This article only obliquely mentions in the last paragraphs, but there's a parallel Chinese program that recently brought back samples from the moon, and will attempt Mars sample return, launching in 2028,
Anyone wanting to be involved in the future of scientific research should probably start learning Mandarin. We're going the way of the Soviets, where political officers will quash any science that doesn't fit their ideology.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/09/trump-planning-to-ha...
amarcheschi [3 hidden]5 mins ago
A few hours ago I was looking for some food safety information, found a US gov website posted on reddit and
Do we really need to frame China’s succes here in terms of American decline? Do you think everyone outside the US views the moonlanding as a black page in history?
It’s fine to talk about a “race” if jingoism is the thing that gets most people on board with funding Nasa. But we ought to know better.
dclowd9901 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It's hard to imagine, since the moonlandings, if America kept its pace in space exploration, how far ahead of everyone else it would be, but also how far along everyone else would be. America was the catalyst for the impossible in that era, and then we decided to abandon it for... basically nothing. Enriching corporations, I guess?
People took issue with the cost of space exploration in context of "the good the money could do here on Earth", but then when we shifted resources that way, the money did absolutely no good here on Earth.
anamexis [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> Do you think everyone outside the US views the moonlanding as a black page in history?
Former Soviet people might...
krapp [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The Soviets launched the first satellite, put the first animal into space, launched the first lunar probe, got the first photographs of the dark side of the moon, put the first human in space, put the first woman in space, put the first craft with more than one crew member into space, did the first spacewalk, sent the first probe to Venus, got the first pictures of another planet, and launched the first space station.
The moon landing was fine and all, a moment of global historic import (and propaganda value, with the US putting their flag on it like they owned the damned thing) but that's still just one victory in a race that was otherwise entirely dominated by the Soviets, and on balance what the Soviets did was of greater scientific merit than anything the US would achieve for years. Americans didn't even care about space until Russia flew Sputnik over their heads.
frmersdog [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Everyone under the age of 45 has a right to be pissed at the way things have gone. They inherited a shitshow that they never had any real power to stop or fix.
Boomers and Silents (and, to a lesser and understandable extent re: Challenger, Gen X) should be ashamed, though.
I get harangued every time I point the finger, but for Pete's sake, Millennials didn't do this. Millennials wanted to go to Space Camp. It has to be SOMEONE'S fault. SOMEONE take responsibility.
gamblor956 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
where political officers will quash any science that doesn't fit their ideology
China also does this. We just don't hear about it because they also quash the reporting.
walrus01 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Those responsible for reporting on the quashing of the reporting have been quashed.
drstewart [3 hidden]5 mins ago
At least we definitely know they shouldn't be learning German or French
lukeify [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The NASA/ESA MSR was of substantially higher quality, mind you. The M2020 rover specifically picked up samples of high scientific value to be returned. The Chinese return mission will only return what it finds from its direct landing site.
ok_dad [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It would be cool if NASA worked with the Chinese agency to collect those cores using their rocket, it would be a win win.
It's not like they're going to do it only once though, and some is a lot more then zero.
Muhammad523 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I think that the scientific community really doesn't care about who will bring the samples back, but simply wheter someone will do it and share them with the world
reaperducer [3 hidden]5 mins ago
it's just that NASA has given up on being the one to do it first.
> it's rather that NASA has (?) given up on being the one to do it first
I think the Trump admin decided since it will not make them a profit, like other scientific research already canceled, it is not worth doing.
GolfPopper [3 hidden]5 mins ago
"Profit" is too generous a motive. It didn't service the Big Man's ego, so it's gone. That they can do some damage by killing it just makes it sweeter. Trump is Teemu Saruman.
titzer [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The way things look, everyone in Trump's orbit is just grifting off the government directly or using it to their personal advantage, including his own children. He literally said "Every time my kids invest in a stock, they have inside information."
jumploops [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I worked on (a very small part of) the ExoMars rover (now called the Rosalind Franklin[0]).
It was supposed to launch in 2018, then was pushed to the early 2020s on a Russian rocket. For obvious reasons, it got pushed again, now launching in 2028.
The state of the world isn't great for space exploration, but I'm hopeful this mission will be revived at some point in the future.
I'm curious to know on which part you worked on, could you tell us?
Teever [3 hidden]5 mins ago
As an outsider who is very interested in space exploration I'm very flummoxed by the state of space exploration.
With the price of launches so low compared to only 20 years ago due to advancements in launch technology and the increased cadence of launches it seems like it should be easier to do these kinds of missions and that there should be more, cheaper missions that are willing to take risks because the per mission cost is so much lower.
Can you comment on why that doesn't seem to be happening? Why aren't we covering Mars in cheap rovers and satellites?
nancyminusone [3 hidden]5 mins ago
For both operating mars rovers, the launch vehicle cost was about 10% of the total. So even if the providers paid you to launch, you'll still be picking up 80% of the remainder. Cut the development cost by 10x? Still in the hundred million dollar range. So still only large goverments can afford. And none of them would approve a bunch of rovers, they'd just see a discount on the one rover they already don't want to give you - "you have one, isn't that enough? Why do you need two?"
nomel [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We've had 8 launches in the past 3 years, with only 10 in the combined 17 years before [1].
Seems that the reduced cost is being taken advantage of. And, make sure to exclude the drastic reduction in non-lunar launches in your cost comparison for lunar launches.
The cost of launches has come down, but not the cost of Freemason actors.
giantrobot [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Some types of launches to some classes or orbits have gotten cheaper. Not all launches to all orbits. I don't know if any commercial launch services can even do planetary transfer orbits.
In space everything is an orbital change. To change orbits you need to speed up and slow down, all of that requires fuel. Even using what are known as "low energy" trajectories that use a bunch of gravitational slingshots need velocity changes to adjust trajectories to get the right angle of approach to some large body.
Most commercial launch services focus on LEO because the secondary stages don't need to carry much fuel and their engines only need to fire reliably once to get into a stable orbit.
A planetary transfer requires multiple engine firings. That's much harder than a single reliable firing. It's not impossible but the testing and engineering is expensive.
A science mission often needs to beg, borrow, and steal to get built. There's one shot to accomplish the mission objectives. That's more expensive engineering and testing. Some mission profiles require specific planetary alignments with very narrow launch windows to boot. So there's a lot of expensive work made more expensive by a tight deadline.
The actual marginal cost of the rocket, fuel, and launch is a very small part of the mission cost. Halving the launch price doesn't necessarily affect the cost of anything else.
Starlink satellites are effectively disposable. If a Falcon 9 explodes or fails to get the second stage to orbit they're out maybe a few tens of millions of dollars. If a science mission has some mission-killing failure there's no funding for a do-over.
LetsGetTechnicl [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Probably has something to do with the recent anti-science movement that currently has our country and government in a chokehold.
Imnimo [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I never really understood why you'd have Perseverance drill the cores and then just leave them on the ground for an underdefined future mission to retrieve.
Muhammad523 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Perseverance, obivously, has onboard instruments to analize the samples before dumping them on the ground
yabones [3 hidden]5 mins ago
An all-in-one solution would be far too heavy. Splitting the tasks up makes a lot of sense. Having all the equipment onboard to drill cores, quickly analyze them, decide if they're worth keeping, and then putting samples in containers is enough work for one rover.
* Storing all the samples onboard means a larger and heavier rover
* Mass budget squeeze means no more helicopter
* The return requires a ground launch from mars, so no more SkyCrane delivery system
q_andrew [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Because the powers that be would have deemed a real plan as too expensive.
petcat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> would have deemed a real plan as too expensive
Who are these "powers that be"? And do they have an infinite credit card? Could they really just do whatever they want and for some reason they choose not to?
Sharlin [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The entity that has exclusive power over the US federal budget, and thus NASA budget, is called the US Congress. This is a standard arrangement in representative democracies.
petcat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yes, and that Congress gave them $10 billion even more than they were asking for.
psadauskas [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yes. They decided that it was more valuable spending a trillion dollars bombing people halfway around the world (and enriching weapons companies in the process) than it would be to spend a few billion advancing science.
petcat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
NASA's budget is $24 billion this year. That's substantially larger than even Trump asked for, which was $16 billion. For reference, the ESA, the entirety of the EU's budget for space exploration and enterprise: $8 billion.
USA has two goddamn robots on Mars. And multiple others orbiting the planet itself. And also a couple that have left our solar system.
q_andrew [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The powers that be are the US federal government. Their credit card is extremely large, but that money is going towards wars and weapons.
giantrobot [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The war in Iran costs about $95m a day and is already over $43b cost to the taxpayers, just in military spending. That's nearly two NASA budgets in just over 200 days.
The "powers that be" chose to lose a completely optional and ill-conceived war on your dime. Instead of science or helping people they decided to spend money blowing up schoolgirls.
nomel [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Or, it's simply cheaper to send the equipment to analyze the samples in the rover, than to send the samples back.
ortusdux [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I think the original plan was to land another rover, which would drive to each sample. I hope future plans weight the use of helicopters for retrieval after Ingenuity's success. It looks like the sample capsules weigh less than 3oz.
Muhammad523 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The James Webb Space Telescope had a $10 dollar price tag, why wasn't it considered too expensive at the time?
wmf [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Costs increased after it was already under construction so sunk costs kicked in. MSR was still in the planning stages when it was canceled.
sertyrion [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That article is from January 6 2026. Not sure why it is being surfaced now.
Muhammad523 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I read it today and found it interesting, i was unaware of the fact that the mission had been canceled
trebligdivad [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The Japanese 'Martian Moons exploration' mission is launching to Phobos next month and doing a sample return; how hard would a martian to phobos sample moving mission be that could then be collected off Phobos sometime?
For better or worse it won’t be long until we get private exploration for minerals and water on the Moon and nearby planets, at a relatively decent scale (in comparative terms)
My brother in law (JPL) was telling me about this earlier in August. Big letdown but he assured me that they'll come back to earth some day ... just gonna sit up there a long time.
mring33621 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
My bet is that the new Trump-flavored NASA still wants to do this, but without the Europeans.
wood_spirit [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Yes the administration warned American space companies not to attend the international space summit in France last week because it was international cooperation. NASA attended.
LorenDB [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Knowing Jared Isaacman, he won't let MSR die without a fight. It wouldn't shock me to see NASA consider Rocket Lab's MSR proposal; they had submitted a pretty affordable proposal some time ago.
raverbashing [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Honestly this is not surprising, and as much as politics suck, the rocket equation sucks harder
Mars has a little bit less gravity than Earth
How big would a rocket need to be even to send a small payload (let's think 20kg/45lb) even suborbitally so that it can be caught by another spaceship
Now check how big a rocket has to be to send all of that from Earth
You'd probably have to send this on Starship. And refuel it while on orbit
hackingonempty [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The USA can't afford to waste money shipping a bunch of rocks halfway across the Solar system just so some woke geeks can speculate if Mars in the past could have supported transgender athletes.
It would jeopardize important national security projects like the White House Ballroom, the Triumphal Arch, the Garden of Heroes and National Golf Course, and of course the Donald J. Trump Center for The Performing Arts (formerly The Memorial To That Loser That Got Assassinated.)
TedDoesntTalk [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Although I don’t agree with your phrasing, $11 billion to bring back some rocks when we have a $40+ trillion deficit makes no sense.
9dev [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Sure does. R&D investments have a massively larger RoI than military spending - and you won’t be paying off that debt by trying to be frugal. The only way is forward, and bombing schools in Iran isn’t that. It might not be Mars either, but at the very least some interesting science falls out of it, and perhaps some interesting products out of that.
MiloLeo [3 hidden]5 mins ago
After reading this comment I think it would be worth 11 billion dollars just to get you off this forum.
Muhammad523 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I was reading this outraged until i realized you were being sarcastic, lol
infamouscow [3 hidden]5 mins ago
ALIENS! The alternative is just a bummer, so just let me live in delusion here, okay?
q_andrew [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is so disappointing. The closest thing we ever discovered to life on other planets and the US won't even put 0.5% of budget towards retrieving it.
GardenLetter27 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
And Europe is even worse, it's embarrassing.
DiggyJohnson [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That would be a MASSIVE portion of the budget for a single discretionary item.
q_andrew [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I guess I should clarify, I meant 0.5% to NASA in general. Right now it's 0.33%. In 2002 it was 0.72%.
TedDoesntTalk [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The article says $11 billion. That’s ridiculous.
9dev [3 hidden]5 mins ago
…ridiculously low compared to a Defense budget of $1500 billion? Agreed.
ModernMech [3 hidden]5 mins ago
[flagged]
superxpro12 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
best we can do is buying communications hubs and converting them into fascist propaganda machines
carabiner [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We cannot cancel anything ever because each program is only 0.001% of the federal budget. To do so would be stingy.
sophacles [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Or we could look at the utterly stupid things, like maybe stop having a failed war in Iran, and just not pay for those? Thats a very big chunk of budget. As a bonus it would bring gas prices down, reduce future spending in VA and other combat veteran costs, and just possible help make the case for reducing the size and expense of our military (while still maintaining the 2 largest air forces in the world).
drstewart [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Or we could reduce Medicaid fraud instead. Why are you pro fraud?
method_capital [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That'd be a strawman.
What makes you think the poster you responded to agrees with the Iran war expense? He simply commented on how difficult it is to cut anything from the Federal budget. He's right. Remember when all the lunatics were out keying Teslas a few short months ago?
HN.zip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianwen-3
The website wasn't available anymore
It’s fine to talk about a “race” if jingoism is the thing that gets most people on board with funding Nasa. But we ought to know better.
People took issue with the cost of space exploration in context of "the good the money could do here on Earth", but then when we shifted resources that way, the money did absolutely no good here on Earth.
Former Soviet people might...
The moon landing was fine and all, a moment of global historic import (and propaganda value, with the US putting their flag on it like they owned the damned thing) but that's still just one victory in a race that was otherwise entirely dominated by the Soviets, and on balance what the Soviets did was of greater scientific merit than anything the US would achieve for years. Americans didn't even care about space until Russia flew Sputnik over their heads.
Boomers and Silents (and, to a lesser and understandable extent re: Challenger, Gen X) should be ashamed, though.
I get harangued every time I point the finger, but for Pete's sake, Millennials didn't do this. Millennials wanted to go to Space Camp. It has to be SOMEONE'S fault. SOMEONE take responsibility.
China also does this. We just don't hear about it because they also quash the reporting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment
No need to. Mars delivers:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/20/arts/who-owns-this-chunk-...
I think the Trump admin decided since it will not make them a profit, like other scientific research already canceled, it is not worth doing.
It was supposed to launch in 2018, then was pushed to the early 2020s on a Russian rocket. For obvious reasons, it got pushed again, now launching in 2028.
The state of the world isn't great for space exploration, but I'm hopeful this mission will be revived at some point in the future.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin_(rover)
[1] https://spacestatsonline.com/launches/beo
With the price of launches so low compared to only 20 years ago due to advancements in launch technology and the increased cadence of launches it seems like it should be easier to do these kinds of missions and that there should be more, cheaper missions that are willing to take risks because the per mission cost is so much lower.
Can you comment on why that doesn't seem to be happening? Why aren't we covering Mars in cheap rovers and satellites?
Seems that the reduced cost is being taken advantage of. And, make sure to exclude the drastic reduction in non-lunar launches in your cost comparison for lunar launches.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#2...
In space everything is an orbital change. To change orbits you need to speed up and slow down, all of that requires fuel. Even using what are known as "low energy" trajectories that use a bunch of gravitational slingshots need velocity changes to adjust trajectories to get the right angle of approach to some large body.
Most commercial launch services focus on LEO because the secondary stages don't need to carry much fuel and their engines only need to fire reliably once to get into a stable orbit.
A planetary transfer requires multiple engine firings. That's much harder than a single reliable firing. It's not impossible but the testing and engineering is expensive.
A science mission often needs to beg, borrow, and steal to get built. There's one shot to accomplish the mission objectives. That's more expensive engineering and testing. Some mission profiles require specific planetary alignments with very narrow launch windows to boot. So there's a lot of expensive work made more expensive by a tight deadline.
The actual marginal cost of the rocket, fuel, and launch is a very small part of the mission cost. Halving the launch price doesn't necessarily affect the cost of anything else.
Starlink satellites are effectively disposable. If a Falcon 9 explodes or fails to get the second stage to orbit they're out maybe a few tens of millions of dollars. If a science mission has some mission-killing failure there's no funding for a do-over.
* Storing all the samples onboard means a larger and heavier rover
* Mass budget squeeze means no more helicopter
* The return requires a ground launch from mars, so no more SkyCrane delivery system
Who are these "powers that be"? And do they have an infinite credit card? Could they really just do whatever they want and for some reason they choose not to?
USA has two goddamn robots on Mars. And multiple others orbiting the planet itself. And also a couple that have left our solar system.
The "powers that be" chose to lose a completely optional and ill-conceived war on your dime. Instead of science or helping people they decided to spend money blowing up schoolgirls.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvCgC1yA7_w
Mars has a little bit less gravity than Earth
How big would a rocket need to be even to send a small payload (let's think 20kg/45lb) even suborbitally so that it can be caught by another spaceship
Now check how big a rocket has to be to send all of that from Earth
You'd probably have to send this on Starship. And refuel it while on orbit
It would jeopardize important national security projects like the White House Ballroom, the Triumphal Arch, the Garden of Heroes and National Golf Course, and of course the Donald J. Trump Center for The Performing Arts (formerly The Memorial To That Loser That Got Assassinated.)
What makes you think the poster you responded to agrees with the Iran war expense? He simply commented on how difficult it is to cut anything from the Federal budget. He's right. Remember when all the lunatics were out keying Teslas a few short months ago?