4 ms·
This is so cool, but I did not see a key piece of info in the article: does the ongoing operation of this mission fall under NASA's science budget and therefore
by shmageggy 2y ago
This is so cool, but I did not see a key piece of info in the article: does the ongoing operation of this mission fall under NASA's science budget and therefore at risk of cuts and defunding under Trump [1]?
[1] https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/03/white-house-may-seek-to-slash-nasas-science-budget-by-50-percent/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/03/white-house-may-seek-t...
- ddon 2y agoYep, it looks like it will be cut and closed, which is truly unfortunate. It’s disappointing to see that science nor innovation are not a priority for this administration. And this doge cutting of funding or even shutting down important projects will have long-term consequences, impacting research, education, and technological advancements that benefit everyone.
- bpodgursky 2y agoThis is a proposal (not final) budget to be sent to congress. What congress eventually allocates is what matters.
- jeffgreco 2y agoNot according to the current presidential administration. Impoundment is their stated goal.
- connicpu 2y agoThis one is planned to launch on Falcon so I wouldn't be too surprised if it's one project the administration spares.
- indoordin0saur 2y agoEverything launches on a Falcon these days. No one else can catch up in terms of safety cost or speed.
- gibolt 2y agoSpaceX is going to pass whatever company is launching Falcon in short order, leaving them in the dust
- numpad0 2y agoI'm not sure how to make out of comments like this. Is SpaceX actually launching customer payloads under $50m or whatever? Because, unless they are, it won't be long before JAXA/MHI starts selling H3 at half the cost of H-IIA, which is already like 15t to LEO for $67m at 150 JPY/USD, which leaves F9 reusable barely competitive in price. I don't know what India or China charge for foreign customers, but is it really reasonable to expect worse deal than Mitsubishi from them? ... Superheavy-Starship reusable launches at F9 price would completely destroy everything in space space, but so far the only things it had disrupted are itself and airline services under its flightpath. And even F9 is starting to show increasingly clear signs of repetitive "old space" scrubs as NASA gets more disrupted. Is that really a meaningful statement that stands, or it that just hand wavy glance away one now?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- indoordin0saur 2y ago> Is that really a meaningful statement that stands, or it that just hand wavy glance away one now? The $67m figure is the same one I'm finding for Falcon 9 (and it can carry loads 40% heavier). That made me think they were matching each other on price to stay competitive in the market and that seems correct as the internal costs I'm seeing for SpaceX Falcon 9 launches are estimated around $15mil, meaning they have a large margin from which to come down from. > it won't be long before JAXA/MHI starts selling H3 at half the cost of H-IIA SpaceX doesn't stand still. It's weird to think that in several years SpaceX will be in the same place (relying on Falcon 9) yet JAXA, etc will have improved dramatically.
- kelnos 2y agoSure, the launch will go through, but SpaceX doesn't see any recurring revenue from later operations, and I wouldn't put it past the current administration to cut NASA's budget such that continuing operations are affected.
- ImJamal 2y agoTrump created the Space Force so he will presumably want some amount of funding for rockets and what not. If Space Force fails it would make him look bad after all.
- andsoitis 2y agoNotwithstanding what you said, it is worth noting that the US Space Force has been a long time in the making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force
- ImJamal 2y agoTrump is the one who actually decided to go through with the creation of a distinct branch rather than having it as a command. I think it is fair to say he created it. There are all sorts of politicians and military members who advocate for a distinct Cyber branch of the military instead of Cyber Command. If a politician ends up doing that, then he should get credit for creating it even though it has been a long time coming.
- mmooss 2y ago> distinct Cyber branch of the military instead of Cyber Command It's not 'instead', it's adding a cyber branch to a different org chart. There are two major org charts in the US military: The services, such as Army, Navy, Space Force, etc., which are generally defined by domain (land, sea, orbit) and whose role is to recruit, organize, train, and equip forces - to prepare them, but not to deploy or command them in operations. The combatant commands, which are defined by geography - such as Africa Command, Indo-Pacific Command - and sometimes by geography-independent domains, such as as Space Command or Cyber Command. The combatant commands deploy the resources provided by the services in various combinations. Modern conflicts generally require resources from multiple services/domains working jointly. It makes some sense - you want domain experts to train and equip them for their domain, then you must necessarily deploy them jointly. Who should organize, train, and equip sea-born forces? Probably you want the Navy to do that, not the Army. Who should organize, train, and equip electronic domain forces (I hate the term 'cyber')? Do you want your IT organization organized, trained, and equipped (think of the importance of each step) by the US Marine Corps, or maybe by some actual researchers, engineers, and experienced managers?
- eleveriven 2y agoThat's a good question. Given how frequently NASA's science budget gets caught in political crosswinds, it's definitely a concern