Proposed NASA cuts may devastate US astrophysics and space science programmes.

Graham writes ...

Changes in the US White House administration in January this year have rung alarm bells for the science community in America, and NASA is not immune from the impact of this. The first indication of big changes has come with the publication of the so-called President’s Fiscal year 2026 Skinny Budget on 2 May. This sets out proposals for what the current administration wants to enact as a budget in 2026, and the news is not great! This proposal is not binding at this stage, and must be approved by Congress, but it suggests a 24% cut in NASA’s 2026 budget – the largest ever annual cut in NASA’s history since it was founded in July 1958. I did wonder whether to write on this topic this month, due to of the negative message and because it is politics rather than science. In other words, “don’t talk politics, talk about science – keep them separate!”. But I have to say that I was so shocked by the implications of the ‘Skinny Budget’ that I felt led to say something. 

One element of the proposed budget that will receive an increase in funding of $647 million is human space exploration, but the news is not all good. Many of you will be aware of the NASA Artemis programme with the objective of returning humans (men and women) to the moon’s surface in 2027. The Artemis 1 mission has already flown, testing newly developed man-rated hardware – principally the Orion capsule and the SLS (Space Launch System) heavy lift launch vehicle. This mission was successfully completed in November 2022 without anyone onboard. The next mission, Artemis 2, will take astronauts to lunar orbit in April 2026 – a bit like an echo of the Apollo 8 mission in December 1968. And then the ‘big event’, Artemis 3, will land humans on the moon’s surface once again in 2027. 

Artemis 1 image of the moon and crescent Earth. Credit: NASA.

Thereafter, there was to be an Artemis extension programme to enable more landing missions, and new infrastructure to support long-term lunar surface habitation.   However, the extended programme is not to be, and the proposed lunar-orbiting Lunar Gateway space station will also be cancelled. Effectively, Artemis has now been reduced to a political diversion to beat the Chinese to the moon, in a similar way to the Apollo programme which cynically could be considered to have been a means of beating Russia to the same goal in 1969. So come 2027, all the effort and resources that have gone into the development of the Orion capsule and the SLS launcher will have been wasted, and development of an entirely new system to take humans to Mars will begin. This will involve redirecting funding ($864 million in 2026) to private/commercial Mars landing infrastructure, principally engaging the SpaceX company’s Starship programme. However, as an aside, given recent developments in the relationship between President Trump and Mr Musk (CEO of SpaceX), this part of the proposed budget spend may see modifications.

Getting back to the proposed budget, it seems the bulk of the cuts will hit the Science Missions Directorate with a decrease of over $ 3 billion - a reduction of 47% compared to 2024. (There is also a 50% cut in the Earth sciences budget, which reflects the current administration’s view on matters of climate change, but that is something that I will not expand upon here.) We don’t know precisely how the 47% cut will be distributed across the various space sciences, but this level of decrease could put over 40 missions in danger of cancelation, including iconic programmes such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Mars Sample Return Mission, Juno, New Horizons and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory. Other likely, but lesser known targets, are Veritas (a Venus-orbiting mapping mission), Da Vinci (a Venus atmosphere entry probe) and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (NGRST). The latter was named after Nancy Roman who was an astronomer and the first female NASA executive. The NGRST is considered to be the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, as it operates in the visible spectral band. The telescope has already been built, and was due to launch in 2027. The news about the James Webb Space Telescope is better – given that it is in its operational phase, it appears to have escaped the fiscal knife for now which is great relief to many of us. In general, there is no confirmed information about the cuts, other than vague statements about reducing “lower priority research” and terminating “unaffordable missions”. Inevitably there is a lot of uncertainty (a hallmark of the current White House administration) and rumours abound.

The Chandra X-Ray Observatory. Credit: NASA.

The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope in assembly at The Goddard Space Flight Center. Credit: NASA/Chris Gunn.

The James Webb Space Telescope. Credit: NASA.

Another target of the proposed cuts is NASA's Office of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Engagement (OSTEM), which currently focuses on inspiring and engaging students and educators with the goal of cultivating a future workforce ready for careers in aerospace and related fields. If the current proposals go ahead, OSTEM’s budget of $140 million will be wiped out.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of all this is the effect upon NASA institutions, and the people who work in them. With all the above-mentioned missions being cut, there is debate about whether there is a need to sustain the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, where 10,000 people are employed. And what of the future of NASA JPL in California? Some observers have described such a potential outcome as an ELE (an extinction level event) for NASA. It is the case that if these institutions are terminated, then the chances of reversing the decisions in subsequent presidential terms will be impossible. The technical expertise will have been dispersed and lost.

NASA JPL (Jet Propulsio Laboratory), California. Credit: NASA.

I have always felt that science in all its forms has always been a strong element of American culture, and I can’t quite believe that these proposals could be enacted by the current White House administration. However, we must remember – this is still a proposal. Congress holds the purse strings and, with significant pushback, many of these cuts may be revised or overturned.
 
If you have any comments on what I have said, please share them below.
 
 
Graham Swinerd
 
Southampton, UK
June 2025