Trump budget would slash NASA funds, kill off Artemis' SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft
President Donald Trump's proposed budget looks to end the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft and Gateway space station central to NASA's existing Artemis program — but only after a successful moon landing as the nation remains in a race with China.
A preliminary overview of the White House's planned 2026 discretionary budget released Friday dubbed SLS and Orion as 'grossly expensive and delayed,' citing that each launch costs the government $4 billion and the program overall is 140% over budget.
It's among billions in cuts for the overall $18.8 billion proposed budget for NASA, which for the current fiscal year is nearly $25 billion. Ultimately, Congress will pass a budget and it often counters presidential proposals.
The Trump administration looks to drop funds toward Artemis' future launches by $879 million with a goal of ending them after the Artemis III flight.
'The budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions,' the White House proposal stated. 'The budget also proposes to terminate the Gateway, a small lunar space station in development with international partners, which would have been used to support future SLS and Orion missions.'
NASA flew the successful uncrewed Artemis I mission that orbited the moon in 2022 and has its first crewed mission, Artemis II, gearing up to fly around the moon no later than April. Artemis III, still on NASA's calendar for summer 2027, would return humans to the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.
NASA's Office of the Inspector General in 2023 raised the red flag of rising costs of SLS and Orion, noting that by the time it manages to fly Artemis III the program would have topped $93 billion. That includes billions more than originally announced in 2012 as years of delays and cost increases plagued the lead-up to Artemis I.
Even nearly two years ago the audit said NASA should consider alternatives.
'Although the SLS is the only launch vehicle currently available that meets Artemis mission needs, in the next 3 to 5 years other human-rated commercial alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, and reusable may become available,' the audit said. 'Therefore, NASA may want to consider whether other commercial options should be a part of its mid- to long-term plans to support its ambitious space exploration goals.'
That includes heavy-lift rockets such as Blue Origin's New Glenn that flew for the first time early this year as well as the in-development SpaceX Starship that has made several suborbital test flights.
To that end, the Trump budget proposal looks to keep the human exploration budget the highest line item with more than $7 billion — including $1 billion in new investments to pursue Mars-focused programs.
That's the only program with a proposed increase.
The biggest loser in the proposed budget is space science with cuts of more than $2.2 billion followed by more than $1.1 billion in cuts to Earth science, mission support and more than $500 million from space technology.
'In line with the administration's objectives of returning to the moon before China and putting a man on Mars, the budget would reduce lower priority research and terminate unaffordable missions such as the Mars Sample Return mission that is grossly overbudget and whose goals would be achieved by human missions to Mars,' the proposal stated.
_____
Hashtags

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


UPI
3 minutes ago
- UPI
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."

Associated Press
4 minutes ago
- Associated Press
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign. Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality. On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday. Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments: George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020 Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision. Rodney King protests in 1992 Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police. Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings. Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest. She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.' The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said. 'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said. Watts protests in 1965 There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings. Integration protests in the 1950-1960s In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate. President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school. A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation. Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965 National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.


The Onion
5 minutes ago
- The Onion
Protesters Urged Not To Give Trump Administration Pretext For What It Already Doing
LOS ANGELES—Responding to escalating clashes between civilian activists and militarized immigration authorities, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass publicly urged protesters Monday not to give the Trump administration any pretext for what they're already doing and will keep doing no matter what. 'Angelenos—don't engage in violence and give the administration an excuse to inflict all the damage they have been inflicting carte blanche for months on end,' said Bass, adding that Trump and his team are just looking for a reason to respond with violence, as they would have done whether or not any of this happened. 'Don't fan the flame that has been fanned behind the scenes at the White House since day one of Trump's term in office. You wouldn't want them to start abducting people in broad daylight and deporting them, would you? No, so let's not become scapegoats for the horrific violations of civil liberties that would have eventually landed at our doorstep regardless.' At press time, Bass warned that Trump was using the actions of protesters to justify sending in the National Guard that had been pre-deployed to the conflict days before it even began.