Bob Zimmerman says that there are things deserving of cutting.
I certainly agree about Mars Sample Return, and said that on X this morning. I think we need a dramatic change in how these funds are allocated and prioritized, and the current decadal needs to be completely redone.
But I also don’t pay much attention to what OMB says at this point in the process.
I would add that it’s inappropriate for OMB to propose a NASA budget ahead of the confirmation of a NASA administrator who has been named for months. I wouldn’t put up with it if I were president. I personally consider OMB’s NASA budget proposal DOA, and I hope that Trump does as…
— Not-So-OK Boomer (@Rand_Simberg) April 14, 2025
I would add that it’s inappropriate for OMB to propose a NASA budget ahead of the confirmation of a NASA administrator who has been named for months.
Yep. But as the WH Press Office says: boys will be boys…
Perhaps this is just process for this administration. Let’s see what cases Issacman will make after his confirmation.
Too high an opportunity cost. Too little, too late.
I agree that it’s inappropriate to submit this prior to the conformation of the new head of NASA, especially as it’s so close.
I favor both Mars Sample Return and the Roman Space Telescope concept. I don’t like how Roman was done, though. However, *IF* it’s already pretty well complete, it might be worth doing (depending on how much $ it’d take from this point forward).
As for Mars Sample Return, I both fully support doing it, and fully support canceling the current version. The cost as envisioned (even if they finally do come up with a plan) would be billions. It’s not worth it. My preference would be a far cheaper version, such as one of the very early unmanned Starship missions, if they set up ISRU so it’s able to return to earth. As for collecting the samples they’ve scattered about, setting up ISRU will requite robots, so, there’s an opportunity there once ISRU is set up. The only real difficulty would be arranging for a Starship mission to land in the appropriate area (Gail Crater?) instead of somewhere else. Or, skip the collected samples entirely and collect a few wherever the fist Starship planned to return happens to touch down (you’d have around 2 years on the surface to do it).
Fanciful? Perhaps, though I actually do believe that SpaceX will be able to return a Starship from Mars (And be doing so anyway, thus it’s very much an opportunity for a low cost option) well before NASA would be ready to launch their Mars Sample Return system.
Lastly, wouldn’t canceling SLS actually save more $$$ than all of these proposed cuts combined?
Not only the cost savings of the SLS program, just think of how much tariff-free steel you could get by scrapping Mobile Launcher 1 and 2…
I think that in general the Presidential Budget Request (PBR) is ignored by congress and they do what they want. That might be a little different with Trump but not totally so.
I think Trump has more input to the OMB budget than maybe some people think. If that’s true then I also think that this is classic Trump negotiating: start out with an extreme position so that he can be “negotiated down” to where he wants to be.
The questions Isaacman was asked, and his answers clearly show that we are, sadly, right back in 1962 where we have an entire mission goal based upon beating someone instead of a rational, well thought out plan of exploration, use and/or settlement. The SLS is just as much a one off, dead end as Apollo. I can’t believe we are doing this again but there it is.
We have learned nothing.
To wit:
” “Mr. Isaacman, if China beats us to the Moon, what consequences might America face?” he asked.
“We certainly cannot lose,” Isaacman responded, citing the “ultimate high ground” of space and the potential value of resources like helium-3 on the Moon. “
Well, we certainly wouldn’t want them throwing rocks down at us either…
Except Apollo didn’t have Starship and New Glenn waiting just over the horizon.