Latest news with #ArtemisIII
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Uncertainty at NASA; Nomination pulled, steep cuts proposed
Over the past several days, NASA's ambitious space exploration plans have experienced major setbacks. First, on Friday, newly released budget documents revealed the extent of the significant budget and personnel cuts proposed by the Trump administration. Then, just a day later, President Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator just days before an expected confirmation vote. From my perspective as a space policy expert, these events signal problems ahead for a space agency that now faces stiff competition in space exploration from the commercial sector. Without a leader and facing a fight over its budget, NASA faces an uncertain future, both in the months ahead and longer term. Budget problems When the Trump administration released a preview of its budget proposal in early May, it was clear that NASA was facing significant cuts. After the agency received $24.9 billion for 2025, the president's proposal would allot NASA $18.8 billion in 2026. After accounting for inflation, this amount would represent NASA's smallest budget since 1961. Space science programs are one of the largest targets of the proposed budget cuts, seeing an almost 50% reduction, to just $3.9 billion. Specific programs targeted for elimination include the Mars Sample Return mission, the currently operating Mars Odyssey and MAVEN missions around Mars, and several missions to Venus. Several ongoing and proposed astrophysics programs, including the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, would also end if the proposed budget passes. NASA's human spaceflight programs also face potential cuts. The budget proposes canceling the Space Launch System, the Orion crew vehicle and the Lunar Gateway after the Artemis III mission. Artemis III, planned for 2027, would be the first crewed flight back to the lunar surface since 1972. The mission would use the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew vehicle to get there. The proposed Lunar Gateway, a mini-space station in lunar orbit, would be abandoned. Instead, the budget proposes to establish a Commercial Moon to Mars program. Under this initiative, NASA would utilize commercial systems such as Blue Origin's New Glenn and SpaceX's Starship to put Americans on the moon and Mars. A smaller budget also means a smaller NASA workforce. The budget proposal suggests that the number of NASA employees would be reduced by one-third, from more than 17,000 to 11,853. Advocates for space science and exploration have criticized the cuts. The Planetary Society has stated that these cuts to space science represent an "extinction level event" that would all but end NASA's ability to perform meaningful science. Democrats in Congress were also quick to push back on the proposed cuts, arguing that they would hamper the United States' ability to carry out its missions. The budget documents released so far are just proposals. Congress must make the final decisions on how much money NASA gets and which programs are funded. While this might be good news for NASA funding, my research has shown that Congress rarely appropriates more money for NASA than the president requests. Leadership challenges The release of the president's proposed budget was followed with the news that the president would withdraw his nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA's administrator. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote, "After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA. I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space." Like the budget proposal, news of Isaacman's withdrawal has also hit the space community hard. Following his nomination, Isaacman won the support of many in the space industry and in government. His confirmation hearing in April was largely uncontentious, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. NASA will now need to wait for the president to make a new choice for NASA administrator. That person will then need to go through the same process as Isaacman, with a hearing in the Senate and several votes. Given the amount of time it takes for nominations to make their way through the Senate, NASA is likely to face several more months without a confirmed administrator. This absence will come while many of its programs will be fighting for money and their existence. The months ahead Like many federal agencies right now, NASA faces a tumultuous future. Budgetary and leadership challenges might be the immediate problem, but NASA's long-term future is potentially rocky as well. Since its founding, NASA's mission has been largely centered on sending humans to space. If that role shifts to commercial companies, NASA will need to grapple with what its identity and mission is going forward. History provides some insight. One of NASA's forerunners, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, largely focused on advanced research and development of aeronautical technologies. For instance, NACA researched things such as proper engine placement on airliners, as well as advances that helped air flow more efficiently over those engines. A new NASA that's more similar to NACA might continue research into nuclear engines or other advanced space technology that may contribute to the work commercial space companies are already doing. Choices made by the Trump administration and Congress in the coming months will likely shape what NASA will look like in the years to come. Until then, NASA, like many government organizations, faces a period of uncertainty about its future. Wendy Whitman Cobb is a professor of strategy and security studies at Air University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
UPI
9 hours ago
- Business
- UPI
Uncertainty at NASA; Nomination pulled, steep cuts proposed
Jared Isaacman gives a thumbs-up after Inspiration4, the world's first all-civilian mission to space, safely returned to Earth in September 2021 following a groundbreaking three-day mission. President Donald Trump has withdrawn Isaacman's nomination to become NASA administrator. File Photo by SpaceX/UPI | License Photo Over the past several days, NASA's ambitious space exploration plans have experienced major setbacks. First, on Friday, newly released budget documents revealed the extent of the significant budget and personnel cuts proposed by the Trump administration. Then, just a day later, President Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator just days before an expected confirmation vote. From my perspective as a space policy expert, these events signal problems ahead for a space agency that now faces stiff competition in space exploration from the commercial sector. Without a leader and facing a fight over its budget, NASA faces an uncertain future, both in the months ahead and longer term. Budget problems When the Trump administration released a preview of its budget proposal in early May, it was clear that NASA was facing significant cuts. After the agency received $24.9 billion for 2025, the president's proposal would allot NASA $18.8 billion in 2026. After accounting for inflation, this amount would represent NASA's smallest budget since 1961. Space science programs are one of the largest targets of the proposed budget cuts, seeing an almost 50% reduction, to just $3.9 billion. Specific programs targeted for elimination include the Mars Sample Return mission, the currently operating Mars Odyssey and MAVEN missions around Mars, and several missions to Venus. Several ongoing and proposed astrophysics programs, including the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, would also end if the proposed budget passes. NASA's human spaceflight programs also face potential cuts. The budget proposes canceling the Space Launch System, the Orion crew vehicle and the Lunar Gateway after the Artemis III mission. Artemis III, planned for 2027, would be the first crewed flight back to the lunar surface since 1972. The mission would use the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew vehicle to get there. The proposed Lunar Gateway, a mini-space station in lunar orbit, would be abandoned. Instead, the budget proposes to establish a Commercial Moon to Mars program. Under this initiative, NASA would utilize commercial systems such as Blue Origin's New Glenn and SpaceX's Starship to put Americans on the moon and Mars. A smaller budget also means a smaller NASA workforce. The budget proposal suggests that the number of NASA employees would be reduced by one-third, from more than 17,000 to 11,853. Advocates for space science and exploration have criticized the cuts. The Planetary Society has stated that these cuts to space science represent an "extinction level event" that would all but end NASA's ability to perform meaningful science. Democrats in Congress were also quick to push back on the proposed cuts, arguing that they would hamper the United States' ability to carry out its missions. The budget documents released so far are just proposals. Congress must make the final decisions on how much money NASA gets and which programs are funded. While this might be good news for NASA funding, my research has shown that Congress rarely appropriates more money for NASA than the president requests. Leadership challenges The release of the president's proposed budget was followed with the news that the president would withdraw his nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA's administrator. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote, "After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA. I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space." Like the budget proposal, news of Isaacman's withdrawal has also hit the space community hard. Following his nomination, Isaacman won the support of many in the space industry and in government. His confirmation hearing in April was largely uncontentious, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. NASA will now need to wait for the president to make a new choice for NASA administrator. That person will then need to go through the same process as Isaacman, with a hearing in the Senate and several votes. Given the amount of time it takes for nominations to make their way through the Senate, NASA is likely to face several more months without a confirmed administrator. This absence will come while many of its programs will be fighting for money and their existence. The months ahead Like many federal agencies right now, NASA faces a tumultuous future. Budgetary and leadership challenges might be the immediate problem, but NASA's long-term future is potentially rocky as well. Since its founding, NASA's mission has been largely centered on sending humans to space. If that role shifts to commercial companies, NASA will need to grapple with what its identity and mission is going forward. History provides some insight. One of NASA's forerunners, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, largely focused on advanced research and development of aeronautical technologies. For instance, NACA researched things such as proper engine placement on airliners, as well as advances that helped air flow more efficiently over those engines. A new NASA that's more similar to NACA might continue research into nuclear engines or other advanced space technology that may contribute to the work commercial space companies are already doing. Choices made by the Trump administration and Congress in the coming months will likely shape what NASA will look like in the years to come. Until then, NASA, like many government organizations, faces a period of uncertainty about its future. Wendy Whitman Cobb is a professor of strategy and security studies at Air University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Uncertainty at NASA − Trump withdraws his nominee for administrator while the agency faces a steep proposed budget cut
Over the past several days, NASA's ambitious space exploration plans have experienced major setbacks. First, on May 30, 2025, newly released budget documents revealed the extent of the significant budget and personnel cuts proposed by the Trump administration. Then, just a day later, President Donald Trump withdrew the nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA administrator just days before an expected confirmation vote. From my perspective as a space policy expert, these events signal problems ahead for a space agency that now faces stiff competition in space exploration from the commercial sector. Without a leader and facing a fight over its budget, NASA faces an uncertain future, both in the months ahead and longer term. When the Trump administration released a preview of its budget proposal in early May, it was clear that NASA was facing significant cuts. After receiving US$24.9 billion for 2025, the president's proposal would allot NASA $18.8 billion in 2026. After accounting for inflation, this amount would represent NASA's smallest budget since 1961. Space science programs are one of the largest targets of the proposed budget cuts, seeing an almost 50% reduction, to just $3.9 billion. Specific programs targeted for elimination include the Mars Sample Return mission, the currently operating Mars Odyssey and MAVEN missions around Mars, and several missions to Venus. Several ongoing and proposed astrophysics programs, including the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, would also end if the proposed budget passes. NASA's human spaceflight programs also face potential cuts. The budget proposes canceling the Space Launch System, the Orion crew vehicle and the Lunar Gateway following the Artemis III mission. Artemis III, planned for 2027, would be the first crewed flight back to the lunar surface since 1972. The mission would use the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew vehicle to get there. The proposed Lunar Gateway, a mini-space station in lunar orbit, would be abandoned entirely. Instead, the budget proposes to establish a Commercial Moon to Mars program. Under this initiative, NASA would utilize commercial systems such as Blue Origin's New Glenn and SpaceX's Starship to put Americans on the Moon and Mars. A smaller budget also means a smaller NASA workforce. The budget proposal suggests that the number of NASA employees would be reduced by one-third, from more than 17,000 to 11,853. Advocates for space science and exploration have criticized the cuts. The Planetary Society has stated that these cuts to space science represent an 'extinction level event' that would all but end NASA's ability to perform meaningful science. Democrats in Congress were also quick to push back on the proposed cuts, arguing that they would hamper the U.S.'s ability to carry out its missions. The budget documents released so far are just proposals. Congress must make the final decisions on how much money NASA gets and which programs are funded. While this might be good news for NASA funding, my research has shown that Congress rarely appropriates more money for NASA than the president requests. The release of the president's proposed budget was followed with the news that the president would withdraw his nomination of Jared Isaacman to be NASA's administrator. In a Truth Social post, Trump wrote, 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA. I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space.' Like the budget proposal, news of Isaacman's withdrawal has also hit the space community hard. Following his nomination, Isaacman won the support of many in the space industry and in government. His confirmation hearing in April was largely uncontentious, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. NASA will now need to wait for the president to make a new choice for NASA administrator. That person will then need to go through the same process as Isaacman, with a hearing in the Senate and several votes. Given the amount of time it takes for nominations to make their way through the Senate, NASA is likely to face several more months without a confirmed administrator. This absence will come while many of its programs will be fighting for money and their existence. Like many federal agencies right now, NASA faces a tumultuous future. Budgetary and leadership challenges might be the immediate problem, but NASA's long-term future is potentially rocky as well. Since its founding, NASA's mission has been largely centered on sending humans to space. If that role shifts to commercial companies, NASA will need to grapple with what its identity and mission is going forward. History provides some insight. One of NASA's forerunners, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, largely focused on advanced research and development of aeronautical technologies. For instance, NACA researched things such as proper engine placement on airliners as well as advances that helped air flow more efficiently over those engines. A new NASA that's more similar to NACA might continue research into nuclear engines or other advanced space technology that may contribute to the work commercial space companies are already doing. Choices made by the Trump administration and Congress in the coming months will likely shape what NASA will look like in the years to come. Until then, NASA, like many government organizations, faces a period of uncertainty about its future. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Wendy Whitman Cobb, Air University Read more: What does the NASA administrator do? The agency's leader reaches for the stars while navigating budgets and politics back on Earth Trump's nomination for NASA leader boasts business and commercial spaceflight experience during a period of uncertainty for the agency Most Americans support NASA – but don't think it should prioritize sending people to space Wendy N. Whitman Cobb is affiliated with the US School of Advanced Air and Space Studies. Her views are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any of its components.
New York Times
3 days ago
- Business
- New York Times
Trump to Withdraw Musk's Ally as Nominee for Top NASA Job
President Trump plans to withdraw his nomination of Jared Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and close associate of Elon Musk's, who was on track to be the next NASA administrator. Mr. Trump told associates he intended to yank Mr. Isaacman's nomination after learning that he had donated to prominent Democrats, according to three people with knowledge of the deliberations who were not authorized to discuss them publicly. It was the latest example of loyalty as a key criterion for administration roles. The U-turn comes at a fraught moment for the space agency. NASA has so far been spared the deep cuts that have hit the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other federal research agencies. But the Trump administration's budget proposal for 2026 seeks to slice the space agency's budget by one-quarter, lay off thousands of employees and end financing for a slew of current and future missions. The Trump administration also wants to overhaul NASA's human spaceflight program, ending the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule initiatives after the Artemis III mission that is to land astronauts on the moon in 2027 and adding money to send astronauts to Mars in the coming years, something that had been a priority for Mr. Musk. People inside and outside NASA had hoped that Mr. Isaacman's arrival as administrator would help provide stability and a clearer direction for the agency, which has been operating under an acting administrator since the beginning of Mr. Trump's term. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
SpaceX's Starship rocket went further in its latest test launch — but still spun out of control
Space X's big ambitions came crashing back to Earth on Tuesday, when its Starship made what the company calls a 'rapid unscheduled disassembly' six minutes after launch, with parts landing in the Indian Ocean. That puts Space X at 0 for 3 in 2025: launches in January and March both exploded, a bad start to what was expected to be the company's most important year to date. They also coincided with CEO Elon Musk's extracurricular work in Washington, D.C., as an adviser to President Donald Trump. The ninth Starship flight had intended to launch eight Starlink simulator satellites, which are heavier than previous models. When a door failed to fully open, the 400-foot-long Starship, the largest rocket ever assembled, spun out of control due to what Space X calls an 'attitude control error.' It then exploded. Nonetheless, Space X CEO Elon Musk called the launch a 'big improvement' over the last two and still plans to launch a Starship every month this summer. The company touted their latest attempt as the 'first flight-proven Super Heavy booster launching from Starbase,' and concludes, 'developmental testing by definition is unpredictable, but every lesson learned marks progress toward Starship's goal of enabling life to become multiplanetary.' After the January explosion, Musk was characteristically bullish on the overall event: 'The booster flight was a success, the ship flight was 1/4 successful, hence cup being ~5/8 full,' he wrote on X, predicting that this week's launch would 'probably solve' the problems. Starships are intended to be fully reusable. NASA hopes to use one for the planned 2027 Artemis III moon landing, and they will be necessary to facilitate Musk's stated long-term goal of occupying Mars. The executive director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Dan Dumbacher, testified before Congress in February that the complexity of Starships — which involve multiple fuelling flights — threaten both Artemis III's launch as well as China's 2030 planned moon landing. Repeated explosions won't help that timeline. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
