He’s apparently decided to cut funding to NASA, including funding for Project Artemis.
To be more precise, I should say the Trump administration plans to cut some programs, and shuffle money around among others.
Earth science and space divisions for example (yes, NASA has divisions that aren’t “space”) would see spending cuts of $1.2 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.
Goodbye SLS, we hardly liked ye The biggest change contained in the space budget, however, is a plan to axe the Space Launch System (SLS).
For the long-term future of the space industry, though — and for taxpayers as well — a shift to doing space business more cheaply is probably a positive development.
President Donald Trump announced eight years ago that humanity would return to the moon through a new NASA initiative called Project Artemis (though it wasn’t given the official name until two years later), ushering in a new era in space exploration.
Trump has returned to the presidency eight years later. Surprise! It appears that he has chosen to reduce NASA’s funding, including that for Project Artemis.
Cut and move things around.
A 24 percent cut in NASA funding, from $24 billion this year to $18 billion next year, was one of the biggest surprises in the White House’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal. This could have an effect on the revenue streams of many of the largest space companies in the United States.
To be more specific, the Trump administration intends to reallocate funds and eliminate some programs, among other things. Spending cuts of $1–2 billion and $2–3 billion, respectively, would be made to NASA’s Earth Science and Space divisions (yes, the agency has divisions outside of “space”).
Out of the remaining funds, $7 billion would go toward lunar exploration (i.e. e. $1 billion more will be used to send missions to Mars (Project Artemis). It seems that this isn’t the case for the Mars Sample Return mission, or MSR. That program is now under scrutiny, which Rocket Lab (RKLB 1.27 percent) has been hoping to win for $4 billion. ().
Goodbye, SLS. We didn’t really like you.
However, the plan to eliminate the Space Launch System (SLS) is the largest change in the space budget. Along with the Orion spacecraft that would transport them and the Lunar Gateway space station, where they would dock before descending to the moon, NASA designed the SLS to carry astronauts to and from the moon. In a White House statement, the SLS, which is the foundation for everything else, was characterized as “grossly expensive and delayed,” costing taxpayers “$4 billion per launch and dot.”. 140 percent over budget. . “.”.
According to the proposed budget, SLS launches will cease after just two more launches in 2026 and 2027. NASA would move forward with “more economical commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions” after that. This sounds like code for rockets made by Blue Origin and SpaceX.
Who benefits and who suffers if SLS, Orion, and Gateway disappear?
Naturally, the president’s proposed budget is just that—a proposal. The final decision regarding program cuts and funding allocations will be made by Congress. However, the immediate dangers are evident given that Trump is in the White House and Republicans control Congress.
When Project Artemis rolled through an estimated 20 total missions to the moon, Boeing (BA -0.16 percent), Lockheed Martin (LMT 0.52 percent), which builds Orion, L3Harris (LHX 1.58 percent), Northrop Grumman (NOC 0.76 percent), and other subcontractors were looking forward to an $82 billion gravy train of contracts that would be threatened if the SLS program is axed.
However, eliminating the approximately $4 billion in launch expenses for SLS rockets and Orion space capsules each year would free up funds for more cost-conscious space contractors like SpaceX and Blue Origin to replace Boeing, Lockheed, and other companies in their current positions. Importantly, SpaceX has already secured a few contracts to use its brand-new Starship, which is not yet certified. For less than $3 billion per journey, Starship can not only fly to the moon but, in the “Human Landing System” configuration, land there as well. The price of refueling Starship in Earth orbit prior to its journey to the moon is included in this expense; this is another technology that SpaceX is developing but hasn’t yet demonstrated in use.
Similar to this, Blue Origin’s new New Glenn rocket is expected to be able to land its Blue Moon spacecraft on the moon for $3–4 billion, which is less than the $4 billion that an SLS would cost to launch.
What this all means for investors in space.
To put it briefly, the Trump administration’s proposed changes would result in significant cost savings for taxpayers, but at the expense of placing bets on SpaceX and Blue Origin to create and finalize new technologies—which may still fail. But, if they are successful, it’s possible that in the future, more and more established space firms like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, and L3 will be excluded from the space race and replaced by more recent competitors who can provide NASA with lower-priced services.
Investors may not be thrilled by this news because neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin are currently listed on a stock exchange, and the value of the space stocks that investors do own may decline as contracts expire. A move toward more cost-effective space operations, however, is likely a good thing for the space industry’s long-term prospects as well as for taxpayers.
