The Role of the Commercial Space Federation

The Commercial Space Federation (CSF) serves as a voice for the U.S. commercial space industry in Washington, D.C., representing more than 85 member organizations that span sectors from launch providers to space situational awareness companies. As a consensus-driven trade association, CSF advocates for policies that support a competitive and innovative commercial space ecosystem.

Its mission centers on encouraging the U.S. government to integrate commercial space solutions wherever feasible—urging civil, defense, and intelligence agencies to buy from domestic space companies instead of building duplicative in-house systems. This advocacy is aimed not only at maintaining U.S. space leadership but also at fostering a resilient industrial base and supporting economic and national security.

CSF’s reach extends from Capitol Hill to federal agencies, where it often contributes expert advice on space policy and regulation. CSF President Dave Cavossa regularly testifies before Congressional committees, and the organization plays a key role in developing federal legislation, providing comments on rulemakings, and participating in advisory panels.

CSF’s Expanding Council Structure

To advance specific areas of the commercial space economy, CSF operates a series of specialized councils:

• Launch and Reentry – Focused on FAA regulatory streamlining and leadership in orbital access.
• Commercial Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) – Supporting the transition to a commercially sustained LEO ecosystem.
• Space Exploration – Advocating for integration of commercial players in civil and deep-space missions.
• Spaceports and Infrastructure – Addressing infrastructure gaps and spaceport development policy.
• Remote Sensing and Analytics – Aiming to expand Earth observation data use and improve licensing.
• Satellite and SSA – Targeting orbital debris policy, traffic management, and spectrum concerns.

Each council provides a forum to develop policy recommendations, coordinate responses to federal actions, and highlight member concerns to lawmakers and regulators.

Introducing the Space Supply Chain Council (S2C2)

On June 3, 2025, CSF announced the formation of a new industry council: the Space Supply Chain Council (S2C2). This move comes amid shifting trade policies and mounting concerns over industrial base stability, particularly in the face of increased geopolitical tension and rising demand for space infrastructure.

According to CSF, the S2C2 will “define industry sector priorities, recommend policy positions, and provide updates on specific topics that impact CSF members.” It brings together component manufacturers, assembly and integration firms, software providers, and logistics companies—groups that play a vital but often underrepresented role in enabling space missions.

In a press release announcing the council, Dave Cavossa emphasized the importance of such representation:

“We look forward to working alongside the Administration, Congress, and government agencies to support evolving trade policy initiatives, while simultaneously representing the interests of the providers so vital to the U.S commercial space economy.”

Industry Participation and Priorities

The S2C2 launched with participation from several key players:

• Applied Aerospace, which designs and manufactures precision structures and subsystems for spacecraft, launch vehicles, and communications platforms.
• Stratasys, a leader in additive manufacturing, offering 3D printing solutions widely used in aerospace and defense.
• National Air Cargo, a global logistics company whose airline division operates a fleet of wide-body freighters and passenger aircraft to support space and defense operations.

Together, these members represent different but interconnected segments of the supply chain. Their inclusion reflects the council’s aim to identify systemic bottlenecks, align with federal industrial policy, and improve resilience across the sector.

By broadening CSF’s council structure to include supply chain stakeholders, the organization is acknowledging that launch vehicles and satellites depend on a complex web of suppliers—many of which face increasing regulatory, trade, and manufacturing pressures.

Looking Ahead: Trade Policy, Industrial Base, and Growth

The launch of S2C2 comes at a time when U.S. policy on space and trade is in flux. Changes under the current administration, including shifts in export controls and industrial policy, have prompted commercial space companies to reassess how they source critical components and maintain operational agility.

CSF has long argued that the government should send stable demand signals, use multi-year funding mechanisms, and rely more heavily on commercial procurement tools. These positions are especially relevant for supply chain companies, which often require long lead times and capital-intensive production cycles.

The S2C2 is expected to help shape CSF’s broader policy agenda on supply chain issues, such as:

• Identifying and mitigating single points of failure in domestic manufacturing
• Advocating for inclusion of space suppliers in government industrial base assessments
• Supporting the creation of programs to scale up next-generation manufacturing techniques
• Ensuring trade policies do not unintentionally restrict access to commercial space markets

Final Thoughts

The formation of the Space Supply Chain Council marks a strategic expansion of the Commercial Space Federation’s efforts to support the full spectrum of the commercial space economy in America. By bringing supply chain voices to the table, CSF aims to build a more complete and coordinated advocacy platform—one that reflects the interdependence of manufacturers, transport providers, software developers, and integrators in delivering space systems.

As CSF continues to engage with lawmakers and agencies, the S2C2 will serve as a conduit for surfacing the needs of the industrial base that supports U.S. spaceflight. In doing so, it positions the commercial space sector to adapt to policy shifts, secure its infrastructure, and remain globally competitive.

• Just days before the Senate was expected to vote on Jared Isaacman’s nomination to lead NASA, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the nomination, citing “a thorough review of prior associations.”
• Concerns reportedly surfaced over Isaacman’s ties to Elon Musk, who left the administration earlier this week.
• Isaacman responded to the withdrawal on X: “I have not flown my last mission—whatever form that may ultimately take–but I remain incredibly optimistic that humanity’s greatest spacefaring days lie ahead. I’ll always be grateful for this opportunity and cheering on our President and NASA as they lead us on the greatest adventure in human history”

Just days before the Senate was expected to vote on Jared Isaacman’s nomination to lead NASA, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the nomination, citing “a thorough review of prior associations.”

Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and commercial astronaut, had advanced through the Senate Commerce Committee in April and was on track for a confirmation vote next week. The White House confirmed the decision to pull the nomination on Saturday. Trump posted on Truth Social: “After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA. I will soon announce a new Nominee who will be Mission aligned, and put America First in Space.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston emphasized the administration’s priorities: “The Administrator of NASA will help lead humanity into space and execute President Trump’s bold mission of planting the American flag on the planet Mars. It’s essential that the next leader of NASA is in complete alignment with President Trump’s America First agenda.”

Concerns reportedly surfaced over Isaacman’s ties to Elon Musk, who left the administration earlier this week. Conservative commentator Laura Loomer raised the issue publicly, and Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) voiced strong opposition to the nomination being derailed. During his committee hearing, Isaacman distanced himself from Musk’s views, pledging support for NASA’s lunar landing plans, which Musk has previously called a “distraction.”

Isaacman responded to the withdrawal on X, stating: “I am incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. […] The President, NASA and the American people deserve the very best — an Administrator ready to reorganize, rebuild and rally the best and brightest minds to deliver the world-changing headlines NASA was built to create.”

NASA has been without a Senate-confirmed administrator since Bill Nelson stepped down in January. Trump’s replacement nominee is expected soon.

The defence architecture’s ultimate goal: to counter increasingly sophisticated missile threats from adversaries and emerging technologies like hypersonic glide vehicles. With a recently proposed price tag of $175 billion and strong backing from U.S. defense contractors, the Golden Dome raises critical questions about feasibility, legality, strategic stability, and commercial consequences for the global space sector.

Origins: From “Star Wars” to the Golden Dome

The Golden Dome draws direct inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome, a proven but much smaller system designed to intercept short-range threats. Trump’s plan, however, is orders of magnitude larger, seeking to defend the entire continental U.S. and potentially Canada from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), hypersonic weapons, and even space-launched attacks.

The concept also revives elements of Ronald Reagan’s 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars,” which envisioned orbital lasers and interceptors. SDI failed to materialize due to technological and budgetary hurdles. Trump’s proposal builds on that legacy but goes further by integrating next-generation technologies across domains. According to the Department of Defense, the Golden Dome will connect space-based interceptors with ground-based missile defense systems, Aegis ships, NORAD, and U.S. Space Command, creating a cohesive detection and engagement network.

“This system will be capable of intercepting missiles launched from the other side of the world—even if they’re launched from space,” Trump stated during a May 20 announcement in the Oval Office.

Technical Blueprint: Multi-Layered, Space-Driven Defense

The Golden Dome’s architecture is designed around four defensive layers:

• Pre-launch disruption: Targeting enemy capabilities before a missile fires.
• Boost-phase interception: Destroying missiles in their vulnerable early ascent.
• Midcourse interception: Engaging missiles in space, during their flight.
• Terminal-phase defense: Final attempts to intercept missiles as they near their targets.

Trump’s plan would place a constellation of satellites equipped with advanced sensors and interceptors in low-Earth orbit. These satellites would detect, track, and potentially destroy incoming missiles, supplementing existing ground- and sea-based defenses.

The Department of Defense has tasked Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chief of space operations, to lead the project, with the U.S. Space Force playing a central role. He emphasized the growing challenge posed by modern missile systems, including hypersonic glide vehicles, multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), and space-based threats. “Our adversaries are building space weapons,” Guetlein warned, citing China’s 2021 test of a hypersonic missile with orbital capabilities and Russia’s reported nuclear space-based weapon.

Budget, Timeline, and Feasibility

Trump estimates the Golden Dome will cost $175 billion and be operational within three years. Despite this ambitious goal, many experts argue that a three-year construction timeline is implausible. Furthermore, estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggest the project could take up to 20 years and cost between $161 billion and $542 billion over two decades, depending on the number of space-based interceptors deployed and given the unprecedented technical challenges and the need for sustained, bipartisan funding.

“We are talking something very futuristic, massively expensive, and something that has never been done in terms of just the sheer size and the technical expertise that would be involved in such a system,” said former Canadian defence minister Peter MacKay.

Strategic Implications: Destabilization or Deterrence?

Critics warn that deploying weapons in space could upend existing norms and trigger an arms race. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit, though it does not explicitly ban all forms of weaponization. The Secure World Foundation’s Victoria Samson called the initiative “a Pandora’s box,” pointing to the risk that adversaries might escalate by placing their own offensive systems in orbit or developing anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities.

“Nobody’s supposed to be weaponizing space,” said Alistair Edgar, a political science professor at Wilfrid Laurier University. “Some people are sneaking things up there, and we condemn them when they do.”

Geopolitical Dynamics: Reactions from China and Russia

Russia and China have issued a joint statement condemning the Golden Dome as “deeply destabilizing,” warning it could provoke countermeasures and reduce the effectiveness of “mutually assured destruction,” a longstanding nuclear deterrent doctrine.  China’s foreign ministry stated the plan carries “strong offensive implications” and increases the risks of militarizing outer space. Russia has suggested the project could force new nuclear arms control talks with Washington.

Industry Implications: Commercial Space Sector Impact

For the commercial space sector, Golden Dome could unlock significant contracts and research opportunities. Early contenders for system components include SpaceX, Palantir, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, RTX Corp, and Anduril. L3Harris CFO Ken Bedingfield told Reuters, “We knew that this day was likely going to come. You know, we’re ready for it.”

While early development may rely on existing production lines, further progress will demand new systems: low-Earth orbit sensor networks, real-time command and control platforms, and high-agility interceptors. Startups and legacy contractors alike could benefit, provided they align with evolving Department of Defense procurement models.

However, potential commercial partners should bear in mind that budget uncertainty remains a constraint. The Trump administration’s proposed $25 billion “down payment” is embedded in a broader $150 billion defense authorization and spending package currently under debate in the U.S. Congress. Sustaining momentum across multiple administrations will likely require bipartisan support—something not guaranteed in today’s polarized political climate.

A Strategic Gamble with Potential Industry Upside

The Golden Dome is technically ambitious and strategically controversial. It proposes a space-integrated missile shield that could protect against an evolving threat landscape but at the risk of igniting a new era of great-power competition in orbit.

For the commercial space industry, the initiative could usher in a new wave of government investment, R&D contracts, and technology commercialization. But the path ahead is uncertain—technically complex, diplomatically fraught, and politically volatile.

As industry leaders position themselves for potential participation, stakeholders must balance security imperatives with long-term risks. The Golden Dome may define the next decade of space defense—whether by its success, its failure, or the global response it provokes.

Image credit: Lockheed Martin

The Space Insider Market Intelligence Platform provides a continuously updated analysis of this rapidly evolving sector. Our latest China Space Industry Market Map identifies 270 key players, tracks emerging technologies, and outlines investment opportunities, providing an in-depth view of the market’s trajectory. We have also published a comprehensive report, China’s Space Industry: A Strategic Overview, offering a high-level view of China’s space ambitions, technical capacity, and commercial activity—including launch, satellite manufacturing, and investment trends.

While the full report is only available on the Space Insider Market Intelligence Platform, we’re offering free access to a preview of the report, including the China Space Industry Market Map! Get Instant Access Now: Click Here

Contact the Space Insider Team to inquire about accessing the full report.

Mapping China’s Space Ecosystem: Structure, Segments, and Strategic Focus

China’s space sector is organized around a vertically integrated model anchored by state-owned giants and increasingly populated by commercial firms with targeted capabilities. Our team has provided a comprehensive market map based on the Space Insider Market Intelligence Platform that tracks over 500 active entities, spanning upstream, midstream, and downstream segments, as well as research institutions and state regulators​. While the market map that lists 270 key players is detailed, it is not exhaustive – if you notice an entity that should be included, please contact the Space Insider Team!

Upstream: Space Infrastructure & Development

This segment includes launch vehicle manufacturers, satellite builders, propulsion developers, and subsystems providers. It is dominated by state institutions but is increasingly including private firms. These entities provide the physical backbone of China’s space capability — from rockets and satellites to propulsion systems and payload electronics.

Midstream: Operations & Mission Services

Midstream actors manage satellite constellations, mission planning, ground control systems, and secure data relay. This segment bridges technical deployment with commercial utility, often blending civil and defense functions under a unified operational command structure.

Downstream: Space-Enabled Applications

China’s downstream space market spans EO data analytics, satellite internet, smart city integration, and agricultural monitoring. It includes public-private hybrids and pure commercial firms that use satellite data to power AI-based decision platforms for logistics, urban planning, and environmental surveillance.

Institutional & Research Layer

Underpinning all segments is a dense network of academic institutions, national laboratories, and funding bodies. These entities contribute to satellite design, materials science, and communications R&D. They often spin-off or license tech to commercial players, ensuring scientific advancement remains tied to national capability development.

Launch Capabilities: Anchored in State Players, Pushed Forward by Private Firms

At the core of China’s launch infrastructure are two state-backed giants: the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) and the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST). These institutions have launched over 1,200 satellites since the 1970s and collectively dominate the Long March rocket family portfolio. 

The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT)

CALT, a subsidiary of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), has delivered over 628 satellite launches since 1970. Its portfolio includes the Long March series, ranging from early hypergolic models to heavy-lift cryogenic variants like Long March 5, and the upcoming 150-tonne-capacity Long March 9 planned for 2033​.

The Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST)

SAST, another CASC subsidiary, is responsible for mid-lift launch systems like the Long March 2D, 4B, and 6A. SAST has launched 626 satellites to date and plays a critical role in medium-payload delivery to LEO and SSO orbits​.

Complementing these legacy players are rising private firms including:

LandSpace

In 2023, LandSpace became the first company worldwide to launch a methane-fueled rocket (Zhuque-2) to orbit. It is developing a reusable stainless-steel rocket, Zhuque-3, with vertical takeoff and landing (VTVL) capabilities​.

Space Pioneer (Beijing Tianbing Technology)

Achieved China’s first successful maiden launch of a liquid-fueled rocket by a private company in 2023. Its Tianlong-3 aims to compete in reusable medium-lift markets​.

Beijing Xingtu (Space Trek)

Specializes in rapid-response, solid-fueled small launchers for both civil and defense applications. Though not yet orbital, the company has laid a technical foundation with suborbital launches and aerospace computing services​.

These commercial entrants signal growing diversity in China’s launch service landscape, though all maintain close technical or financial links with state bodies.

Manufacturing Powerhouses: From State-Controlled to Agile Commercial Operators

China’s manufacturing capabilities are led by the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), which has built over 300 spacecraft and serves as the prime contractor for most government and military space programs. CAST provides complete end-to-end services—from design and testing to in-orbit commissioning—and retains ownership of select assets, including the Gaosu Jiguang Zuanshi constellation​.

Alongside CAST, several specialized manufacturers support the broader space ecosystem:

• Chang Guang Satellite Technology (CGSTL): Operator of the Jilin-1 constellation, CGSTL has launched 193 Earth observation satellites since 2015, making it China’s largest commercial satellite manufacturer by volume​.
• Shandong Aerospace Electronic Technology Institute (SISET): Focused on avionics and microelectronics, SISET supplies critical systems to the Beidou constellation and the Tiangong space station. It owns and operates its own satellite, Tianyan-15​.
• Xi’an Institute of Space Radio Technology (XISRT): A CAST subsidiary delivering over 300 space radio payloads for flagship missions such as Chang’e and Tianwen. Its work underpins China’s high-precision satellite comms and navigation architecture​.

SSST at the Forefront: China’s Top-Funded Commercial Space Firm

Among the commercial space firms tracked, SpaceSail (SSST) is the top-funded private company. Specializing in satellite manufacturing, remote sensing, and downstream EO data services, SSST has become a significant commercial actor in China’s Earth observation sector.

While not as globally visible as CGSTL or iSpace, SpaceSail’s investment profile and vertical integration strategy reflect a broader trend: commercial players absorbing government technology and capital to build semi-independent operations. The firm collaborates with both public institutions and private launch providers and is positioned to expand further into satellite analytics, AI-based monitoring, and maritime domain awareness solutions.

As of the latest tracked data, SpaceSail leads all commercial Chinese space firms in cumulative funding raised, benefiting from strong local government support, defense-linked contracts, and strategic integration with urban and environmental planning platforms.

Investment Activity and Market Trends: Capitalizing on State and Venture Support

Since 2020, Chinese commercial space companies have raised over $5 billion in funding, with financial support split between state-led industrial funds and private venture capital. This hybrid structure gives emerging firms access to capital while aligning them with national priorities such as broadband expansion, EO coverage, and strategic autonomy.

Key State-Linked Investment Vehicles

National Manufacturing Transformation and Upgrading Fund (NMTUF)

A central government initiative focused on advancing high-tech industrial capacity. In space, NMTUF has backed launch firms like LandSpace and infrastructure providers like Space Pioneer, often leading funding rounds to de-risk early-stage R&D.

China Aerospace Investment Holdings

A subsidiary of CASC that operates as a strategic investment platform. It funds companies aligned with China’s broader space roadmap, including Beijing Xingtu and other firms working on rapid-launch and communications capabilities.

China Central Television (CCTV) Fund

While not a traditional space fund, CCTV Fund supports high-profile, politically aligned innovation projects. It has invested in Space Pioneer, signaling an interest in shaping public narratives around Chinese commercial space progress.

CITIC Construction Investment and China International Capital Corporation (CICC)

Both are influential state-connected financial institutions with growing exposure to aerospace startups. Their involvement often marks the transition of a firm from experimental to market-ready, as seen in later rounds for Space Pioneer.

Notable Venture-Backed Firms:

Spacety

A leader in small satellite development and rideshare missions, Spacety operates at the intersection of EO and commercial launch demand. It also produces satellite platforms for third parties, including foreign clients.

LandSpace

With over $459 million raised, LandSpace focuses on reusable, methane-fueled rockets and is best known for Zhuque-2. It has drawn funding from Sequoia Capital China, Lightspeed China, and Matrix Partners, reflecting strong venture confidence in its propulsion R&D.

TsingShen

A newer entrant specializing in AI-enabled space applications, TsingShen works on integrating EO analytics and onboard AI processing. It has attracted funding from regional development funds and early-stage VC firms focused on deep tech.

Galactic Energy

A commercial launcher known for its Ceres-1 rocket, Galactic Energy has executed multiple successful launches and serves a growing domestic customer base. It benefits from institutional support and a leaner operational model than state-owned launchers.

Chang Guang Satellite Technology (CGSTL)

Though partially state-backed, CGSTL operates as a commercial entity. It has received investment from Matrix Partners China and Shenzhen Capital Group and has commercialized its Jilin-1 EO constellation for industries ranging from agriculture to disaster response.

This blend of policy-guided investment and competitive venture capital has created a semi-open innovation ecosystem — one that ensures alignment with national objectives while enabling technical differentiation and market-driven growth.

Final Thoughts: A Controlled but Competitive Market

China’s space sector remains largely state-driven, but private participation is growing, particularly in launch services and Earth observation. Commercial players often rely on state institutions for funding, regulatory approvals, and technical support, creating a hybrid model of market-based activity within a centralized framework. The model has proven capable of scaling both capability and access—domestically and globally.

For commercial space players worldwide, China’s space ecosystem represents both a source of potential collaboration and a competitive reference point in a shifting geopolitical landscape.

Access the Full Market Intelligence List and Report

This market map is just the beginning. We have also published a comprehensive report offering a high-level view of China’s space ambitions, technical capacity, and commercial activity—including launch, satellite manufacturing, and investment trends.

While the full report is only available on the Space Insider Market Intelligence Platform, we’re offering free access to a preview of the report, including the China Space Industry Market Map!

Get Instant Access Now: Click Here

Why Choose Space Insider?

While China’s space ecosystem is complex, it is fully navigable with the right data. The Space Insider Intelligence Platform empowers global space tech leaders, public agencies, and investors with structured, real-time visibility into more than 500 Chinese entities—spanning funding flows, strategic partnerships, and emerging technological capabilities. Whether evaluating market entry, mitigating investment risk, or benchmarking competitors, our AI-powered analytics and expert-led advisory services provide the clarity and foresight needed to lead with confidence.

Unlike static market reports, Space Insider delivers continuously updated insights sourced from over 100,000 data points, transforming fragmented information into decision-ready intelligence. Trusted by organizations such as NASA, ESA, and global quantum security leaders, we help industry stakeholders stay ahead in an increasingly strategic and fast-moving market.

Enquire now to access the full China Space Industry Report or to schedule a tailored strategic briefing with our team.

• The U.S. Congress is moving to create a standardized timekeeping system for the Moon to support coordination of missions and future infrastructure.
• The bipartisan Celestial Time Standardization Act, led by Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D., Va.), would direct NASA to establish a lunar time system traceable to UTC and scalable to Mars.
• The legislation highlights concerns about time discrepancies caused by lunar gravity and seeks to support Artemis-era space exploration by enabling accurate, resilient, and collaborative operations beyond Earth.

The U.S. Congress is set to decide on standardizing the telling time on the Moon.

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee advanced a bill last week that would require NASA to create a unified timekeeping system for the Moon and other celestial bodies, setting the stage for more coordinated space exploration and permanent infrastructure beyond Earth. It now moves on to a vote by the full House.

The bipartisan bill, called the Celestial Time Standardization Act, was introduced by Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D., Va.) and now heads to the full House for a vote. It directs NASA to establish a lunar time standard that would help synchronize missions and operations in space, especially as international agencies and private companies prepare to set up shop on the Moon.

“The differences between the standard of time used for space exploration today and time on other celestial bodies could make a critical difference when synchronizing between NASA, commercial entities and international partners as we explore Mars and beyond,” said Rep. McClellan in a statement. “To maintain U.S. leadership in this new era of space exploration, I will continue to advocate for a celestial time standard that will allow us to safely and precisely expand our knowledge of the known universe.”

Unlike Earth, the Moon has weaker gravity and no atmosphere, which causes time to pass at a slightly different rate, as noted by the BBC’s Sky At Night Magazine. That discrepancy, while small, can affect high-precision navigation, robotic systems, and scientific measurements. Currently, most space missions rely on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), which was designed for use on Earth. But as NASA pushes forward with the Artemis program to establish a sustained lunar presence, experts say the current system is no longer sufficient.

The bill gives NASA the lead role in developing what it calls a “coordinated lunar time,” with input from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation, and consultation with industry, academia, and international bodies.

The bill notes that a lunar time system should be traceable to UTC, accurate enough to support scientific research and navigation, resilient in the event of communication loss with Earth, and scalable for use on Mars and other celestial bodies in the future.

The measure builds on language from the 2024 NASA Reauthorization Act, which passed the House last year but stalled in the Senate. The Senate Commerce Committee has since reintroduced it as part of its own NASA Transition Authorization Act.

The legislation reflects a growing recognition that human presence in space is entering a new phase. With Artemis aiming to return astronauts to the Moon and eventually establish a base there, basic systems like timekeeping need to be rethought from the ground up.

A finalized lunar time standard could also lay the groundwork for rules, infrastructure, and commercial norms on the Moon, shaping how different entities operate there. Similar to how global time zones on Earth guide everything from flight schedules to stock market trades, lunar time could become a backbone for space-based logistics.

NASA is required to brief Congress on its strategy within two years of the bill becoming law.

• The White House’s FY2026 budget appears to be refocusing NASA’s efforts on beating China to the Moon and preparing for human Mars missions, while cutting or canceling several legacy programs.
• The plan phases out the SLS rocket and Orion capsule after three missions, cancels the Mars Sample Return mission, and eliminates the Gateway lunar station.
• Deep cuts are proposed across space science, Earth observation, space technology, ISS operations, and STEM programs to fund lunar and Martian priorities through commercial partnerships.

The Trump administration’s FY2026 budget proposes significant shifts NASA’s priorities, reallocating funding to lunar and Martian ambitions while canceling or reducing support for longstanding science, climate and exploration programs. The proposal pivots sharply to favor commercial partnerships and geopolitical urgency—especially with an eye toward competing with China.

According to the White House’s discretionary request, more than $7 billion would be directed toward human lunar missions and an additional $1 billion toward Mars-focused initiatives. But these gains come at a cost: the budget eliminates the Mars Sample Return mission, phases out the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft after only three flights, ends support for the Gateway lunar station, and scales back NASA’s investments in Earth science, climate monitoring, and the International Space Station (ISS).

China as The Lunar Benchmark

The administration’s stated goal is to return American astronauts to the Moon before China and to position the U.S. as the first nation to send humans to Mars. The White House describes the strategy as necessary for maintaining leadership in space, writing that it would invest in a future-focused strategy for space exploration while avoiding overruns associated with legacy systems.

China is aiming for its own crewed Moon landing before 2030. The Trump administration’s budget implies that beating China to the lunar surface is both a technological and symbolic imperative, one that justifies phasing out over-budget systems like SLS and Orion in favor of more agile commercial launch vehicles.

The Gateway lunar station, a planned international project, is also scrapped in the budget. Its elimination cuts off a collaboration that included modules already built and shipped from Italy, a move that signals a preference for speed and cost reduction.

SLS, Orion, and Gateway on the Chopping Block

NASA’s Artemis program — which relies on the heavy-lift SLS rocket and Orion crew capsule — is effectively sunsetted in this plan. Both vehicles will be used on three scheduled missions, but no further launches are planned. The budget points to the SLS’s $4 billion per-launch cost and notes that it is more than 140% over budget.

In place of these government-led systems, the White House proposes shifting to commercial launch providers for future crew and cargo missions to the Moon. The administration frames the move as both fiscally responsible and essential to maintaining momentum in the face of global competition.

The administration writes: “The Budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions. The
Budget also proposes to terminate the Gateway, a small lunar space station in development with international partners, which would have been used to support future SLS and Orion missions.”

Mars Sample Return Canceled, Future Missions Reimagined

The highly anticipated Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission is canceled in the proposal, with the administration citing severe cost overruns and delays that would push any returns into the 2030s. The White House instead argues that upcoming human missions to Mars will fulfill MSR’s scientific goals more effectively and efficiently.

The cancellation eliminates one of NASA’s flagship science missions, and reverses decades of planning. MSR was seen as a capstone to the agency’s robotic exploration of Mars and was a key international partnership effort with the European Space Agency.

Deep Cuts to Science, Tech, and Climate

Alongside program cancellations, the budget includes widespread cuts to NASA’s research and support programs:

• Space Science sees a $2.3 billion reduction, eliminating low-priority missions.
• Earth Science is cut by $1.16 billion, restructuring the Landsat Next program and ending development of several climate-monitoring satellites.
• Space Technology loses $531 million, with the elimination of failing propulsion projects and a reorientation toward near-term lunar tech.
• Mission Support, which includes NASA workforce operations and facilities, is trimmed by $1.13 billion.
• Aeronautics programs, especially those tied to green aviation and climate change, are cut by $346 million.
• STEM Education programs are reduced by $143 million, with the administration stating that the next generation will be inspired by bold missions rather than formal educational efforts.

The administration’s messaging frames these cuts as strategic realignments rather than neglect, arguing that funds are being redirected toward the most pressing opportunities in human exploration.

The American Astronomical Society, however, expressed “grave concerns” about the budgets effect on basic science, according to a statement.

They write: “If enacted, the 56% cut to the National Science Foundation, the 47% cut to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, and the 14% cut to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science would result in an historic decline of American investment in basic scientific research. These cuts would damage a broad range of research areas that will not be supported by the private sector.”

ISS Drawdown and the Commercial Future of Low Earth Orbit

The budget also proposes a $508 million reduction in funding for the International Space Station. Crew capacity and scientific research aboard the ISS will be scaled back as NASA prepares for a transition to privately operated space stations. The ISS is still on track for decommissioning by 2030, and the administration sees commercial providers stepping in to fill the void in low Earth orbit.

This mirrors a broader theme of the FY2026 budget: shifting NASA from operator to anchor customer, relying on a growing commercial space industry to deliver capabilities that were once exclusively government-run.

A Leaner, Faster NASA?

Overall, the FY2026 discretionary request outlines a smaller, more narrowly focused NASA. The agency will still pursue ambitious goals — chief among them a return to the Moon and a human landing on Mars — but with fewer legacy programs, reduced scientific breadth and an accelerated reliance on private sector collaboration.

It’s important to note that Congress will have the final say on whether to accept, reject, or modify these changes. But if adopted as proposed, the budget marks a defining pivot in the U.S. space program: away from institutional permanence, and toward geopolitical urgency and commercial speed.

• Slingshot Aerospace has opened a new office in Ottawa, Canada to spearhead Slingshot’s operations in Canada, including the deployment of optical sensors in the Canadian Arctic, a region critical for tracking satellites in sun-synchronous orbits.
• Site selection for sensors that will enhance the company’s space surveillance capabilities is underway.
• Slingshot is also establishing infrastructure to process and deliver data to Canadian operators and global partners in real-time.

Slingshot Aerospace, a leading provider of AI-powered solutions for satellite tracking and space traffic coordination, has announced the opening of its new office in Ottawa, Canada. This expansion highlights the company’s commitment to enhancing Canada’s sovereign space capabilities and contributing to collaboration within the space domain awareness (SDA) ecosystem.

The announcement took place at a live event held at the new Canadian headquarters in partnership with ONE9, a Canadian venture firm focused on national security innovation, and featured a demonstration of Slingshot’s AI-enabled tracking tools. This included the company’s real-time detection of a Chinese spacecraft in geostationary orbit, deploying a secondary object—a showcase of Slingshot’s advanced space event detection capabilities.

“Canada plays a vital role in the future of global space security,” said Melissa Quinn, General Manager of International Business at Slingshot Aerospace. “With our new presence in Ottawa, we’re better positioned to support Canadian innovation, deploy sovereign space domain awareness capabilities, and contribute to safe and sustainable space operations.”

The new office will spearhead Slingshot’s operations in Canada, including the deployment of optical sensors in the Canadian Arctic, a region critical for tracking satellites in sun-synchronous orbits. This effort will enhance the company’s space surveillance capabilities, benefiting both Slingshot and its international partners. Site selection for these sensors is already underway.

Slingshot is also establishing infrastructure to process and deliver data to Canadian operators and global partners in real time. This initiative supports Slingshot’s broader mission to democratize access to space domain awareness and ensure safer space operations worldwide.

“Canada’s leadership in space surveillance and national security innovation is stronger when we invest in sovereign capabilities,” said Glenn Cowan, Founder and Managing Director of ONE9. “Slingshot’s Arctic sensor deployment is a clear demonstration of that commitment—addressing a critical gap in satellite tracking over the poles. We’re proud to work with Slingshot as they expand into Canada and strengthen the resilience of our global space domain.”

The Ottawa office will also play an integral role in Slingshot’s global initiatives, including a recent $13.3 million contract with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Space Commerce. Through this contract, Slingshot is developing the Presentation Layer for the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS), a platform aimed at enhancing spaceflight safety for satellite operators around the world.

Image credit: Slingshot Aerospace