Here's a phrase I don't get to write very often: scientific research funding does well, increasing by nearly $15 million compared to 2016. This should help with selection rates for scientific research proposals and support the ever-growing size of the planetary science community, particularly as larger missions like Cassini wind down.

NASA's Near-Earth Objects Observation program grows by another $10 million to $60 million in 2017, but $16 million of that is directed toward the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, a kinetic impactor spacecraft which was developed in concert with an now-cancelled ESA mission. NASA has stated that it intends to continue working on AIDA despite the uncertainties in ESA's mission planning, though it is unclear how much this mission will cost, and if NASA will be able to accommodate a full mission budget going forward.

In terms of the big picture every science division at NASA did reasonably well. Earth Science retained its same budget as last year—$1.92 billion—and remains the top-funded science division within the agency. Heliophysics grew to $678.5 million. Compared to 2016, Astrophysics grew to $750 million, though this was less than the President's proposed growth for 2017. While at first glance this looks like positive news for Astrophysics, the division was directed to spend $105 million on the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), effectively cutting the funds available to all other programs by 10%. SpaceNews has details on the broader impacts to all of NASA science.

In terms of human spaceflight, SLS and Orion were big winners, with budget growth up to $2.15 billion and $1.35 billion, respectively. Commercial crew and cargo are fully-funded in 2017, though overall space operations takes a small hit. $75 million was directed toward deep space habitat development, an increase of 50% over last year.

Now that the 2017 appropriations process has finished (seven months late), attention turns toward 2018. As of yet, the Trump Administration has not provided additional details beyond their "skinny budget" proposal which, though it slashes funding for many sciences, generally treats NASA quite well. More details are expected by the end of May. Congress is already behind in their schedule for appropriations, and has not yet passed a budget-resolution, making life uncertain for the relevant appropriations subcommittees.

In the meantime, we should savor this moment. NASA and planetary exploration are enjoying a complete reversal in fortunes from just a few years ago. Europa, Mars, and many other destinations are in our sights, and the future is looking bright.

However, this might be a good time to write a letter to your members of Congress, asking them to continue funding for NASA and space science. The effort never ends.