Welcome all! This week’s episode is one that I consider very important. Since the Trump administration was inaugurated, people at NASA were understandably afraid. Uncertainty about the future can do that to people, especially when an unelected, unconfirmed member of government (Elon Musk) begins making seemingly arbitrary cuts to departments, jobs, and spending. Those fears were confirmed with the release of the White House’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request (FY 2006).
In addition to deep cuts, the Budget also calls for the cancellation of programs that NASA has been pursuing for years as part of its “Moon to Mars” mission architecture. These include the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion Spacecraft, and the Lunar Gateway, which are integral to the Artemis Program and plans to send the first crewed missions to Mars. The Budget also pushes privatization as the solution to every proposed cut, and very deliberately and specifically targets funding for “woke” programs that seek to increase representation in the STEM fields.
To call this Budget a disaster in the making only undersells it. If enacted, it could throw NASA’s entire future into jeopardy. Whereas the Budget specifies that NASA’s only priority should be beating China to the Moon and Mars, it will likely make that goal much harder to achieve. And it would almost surely compromise the agency’s longstanding reputation for leadership in space.
The release of this episode is also a milestone for me and the podcast I launched almost three years ago (July 12th, 2022). Its inception can be trace to an interview I had with the hosts of the Intersection of Technology and Society Magazine (ITSM), Sean Martin and Marco Ciappelli. The funny thing is, they wanted to interview me for an article I wrote for Interesting Engineering titled “Life in 2050: A Glimpse at Education in the Future.”
Afterward, I told them what my main subject was (i.e., space and spacey stuff), and they had me back on for two more episodes to discuss the future of space exploration and exoplanet studies. During the second interview, we announced that I was joining ITSP with a new podcast – Stories from Space!
As such, I wish this episode’s subject were less alarming or depressing. But I promise future episodes (knock on wood!) will be cheerier and feature better news!
Stories by Williams 
Congratulations, my dude! May you make many more episodes, educate the masses, and kick some MAGA ass while you’re at it!
I had some hope that with Musk involved, NASA might at least be spared. Oh how naive that hope was.
Hi. Was just reading your article about Starship going to Mars. After the recent failure of test 9, where do they go from here especially now with Trump axing NASA’s budget. Even without the cuts, it seems extremely daunting that Starship would be able to carry out the required launches for Artemis 3, not counting the decent to the lunar surface. As far as a manned Mars mission, there’s only one propulsion system that should be considered, and that is Vasimr.
Excellent question! Right now, I am doubtful that they are going to resolve the issues they face vis a vis mass/payload/thrust. The Raptor 3 engine has been unveiled and its supposedly more powerful and lighter since it does not require heat shielding. However, even if this resolves their issues with fuel leaks caused by pushing the engines too hard, the overall mass of the launch system is still an issue and could still mean reduced payloads. I actually did an article on transits to Mars using a special trajectory that would limit the transit time to 3 months while falling within the Starship’s mass budget. I am waiting to hear if there are some dissenting opinions on that one.
Above all, making the system fully-reusable creates this vicious circle, like the Rocket Equation on steroids! It needs flaps, heat shielding, complex engines and plumbing, and a fuel reserve for landing. Plus you need to be able to ignite, shut off, and reignite the engines as needed. Once it gets to orbit, regardless of where that is, it needs to be refueled by multiple tankers. It seems to me the better option would be to make the second stage expendable. That way it could be launched for the Moon in one shot (no refueling) and place a lander in lunar orbit. It makes sense since the Starship HLS is expendable anyway; it gets left behind in lunar orbit by the Artemis crews since its out of fuel by then anyway and they fly home in the Orion.
But based on that logic, it makes WAY more sense to use the SLS/Orion to send crews to lunar orbit and SpaceX to launch the Gateway with a reusable lander. This way, the Orion crews would have a regular port to dock with and a means to get to and from the surface that didn’t leave the massive Starship behind. NASA could achieve all of its Artemis related goals and there would be no need to go back to the drawing board for all lunar missions (and Mars missions) beyond Artemis III.