NASA is asked to take a 25 percent cut in its budget, from about $25 billion to $18.8 billion. The budget would cancel the Lunar Gateway that NASA has started developing and end the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft after two more flights, Artemis II and Artemis III.
The Space Launch System and Lunar Gateway were long ago known to be waste and failed programs. Nextbigfuture has pointed out the flaws and failures for many years.
In 2019, Senator Roger Wicker, R-Mississippi, said NASA Administrator Bridenstine said Artemis (SLS – Space Launch System – Moon by 2024 program) could cost $20 (billion) to $30 billion over the next five years. This would mean $4 billion to $6 billion in extra funding each year. In 2019, in Senate testimony NASA Admin Bridensine admitted that the first SLS launch might now be in 2021 instead of 2020. The first (and so far only) SLS launch was the uncrewed Artemis I, which took place on 16 November 2022.
SLS 2011-2019 plus Constellation had been $28 billion.
SLS 2011-2024 plus Constellation and with Artemis was projected to be $59 to $69 billion.
This does not include the costs for the Orion manned capsule.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy, built from three Falcon 9 boosters, first flew in 2018. Falcon Heavy has had 11 successful launches and missions. A fully expendable SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch costs approximately $150 million. A reusable Falcon Heavy launch costs about $95 million. SLS costs over $2 billion per launch.
The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket used for the Artemis II mission, specifically the Block 1 configuration, can lift a payload of over 27 metric tons to the trans-lunar injection (TLI) point. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy’s Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) capacity is estimated to be between 18 and 22 metric tons.
The SpaceX version 3 of the Super Heavy Starship could be ready for missions starting in early 2026.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I am much more concerned that under current budget cuts, NASA will be FORCED to cut some of the most amazing science ever. This includes continuation of JWST, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope and the Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO). Right at the time when we may finally be able to answer one of the most significant questions in our history as a species – are we alone? That’s what we should be discussing!!
The lunar gateway and the Orion rockets are boondoggles. It’s supposed to be up to congress not a presidential power to cut it though.
I think perhaps that the ‘Private or Bust’ mentality may be going a bit far. I am certainly the first one to agree to take bleeding-heart-liberals out back to be put out of their misery, but the knowledge base, pure science, and public-outreach aspect of NASA is very important to ex-orbital space exploration as a whole sector, taking decades to develop and maintain. Private companies can often be well-intentioned, flash-in-the-pan enterprises, often showing great early promise, but frequently failing not from lack of passion and dedication, but simply due to the short-term horizon nature of their business outlook and pernicious sense of their management. In real terms, the savings is not really big compared to other obscenely-abused legacy programs and false charity systems. I think that NASA provides a significant complementary value to pro-profit rocketry, satellite, and inner-system companies. Like roads and schools, many aspects of infrastructure do not yield financial sustainabilty, but otherwise facilitate private users to go beyond and prosper.
Huge changes proposed and still early days with Congress to be involved and threats to jobs in red states. There have been many prior comments on the scandalous cost blow up of the SLS and Orion, so I will leave that.
However I note the statement from NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens “The budget would transition NASA … opening the door to next-generation commercial systems and expanded international collaboration.”
As the Gateway project already had international involvement from Canada, Europe and Japan amongst others then I imagine that any cancellation might instead curb any enthusiasm for collaboration from international partners.
Let´s talk about fraud and abuse.
Why is NASA not suing SpaceX for contract infringement and wasteful use of taxpayer money?
Under the original contract awarded on April 16, 2021, SpaceX was expected to have the Starship Human Landing System (HLS) developed and ready for the Artemis III crewed lunar landing by 2024.
While not all the delays are directly due to SpaceX, SpaceX clearly overstated enormously their capabilities, given the fact that one year AFTER the deadline, they do not even have a proof of concept prototype for human landing system.
This is a blatant waste of taxpayer money, a ride on the gravy train, a public subsidy of an inefficient company that overpromised and underdelivered and is kept afloat by the lack of accountability…
These are usually the phrases I read here, about many programs that are often founded for much less than SpaceX. Why should this case be treated differently?
You don’t sue somebody for breach of contract when,
1. Your own org, (The government!) is largely responsible for the breach.
and
2. You’re running far enough behind on your end that the breach has no affect on your program.
I mean, you don’t unless you have political motives to do so, and the current administration, unlike the previous, isn’t looking for excuses to harm Musk.
No. If you have a contract to DELIVER a component for a project, it is absolutely irrelevant if the project does not move forward. The overall project progression is not under your control and is not your responsibility, but you got paid to deliver something, and one year after the deadline you agreed upon, you have nothing to show.
SpaceX got the contract because they stated they could deliver in the agreed timeframe; other companies did not participate because they thought they could not do it for that amount of money in the given timeframe. They did not get paid, but turned out they had a more realistic understanding of the problem.
That’s just not consistent with my experience in industry. You don’t burn a vital vendor because they’re late on a delivery *you don’t yet need*. (And SpaceX IS a vital vendor; Something in excess of 90% of world launch capacity!) You don’t burn a vendor, period, over being late when YOU caused the delay; It gives you a terrible rep with other vendors. And the US government shut his development program down for over a year, more like two when you add all the shorter delays they’ve imposed.
This is Musk being the left’s public enemy #1 talking. You’re groping around for an excuse to hurt him.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
The terms of NASA’s Artemis contracts with United Launch Alliance (ULA) and SpaceX, focusing on delays, the provisions for the Starship Human Landing System (HLS) contract, and why contractors might not be sued for failure to fulfill military contracts, such as the $12 billion submarine example you mentioned.
Artemis Contracts and Delay Provisions
SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System (HLS) Contract
Contract Overview: In April 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion fixed-price contract to develop the Starship HLS for the Artemis program. This contract covers the design, development, and testing of the lunar lander, including an uncrewed test flight and a crewed mission to land astronauts on the Moon. In November 2022, NASA modified this contract (Option B) with an additional $1.15 billion to enhance the HLS for a second crewed landing under Artemis IV, originally planned for 2027.
Delays Experienced: The HLS program faced significant delays:
Legal Challenges: After the contract award, Blue Origin and Dynetics filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), halting work until the GAO denied the protests in July 2021. Blue Origin then sued NASA in federal court, further delaying progress until the lawsuit was dismissed in November 2021.
Technical Challenges: SpaceX has encountered issues with Starship development, including orbital refueling and cryogenic propellant management, contributing to timeline shifts.
NASA’s Timeline Adjustments: NASA initially targeted a 2024 lunar landing for Artemis III. In 2021, this was delayed to 2025 due to funding and technical hurdles. By 2024, the target shifted to September 2026, though NASA’s own analysis suggests a 1-in-3 chance the HLS won’t be ready until February 2028.
Provisions for Delays: While specific contract terms are not publicly available, U.S. government contracts, including NASA’s, typically include standard clauses to address delays:
Excusable Delays: These cover events beyond the contractor’s control, such as natural disasters, government actions, or legal disputes (e.g., the Blue Origin lawsuit). SpaceX likely invoked this clause during litigation.
Schedule Adjustments: The contract allows NASA to renegotiate timelines based on project complexities or external factors, as seen with the Artemis III delay.
Liquidated Damages: Less common in developmental contracts like HLS, these could impose financial penalties for late delivery, though NASA often avoids such measures to encourage innovation.
Milestone-Based Payments: As a fixed-price contract, payments are tied to milestones, giving NASA leverage to withhold funds if progress lags, though this incentivizes SpaceX to meet revised deadlines rather than face penalties.
ULA’s Role in Artemis
Contract Overview: ULA is contracted to provide launch services for Artemis missions, primarily using its Vulcan Centaur rocket. For example, ULA will launch components like lunar landers or gateway modules, though it’s not directly responsible for the HLS.
Delays: Specific delays tied to ULA’s Artemis contributions are less documented in public sources compared to SpaceX’s HLS. However, the Vulcan rocket’s development has faced setbacks, including engine delivery delays from Blue Origin (BE-4 engines), which could indirectly impact Artemis timelines.
Provisions for Delays: ULA’s contracts likely mirror standard NASA terms:
Excusable Delays: Covering supply chain issues or technical challenges.
Schedule Flexibility: NASA adjusts mission timelines holistically, accounting for all contractors, as seen with the Artemis III delay from 2024.
Exact terms remain confidential, but ULA’s role as a launch provider suggests less exposure to developmental delays compared to SpaceX’s HLS responsibilities.
NASA’s 2021 Moon Landing Delay
In 2021, NASA officially delayed the Artemis III lunar landing from 2024 to 2025, citing:
Funding Shortfalls: Congress provided less than half of NASA’s requested budget for HLS development in FY 2021.
Technical Risks: Challenges with the HLS, Orion spacecraft, and spacesuits required more time.
Litigation: The Blue Origin lawsuit paused HLS work for months.
This delay reflects NASA’s contractual flexibility to adjust schedules rather than penalize contractors, prioritizing mission success over strict deadlines.
Military Contract Delays: The $12 Billion Submarine Example
You referenced a military contract delay involving a $12 billion submarine that was never built, asking why contractors couldn’t be sued. While I don’t have specifics on that case, I can explain common reasons in U.S. government contracting:
Contractual Protections:
Force Majeure: Contractors are excused from liability for delays due to unforeseeable events (e.g., natural disasters, pandemics, or geopolitical disruptions). If the submarine project faced such issues, the contractor might be shielded.
Changes in Requirements: The government frequently modifies specifications (e.g., updated technology or mission needs), delaying projects without contractor fault. This could render the original contract unfeasible, leading to cancellation rather than litigation.
Termination for Convenience: The government can cancel contracts at its discretion, paying only for work completed. This clause, standard in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts, limits legal recourse by ending the agreement without blame.
Strategic Considerations:
Future Contract Relationships: Suing a contractor could deter companies from bidding on future defense projects, reducing competition and increasing costs.
National Security: If the contractor is a critical supplier (e.g., a shipbuilder like General Dynamics or Huntington Ingalls), legal action might disrupt other vital programs.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and recovery might not justify the effort, especially if delays stem from government-driven factors like funding cuts or scope changes.
Hypothetical Application: For a $12 billion submarine, delays might have resulted from shifting naval priorities, budget reallocations, or technical infeasibility. If terminated for convenience or excused under contract terms, the government would absorb the loss rather than sue, especially if the contractor delivered partial work (e.g., designs or prototypes).
Summary
SpaceX HLS Contract: The $2.9 billion (plus $1.15 billion modification) contract includes provisions for excusable delays and schedule adjustments, reflecting delays from litigation and technical hurdles. The Artemis III landing shifted from 2024 to 2026 due to these factors.
ULA Contracts: ULA’s launch service contracts likely have similar delay provisions, though specific impacts are less publicized.
Military Contracts: Contractors avoid lawsuits due to protective clauses (force majeure, termination for convenience) and strategic priorities, as likely occurred with the $12 billion submarine.
For precise contract terms, public data is limited—NASA and the Department of Defense guard such details—but these insights align with standard U.S. government contracting practices. If you need deeper analysis, reviewing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or NASA’s contract audits (e.g., from the Office of Inspector General) for further clarity.
The post hoc edits to the contract are materially irrelevant. As I stated in another comment, SpaceX won a bid, and on the initial contract, they agreed to a certain timeline, and they got paid. Other companies (so we are talking of private enterprises) did not participate because they deemed the contract parameters unfeasible. SpaceX overpromised, got the contract, and then managed to NOT deliver a single proof of concept prototype for their part of the project. Why should this anticompetitive behaviour be incentivized? Why should someone get their foot in the door with wild claims that weed out more prudent competitors, and maintain their advantage when they fail to deliver?
To me that looks like waste (at least), but if we want to look into fraud and corruption at NASA it should be worth noting that NASA official Kathy Lueders held top roles, including: Leading the Commercial Crew Program, and then became Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, which gave her broad influence over Artemis and procurement. All these programs granted contracts to SpaceX and in April 2023, she left NASA and joined SpaceX as General Manager of Starbase.
SpaceX should be investigated before NASA, conveniently, DOGE fired most of the people responsible for such investigations.
SLS actually works—-and as for SpaceX saving tax dollars—that’s a lie:
https://spaceexplored.com/2025/04/28/spacexs-market-dominance-has-failed-to-save-nasa-money/
I wouldn’t wish a Starship ride on my worst enemy as it stands
So, we’ve established that if you throw enough billions at a rocket, and don’t mind it taking many years longer than originally anticipated, you can get it to work. Not be remotely economical, it will be too expensive to actually USE, but it will work.
Starship is a development program, it’s not required to work halfway through the development program, it’s supposed to work at the end. If they just wanted a poorly performing and expensive rocket, they could have had that several years ago; The upper stage was working fine before they went to hot staging, they could have just given up on that as a bad idea, and concentrated on getting the reentry working better, and already been putting payloads into orbit at a tiny fraction of the SLS cost. Heck, they could have skipped the reentry and used the upper stage as a one shot stage, and been cheaper than SLS.
Instead they’re trying to produce a rocket that will wildly over-perform in terms of economy, so that all sorts of things that are currently unaffordable in space make financial sense.
You do realize that, as reliable as Falcon is today, they had a lot of launch failures during the development program, right? Five years from now, Starship will likely be just as reliable and a lot cheaper, and you’ll look silly.
THIS thing will be ready for human rated missions in 12 months?
https://youtu.be/8urjUy-f9TQ?si=QriE7Y3AOVkB-TQj
Dude…seriously.
And why wring our hands over $7 billion of “waste” while the same budget shovels over $40 billion in new funding to Homeland Security and over $110 billion in new funding to the military?
Those increases alone could fund a almost 40 SLS launches EVERY YEAR!
When it comes to waste and the deficit, NASA is not the biggest problem.
Because we’ve let our military become ineffective in a time of rising international threats, I assume. And an effective military defense is an existential requirement, unlike routing ‘space exploration’ funds to connected Congressmen’s districts.
Look, I get that Musk, by picking the ‘wrong’ side to align with in American politics, has become public enemy #1 for half the political spectrum. Remember that the other half actually likes him, instead, and happens to be in control for the moment.
You can vengefully set out to destroy him in 2029, at the earliest, if it’s so important to you.