Starship, Starbase, and Star Budgets
Three veteran reporters provide a vibe check ahead of NASA budget details
It’s Friday, May 30. We’re still waiting for the Office of Management and Budget to release the full FY26 budget documents. The “skinny” budget President Trump sent to Congress early May already made the big headlines: sharp cuts to NASA’s science programs and a human spaceflight pivot to Mars. Artemis, once pitched as a long-term return to the Moon, now looks poised to end after a single flags-and-footprints mission.
What’s missing are the details — the line-by-line numbers that confirm just how steep the cuts are, and just how much of Artemis’ future gets pushed back or erased. Those details could drop as soon as today. And if they match the top-line signals, they’ll mark a major turning point for American space exploration — and the role Elon Musk’s SpaceX plays in it.
Before the spreadsheets and spin start flying, this week offered something else: a vibe check. On Thursday, Ars Technica hosted an Ars Live discussion where Chris Davenport (Washington Post), Eric Berger (Ars Technica), and Joey Roulette (Reuters) talked through Starship’s progress, Musk’s shifting role in Washington, and what’s really riding on the next few years of U.S. spaceflight. Two of the three had just been at Starbase after sitting down with Musk himself.
They didn’t have a crystal ball. But absent one, you could do a lot worse than listen to three of the best-sourced reporters in the business compare notes. They’ve been living with “Elon time” for years. What’s shifted is the growing focus on the cracks.
Starship has now failed to complete three consecutive test flights — three RUDs in a row. Full-orbit reentry remains elusive. Cryogenic propellant transfer, critical for the Moon and Mars, is still vaporware. SpaceX has caught and reflown a Super Heavy booster once, but catch-and-recatch reuse remains unproven. As Berger pointed out, Starship hasn’t even reached orbit, let alone proven it can return safely. Davenport underscored that without propellant transfer, there’s no Mars. There’s not even a credible path to the Moon under NASA’s current Artemis architecture.
Roulette, for his part, flagged the political dimension: Musk’s withdrawal from Washington and the weakening political support for big-ticket NASA projects. As federal budgets tighten and attention shifts, the absence of strong advocates will leave programs like Artemis even more exposed.
Against this backdrop, Musk made his own move—quietly. After canceling a planned live presentation following the latest Starship test failure, SpaceX posted a pre-recorded employee address to X on Thursday night. The tone was upbeat, the focus unchanged: Musk still eyes an uncrewed Starship to Mars in 2026, a crewed flight in 2028. He acknowledged long odds — a 50-50 chance for 2026 — but avoided direct mention of the recent Starship failures. Instead, he emphasized progress: Raptor 3 engines coming soon, Starship Version 3 upgrades, and Starlink V3 payloads waiting for launch. He even revisited his vision for a “Moon Base Alpha,” though, curiously, without clear timelines or plans tied to NASA’s Artemis program.
Musk’s goals remain audacious. But as this week’s Ars Live conversation made clear, the gap between ambition and readiness is widening — and fewer people are willing to wave it away as just “Elon time” anymore.
The future isn’t canceled. But it feels more conditional than it used to.
Space Curmudgeon will dig through the full budget once it drops. For now, if you want a smart, sober look at where things stand, the latest Ars Live is worth your time. No hype, no crystal ball — just three people who know the field calling it like they see it.
Editor’s note: This post has been updated to clarify that SpaceX has successfully caught and reflown a Super Heavy booster once. However, routine catch-and-reuse — essential for Starship’s business case to close — remains unproven.
Kudos to you Brian for acknowledging your peers.