Will Trump’s Obsession with Space Save NASA?

Summary

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode Title: Will Trump’s Obsession with Space Save NASA?
Date: March 26, 2025
Host: Tyler Foggatt
Guest: David W. Brown, New Yorker contributor and space industry reporter

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the impact of Donald Trump’s second term and Elon Musk’s deepening influence on NASA and American space policy. Host Tyler Foggatt and guest David W. Brown explore the current state of NASA, shifting political agendas, the entanglement with SpaceX, and the increasing politicization of space exploration. The episode probes whether Trump’s and Musk’s fascination with space is a lifeline for NASA or a threat to its core mission.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. NASA’s Response to Trump’s Second Term and Musk’s Rise (01:52–03:29)

• Many federal workers feared for their agencies after the Trump/Musk victory, but NASA’s initial mood was one of anxious expectation.
• David W. Brown: “NASA survived [job cuts] simply because of their high operational tempo… The people that they were going to fire were so busy doing their jobs that there was no time to plan on how we’re going to fire them.” (02:14)

2. Trump’s Influence vs. Musk’s Influence (04:22–05:12)

• Trump's vision is less about nuanced space policy and more about legacy and spectacle; he wants quick wins (like moon landings).
• Musk, on the other hand, has become the key advisor shaping Trump’s attitudes and, by extension, NASA’s direction.
• Brown: “The last guy in the room seems to be Elon Musk at every given moment, which means the American space program is about to become Elon Musk.” (04:56)

3. Why NASA Matters—and Why Funding Cuts Are Misguided (06:02–09:29)

• NASA receives less than 0.5% of the federal budget—eliminating it would have negligible fiscal benefits.
• NASA’s research is foundational to everyday technology (e.g., GPS, phone calls, food science, material science).
• Brown: “NASA does a lot with very little… The very fact that you and I are having this conversation… a significant percentage of the technology that disenabled this was developed as a result of NASA grants.” (06:35)
• The “trickle-down” effect of NASA’s R&D is immense, from sunglasses to crop science.

4. Moon vs. Mars—Shifting Priorities and Political Whiplash (09:29–14:41)

• The Artemis lunar program was a Trump initiative; Obama focused on Mars, and Biden continued Artemis.
• Now, Musk’s Mars-centric ambitions may pull NASA away from the Moon again—creating uncertainty and instability.
• Brown: “We don’t know exactly what the second Trump administration’s priorities are going to be… Given that Elon Musk’s personal inclination… is to get human beings on Mars, and because he has Trump’s ear, does that mean we’re going to shift directions?” (10:04)
• Risks in neglecting fundamental research for high-profile goals; previous U.S. setbacks (like losing commercial aviation leadership to Airbus) are cautionary tales.
• Brown: “If we start gutting fundamental research… we’re going to have a gap in what we know how to do with respect to current technology.” (12:24)

5. NASA–SpaceX Interdependence and Conflicts of Interest (16:33–19:08)

• Both organizations are now critically interdependent: “SpaceX is the only way we can get astronauts to the International Space Station… On the other hand, if NASA vanished… SpaceX’s biggest client is NASA.” (16:55)
• Elon Musk’s leadership in both SpaceX and federal cost-cutting creates a glaring “conflict of interest.”
• Brown: “The conflict of interest is comical and how obvious and blatant it is. And I don’t see how any right minded human being could look at what’s happening right now and say, yes, Elon Musk is the person for this job.” (18:12)

6. Implications of Cost-Cutting and Politicization (19:08–22:18; 23:26–26:36)

• Musk’s cost-cutting is likely to slash basic science and research—a slow-burning disaster with effects not visible until it’s too late.
• The reallocation of contracts (e.g., from NASA’s SLS rocket to SpaceX) centralizes Musk’s influence and further politicizes NASA.
• Space exploration is becoming increasingly aligned with right-wing politics due to Trump/Musk association, with liberals moving away from supporting Musk and SpaceX.
• Brown: “Everything Trump touches tends to get diminished in some way, and space exploration is no different... For the whole history of space exploration, there has been no one person who embodies exploration… What we’re seeing right now… is that phenomenon taking shape.” (23:26)

7. A Fractured Path and America’s Future in Space (27:09–31:09)

• Periodic partisan shifts (every 4–8 years) leave long-term projects unfinished—Moon, Mars, orbits, and back again.
• China’s disciplined, goal-oriented space program is contrasted with U.S. volatility.
• The possible dismantling of the Artemis program threatens sustained lunar exploration.
• Brown: “Fundamental research is going to be set back by at least a decade. …We’re only going to find out after the damage is done.” (27:09)
• Brown: “When we look at the Chinese space program, we are looking at a highly disciplined program... They have a goal and they’re going to stick to it. …When Biden came in and said, yes, we will continue the Trump era Artemis Program, it became a bipartisan thing. …But instead [Trump has] decided let’s destroy everything.” (29:33–31:09)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On NASA's Budget and Value:
  "If we erased the entire American space program tomorrow, nobody would notice fiscally... NASA does a lot with very little."
  — David W. Brown (06:02)

• On SpaceX’s Achievements Origins:
  “That stuff didn’t just spring from the forehead of Elon Musk… The billions upon billions of dollars in NASA infrastructure and research over the last 50, 60 years fed directly into that.”
  — David W. Brown (11:38)

• On the Conflict of Interest:
  “I mean, the conflict of interest is comical in how obvious and blatant it is.”
  — David W. Brown (18:12)

• On Politicization:
  "Everything Trump touches tends to get diminished in some way, and space exploration is no different… When we think about space exploration now, we think about Elon Musk."
  — David W. Brown (23:26)

• On Long-Term Damage:
  “Fundamental research is going to be set back by at least a decade... The long term implications of that we’re only going to find out after the damage is done.”
  — David W. Brown (27:09)

• On the Need for Consistency:
  "Personally, I would love to see someone on Mars in my lifetime, but at this point, I would just like to see an astronaut anywhere beyond low Earth orbit. Just pick one—Moon or Mars."
  — David W. Brown (29:33)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Topic | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:52 | Tyler introduces David; NASA’s reaction to Trump/Musk | | 04:22 | Trump and Musk change NASA’s trajectory | | 06:02 | Why NASA matters and funding impacts | | 09:29 | Tensions between Moon and Mars priorities | | 12:24 | Risks of cutting fundamental research | | 16:33 | NASA–SpaceX interdependence and conflict of interest | | 18:12 | Musk’s cost-cutting and its implications | | 23:26 | Politicization of space; Musk/Trump and public perception | | 27:09 | The future of NASA, risks to research, partisan whiplash | | 29:33 | The need for consistency; comparison with China’s space effort |

---

Conclusion

This episode paints a sobering portrait of the great promise and peril currently facing NASA. Trump’s and Musk’s shared fixation with space could preserve headline-grabbing programs, but may decimate the quieter, critical work that secures American leadership in science and technology. The growing political polarization surrounding NASA—unprecedented in the agency’s history—threatens to erode long-standing bipartisan support and to compromise the stability needed for meaningful progress. As David W. Brown notes: just picking a course—Moon or Mars—and sticking to it would itself be a major achievement.

---

For deeper insights, read David W. Brown’s reporting on NASA and politics at newyorker.com.

Transcript

[Odoo Sponsor]

This show is supported by Odoo. When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need. Check out Odoo at o d o o.com that's o d o o.com as.

[Mint Mobile Sponsor]

Summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages. Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 GB on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Tyler Foggatt]

David thank you so much for being here.

[David W. Brown]

Thank you very much for having me.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Many government employees were terrified when Donald Trump was elected and when Elon Musk was made head of Doge, because they knew that their agencies, like if they worked at the Department of Education, for instance, would likely be on the chopping block. But how was Trump's election received by people at NASA? Given that Trump is very much on record being obsessed with space travel and.

[David W. Brown]

With rockets, I think at the beginning there was probably a sense of expectation that one he was president before and NASA did okay during the first Trump administration. Right away, though, it became very clear, no, this guy is going to. He's going to be governing in a very different way, or at least in a somehow more extreme way. And when it became clear that a lot of people were about to lose their jobs, a rightful sense of not panic, then certainly unease began to set in. And that's exactly what transpired. And the first thing that they did was try to get rid of probationary employees. NASA survived that simply because of their high operational tempo. And NASA said that we can't spare those people. Interestingly, when the rif, the reduction in force order came in, federal agencies had to report their plans to the Office of Personnel Management and say exactly how they were going to be downsizing. NASA had to get an extension on that. They couldn't submit their RIF plan right away because the people that they were going to fire were so busy doing their jobs that there was no time to plan on how we're going to fire them.

[Tyler Foggatt]

David W. Brown is a reporter who has spent years covering the space industry. He recently wrote a fascinating piece for the New Yorker about the changes happening inside of NASA during the Trump administration. Doge has come for NASA, Doge, just like it's come for the rest of the federal government. But the story has looked a little different at this agency, which actually does work that Trump and Musk care about. I wanted to talk with David about whether Trump and Musk's obsession with space will either be NASA's death knell or its saving grace, as well as the increasingly complicated relationship between SpaceX and NASA and why space travel has become such a politically divisive issue. You're listening to the political scene. I'm Tyler Foggatt and I'm a senior editor at the New Yorker. Can you explain how Trump's posture toward NASA has changed since his first administration?

[David W. Brown]

I think Trump was always fairly simple minded in his appreciation of space exploration. It's just one of those things that feels like a Trump sort of win. Putting an astronaut on the moon, seeing a flag up there. Trump wants to say, yeah, I can do that. All right, yeah, I did that. We see no less simple minded approach now, but what we do see is the influence of Elon Musk on Trump. He definitely has the guy on speed dial. And given that what we are going to see is not necessarily Trump changing so much as Trump doing what the last guy who was in the room with him said, hey, we ought to do this, Mr. President. And the last guy in the room seems to be Elon Musk at every given moment, which means the American space program is about to become Elon Musk.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Space PROGRAM I guess I should admit to our listeners that I am incredibly biased when it comes to the subject of NASA. I love space exploration. I love NASA. My grandpa actually worked for NASA for many years on the Apollo missions and he helped design the mission abort protocols. And there's actually this photo of my dad as a baby sitting on Neil Armstrong's lap. So I am extremely in favor of NASA getting as much money, resources, having all the employees that it needs. But I also understand that it can be harder sometimes to drum up public sympathy for something like, you know, space when you have programs like Social Security and disability education at risk. So I'm wondering if you can explain to Our audience what NASA's goals are right now in terms of the various programs that it has going and why cuts matter. For someone who isn't as supportive of NASA's, like, you know, we might be, why they should care about this.

[David W. Brown]

Sure. So first, there's sort of a broad misunderstanding of just how big NASA is, right? They, they have these sort of extraordinary, colossal achievements that you just intuitively understand, right? When an astronaut lands on the moon, as your grandfather helped achieve in the 1960s, you see an astronaut standing there and you get it like, look, we just did something very difficult. And the human race has advanced forward significantly as a result. But NASA only gets about 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget, right? If we erased the entire American space program tomorrow, nobody would notice fiscally, like, we wouldn't suddenly be flush with cash and could fund the retirements of every American from coast to coast. NASA does a lot with very little. And they have historically probably achieved more than they should have with very little, because their people tend to really be believers in what they're doing. And their people tend to work extremely long hours that they're not paid for. And that's one of the things that I talk a little bit about in the piece that these civil servants who are working 60 hour work weeks, they do it because they love what they do and they believe in their mission. Why does NASA matter to all of us? I mean, the very fact that you and I are having this conversation, I'm in New Orleans, presumably you were in New York. A significant percentage of the technology that disenabled this was developed as a result of NASA grants, NASA funding, and NASA research.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Like this zoom call that we're having right now, you mean?

[David W. Brown]

Correct? Yes. But even if we were talking on cell Phones, it would be the same thing when I. Or when I get in my car and drive to wherever at the store and I have my GPS running.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

All of this is enabled by space exploration. And it's never about just putting a person in space.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right?

[David W. Brown]

That is such an astonishingly difficult task to achieve. Or to launch a spacecraft in orbit around another world, or even orbit around this world. Those are such astonishingly difficult tasks to achieve. And the amount of infrastructure that has to be developed in order to do that, the amount of technology that has to be developed in order to do that, the miniaturizations of technologies that must be achieved in order to do that, all of those things trickle down into our daily lives. And they do so constantly, all the way down to the sunglasses that we wear, are all trace their lineage to the astronaut spacesuits that have to block out the sun, the snow skis that you wear when you go skiing, the material science that went into that. A lot of that was originally researched by NASA. The foods that we eat. Look, if you want to grow crops on Mars, guess what? If you can grow crops there, you can grow crops anywhere on Earth. So a phenomenal amount of research goes into solving hunger on Earth. Just by saying we're going to pay for learning how to grow things on Mars. This stuff is constantly feeding back to Earth. And remember, every dollar spent in service of these programs funds scientists on Earth, funds research on Earth. We're not sending this money to another world. It stays right here. So it's probably the best investment that the federal government has ever or will ever make. And the benefits are boundless.

[Tyler Foggatt]

So it seems like Trump and Elon Musk to at least some extent value.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

NASA, or at least they value space exploration. But one thing that you bring up in your piece is that they might have different priorities in terms of what they think that NASA should be doing.

[Tyler Foggatt]

And what we should be exploring.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

And so is this one of the.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Main things that's being sort of discussed.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

At NASA right now? Like whether we're going to, you know, shut down the lunar programs to focus on trying to get to Mars? Like, what are the kind of ideological changes that we might be seeing in this administration as opposed to just the, you know, standard cost cutting stuff that we're seeing across the federal government?

[David W. Brown]

That's really the big question right now. We don't know exactly what the second Trump administration's priorities are going to be with respect to the exploration of the moon versus Mars. Again, I must re emphasized that the whole reason we have a Moon program right now, the Artemis program is because the Trump administration insisted upon it. During the Obama administration, the goal was to go to Mars, right? Go to an asteroid and go to Mars. Trump comes in, says, no, we're going to the moon. Biden continued that program and it was a good program. And now Trump's coming in and given that Elon Musk's personal inclination or really purpose of his life's work is to get human beings on Mars. And because he has Trump's ear, does that mean we're going to shift directions? I don't know the answer to that question. One thing that I worry about, and one thing that seems to be missing from this conversation, is that for all of SpaceX's phenomenal achievements, and they really have been perhaps the revolutionary company in space exploration, nobody should, should doubt that. It's very easy to say, oh, well, they got a government contract and so they were able to build reusable rockets. Anybody could do it. And the truth is that's not true. Many companies have tried and virtually nobody has succeeded.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Yeah, no, I mean, my grandpa, who I was mentioning earlier, when he saw, you know, SpaceX catch the Starship rocket booster with the chopsticks, he was like, I never thought that I would see anything like that in my lifetime. Like, I feel like I sound like Trump when I talk about how incredible it was, but it really is like, because he brought it up so many times, but it really is unbelievable.

[David W. Brown]

That's absurd. Like, I can't believe that we're seeing this Wile E. Coyote stuff actually work. Yeah, but that stuff didn't just spring from the forehead of Elon Musk. It the billions upon billions of dollars in NASA infrastructure and NASA research over the last 50, 60 years fed directly into that.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right?

[David W. Brown]

So what I worry about when I look at what Musk and Doge and Trump seemed to have planned, is a lack of appreciation for the fundamental scientific research that NASA does. They're funding something to the tune of 6,000 grants, 6,000 principal investigators of experiments. Right now that's an awful lot of research. And that's constantly happening, day after day, year after year, decade after decade. That is the backbone of NASA. That's what enables everything else. If we start gutting fundamental research, the problems that we're going to see are not only now, that's a short term solution. Okay, good, we're going to save $420 million. But five years from now, 10 years from now, suddenly we're going to have a gap in what we know how to do with respect to current technology. And at risk of going on a little too long here, I'll just say that NASA has done this before. I believe in the 1970s, the United States decided that we are so far ahead of everyone else with respect to aeronautics, our commercial aircraft are so far ahead of everyone else around the world. We can cut funding for research for that right now. It'll make life easier here in the 1970s. Well, as a result of doing that in Europe, they say, oh wait, we're going to research something called the Concorde. And of course they developed their supersonic jet, but that's phenomenally successful. But more importantly has trickle down effects. Researching how to do this. One thing you suddenly have to figure out how to do an awful lot of things. And result of all this is the Airbus Corporation, which is now, if I'm not mistaken, the largest manufacturer of commercial airliners in the world. And that's in, that's a European industry now that's trillions of dollars that could have been America's that we just gave away for the exact thing that we're seeing right now to save a little money pointlessly on fundamental research.

[Tyler Foggatt]

So this idea that Trump hasn't demonstrated any real interest in kind of fundamental science research, I guess I'm curious, what has he shown an interest in? Then we were talking about how like, you know, Obama wanted to go to Mars, Trump wants to go to the moon, you know, Elon wants to go to Mars. And I guess I'm trying to figure out like, what are the arguments for like the moon versus Mars and what are we trying to do there beyond. Cause it can't just be that we're trying to like establish like a colony on either. Maybe that's part of it. That's like the pipe dream. But like, what is the actual point?

[David W. Brown]

So there are multiple goals if you want to develop the moon, aside from basic sciences resources.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

Rare earth elements that are very difficult to get or may not readily be available in the United States. It's right there on the moon for the taking.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

All the great stuff here is available there as well. And that was one of the prime drivers of Artemis, like let's develop this. And there are long term goals that go with that. And of course there's a military aspect to it and that what that looks like. We don't exactly know. There were a great many studies in the 1950s and 60s about this. But we know that China's very interested in going there.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

That's quote unquote, the high ground, they're going to have a sort of a mountaintop view of the United States and the rest of the world from there. And that's certainly a motivator to go to the moon.

[Tyler Foggatt]

So I'd like to take a quick break, and then after that we're going to talk more about the deeply entangled financial relationship between SpaceX and NASA and what Elon Musk's plans are for the future with both agencies. The political scene from the New Yorker will be right back.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial Director.

[Michael Kollori]

I'm Michael Colori, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[Lauren Goode]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. Our show Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[Michael Kollori]

Right? So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Tyler Foggatt]

David, you were talking earlier about how SpaceX and NASA are very much intertwined, and I'm wondering if you can kind of elaborate on how interdependent they are, what the balance of power is, because one thing I've been trying to figure out is, you know, SpaceX probably couldn't exist without NASA, but could NASA exist without SpaceX at this point? If we're talking about like radical innovation.

[David W. Brown]

No, I don't think either could do very well without the other. SpaceX is the only way that we can get astronauts to the International Space Station, for example, in terms of heavy lift rocketry, the Falcon Heavy is basically the only game in town right now. And with respect to the sort of the future of heavy lift rocketry, when we look at Starship, though it has not been successful yet in delivering payload to orbit, Starship really does seem to be the future of space exploration. I don't know a lot of people who would disagree with that. On the other hand, if NASA vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow, SpaceX's biggest client is SpaceX. They both need each other. It would be very difficult to separate the two. I suppose SpaceX could sort of spread out into Europe, and we are seeing them take on some of the European Space Agency's launch initiatives, but everybody would be the poorer if one or both of them were somehow erased from existence.

[Tyler Foggatt]

So SpaceX and NASA clearly have this incredibly close relationship and now Musk, who is head of doge, is seemingly in charge of cost cutting at NASA. Can you explain how this works from a conflict of interest perspective?

[David W. Brown]

I mean, the conflict of interest is comical and how obvious and blatant it is. And I don't see how any right minded human being could look at what's happening right now and say, yes, Elon Musk is the person for this job.

[Tyler Foggatt]

I guess like there are sort of like two possibilities based on what you've been saying so far about like the cuts that have happened and then the cuts that haven't happened in the sense that NASA has actually been able to make a case for keeping a lot of its probationary workers. I guess I'm wondering whether NASA might get favorable treatment because Musk actually values their work and works pretty closely with them through SpaceX. And then there's the other version of it which feels even more corrupt, which is that he cuts NASA in a way where it becomes more dependent on SpaceX and where he's shifting kind of the balance of power between the two in a way that ultimately favors his organization.

[David W. Brown]

I think it's actually the worst of both worlds. Yeah, Elon Musk knows a lot about delivering payload to orbit and delivering astronauts to space. He knows a lot about it. He doesn't really know a whole heck of a lot about the scientific role of NASA in the broader research landscape. He knows just enough to be dangerous. And I suspect what we're going to see in the, in the weeks and months ahead are overly broad, poorly targeted, shotgun or hatchet or whatever word you want to use, sorts of cuts that end up punishing science in ways that Musk doesn't know any better, but also in ways that we don't even know just how bad the damage is going to be until years from now when it's too late to recover, or when we're caught flat footed and suddenly we're having to run at a sprint for the duration of a marathon. One of the almost certain outcomes of all this is a large number of contracts are going to be cut and SpaceX will be the beneficiary of the resultant contracts that then must be signed. The idea is, let's say we get rid of the SLS rocket, which is the, the multi billion dollar rocket that NASA's been developing to go to the moon. If we do indeed get rid of that, it's going to be SpaceX who has to launch our astronauts. If that is, if that is the case, even if that's the right thing to do, it just looks bad. NASA, historically, it has very broad bipartisan support. I think overall, one can argue with do we need space exploration? That's a fair argument to make and that's a fun discussion to have, but I don't think anybody really feels like NASA is a corrupt organization. I've never heard that in all my years covering this, but I am most definitely starting to hear that now. Like, and certainly if, if indeed Musk and Doge achieve what seem to be their goals, NASA is going to be politicized in a way that it's never been politicized before. And I'm afraid there's no way to undo that once it's happened.

[Tyler Foggatt]

I'm so glad you brought this up because, yeah, what I wanted to talk about next was exactly that, which is the way in which space travel And NASA and SpaceX have become extremely politicized. We'll have more from the political scene in just a moment. America is changing and so is the world.

[Tristan Redman]

But what's happening in America isn't just the cause of global upheaval. It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

[Tyler Foggatt]

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington D.C. hi.

[Tristan Redman]

I'm Tristan Redman in London and this is the Global Story.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Every weekday we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.

[Tristan Redman]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Tyler Foggatt]

So I'm curious whether you, I have like a theory and I'm curious whether you agree with this, David, which is that space travel has become, especially over the last few years, kind of increasingly right wing coded maybe. I would track this as starting, you know, with Space Force, which was Trump kind of, you know, embracing space and making it part of his agenda. But I feel like when I see videos of SpaceX rockets like on my social media feed, it's often Democrats like gleefully sharing videos of SpaceX rockets blowing up. And I was really curious about Musk saving the astronauts who were stranded for 286 days during what was supposed to be a week long stay on the International Space Station. I thought that the, the way in which that became a political conflict in which Trump and Musk were saying, oh, you know, Biden refused to save the astronauts and now Musk is going to go get them. And then when he did, the Times published a piece titled so what if Elon Musk rescued the Astronauts. But I mean, would you say that you think that space travel has become kind of associated with conservatives? And if so, do you agree that it's something that has kind of started with Trump's first administration, or is this something that goes back even further?

[David W. Brown]

Everything Trump touches tends to get diminished in some way, and space exploration is no different. Space Force was obviously a foolish idea, but he wanted it, and his enforcers in Congress made it happen. And now evermore Space Force is like this Republican thing, even though Space Force is basically just Air Force Space Command with a new letterhead. Right. Nothing's changed. It's just now it's somehow less. For the whole history of space exploration, there has been no one person who embodies exploration. Maybe you could say John F. Kennedy, but that was only after the fact, after. After his death. But overall, nobody ever thought about NASA and thought about one guy. It's never happened. What we're seeing right now, however, is that phenomenon taking shape. When we think about space exploration. Now we think about Elon Musk in the early days of this, when he was, quote, unquote, the real life Tony Stark. Then, yeah, that was, you know, maybe that was okay. But as he's become increasingly partisan now, we think of space, we think of Elon Musk. And when we think of Elon Musk, do we have positive feelings? I think for a significant percentage of the United States, the answer is no. How that affects NASA after Musk, after Trump, I don't know. One thing that I worry about, I will say this. Musk has to succeed right now. Whatever his goals are, whatever his plan is, whatever his intent is, has to work, because Trump's only going to be in power for four years. And after this, I don't see any Democratic administration or Democratic Congress embracing anything that Musk would like to achieve. I see contracts going away from that company. But Musk is not a fool. He knows that his brand is poison, but he also knows that he has the full backing of the federal government right now under Trump and congressional Republicans. I shudder to think what. What is to come, but certainly it's a conversation worth having.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Yeah, I mean, it seems like it kind of fits into this larger trend of Musk just flying way too close to the sun and souring people on, you know, the stuff that he did before he became so politically active, that was actually good. I mean, I think about Tesla, too, where it's like, this is like an electric vehicles company. There are a lot of liberals who embrace Tesla until they didn't. And so what you say is interesting because the idea that Musk and will stop receiving contracts under a Democratic administration because we were just Talking about how SpaceX has done so many incredible things. I mean, there is kind of a loss there and it's just too bad that we've gotten to this point where Musk has kind of destroyed the public reputation of a company that has done remarkable things.

[David W. Brown]

I couldn't agree more with that. I think America loses overall. Like we really do have an extraordinary, rare, unique capability right now. And to have this sort of thing reduced to ego and partisan politics is a real loss. It's a real loss.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Just to kind of like summarize the conversation we've had, if Musk gets his goal, if Musk has his way, what will NASA and SpaceX look like by the end of the Trump administration?

[Tyler Foggatt]

What is the end game here?

[David W. Brown]

My suspicion is science will suffer mightily. Aeronautics will suffer mightily as well. To what extent? We don't yet know. Fundamental research is going to be set back by at least a decade. I mean, for the simple reason that these people are reviewing billions of dollars in contracts. And these contracts aren't all like $500 million contracts. These are very small targeted research grants and contracts. And the idea that this is either being generated by AI or this is being, these things are being reviewed by 22 year olds who aren't really qualified even to read a resultant science paper from a single research grant that's cut. These people don't know the extent of the damage that they're causing. They can't know. And the long term implications of that we're only going to find out after the damage is done. So, so that's, that's, that's one sorry aspect of all this. And it seems though we don't know, but it certainly seems like the Artemis Program is in trouble, or at least the Artemis program to go to the Moon is in trouble. Is that good or bad? That just depends on who you ask. Look, so in the early 1970s we were going to go to Mars, we were going to continue the lunar program and we were going to go to Mars. The Nixon administration came in and said, no, I don't think so. Let's just build the space shuttle, okay? And the idea of going to other worlds basically ended in the 1990s under Clinton. Clinton had no interest in doing any of this Moon or Mars business. So stop all that research. Let's just do this low Earth orbit thing. Okay, fine, we do that. George W. Bush comes in and he says, let's go to the moon and on to Mars.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

We're going to develop this robust program that builds upon the space station. Obama comes in and says, no, no, no, we're not doing any of that. We can't land on the moon, it's too expensive to build a lander. Let's go to an asteroid. You don't have to land on an asteroid. It'll be a lot easier. And then we'll somehow go to Mars. Okay, that's fine. Then Trump comes in and says, okay, this Mars business we're not doing. We're going to the moon. And now we're seeing the possibility of shifting priorities to Mars again. The point of all this is These are like 20 year programs, each of them. So if every four years no progress.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Will ever be made.

[David W. Brown]

Yeah, exactly. And that's what the future is begin to look like. Personally, I would love to see someone on Mars in my lifetime, but at this point I would just like to see an astronaut anywhere beyond low Earth orbit.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Just pick one moon or Mars.

[David W. Brown]

Exactly. Just do something and then let's build on that. But when we, and when we look at the Chinese space program, we are looking at a highly disciplined program of space exploration that is making extraordinary achievements and extraordinary gains. They have a goal and they're going to stick to it. Their goal is to build a base on the moon. That's what it is. They know how to land things on the moon very effectively, very safely and return them back to Earth. We saw that with their, their sample return missions. And they are, they, they've already built their own space station. We're about to drop our space station into the ocean. They just built a new one.

[Interjecting Interviewer/Host]

Right.

[David W. Brown]

So we see what, what sort of clear minded forward progress looks like. And it looks like the Chinese space agency right now. China also has goals now we're going to put people on Mars and we've seen now they successfully landed on Mars. The first country beyond the United States to be able to do that. Just by contrasts, things look grim and I think things are going to get worse without some serious clear minded thought. It was actually a great achievement When Biden came in and said, yes, we will continue the Trump era Artemis Program, it became a bipartisan thing. To my knowledge. It's the first long term human exploration program to survive both presidential transition and political party transition. All Trump had to do was say, we're going to keep doing that thing that I started and he could even take credit for it. But instead he's decided let's destroy everything.

[Mint Mobile Sponsor]

God.

[Tyler Foggatt]

Well, David, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

[David W. Brown]

Thank you so much for having me today.

[Tyler Foggatt]

David W. Brown is a freelance reporter. You can read his latest piece for the New Yorker, inside Trump and Musk's takeover of NASA@New Yorker.com this has been the political scene from the New Yorker. I'm Tyler Foggit. This episode is produced by Sam Egan with mixing by Mike Kutchman and engineering by Jake Loomis. Our executive producer is Steven Valentino. Chris Bannon is Conde Nast Head of Global Audio. Our theme music is by Allison Layton Brown. Enjoy the rest of your week.

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director.

[Michael Kollori]

I'm Michael Kollori, Wired's Director of Consumer, Tech and Culture.

[Lauren Goode]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley is about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

And right now, Silicon Valley and Washington have never been more intertwined. So each week we get together to talk about a big story, often at the intersection of tech and politics.

[David W. Brown]

Right.

[Michael Kollori]

So whether we're talking about Trump, Coin, Doge, or Elon Musk, we will always explain how these Silicon Valley forces are affecting Washington and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.