Editor's note: The impact caused by the 2026 fiscal year budget proposal recently announced by the Trump administration in the United States is still continuing. Several American media reported on the 5th that while the defense budget surged by 13%, setting a record high of $1.01 trillion, the NASA budget was cut by about 25% for the first time, causing an uproar in the US public opinion. American media noticed that under the banner of "beating China's competition", NASA's budget adjustment means that the focus of the United States' space development in the future will focus on the manned landing on Mars plan, but the series of chain reactions brought about may pose a severe challenge to the United States' leading position in aerospace.

  Bet on the first time humans land on Mars

  According to the US Consumer News and Business Channel (CNBC) on the 5th, the Trump administration proposed to significantly reduce the NASA budget by $6 billion, from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion, with a reduction of about 25%. If the budget is passed by Congress, it will be the largest annual funding cut of NASA. Meanwhile, the $1 billion in the budget will focus on Mars exploration projects. Documents released by NASA claim that the agency will concentrate resources to return the United States to the moon before China and prepare for the first time humans land on Mars. Other NASA projects will make way for this, saving money by reducing staff, optimizing IT services, reducing costs for maintenance centers and facilities, and closing some overly expensive projects. NASA Acting Director Janet Petrov said budget restrictions require difficult decisions and some areas of business will be reduced.

  Specifically, the "Artemis" plan to return to the moon will undergo major adjustments. According to the existing plan, the "Artemis 2" mission is planned to be launched in spring 2026, carrying four astronauts to fly around the moon; in 2027, the "Artemis 3" mission will be manned near the South Pole of the Moon. But since then, the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy rocket and the Orion manned spacecraft that spent more than ten years and huge funds for the project will be retired. The relevant budget document states, "The cost of SLS is as high as $4 billion per launch, which is 140% above the budget. The funds should be allocated to another program to replace SLS and 'Orion' to the moon with a more cost-effective commercial space system to support a larger subsequent lunar mission."

  On May 3, the Orion spacecraft of the Artemis 2 mission was tested at the Kennedy Space Center. (Photo source: NASA)

  The budget also canceled the "gateway" lunar orbiting space station project under the "Artemis" plan, and the funding of the International Space Station was also reduced by $508 million, and its crew and scientific research scale will be reduced accordingly. The International Space Station is scheduled to be retired in 2030. The budget said the funding was reduced because “as the space station’s life cycle approached its end, human on-orbit activity was about to transition to a more cost-effective commercial approach.”

  The biggest cuts will occur in the Space and Earth Sciences sectors as well as mission support sectors. The relevant budget plummeted from US$7.325 billion to US$3.899 billion, a cut of nearly 50%. Specific cuts include the reduction of the planetary science budget from $2.7 billion to $1.929 billion, a nearly 30% reduction, including the cancellation of the Mars sample return mission that seriously exceeds the budget. This is a project jointly conducted by the United States and Europe to send the Mars samples collected by the Perseverance Mars rover back to Earth, but due to the slow progress of the project and overspending, it is "probably behind China in obtaining Mars samples." US media speculated that the mission may be achieved through the first human Mars landing project. At the same time, NASA's geoscience budget has dropped from US$2.2 billion to US$1.033 billion, a reduction of more than 50%. The new generation of land satellite project was cancelled as a whole. The project was originally planned to be launched from the end of 2030 to early 2031, with the goal of providing better time and space resolution. NASA was asked to reorganize this mission to "a more affordable way to achieve continuous ground observations of land satellites." In addition, NASA's pure scientific research project budget has been hit even more, such as the astrophysics budget dropped from US$1.5 billion to US$487 million.

  Casey Dereyer, head of space policy at the Planetary Society, criticized that it would be the largest funding cut in NASA's history. While the goal is to "focus on defeating China on the Mars Project", NASA will be hurt in many ways.

  Speaking of the impact of NASA's budget cuts on US aerospace, Pang Zhihao, chief scientific communication expert of space detection technology in the country, told the Global Times reporter on the 6th that first, scientific research projects will be restricted. Astrophysics and planetary science budgets have been greatly reduced, and several major telescope projects such as the Roman Telescope are facing suspension, and deep space exploration and astrophysics research will be impacted. If the Space Launch System heavy rockets and Orion manned spacecraft are phased out after the third Artemis mission and the "Gateway" project is cancelled, it will disrupt the United States' lunar exploration plan. Second, it may cause talent loss. A shrinking budget will lead to a decrease in related scientific research projects and a decrease in job demand. American scientists and researchers may be lost due to lack of financial support and development opportunities, causing long-term damage to the US aerospace talent reserve. Third, it will slow down technological development. Cutting the relevant budget will slow down the US's research and development progress in aerospace materials, propulsion systems, space exploration technology, etc., affect the performance improvement and cost reduction of spacecraft in the future, and weaken the US's aerospace competitiveness.

  Huge profits flow to private aerospace companies

  Although NASA's total budget has been greatly reduced, US media noticed that American commercial aerospace companies represented by SpaceX will replace traditional aerospace giants and win huge profits in future NASA missions. Bloomberg, the United States said on the 5th that according to the latest version of NASA's budget proposal, funds for the United States' Mars landing plan will flow to private space launchers in the future. Northrop Grumman and Boeing are contractors of SLS heavy rockets, and Lockheed Martin is responsible for building the Orion spacecraft. With the successive layoffs of these projects, the situation of contracting US national aerospace projects by traditional military giants may be completely overturned.

  SLS heavy rocket renderings (Photo source: NASA)

  According to reports, changes in NASA's Mars-focused spending and cuts to SLS plans are unlikely to have not considered the impact of SpaceX, which is advancing its own Mars mission. SpaceX has launched 49 Falcon 9 rockets so far in 2025, accounting for more than half of global launch activities; the company's "Starship" developed by the company is more powerful than NASA's SLS, and the development cost is only a small part of the SLS. It is widely speculated that the subsequent lunar exploration mission of the "Artemis" program will be replaced by SpaceX and Blue Origin. More importantly, both Trump and SpaceX CEO Musk, as well as Trump's nominated NASA Director Jared Isaacman, are interested in the Mars program and believe that the costly but slow-moving manned landing on the moon should be abandoned and the future focus of the United States' spaceflight will be shifted to manned landing on the Mars.

  However, US media noticed that behind the "high efficiency" and "low cost" of commercial aerospace companies such as SpaceX, there is actually an exclusive interest dispute. Bloomberg said that Isaacman expressed his support for the so-called "fixed price contract" to commercial aerospace companies for the construction of rockets or lunar landing equipment in the form of a so-called "fixed price contract" - if there is a cost overdue during the development process, the latter will be responsible for it.

  Such contracts are completely different from NASA's practice of dominating the entire project in the past and paying all costs for the entire project. Previously, relevant development companies experienced overexpenses and delays in progress, and NASA will still be guaranteed. According to reports, the proportion of NASA fixed price contracts has increased from zero 30 years ago to 35% today. Isaacman once publicly praised it as a way to "get the best service at the lowest price."

  Fixed-price contracts pose a great challenge to traditional American military giants who are accustomed to making huge profits with their monopoly position. For example, Boeing's "Star Aircraft" spacecraft project has lost more than $1 billion due to slow progress and constant problems. But US media also noticed that fixed-price contracts have greatly helped Musk's SpaceX, "so far, the company has been the biggest beneficiary of this contracting method." But for other companies, especially start-up aerospace companies with limited strength, this approach has limited effect.

  The report mentioned that NASA is increasingly relying on commercial aerospace companies like SpaceX and Blue Origins, which are founded by a handful of billionaires, and when NASA runs out of funds, these companies can pay out of their own pockets or take advantage of other investments available.

  Systematic destruction of scientific foundations

  NASA's budget plan far exceeds external expectations, especially the adjustments in strategic direction and the significant reduction in budgets in the scientific field, which has aroused criticism from many parties. In a statement, House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Zoe Lovegren criticized the budget proposal "is a disaster for the national scientific cause" and will destroy the competitiveness of the United States' science. George Whitesayz, the committee’s vice chairman and former NASA chief of staff, also said the budget cuts were “an unprecedented attack on science.” The NASA and the Deep Space Exploration Alliance both expressed concerns about the cuts to NASA and other projects. Several scientific organizations jointly wrote to Congress, saying that the budget cuts would "cause irreversible damage to the country's space science cause."

  At the same time, NASA's abandonment of several iconic international cooperation projects also made American public opinion worried that the United States will lose its future aerospace leadership position. For example, the "Gateway" lunar orbit space station was built in cooperation with the United States, Europe, Japan, Canada and the United Arab Emirates, and aims to become the first manned space station outside the Earth's low orbit and serve as a transit station for lunar landing missions and future Mars missions. By winning over allies, the United States regards it as a key international cooperation project in competition with the China-led international lunar research station. For example, Japan and ESA are responsible for building the "international residential module" and Canada develops a new generation of robotic arms. Once the project is cancelled, other countries that have previously invested heavily in it will suffer heavy losses. Similar situations include the cancelled Mars sampling and return plan. ESA has specially developed a "earth return orbiter" to retrieve Mars samples. Once the project is cancelled, ESA's previous efforts will be wasted.

  The New York Times said the cancellation of the mission is particularly heartbreaking, a flagship project that NASA has worked with international partners for decades to answer the ultimate question of life on Mars. US media are worried that NASA's backfire on these heavyweight international cooperation projects will likely undermine the United States' future leadership and appeal in international space cooperation.

  In addition, NASA's shift to Mars plan to commercial aerospace companies has also aroused many opposition. Wayne Hale, the current chairman of the NASA Advisory Committee's Manned Exploration and Operations Committee, said that the complete handover of manned space to SpaceX marks the end of the current plan and the end of the progress. "This will terminate the planned goal of returning to the moon, developing resources, and building future infrastructure." He also questioned the actual effect of the $1 billion Mars investment, believing that Musk and SpaceX are too contemptuous of the difficulty of Mars exploration, and "human landing on Mars is still out of reach." The Wall Street Journal said that NASA will be betting on commercial companies such as SpaceX in the future, canceling SLS and Orion spacecraft, and terminating the moon's "Gateway" space station, which means that NASA will give up its autonomous capabilities and rely on unfinished commercial systems. But the reality is that although SpaceX's "Starship" has huge potential, there are still variable development progress and reliability.

  The New York Times commented that Trump's NASA budget proposal is not so much a strategic adjustment as a political gamble. It uses Mars as bait and conceals the systematic destruction of NASA's scientific foundation. Scientific budget cuts by nearly 50% will end dozens of tasks and waste billions of dollars already invested. The White House rashly believed that the "manned Mars mission" could replace robot exploration, ignoring the gradual nature of scientific exploration.

  Pang Zhihao believes that the sharp reduction in NASA's budget will have three major impacts on world aerospace. First, hinder international cooperation. The United States occupies an important position in the world aerospace field, and many international aerospace cooperation projects rely on the United States' financial and technical support. NASA's budget cuts may lead to the interruption or delay of some international cooperation projects, such as deep space exploration and astronomical observation projects jointly carried out with other countries, affecting the atmosphere and confidence of global aerospace cooperation. The second is to change the pace of global aerospace development. The adjustment of US aerospace development due to budget cuts will change the competition and cooperation pattern in the global aerospace field. Other countries may adjust their space strategies. Some countries or regions that originally rely on US technology and funds may increase investment in independent research and development, seek new cooperation opportunities, and promote the multipolar development of global aerospace. The third is to reduce scientific data and results. The decline in US aerospace research projects means that global scientific data and research results output in the field of aerospace may be reduced accordingly. Data obtained by some projects led by the United States are of great value to the global scientific community. Budget cuts may affect the acquisition and analysis of these data and delay human cognitive process of the universe.

[Editor in charge: Wang Jinzhi]