NASA Budget for 2026 Phases Out SLS and Orion, Slashes Earth Science Programs
- Ryan Bale
- May 2
- 5 min read
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration has released its proposed Fiscal Year 2026 budget for NASA, requesting $18.8 billion — a cut of over $6 billion from last year’s funding of $24.9 billion. This proposed 24% reduction signals a fundamental shift in NASA’s priorities, scaling back traditional government-led programs in favor of a new emphasis on commercial space partnerships and future Mars exploration.
The proposed budget, while not final, outlines several structural changes to the agency’s core missions. These include deep cuts to Earth science, the phase-out of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion capsule after Artemis III, and a transition away from large government-owned hardware toward more cost-effective, commercial-led initiatives.
Earth Science Faces Deep Cuts, With Wide-Reaching Impact
Earth science — one of NASA’s most publicly impactful missions — is set to take one of the biggest hits under the proposed budget. The Science Mission Directorate, which houses Earth science alongside planetary and astrophysics programs, is facing a nearly 50% reduction, from approximately $7.5 billion to $3.9 billion.
Although the budget does not itemize each program to be eliminated or delayed, major Earth-observing missions are implicitly at risk:
PACE (Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem) — launched in early 2024, PACE is already returning high-quality climate data on ocean health and atmospheric particles. Reduced funding could limit operations or long-term data processing.
CLARREO Pathfinder — aimed at improving the accuracy of climate change models, this mission's future is uncertain amid the broader cuts.
SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) — essential for monitoring water levels in lakes, rivers, and oceans worldwide, could see reduced data continuity or support.
NASA’s Earth science satellites are relied on daily by farmers, flood forecasters, climate researchers, the military, and agencies like NOAA and FEMA. These systems track wildfires, monitor drought conditions, predict hurricanes, and guide emergency responses. Pulling back on these capabilities would not only affect scientific understanding of climate change but could reduce national resilience in the face of environmental disasters.
“This is not just a science issue — it’s a public safety and economic issue,” said Dr. Jenna Alvarez, an Earth systems scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “We’re talking about the backbone of our planet monitoring infrastructure.”
The proposal reflects a belief by the administration that NASA’s primary purpose should be exploration beyond Earth. However, many in the scientific community argue that understanding Earth is no less vital — especially as climate volatility increases globally.
SLS and Orion to Be Retired After Artemis III
One of the most consequential changes in the FY 2026 proposal is the planned retirement of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft after Artemis III, scheduled for 2027. These two programs have formed the backbone of the Artemis lunar campaign, with development costs exceeding $40 billion over the last two decades.
The budget document clearly states:
“Following Artemis III, NASA will end development and deployment of SLS and Orion, and transition to commercially provided launch and crew transportation services for deep space missions.”
The SLS is currently the only operational rocket capable of launching fully crewed deep-space missions. However, critics have long pointed to the vehicle’s high cost — with individual launches estimated at over $4.2 billion — and its limited annual launch cadence as reasons to consider alternatives. Orion, likewise, has been in development since 2006, with only one crewed flight scheduled before its proposed retirement.
In contrast, commercial providers such as SpaceX and Blue Origin are developing large, reusable rockets — Starship and New Glenn, respectively — that could offer higher payload capacities at lower cost. The budget proposal aligns with this trend, signaling that NASA will rely on these emerging systems for future lunar and Mars missions.
Still, the retirement of SLS and Orion is politically and operationally significant. Both programs support tens of thousands of jobs across NASA centers and contractor sites in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and Colorado. Congressional support for these programs has historically been strong — particularly in districts where hardware is built or tested — and their termination is expected to be a focal point in budget negotiations.
Lunar Gateway Contributions Reduced
NASA’s Lunar Gateway — a planned modular space station in orbit around the Moon — also sees its funding curtailed. According to the budget request, the U.S. will complete hardware required for Artemis III but will not continue developing additional modules or upgrades for the Gateway architecture afterward.
This does not constitute a cancellation of the Gateway itself. International partners such as ESA (Europe), JAXA (Japan), and CSA (Canada) are still expected to deliver their contributions, including power modules, robotic arms, and habitation elements. However, the reduction in U.S. leadership and funding may impact project timelines and coordination.
NASA officials suggest that Gateway functions could eventually be replaced or supplemented by commercial platforms — for instance, lunar orbit tugs or service stations provided by private industry — consistent with the overall theme of commercial transition in the FY 2026 budget.
ISS Operations Winding Down
The International Space Station (ISS), which has been continuously crewed for over 24 years, faces a budget reduction of around $500 million. The proposal includes reduced logistics, science activity, and crew rotations beginning as early as FY 2026.
NASA still plans to operate the ISS through 2030, but this budget accelerates the transition to commercial space stations, which are currently in early development under public-private partnerships. Companies like Axiom Space and Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef have proposed commercial replacements, which NASA hopes will eventually take over research and habitation roles in low Earth orbit.
While NASA says it will maintain “safe ISS operations,” the budget signals a gradual drawdown and eventual departure from the current space station era.
Mars Exploration Doubles Down
One area where funding grows significantly is Mars exploration. The proposal boosts funding from roughly $650 million to $1.65 billion, more than doubling NASA’s investment in Red Planet research and technology.
This funding will support the early development of:
Robotic precursor missions to scout future human landing sites
In-situ resource utilization (ISRU) systems for oxygen and fuel production
Life support and radiation protection for long-duration surface stays
Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) concepts to eventually bring samples or crews back from Mars
While the proposed pause of Mars Sample Return (MSR) may disappoint some, NASA officials have stated that redirecting funding toward new Mars systems will lay the groundwork for human exploration in the 2030s.
This investment aligns with the administration’s vision of Mars as NASA’s next big milestone, with Moon missions treated more as a proving ground than a destination in their own right.
Conclusion: A Divisive, Defining Proposal
The FY 2026 NASA budget proposal outlines a new trajectory for the space agency — one that moves away from large, government-owned infrastructure toward commercially led exploration, while prioritizing Mars over the Moon and science.
Earth science, however, faces serious setbacks. Programs that inform daily weather forecasts, disaster response, and long-term climate planning are at risk. Likewise, the retirement of SLS and Orion after Artemis III marks a historic departure from decades of deep-space hardware development.
“This is not just about cutting costs — it’s about reshaping the very identity of NASA,” said Dr. Laura Forczyk, space policy analyst and founder of Astralytical. “Whether Congress agrees remains to be seen.”
As the budget heads to Capitol Hill, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle will weigh the trade-offs — between legacy programs and new frontiers, between exploration and Earth, and between government and industry. The decisions made this year could shape U.S. spaceflight for decades to come.
Comments