Musk-Trump feud - will China get to Mars 1st?

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs

A vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programs

www.scientificamerican.com

It was probably inevitable that Narcissistic Alpha males on the level of the US president and the world's richest man were going to fall out at some point. To be honest I do not really care about Tesla or the American budget. But there is one area where this feud really matters.

I wonder if the fact that NASA funding for a Mars trip now depends on a Trump, determined to punish Musk, means that the Mars program will be set back a decade - this would effectively hand victory to China. I say this because the success of this program depends on the involvement of SpaceX which Trump is probably now going to boycott. NASAs own program is mired in bureaucracy and cost overruns and maybe now budget cuts and a lack of political will. Blue Origin and Boeing do not have the ambition, culture, or background for Mars right now but SpaceX does. Without SpaceX and Musk's involvement, this is probably not going to happen on Trump's watch.

If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs

A vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programs

www.scientificamerican.com

It was probably inevitable that Narcissistic Alpha males on the level of the US president and the world's richest man were going to fall out at some point. To be honest I do not really care about Tesla or the American budget. But there is one area where this feud really matters.

I wonder if the fact that NASA funding for a Mars trip now depends on a Trump, determined to punish Musk, means that the Mars program will be set back a decade - this would effectively hand victory to China. I say this because the success of this program depends on the involvement of SpaceX which Trump is probably now going to boycott. NASAs own program is mired in bureaucracy and cost overruns and maybe now budget cuts and a lack of political will. Blue Origin and Boeing do not have the ambition, culture, or background for Mars right now but SpaceX does. Without SpaceX and Musk's involvement, this is probably not going to happen on Trump's watch.

If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

There is no NASA funding for a Mars trip. A Mars trip is, as it has been, under slow development and at least a decade off, regardless of the contractor providing the rocket.

durangodawood · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

China will almost certainly have demonstrated both economic and technological superiority well before anyone lands a manned mission on Mars.

They are on the ascent and they have the numbers - while the US disinvests in science and education, and shuts out the cream of foreign talent that we rely on to fill that gap.

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
There is no NASA funding for a Mars trip. A Mars trip is, as it has been, under slow development and at least a decade off, regardless of the contractor providing the rocket.

The only part of the NASA budget that rose last month, before this playground dispute began, was for human space flight to the moon and Mars.

NASA's FY 2026 Budget Request has been Released

It's official. NASA's Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request (FY 2026) has been released, and the news is decidedly mixed. In a previous article, we examined the FY 2026 Budget Request (released on May 2nd) and its recommendations for the coming year. With the release of the FY 2026...

www.universetoday.com

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

durangodawood said:
China will almost certainly have demonstrated both economic and technological superiority well before anyone lands a manned mission on Mars.

They are on the ascent and they have the numbers - while the US disinvests in science and education, and shuts out the cream of foreign talent that we rely on to fill that gap.

SpaceX has the edge on anything China can produce in a reasonable time frame. Removing SpaceX from the equation now, and cutting access to foreign talent, is a double whammy that America might never recover from.

Theoretically, SpaceX could do this from its own resources assuming that Musk's other companies are not on the brink of bankruptcy and that Starship can work through its teething pains, but it would be slower without national resources.

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The only part of the NASA budget that rose last month, before this playground dispute began, was for human space flight to the moon and Mars.

NASA's FY 2026 Budget Request has been Released

It's official. NASA's Fiscal Year 2026 Discretionary Budget Request (FY 2026) has been released, and the news is decidedly mixed. In a previous article, we examined the FY 2026 Budget Request (released on May 2nd) and its recommendations for the coming year. With the release of the FY 2026...

www.universetoday.com

The small part that is the planning budget. The actual cost of going to Mars (what is it, $50-100 B) is not in the budget. The rest of the budget trashes NASA science and must be passed by Congress anyway.

As for the timeline, the 2030 date for China may be possible, but I don't know the status of their program. Certainly no American mission is going to Mars before 2030. We simply do not have the craft that could even make the journey.

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
The small part that is the planning budget. The actual cost of going to Mars (what is it, $50-100 B) is not in the budget. The rest of the budget trashes NASA science and must be passed by Congress anyway.

As for the timeline, the 2030 date for China may be possible, but I don't know the status of their program. Certainly no American mission is going to Mars before 2030. We simply do not have the craft that could even make the journey.

The $8 bn a year allocated to the Moon and Mars helps construct a vehicle and transportation mechanism that could work for both destinations. By 2030 that is a spend of $40Bn, just NASA. Add in SpaceX private funding (Musk could sell Tesla to fund this if necessary) and your money problem is already solved.

The Musk goal is to send uncrewed Starships to Mars end 2026. This assumes Starship resolves its issues. - this is not an unrealistic expectation. Some of the science cut from NASA's budget is stuff with real-world impacts but a lot of it can simply wait for sympathetic sponsors later on or indeed American science can read in on ESA or Chinese missions - a little embarrassing but not the end of the world. I would prefer no cuts at all and a simple boost to allow for human spaceflight but that is not the world we live in right now.

The political risk of sabotaging the Mars mission is more important for America's future than the science cuts.

chevyontheriver · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs

A vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programs

www.scientificamerican.com

It was probably inevitable that Narcissistic Alpha males on the level of the US president and the world's richest man were going to fall out at some point. To be honest I do not really care about Tesla or the American budget. But there is one area where this feud really matters.

I wonder if the fact that NASA funding for a Mars trip now depends on a Trump, determined to punish Musk, means that the Mars program will be set back a decade - this would effectively hand victory to China. I say this because the success of this program depends on the involvement of SpaceX which Trump is probably now going to boycott. NASAs own program is mired in bureaucracy and cost overruns and maybe now budget cuts and a lack of political will. Blue Origin and Boeing do not have the ambition, culture, or background for Mars right now but SpaceX does. Without SpaceX and Musk's involvement, this is probably not going to happen on Trump's watch.

If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

There is a fairly large technical problem before there is any manned mission to Mars, at least a manned mission where the folks survive. And that is protection from solar and cosmic radiation. On the journey and once arrived. The folks could arrive semi-crisp and be even crisper in three years. China would be seen as the imperial hegemon that sends folks on a death mission just to plant their flag on new territory. Not a good look. There are strategies for minimizing radiation, such as water walls and other barriers, or artificial protective electromagnetic fields, but they need to be solved practically before sending humans.

durangodawood · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
...The political risk of sabotaging the Mars mission is more important for America's future than the science cuts.

Is your main concern the damage to the USA image if someone else does it first? Or is there some other really important reason why America needs to be there?

More generally, why should anyone be walking on Mars?

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The $8 bn a year allocated to the Moon and Mars helps construct a vehicle and transportation mechanism that could work for both destinations. By 2030 that is a spend of $40Bn, just NASA.

And it has done very little planning for a Mars mission. What they have so far is a plan to go to the Moon a few times.

mindlight said:
Add in SpaceX private funding (Musk could sell Tesla to fund this if necessary) and your money problem is already solved.

Musk isn't going to spend his own money. He is spending other people's money for his "starship" program.

mindlight said:
The Musk goal is to send uncrewed Starships to Mars end 2026. This assumes Starship resolves its issues. - this is not an unrealistic expectation.

It is utterly unrealistic. At the pace "Starship" is progressing, it might be surprising if Starship successfully orbits the Earth by the end of 2026. Musk is well known vaporware salesman and we are well past the initial "manned landing on Mars" claims from him.

mindlight said:
Some of the science cut from NASA's budget is stuff with real-world impacts but a lot of it can simply wait for sympathetic sponsors later on. I would prefer no cuts at all and a simple boost to allow for human spaceflight but that is not the world we live in right now.

That's not how it works. The disruption will make it hard for any programs to restart after a few years "pause" and it will be costly. Much work will be lost.

mindlight said:
The political risk of sabotaging the Mars mission is more important for America's future than the science cuts.

Frankly, you have that backward there is not real "Mars mission" plan yet to sabotage. The science cuts are a gutting of NASA's science missions.

essentialsaltes · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
To be honest I do not really care about Tesla or the American budget. But there is one area where this feud really matters.

As excited as I am about the space program, the issue of Mars pales in comparison to the significance of the overall budget, IMO.

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

essentialsaltes said:
As excited as I am about the space program, the issue of Mars pales in comparison to the significance of the overall budget, IMO.

I guess for an American the budget matters - you are running an unsustainable and ruinous deficit that Trump's policies will only make worse. But there is only one first manned mission to Mars. After that, no one remembers the also-rans. You could recover your finances as you did after the war under more responsible leadership, but the loss of reputation to China would mark a sea-change in world opinion that I doubt you could recover from. This is about global hegemony and a Mars trip is a relatively cheap way to secure American dominance. The choice is the USA or China. I still cannot believe that America's future rides on the egos of two school kids who cannot play together.

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

chevyontheriver said:
There is a fairly large technical problem before there is any manned mission to Mars, at least a manned mission where the folks survive. And that is protection from solar and cosmic radiation. On the journey and once arrived. The folks could arrive semi-crisp and be even crisper in three years. China would be seen as the imperial hegemon that sends folks on a death mission just to plant their flag on new territory. Not a good look. There are strategies for minimizing radiation, such as water walls and other barriers, or artificial protective electromagnetic fields, but they need to be solved practically before sending humans.

As you listed there are already solutions for all these problems and there have been for years and years because of the research done on the IIS and indeed reflections on the Apollo missions. Yes, these need to be integrated but the view that snail-paced NASA speeds over the last five decades are the model is an assumption. Apollo occurred so fast because it was a political race. The same situation now exists with China but with the added advantage of SpaceX's lead on launch systems and the fact that most of the research has already been done.

wing2000 · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

If China wants to pore it's resources on reaching Mars.....have at it. The US has more pressing prioirties IMO.

Hoping2 · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space Programs

A vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programs

www.scientificamerican.com

It was probably inevitable that Narcissistic Alpha males on the level of the US president and the world's richest man were going to fall out at some point. To be honest I do not really care about Tesla or the American budget. But there is one area where this feud really matters.

I wonder if the fact that NASA funding for a Mars trip now depends on a Trump, determined to punish Musk, means that the Mars program will be set back a decade - this would effectively hand victory to China. I say this because the success of this program depends on the involvement of SpaceX which Trump is probably now going to boycott. NASAs own program is mired in bureaucracy and cost overruns and maybe now budget cuts and a lack of political will. Blue Origin and Boeing do not have the ambition, culture, or background for Mars right now but SpaceX does. Without SpaceX and Musk's involvement, this is probably not going to happen on Trump's watch.

If China gets to Mars first then they will rightfully be able to claim that they have not only surpassed the USA economically but also technologically. It is a message the whole world would read as the end of US hegemony.

As Mars is already red, I say let the PRC have it !

mindlight · Jun 8, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
And it has done very little planning for a Mars mission. What they have so far is a plan to go to the Moon a few times.

Musk isn't going to spend his own money. He is spending other people's money for his "starship" program.

It is utterly unrealistic. At the pace "Starship" is progressing, it might be surprising if Starship successfully orbits the Earth by the end of 2026. Musk is well known vaporware salesman and we are well past the initial "manned landing on Mars" claims from him.

That's not how it works. The disruption will make it hard for any programs to restart after a few years "pause" and it will be costly. Much work will be lost.

Frankly, you have that backward there is not real "Mars mission" plan yet to sabotage. The science cuts are a gutting of NASA's science missions.

The real value of Musk being in the Trump administration was that SpaceX was going to be the driver of the NASA manned mission program. Thus budget, speed, and reusability options were all likely to be significantly improved in any joint NASA/SpaceX project making previous estimates redundant. Without SpaceX's involvement, NASA is just another bloated bureaucracy in need of cuts supported by companies with no urgency about timetables, no previous focus on or planning for Mars, and a considerable amount of experience in inflating costs as far as possible. The expertise of NASA employees is a sad waste but many of these will find jobs in Europe, some in the US private sector space industry maybe even some in China.

As usual, you are excessively pessimistic about the SpaceX development schedule.

Gutting missions to investigate planets that we will not have the technology to visit for centuries makes more sense to me than ending projects that are already paid for and are just about to release results. Investigating dark matter and energy is a project that can also be done here on Earth in CERN or Hamburg's ~~DAISY~~ DESY. America might not be driving it anymore but the free world still has its scientists at work on that as do the Chinese who may even share some of their results. Just because Americans are not doing the science does not mean the science is not being done. Remote cosmology or searching sterile planets for life because of an unscientific ideological commitment to abiogenesis does not give street cred in the way that manned space missions do. It is abstracted from the Real Politik world that so many scientists seem so blind to.

The prestige project that will earn the world's applause and interest is the Mars mission. Trump was right to identify this as the priority but his feud with Musk could lead to results that are contrary to America's national interest.

EDIT: DESY not DAISY

Hans Blaster · Jun 8, 2025

mindlight said:
The real value of Musk being in the Trump administration was that SpaceX was going to be the driver of the NASA manned mission program.

That's weird. Trump set Musk out to destroy and disrupt government agencies. Nothing about "space" in his brief period as a "special government employee".

mindlight said:
Thus budget, speed, and reusability options were all likely to be significantly improved in any joint NASA/SpaceX project making previous estimates redundant.

SpaceX is a NASA contractor. That was always available to NASA through the various design/build/deliver contracts, just like with the Dragon capsule and services.

mindlight said:
Without SpaceX's involvement, NASA is just another bloated bureaucracy in need of cuts supported by companies with no urgency about timetables, no previous focus on or planning for Mars, and a considerable amount of experience in inflating costs as far as possible.

mindlight said:
The expertise of NASA employees is a sad waste but many of these will find jobs in Europe, some in the US private sector space industry maybe even some in China.

It isn't even all in "space industry" that is being planned for cuts. Most of it is in science.

mindlight said:
As usual, you are excessively pessimistic about the SpaceX development schedule.

SpaceX, especially Musk, has put forward schedules that the do not meet and cannot meet.

Here is one 6-year plan for sending a rocket to Mars from a 7-year-old article:

Elon Musk says SpaceX is on track to launch people to Mars within 6 years — here's the full timeline of his plans to populate the red planet

What Musk lacks is credibility. If he ever had any, it went away a few years ago.

mindlight said:
Gutting missions to investigate planets that we will not have the technology to visit for centuries makes more sense to me than ending projects that are already paid for and are just about to release results.

Are you talking about future space astronomy missions? Those take years to plan and design.

mindlight said:
Investigating dark matter and energy is a project that can also be done here on Earth in CERN or Hamburg's DAISY.

1. It's DESY (Deutsches Electronen-SYnchrotron)
2. Most work on particle dark matter is done deep underground and the US (via DOE) is involved in those.
3. The work NASA does on dark energy and dark matter is astronomical not in particle physics labs, primarily through space observatories and funding theorists and observers.

mindlight said:
America might not be driving it anymore but the free world still has its scientists at work on that as do the Chinese who may even share some of their results. Just because Americans are not doing the science does not mean the science is not being done.

There will be less of it. Other nations will not spend enough extra to cover the massive deficit in total global science spending cause by a drastic reduction in US funding.

mindlight said:
Remote cosmology or searching sterile planets for life because of an unscientific ideological commitment to abiogenesis does not give street cred in the way that manned space missions do.

"unscientific ideological commitment" Piffle. Do you actually support science? I'm beginning think you don't.

mindlight said:
It is abstracted from the Real Politik world that so many scientists seem so blind to.

Now with the insults and condescension? Sigh.

mindlight said:
The prestige project that will earn the world's applause and interest is the Mars mission. Trump was right to identify this as the priority but his feud with Musk could lead to results that are contrary to America's national interest.

SMH.

mindlight · Jun 9, 2025

durangodawood said:
Is your main concern the damage to the USA image if someone else does it first? Or is there some other really important reason why America needs to be there?

More generally, why should anyone be walking on Mars?

The main reason is political optics at a time when Trump is doing his best to shoot America's international image in the foot. A successful Mars bid would undo a lot of this damage, is relatively cheap by comparison to the alternatives and is something that no other country would be able to take away from the USA. The Russians did not bother with manned missions to the moon after the USA did it and the whole world celebrated American leadership after Apollo. Similarly, even if the Chinese develop better space technologies for Mars the fact that the USA got there first would be something that China could never say. This could add another fifty years to American hegemony.

In the long run, Mars is a large potential source of rare earths that can be mined without the environmental risks of doing the same on Earth. People go to another planet for the same reason they climb Everest or visit the South Pole or the depths of the Marinas trench - because it is there and we can.

mindlight · Jun 9, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
That's weird. Trump set Musk out to destroy and disrupt government agencies. Nothing about "space" in his brief period as a "special government employee".

He set out to reduce costs and indeed that is the whole purpose of the DOGE. He did not want to see any extra spending or tax cuts unless they were supported by efficiencies or growth. He is right that Trump's bill magnifies the deficit and puts America's financial credibility in jeopardy. But that is your problem, not mine. The value of Musk to me in the Trump administration was the space program and the impacts that would have on American credibility. The global choice is between the USA and China and it seems that Trump is doing everything he can to ensure that the rest of us choose China. However China does not respect human freedoms and oppresses Christians, so it is not the right choice.

Hans Blaster said:
"unscientific ideological commitment" Piffle. Do you actually support science? I'm beginning think you don't.

Abiogenesis is an ideological position unsupported by the scientific method. We have already tested the rocks and Mars is sterile. We know what Venus is like vis a vis lava, sulphuric acid, temperature and surface pressure - there is no life there. Cutting science that is not real science and remote cosmology projects that will yield no tangible improvements to mankind for centuries is unproblematic at a time of fiscal austerity.

mindlight · Jun 9, 2025

Hoping2 said:
As Mars is already red, I say let the PRC have it !

At dawn, the sky is blue on Mars though iron oxide gives the land a reddish color. Isn't red the Republican color - or do they want to give the glory to the Democrats?

Musk-Trump feud - will China get to Mars 1st?

See in the dark

Hood was a loser.

re Member

See in the dark

See in the dark

Hood was a loser.

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

re Member

Hood was a loser.

Fact-Based Lifeform

See in the dark

See in the dark

E pluribus unum

Well-Known Member

See in the dark

Hood was a loser.

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Similar threads