Image (Credit): Mar’s moon Phobos. (NASA / JPL-Caltech / University of Arizona)
On this day in 1877, American astronomer Asaph Hall discovered the Martian moon Phobos while at the US Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C. He had discovered Mar’s other moon Deimos six days earlier.
Oddly enough, the idea of two moons orbiting Mars was first proposed in 1726 by Jonathan Swift in his tale Gulliver’s Travels. In the book, astronomers on the flying island of Laputia were noted to have
… discovered two lesser stars, or satellites, which revolve around Mars, whereof the innermost is distant from the center of the primary exactly three of his diameters, and the outermost five: the former revolves in the space of ten hours, and the latter in twenty-one and a half.
All Professor Hall had to do was confirm the work of the Laputian astronomers.
With all of the current chaos related to NASA funding, one might think America has moved away from its previous support for space missions. However, a poll reported last month by CBS News tells a different story.
As shown in the image above, 67 percent of Americans polled by CBS News and YouGov are in favor or NASA returning astronauts to the Moon, and 65 percent feel the same way about a trip to Mars.
This is encouraging yet may not be enough to save NASA as it faces severe budget cuts and the loss of thousands of employees.
Some might say that the cuts are unrelated to the Moon and Mars missions, which are still being funded by the White House. However, that does not matter. NASA is losing expertise in all areas while its employees feel harassed and unappreciated. It is hard to build a successful space program on top of this disarray.
If so many Americans believe we should be back on the Moon and travel to Mars, how will they feel should China beat us to one or both? How will the current White House be viewed?
Maybe that is what should keep the White House and others proposing these drastic cuts up at night.
Image (Credit): International partners empowering NASA’s mission on Mars. (US Embassy & Consulates in Italy)
While spreading out the manned missions to the International Space Station (ISS) among various private sector partners sounded like a great idea, it has proven less than perfect. First we had to worry about the emotional stability of SpaceX’s CEO, and now we need to worry about the financial viability of Boeing, the only other company on a path to bring astronauts to the ISS.
…faced challenges including labor actions, production delays, quality control problems, and financial losses on government contracts. Given Boeing’s importance to the defense industrial base, Congress may assess whether or not these developments have implications for U.S. national security…Some analysts have speculated that Boeing could declare bankruptcy or seek to sell elements of its space or defense business.
One of the author’s suggestions is for the US government to expand its contracting efforts with “trusted international companies.” While the article is focused on the defense realm, it sounds like a good idea for the space realm as well.
The major US space goals already include our trusted international partners, such as the ISS, Artemis and Mars programs, so none of this much of a stretch. Maybe it just needs to be more of the focus as the current US firms show their vulnerabilities when poorly managed. I would add to this list the need to offer greater support to other, newer US-based space companies to further diversity the workload.
This may not be a time to call for greater international coordination led by NASA when the agency is also showing its vulnerabilities when poorly managed, yet we need to plan for future days when the craziness dies down. In the meantime, as Europe prepares for NASA cuts to joint programs, we have a lot of convincing to do if we want a deeper international space industry.
A new administrator for NASA may help, as well as a Congress that does its job and protects the future of our space programs.
I don’t care if you call it “Make the Moon the Goal Again.” Just get started.
“Although Congress has not completed the appropriations process for FY 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already disregarded Congress’s constitutional authority to direct government spending, unlawfully impounding congressionally appropriated NASA FY 2025 funds. Before Congress had approved a single appropriations bill, the Trump Administration and OMB Director Russell Vought directed federal agencies to freeze over $100 million in appropriated funds for science initiatives at NASA. Amidst the threat of looming cuts, NASA has already lost over 2,000 senior-level employees at NASA centers in Maryland, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio. These losses will deprive NASA of key expertise on science, human space flight, and mission support. In blatant violation of law and complete disregard for the authority of Congress, the President’s budget request has already done significant damage to American space exploration and innovation.”
-A statement in an August 1, 2025 letter from six Democratic US Senators to the acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy pertaining to ongoing and planned cuts at the agency. The Senators requested responses to six questions, including “How does NASA intend to accomplish its mission of leading in space when the proposed funding cuts will gut world-renowned missions like Mar Sample Return (MSR) and trigger the mass layoff of employees with decades of institutional expertise and knowledge?” A good question.
Image (Credit): NASA infographic highlighting NASA’s twin robot geologists, the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) Spirit and Opportunity. (NASA/JPL-Caltech)
Terraforming Mars has long captured the imagination but has received surprisingly little rigorous study. Progress in Mars science, climate science, launch capabilities and bioscience motivates a fresh look at Mars terraforming research. Since Sagan’s time, it has been understood that terraforming Mars would involve warming to enable oxygenic photosynthesis by engineered microbes, followed by slow oxygen build-up enabling more complex life. Before we can assess whether warming Mars is worthwhile, relative to the alternative of leaving Mars as a pristine wilderness, we must confront the practical requirements, cost and possible risks. Here we discuss what we know about Mars’s volatile inventories and soil composition, and possible approaches to warm Mars and increase atmospheric O2. New techniques have emerged that could raise Mars’s average global temperature by tens of degrees within a few decades. Research priorities include focusing on understanding fundamental physical, chemical and biological constraints that will shape any future decisions about Mars. Such research would drive advances in Mars exploration, bioscience and climate modelling.
Citation: DeBenedictis, E.A., Kite, E.S., Wordsworth, R.D. et al. The case for Mars terraforming research. Nat Astron9, 634–639 (2025).
Our Awesome Universe 