Navigating the difficult terrain of space is NASA’s domain, and the storied agency is no stranger to embracing challenges in the final frontier and beyond. But the Earth-bound challenges it faces now are as formidable as the demands of any of its deep space missions.

With the White House announcing last week a 50 percent cut to the agency’s science budget, Congress putting the Trump administration on notice that it opposes any changes to the “Moon-to-Mars” approach to space exploration, and the increasingly visible influence of SpaceX founder Elon Musk over space policy, NASA is hurtling into an uncertain orbit that shaped as much by politics and great-power competition as it is by propulsion.

The divisions over the future of space exploration priorities surfaced last week when the Senate Commerce Committee convened to consider President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead NASA, Jared Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur, commercial astronaut and close associate of Musk.

The splits were not along party lines but within the Republican Party itself. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who chairs the committee, is a supporter of Trump’s original vision for space and a key advocate of NASA’s Artemis moon-exploration program, introduced in 2017 by the first Trump administration. Cruz made it clear that the current administration must continue this “moon-to-Mars” stepping-stone strategy, which enjoys bipartisan Congressional support and is codified in law.

The controversy centers on what should be America’s next space milestone in space. Trump, during his first speech to Congress upon returning to power, seemed to adopt Musk’s new approach, favored by Musk, when he announced that the US would “plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond,” suggesting a reduced focus on the moon. Isaacman told the committee during his confirmation hearing he would “prioritize sending American astronauts to Mars,” echoing Trump.

But when Cruz pressed Isaacman on a different commitment he had made to the senator in his office, the prospective head of NASA said he favored balancing both missions, adding: “We don’t have to make a binary decision of moon versus Mars.”

Lawmakers, Cruz in particular, remained unconvinced about Isaacman’s strategy, viewing it as a dangerous one at a time of extreme uncertainty for the “final frontier.” The “next space race is already here,” Cruz said, citing rising global competition in space, most notably from China. He warned that abandoning plans to return to the Moon would amount to surrendering a vital strategic domain to Beijing.

“We must stay the course,” Cruz insisted. “An extreme shift in priorities would almost certainly mean a ‘red moon,’ ceding ground to China for generations to come.”

Cruz is concerned about a Chinese challenge not only for the moon but also in low Earth orbit. He disagrees with retiring the International Space Station ahead of schedule, as Musk has called for, without first putting in place “the necessary systems” to “support and command American astronauts continually in low Earth orbit. We cannot surrender low Earth orbit to the Chinese or the Russians.”

The concern in Congress is that Musk is exerting undue influence over US space policy, and tensions spilled over during the conformation hearing when Isaacman repeatedly dodged questions about whether Musk, who is believed to be behind the nomination, was present in the room when Isaacman was interviewed for the job by Trump.

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey told Isaacman after he refused to answer the question for a sixth time: “I am assuming you don’t want to answer directly because Elon Musk was in the room.”

The moves by the administration so far, including the closure of NASA’s Office of the Chief Scientist and the elimination of 20 key science positions, including the agency’s senior climate science advisor, are thought to be signs of Musk’s shift of focus in NASA’s work and missions away from science issues.

Isaacman told the Senate committee that he is “an advocate of science,” citing 50 experiments conducted during his space missions and an offer to fund an extension of the Hubble Apace Telescope’s operational life. He also promised that “NASA will be a force multiplier for science.”

But two days after his hearing, a White House budget proposal cut NASA’s overall funding from $25 billion to $20 billion and slashed science spending by nearly 50 percent. The Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, scheduled for launch in 2026 and hailed as a key astrophysics mission, is among the casualties. Geophysics and Earth science programs would also be gutted.

The cuts have alarmed the space community, scientists and lawmakers alike. Bhavya Lal, a former NASA associate administrator, warned against the sidelining of science, because of the damaging effect this would have on the long-term objectives of lunar exploration.