One of the burning questions that many folks have had since Trump's landslide win, depending as it apparently did on Elon Musk's part in the campaign, is what NASA and the major programs will look like in the Trump administration. All of it is speculation at this point; because the critical decision points in NASA and the rest of the government are all unfilled. Eric Berger at Ars Technica had an interesting take on it last Friday with an article focusing on a couple of things Musk said that are critical of NASA's approach.
During the last 10 days, Musk has begun airing some of these private thoughts publicly. On Christmas Day, for example, Musk wrote on X, "The Artemis architecture is extremely inefficient, as it is a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program. Something entirely new is needed."
Then, on Thursday evening, he added this: "No, we’re going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction."
If you look at that second Tweet, he added the rather realistic, "Mass to orbit is the key metric, thereafter mass to Mars surface. The former needs to be in the megaton to orbit per year range to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars." Repeat that part about a "megaton to orbit per year" to yourself for a while.
If it's not obvious from everything I've written about Artemis and the SLS, I'm completely behind Musk's observation that it's "a jobs-maximizing program, not a results-maximizing program" and it's hard to think of it as being successful in any way other than creating jobs for a select few contractors. Still, it's not likely to be cancelled. I don't know how President Trump feels about that now, but Artemis was started in his first term as president. "I call on NASA to adopt new policies and embrace a new mindset," then-Vice President Mike Pence said in May 2019. "If our current contractors can't meet this objective, then we'll find ones that will."
NASA pretty much ignored that call from VP Pence and the administration, instead keeping its core group of major contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, in place, and transferring billions of taxpayer dollars to them.
But this time, the push for change is likely to be more concerted, especially with key elements of NASA's architecture, including the Space Launch System rocket, being bypassed by privately developed rockets such as SpaceX's Starship vehicle and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket.
It's hard to say there's a buzz about this in the open and I hear next to nothing about NASA Administrator nominee, Jared Isaacman who will be a key in deciding this. He hasn't publicly addressed Musk's comments but when he was nominated made a statement that sounds like he'd agree with Musk to some degree.
I was born after the Moon landings; my children were born after the final space shuttle launch. With the support of President Trump, I can promise you this: We will never again lose our ability to journey to the stars and never settle for second place. We will inspire children, yours and mine, to look up and dream of what is possible. Americans will walk on the Moon and Mars and in doing so, we will make life better here on Earth.
I can think of this decision being related to the Artemis accords; you've probably heard that Nelson and other NASA "higher ups" have been gathering other nations around the world in signing onto the Artemis accords. That appears to be trying to build a consensus to not let China claim the moon, and that's now tied to Artemis.
NASA has pretty much outlined a "moon first, then Mars" plan. Artemis gets us back to the moon by the end of this decade and then we work toward Mars. Berger thinks what this is going to lead to is both.
In short, NASA is likely to adopt a two-lane strategy of reaching for both the Moon and Mars. Whether the space agency is successful with either one will be a major question asked of the new administration.
SpaceX first released this artist's conception of a settlement on Mars some years ago. It shows a domed city surrounded by photovoltaic farms and four Starships. Image credit: SpaceX