planning $1.4 trillion in future U.S. investments. Both sides reportedly responded positively to the idea during Trump's recent visit to Abu Dhabi, though a timeline for formal talks remains unclear. The Trump administration's decision to double tariffs on imported steel and aluminium to 50% took effect on June 4, 2025, impacting nearly all trading partners except the United Kingdom, which has a preliminary trade agreement with the U.S. The policy significantly affects major U.S. trading partners like Canada and Mexico, with Canada being the leading exporter of aluminium to the U.S. and both countries ranking high in steel exports. UAE-based steel producers expect to escape major impact from the latest move by the U.S. to double tariffs on steel imports. The new tariffs apply to all trading partners except the UK, which struck a preliminary trade agreement with the U.S. last month. However, steel manufacturers in the UAE don't anticipate a hard hit. The U.S. decision to double steel import tariffs 'may have an indirect effect on market dynamics but is not expected to materially impact Emsteel's business,' said Michael Rion, chief commercial officer at Emirates Steel, part of Abu Dhabi-listed Emsteel Group. The company has a 'modest exposure' to the U.S. market, with exports accounting for less than 2% of total annual sales. The UAE's push for a trade agreement with the U.S. is part of its broader strategy to mitigate the impact of increased tariffs and strengthen economic ties. The potential agreement, discussed during President Trump's visit to Abu Dhabi, seeks to address the challenges posed by the new tariffs and reinforce the economic partnership between the two nations.


Arabian Post
16 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further
By K Raveendran Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India's favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized. The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India's aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India's fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles. At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai's rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates' unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn't just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India's aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy. Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi's flagship carrier, Etihad's arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai's interests automatically translate into Emirates' gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad. India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion's share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines. Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening. A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the 'Great Indian Aviation Surrender,' are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout. However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India's largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there's an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo's entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition. To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)