
Something in the water: how kelp is helping Maine's mussels boom
'This is our most productive mussel site,' says Briggs, the farm manager for Bangs Island Mussels, a Portland sea farm that grows, harvests and sells hundreds of thousands of pounds of shellfish and seaweed each year. 'When we come here, we get the biggest, fastest-growing mussels with the thickest shells and the best quality. To my mind, unscientifically, it's because of the kelp.'
Zoe Benisek, oyster lead at Bangs Island Mussels, harvesting kelp. The seaweed changes water chemistry enough to lower the levels of carbon dioxide to nourish the mussels
A growing body of science supports Briggs's intuition. The Gulf of Maine is uniquely vulnerable to ocean acidification, which can impede shell development in mussels, clams, oysters and lobster, threatening an industry that employs hundreds of people and generates $85m to $100m (£63m to £74m) annually.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the main driver of declining ocean pH, increasing the acidity of the world's oceans by more than 40% since the preindustrial era and by more than 15% since 1985. Add carbon runoff from growing coastal communities, regular inflows of colder, more acidic water from Canada, and intense thermal stress – the Gulf of Maine is warming three times faster than the global average – and you're left with a delicate marine ecosystem and key economic resource under threat.
Enter kelp. The streams of glistening, brownish-green seaweed that Bangs Island seeds on lines under frigid November skies and harvests in late spring are a natural answer to ocean acidification because they devour carbon dioxide. Sensors placed near kelp lines in Casco Bay over the past decade have shown that growing seaweed changes water chemistry enough to lower the levels of carbon dioxide in the immediate vicinity, nourishing nearby molluscs.
'We know that, in general, for shell builders, ocean acidification is bad, and we know that kelp do better in a high-CO2 environment,' says Susie Arnold, the senior ocean scientist at the Island Institute, a non-profit climate and community organisation in Rockland, Maine, and a pioneer of the Bangs Island water experiments.
Working with the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, an independent Maine-based research organisation, Arnold and others began testing the water off Chebeague Island in 2015 'to see if we could detect a difference between water chemistry in the middle of all that kelp and far away from it', she says. 'We planted juvenile mussels inside and outside the kelp, and we were able to show that the mussels inside the kelp had a thicker shell. Now you see Bangs Island growing kelp around their mussels because they can make a profit on kelp and also buffer the mussels.'
The Bangs Island crew harvesting kelp on their boat in the Gulf of Maine
The CEO and co-owner of Bangs Island Mussels, Matt Moretti, studied marine biology in college and grad school, helped raise baby lobsters at the New England Aquarium, and worked on an oyster farm before buying the sea farm with his father in 2010. Within a year, they had started growing kelp alongside the mussels in an approach known as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture.
'Even before we started farming mussels, I was interested in that concept as an environmentally friendly way of farming, and of farming an ecosystem rather than a single species,' Moretti says from his bare-bones upstairs office in Bangs Island's warehouse on the Portland pier.
As the kelp harvest grew, Moretti realised they needed a way to stabilise the seaweed, which didn't last long after it came out of the water. For a while they dried it themselves, hanging it in the warehouse and on the docks. Now, they sell the entire fresh seaweed catch to a local processor, which turns it into fermented foods such as kimchi, among other products.
Gillian Prostko, chief science officer at Bangs Island Mussels. The harvested kelp is sold to a processor and turned into fermented foods such as kimchi
'We always suspected that there was this positive interaction between the mussels and kelp, and we suspected that because kelp photosynthesises, it sucks carbon out of the water, then therefore it must be good for the ocean and good for the mussels,' Moretti says. Bigelow's water testing has proven that 'we're having a positive impact'.
Nichole Price, the director of Bigelow's Centre for Seafood Solutions, collaborated with Arnold on those early experiments and continues to monitor the water around Bangs Island mussel and kelp lines, an effort that has expanded to include water monitoring at seaweed farms from Alaska to Norway. In a paper published this year in the journal Nature Climate Change, Price, Arnold, and a host of co-authors documented yet another way in which seaweed farms can contribute to the health of the world's oceans: by trapping carbon at the bottom of the sea.
'When you harvest, you're not pulling up every last bit of seaweed,' Price says. 'We've been diving under farms during harvest, and you can see the bits and pieces that rain down. Then there's a culling process, the bits and pieces that get tossed over, and that's what this paper has measured: the unusable, unsellable parts of the harvest that end up on the sea floor.'
Matt Moretti, founder of Bangs Island Mussels (left) and farm manager Tom Briggs
Those discarded seaweed scraps can contribute to what is known as passive deposition of carbon. 'Fingers crossed, it gets covered with sediment fast enough that it's taken out of the global carbon cycle,' Price says.
Given the environmental and financial benefits of growing kelp and shellfish together, you might think everyone would be doing it. But co-farming mussels and kelp at scale requires more than just planting and harvesting. With five boats, a plankton monitoring programme, and tanks on the ground floor of the warehouse where baby mussels from a nearby hatchery are carefully seeded on to lines before being placed in the ocean, Bangs Island is part farm, part science lab.
Changes in mussel-spawning and seed-collection cycles in recent years have forced Moretti and his staff to pay much closer attention to the surrounding water and its inhabitants, from barnacles – a nuisance to shellfish farmers because they set on mussels – to the microscopic larvae of tunicates, pestilent sea squirts that seeded on nearly all of the farm's mussel lines several years ago, crowding out the shellfish and almost sinking the business.
'Conceptually, what we do is very simple: we grow mussels, harvest them, sell them,' Moretti said. 'But adding all the pieces together is a really big, complicated puzzle.'
Today, Bangs Island harvests about 600,000lb (270,000kg) of mussels and 100,000lb of seaweed a year; last fall, they began farming oysters. The oysters, along with about half the mussels, grow in proximity to kelp.
'Climate change, ocean acidification, is a global problem. And when you try to think about it, like, what you can do? It's so daunting,' Moretti says. 'But when you think about us farming kelp in the ocean, it's really the only way we've ever been able to figure out to have a local-scale mitigation of this global problem. It's something we can do here that can help the waters around us that actually has a significant impact.'
Kelp ready for harvesting in the Gulf of Maine
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Scientists warn US will lose a generation of talent because of Trump cuts
A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration's dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation. The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian. The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US. 'Before Trump, the review process was based on merit and impact. Now, it's like rolling the dice because a Doge person has the final say,' said one current program officer. 'There has never in the history of NSF been anything like this. It's disgusting what we're being instructed to do.' Another program officer said: 'The exact details of the extra step is opaque but I can say with high confidence that people from Doge or its proxies are scrutinizing applications with absolutely devastating consequences. The move amounts to the US willingly conceding global supremacy to competitors like China in biological, social and physical sciences. It is a mind-boggling own-goal.' The NSF, founded in 1950, is the only federal agency that funds fundamental research across all fields of science and engineering, and which over the years has contributed to major breakthroughs in organ transplants, gene technology, AI, smartphones and the internet, extreme weather and other hazard warning systems, American sign language, cybersecurity and even the language app Duolingo. In normal times, much of the NSF budget ($9bn in 2024/25) is allocated to research institutions after projects undergo a rigorous three-step review process – beginning with the program officer, an expert in the field, who ensures the proposed study fits in with the agency's priorities. The program officer convenes an expert panel to evaluate the proposal on two statutory criteria – intellectual merit and broader impacts on the nation and people – which under the NSF's legal mandate includes broadening participation of individuals, institutions, and geographic regions in Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Applications from across the country which are greenlighted by the program officer are almost always funded, though may be subject to tweaks after revision by the division director before the grants directorate allocates the budget. That was before Trump. Now, Doge personnel can veto any study – without explanation, the Guardian has confirmed. 'We are under pressure to only fund proposals that fit the new narrow priorities even if they did not review as well as others,' said one current program officer. 'The NSF's gold standard review process has 100% been compromised.' Research aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards is particularly vulnerable, according to several sources. New proposals are also being screened for any direct reference or indirect connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI). 'NSF is being asked to make science racist again – which contradicts evidence that shows that diversity of ideas is good for science and good for innovation. We are missing things when only white males do science,' said one program officer. In addition to Doge interfering in new proposals, at least 1,653 active NSF research grants authorized on their merits have so far been abruptly cancelled – abandoned midway through the project, according to Grant Watch, a non-profit tracker of federal science and health research grants canceled under Trump. Multiple NSF scientists who oversee a diverse range of NSF programs described the grant cancellations as 'unprecedented', 'arbitrary' and a 'colossal waste of taxpayer money'. Almost 60% of the projects abandoned are in states which voted for Joe Biden in 2024, Guardian analysis found. Meanwhile more than one in nine cancelled grants – 12% of the total – were at Harvard University, which Trump has particularly targeted since coming to power in January. In addition, studies deemed to be violating Trump's executive orders on DEI and environmental justice – regardless of their scientific merit, potential impact or urgency – are being abruptly terminated at particularly high rates. It's not uncommon for the NSF and other federal research agencies to shift focus to reflect a new administration's priorities. Amid mounting evidence on the crucial role of diversity in innovation and science, Biden priorities included increased effort to tackle inequalities across the Stem workforce – and a commitment to target underserved communities most affected by the climate crisis and environmental harms. Trump's priorities are AI, quantum information science, nuclear, biotech and translational research. 'It's normal that a new administration will emphasize some areas, de-emphasize others, and we would gradually transition to new priorities. During the George W Bush administration there were shenanigans around climate change, but it was nothing like this kind of meddling in the scientific review process. You never just throw proposals in the garbage can,' said one current NSF staffer. 'Our mandate is to advance science and innovation. And we just can't do that if we're not thinking about diversifying the Stem workforce. We don't have enough people or diversity of thought without broadening participation – which is part of the NSF mission mandate,' said a former program officer from the Directorate for Computer and Information Science who recently accepted a buyout. 'It has been soul-sucking to see projects that went through the review process being changed or terminated over and over again,' they added. The Federal Reserve estimates that government-supported research from the NSF and other agencies has had a return on investment of 150% to 300% over the past 75 years, meaning US taxpayers have gotten back between $1.50 and $3 for every dollar invested. Trump's big, beautiful bill calls for a 56% cut to the current $9bn NSF budget, as well as a 73% reduction in staff and fellowships – with graduate students among the hardest hit. Last week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Hud) announced that it will be moving into the NSF headquarters in Virginia over the course of the next two years. The shock announcement – which did not include any plans on relocating more than 1,800 NSF employees – has triggered speculation that the administration eventually plans to defund the agency entirely. For now, program officers are also being instructed to return research proposals to scientists and institutions 'without review' – regardless of merit and despite having been submitted in response to specific NSF solicitations to address gaps in scientific and engineering knowledge around some of the most pressing concerns in the US. This includes projects that have in fact undergone review, and others which can no longer be processed due to staff and program cuts, according to multiple NSF sources. In one case, a 256-page proposal by scientists at four public universities to use ancient DNA records to better forecast biodiversity loss as the planet warms was apparently archived without consideration. In an email seen by the Guardian, the NSF told Jacquelyn Gill, a paleoecologist and principal investigator (lead scientist) based at the University of Maine, that all proposals submitted to the Biology Integration Institute program were returned without review. A second email said their specific proposal had been 'administratively screened' and the area of proposed study was 'inappropriate for NSF funding'. An estimated 40% of animals and 34% of plants across the US are currently at risk. The proposed study would have used an emerging technology to extract ancient DNA from lake sediments, ice cores and cave deposits to better understand which species fared better or worse when the planet naturally warmed thousands of years ago – in order to help model and protect biodiversity in the face of human-made climate change. Gill told the Guardian the team took great care to avoid any reference to DEI or climate change. The grant would have created much-needed research capacity in the US, which is lagging behind Europe in this field. 'Ancient DNA records allow you to reconstruct entire ecosystems at a very high level. This is a very new and emerging science, and grants like this help catalyze the research and reinvest in US infrastructure and workforce in ways that have huge returns on investments for their local economies. It's an absolute slap in the face that the proposal was returned without review,' Gill said. In another example, two academic institutions chosen to receive prestigious $15m grants for translational research – a Trump priority – after a 30-month cross-agency review process led by the engineering directorate and involving hundreds of people will not be honored. The proposals selected for the award through merit review will be returned without review for being 'inappropriate for NSF funding', the Guardian understands. 'This is complex, very high-impact translation science to achieve sustainability across cities and regions and industries … we're being instructed to put the principal investigators off, but nothing's going to get funded because there's DEI in this program,' said an NSF employee with knowledge of the situation. Meanwhile scores of other proposals approved on merit by program officers are disappearing into a 'black box' – languishing for weeks or months without a decision or explanation, which was leading some to 'self-censor', according to NSF staff. 'It's either NSF staff self-censoring to make sure they don't get into trouble, or it is censorship by somebody inserted in the scientific review process from Doge. Either way it's a political step, and therefore problematic,' said Anne Marie Schmoltner, a program officer in the chemistry division who retired in February after 30 years in the agency. In addition to distributing funds to seasoned researchers, the NSF supports students and up-and-coming scientists and engineers through fellowships, research opportunities and grants. This next generation of talent is being hit particularly hard under Trump, who is attempting to impose sweeping restrictions on visas and travel bans on scores of countries. The proposed 2026 budget includes funding for only 21,400 under- and postgraduate students nationwide – a 75% fall on this year. Like many scientists across the country, Gill, the paleoecologist, is not accepting new graduate students this fall due to funding uncertainty. 'That's a whole generation of young scientists who see no pathway into the field for them. I cannot stress enough how deeply upsetting and demoralizing these cuts are to a community of people who only ever wanted to solve problems and be of use.' Yet the NSF student pipeline provides experts for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries which support Trump, in addition to academic and government-funded agencies. 'Industry is working on optimizing what they're doing right now, whereas NSF is looking 10, 20 years down the road. The US wants a global, robust economy and for that you need innovation, and for innovation you need the fundamental research funded by the NSF,' said Schmoltner. The NSF declined to comment, referring instead to the agency website last updated in April which states: 'The principles of merit, competition, equal opportunity and excellence are the bedrock of the NSF mission. NSF continues to review all projects using Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria.' The sweeping cuts to the NSF come on top of Trump's dismantling of other key scientific research departments within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Geological Service (USGS). The USGS is the research arm of the Department of Interior. Its scientists help solve real-life problems about hazards, natural resources, water, energy, ecosystems, and the impacts of climate and land-use change for tribal governments, the Bureau of Land Management, fish and wildlife services, and the National Parks Service among other interior agencies. Trump's big, beautiful bill cuts the USGS budget by 39%. This includes slashing the entire budget for the agency's ecosystems mission area (EMA), which leads federal research on species & ecosystems and houses the climate adaptation science centers. EMA scientists figure out how to better protect at-risk species such as bees and wolverines, minimize harmful overgrazing on BLM lands, and prevent invasive carp from reaching the Great Lakes – all vitally important to protect food security in the US as the climate changes. The EMA has already lost 25 to 30% of employees through Doge-approved layoffs and buyouts, and is now facing termination. 'We've already lost a lot of institutional memory and new, up-and-coming leaders. [If Trump's budget is approved], all science in support of managing our public lands and natural resources would be cut,' said one USGS program officer. 'Our economy is driven by natural resources including timber, minerals and food systems, and if we don't manage these in a sustainable way, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.' Like at the NSF, the USGC's gold standard peer-review system for research approval and oversight is now at the mercy of Doge – in this case Tyler Hasson, the former oil executive given sweeping authority by the interior secretary. According to USGS staff, Hasson's office accepts or rejects proposals based on two paragraphs of information program officers are permitted to submit – without any dialogue or feedback. 'The gold standard scientific review is being interfered with. This is now a political process,' said one USGS scientist. A spokesperson for the interior department said: 'The claim that science is being 'politicized' is categorically false. We reject the narrative that responsible budget reform constitutes an 'assault on science'. On the contrary, we are empowering American innovation by cutting red tape, reducing bureaucracy and ensuring that the next generation of scientists and engineers can focus on real-world solutions – not endless paperwork or politically motivated research agendas.' The USGS, office of management and budget and White House did not respond to requests from comment.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Mysterious interstellar object spotted hurtling through our solar system could be an ALIEN SPACECRAFT, experts claim
A mysterious visitor from another solar system could be an alien spacecraft, according to a leading Harvard astronomer. The enormous interstellar object, now officially dubbed 3I/ATLAS, is already speeding through the solar system at 41 miles per second, or 150,000 miles per hour. Estimated to be 12 miles wide, A11pl3Z is far larger and brighter than the two previous interstellar objects to visit our solar system - 'Oumuamua and Borissov. This has sparked speculation that 3I/ATLAS's intense brightness might not have a natural explanation. Professor Avi Loeb, an astrophysicist at Harvard University, says it is 'difficult to understand' how the object could be so large unless it is either a comet or an alien craft. While Professor Loeb says that follow-up observations may prove the object to be a naturally forming comet, an alien spacecraft remains a strong possibility. 'If it is not a comet, then its large brightness would be a big surprise and potentially signal a non-natural origin, perhaps from artificial light,' he told MailOnline. However, other astronomers say that much stronger evidence would be needed to prove the solar system has its first alien guests. The object, originally named A11pl3Z, was first spotted by NASA's Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System on July 1. But astronomers were able to trace back the first sighting of 3I/ATLAS to June 14 in a set of images that had too many stars in the background to see the object initially. Arriving from the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, 3I/ATLAS is currently about 420 million miles (670 million kilometres) away from Earth. NASA predicts that it will reach its closest point to the sun on October 30, at a distance of 130 million miles (210 million km) - passing just within the orbit of Mars. Thankfully, the object poses no threat to Earth and will pass harmlessly at around 150 million miles (240 million km) away at its closest point. Now that enough observations have been gathered, the Minor Planets Centre - the official body for recording objects in space - has confirmed that this is an interstellar visitor. Based on 3I/ATLAS's elliptical orbit, astronomers predict that the object will pass straight through our solar system before continuing on with its journey through the stars. This makes it only the third interstellar object to ever be recorded passing through the solar system. Just like 'Oumuamua, some scientists have already suggested that 3I/ATLAS could be an alien craft. After 'Oumuamua was spotted in 2017, Professor Loeb speculated that it might be a probe 'meant to scan signals from all viewing directions '. This was primarily based on the fact that 'Oumuamua did not produce a 'coma' - a cloud of evaporating gas and ice produced by comets as they approach the sun. Scientists struggled to explain why the space rock sped up as it approached the sun - an effect normally produced by the 'off gassing' of evaporating material. Now, as 3I/ATLAS approaches, keen alien hunters will be looking intently for 'technosignatures' - signs produced by the presence of technology. Dr Eliot Gillum, director of the Optical SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Program at the SETI Institute, told MailOnline that these could include 'following a path not governed solely by gravity' or an abnormal reflection pattern. However, although Dr Gillum says it is 'possible' that 3I/ATLAS is alien in origin, he says it is unlikely that scientists will find any evidence to support this. 'It would have to be a heck of an observation to seriously open the door to aliens,' says Dr Gillum. Likewise, early observations are beginning to suggest that the object is likely to be a comet. A few telescopes claim to have already seen the object's tail of ice and gas, leading the Minor Planets Centre and NASA to label it a comet. This would provide a natural explanation for why the object appears to be so bright and rule out the possibility of being an alien craft. Even Professor Loeb suggests that a comet is now the more likely scenario, adding: 'If it ends up being a comet, it is no different qualitatively than natural icy rocks or dirty snowballs which are found in the Solar system.' Likewise, Dr Mark Norris, an astronomer at the University of Lancashire, told MailOnline that the chances of 3I/ATLAS being an alien craft are now 'as close to zero as things get'. However, Dr Norris suggests that this interstellar visitor still might hold the key to understanding alien life. According to the 'panspermia' theory, the seeds of life are spread through the universe of debris ejected from one solar system to another. Dr Norris says: 'Before we knew about these objects, most people would have said the chances of that happening are basically zero. 'Now that we know that rocks do survive passing through the stars, that number is still very small, but it's not zero.' If scientists were able to get a sample of one of these objects and could show it contains the same basic building blocks found here on Earth, the chance of finding life on other planets is suddenly much greater. Unfortunately, it's already too late to send a mission to intercept 3I/ATLAS, but there may be many more chances in the future. Scientists believe there could be up to 10,000 interstellar objects in our solar system at any time, but most are simply too faint to see. And with powerful new telescopes like the Vera C. Rubin Observatory coming online, scientists may get a chance to sample a visitor from another sun in the near future. Our first interstellar visitor sailed past Earth at at 97,200mph in 2017, but what exactly was Oumuamua? A cigar-shaped object named 'Oumuamua sailed past Earth at 97,200mph (156,428km/h) in October. It was first spotted by a telescope in Hawaii on 19 October, and was observed 34 separate times in the following week. It is named after the Hawaiian term for 'scout' or 'messenger' and passed the Earth at about 85 times the distance to the moon. It was the first interstellar object seen in the solar system, and it baffled astronomers. Initially, it was thought the object could be a comet. However, it displays none of the classic behavior expected of comets, such as a dusty, water-ice particle tail. The asteroid is up to one-quarter mile (400 meters) long and highly-elongated - perhaps 10 times as long as it is wide. That aspect ratio is greater than that of any asteroid or asteroid observed in our solar system to date. But the asteroid's slightly red hue — specifically pale pink — and varying brightness are remarkably similar to objects in our own solar system. Around the size of the Gherkin skyscraper in London, some astronomers were convinced it was piloted by aliens due to the vast distance the object traveled without being destroyed – and the closeness of its journey past the Earth. Alien hunters at SETI – the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence based at Berkeley University, California said there was a possibility the rock was 'an alien artefact'. But scientists from Queen's University Belfast took a good look at the object and said it appears to be an asteroid, or 'planetesimal' as originally thought. Researchers believe the cigar-shaped asteroid had a 'violent past', after looking at the light bouncing off its surface.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
$10 billion Trump boost for Musk's rival delivers fresh setback
President Donald Trump is just one stroke of a pen away from handing another major blow to Elon Musk's plans for space exploration. On Tuesday, the US Senate passed its version of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' a massive piece of spending and tax cut legislation, which also set aside $10 billion for NASA's Artemis program. Artemis aims to return humans to the moon and establish a permanent US presence there by the end of the decade. Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, has been a vocal opponent of continued funding for missions to the moon, repeatedly lobbying for the Trump Administration and NASA to focus on colonizing Mars. If signed into law by Trump, the allotment to NASA would primarily go to pay for the Space Launch System (SLS), which utilizes single-use rockets to send the Artemis vehicles to the moon. The SLS rockets completely fly in the face of Musk's vision for space travel, as his company mainly relies on reusable rockets during crewed missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Before their very public falling out in May, it seemed as though Musk had convinced the president to phase out SLS rockets, with Trump proposing to slash NASA's budget and replace the SLS after Artemis' third planned mission in 2027. However, the new Republican-led megabill has reprioritized the moon missions and left Musk's dream of a crewed mission to Mars out on the White House lawn. Musk, the former head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, has blasted both the use of billion-dollar, single-use rockets and the president's controversial spending bill as a waste of taxpayer money. 'Fundamental issue with SLS is that it's not reusable, which means that a billion-dollar rocket is blown up every launch!' the billionaire wrote on X in 2020. On June 3, Musk called the Big, Beautiful Bill a 'disgusting abomination' and urged Americans to contact their representatives to oppose it, citing how it would leave the US budget with more 'crushing' debt. Later that month, he described the Senate's draft of the spending bill as 'utterly insane and destructive' and 'political [self-murder]' for the Republican Party. Musk also claimed that Trump signing the bill would destroy millions of jobs and harm industries of the future while favoring outdated ones. Despite his ongoing objections, the Big, Beautiful Bill will pay for the increasingly expensive disposable rockets, which NASA's Inspector General estimated will now cost as much as $2.5 billion per use. Through the 2025 fiscal year, NASA has already spent $93 billion on the Artemis program, with most of that money going towards the rockets, the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, and a 'Human Landing System' so the astronauts can reach the moon's surface. Since the start of the Artemis program in 2019, only the unmanned Artemis I test flight in 2022 has reached space. The next mission, Artemis II, is scheduled for 2026, with Artemis III to follow in 2027. Roughly $2.6 billion of the funds would be allocated to the Lunar Gateway, a planned space station that will orbit the moon and help sustain NASA's future Artemis missions. Approximately, $20 million will go to the Orion spacecraft, specifically for building the fourth crew capsule for Artemis IV in 2028 and future lunar missions after that. If Trump signs this current version of the spending bill, he'll also be reviving a program he and Musk previously looked to kill before their friendship unraveled. The new funding includes $700 million for a Mars Telecommunications Orbiter, which would support Martian core sample return missions. That project has already cost NASA billions as the agency has aimed to bring rock samples collected by the Martian rovers back to Earth to be studied. However, Trump's May 1 spending proposal for NASA slashed $6 billion from their budget, which would have paid for that research. Following the Senate's passage of the bill, that money is back in NASA's pockets. Another $1.25 billion would go to operating costs on the ISS, money that was also slashed by the president and Musk earlier this year. It's not all bad news for Musk, however, as SpaceX is still slated to receive $325 million to build a spacecraft that will help de-orbit the ISS by the end of the decade. The decommissioning of the ISS has been another of Musk's major talking points when it comes to space exploration. The head of SpaceX has even called for the de-orbiting mission to be moved up to 2027, citing safety concerns raised by a former physicist and engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In June 2024, NASA awarded SpaceX a $843 million contract to build the deorbit vehicle, or USDV, that will be used to safely guide the ISS into the Pacific Ocean by 2030.