I hope they manage to do something similar for the NSF. The proposed cuts there are crushing. The NSF funds great science in all parts of the country, and subsequently tons of jobs to the area.
Different perspective... As an NSF grad student I didn't feel underpaid -- I felt extremely lucky that I got to do cutting-edge research while being paid a low but decent, livable salary. Of course, I could have made more money going into industry -- but at least we have a choice with institutions like the NSF willing to support risky projects that move humanity forward.
Not everything is about productivity per dollar. It's also the source of a pipeline of well trained research scientists who go into cutting edge fields with good pay.
Maybe the NSF needs to geographically disperse grants to maximize Congressional Districts that benefit. Kind of like how military spending is spread around states.
Universities do a ton of research supporting rural areas, especially farming. It's about half of the country's population, not to mention the country's food source, so it makes sense that they would spend a lot of research in those areas. Check out your local university's agricultural extension department some time, lots of cool stuff happening there.
Word. The NSF provides great value from a relatively small budget. Because of the small sums involved I take these cuts as evidence of a fundamental hostility to scientific research.
It's refreshing that given everything else happening, Congress is still at least functional at this level.
Should be noted that many of NASA's programs are situated in predominantly conservative areas of the country. Brings lots of jobs and resources to the local economies.
Except SLS/Orion should be cancelled. The SLS is pejoratively called the Senate Launch System, because it has no real place in the market yet is continuing to consume tens of billions of dollars. It was mostly obsoleted by Falcon Heavy years ago (SLS has been a black hole of funding since 2011), and its costs are completely ridiculous. You're looking at billions of dollars per launch if it ever is confidently flight ready.
And mind you it's not some amazing technological marvel that's driving these ridiculous costs. It's essentially a really expensive refactoring of the Space Shuttle program to the point that it will be using the literally exact same rs-25 engines.
And you already hit exactly on why they're not being cancelled - there's going to be a very short degree of separation between Congressmen and the people charging absurd costs for simple tech that's being used in this project. To me, this is perhaps the purest embodiment (and reason) for governmental dysfunction, at all levels. It's simple pork and corruption.
The real tragedy is that the administration withdrew Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. He had bold plans for modernizing NASA and the experience to lead. But he didn't kiss the ring and instead made comments suggesting NASA's budget shouldn't be eviscerated, so his appointment was torpedoed.
Your point was stronger 6 months ago before SpaceX started regressing on their Starship test flights. The U.S. needs to have multiple horses in the race
Need some competition to commercial near-monopolization (in the pre-to-mid 2010s when it was funded), some other program, they already funded SLS (which was funded to carry way more payload than FH), let it play out, IMO.
Also, not to say it isn't a time to start acting, if we are another decade out still adding funding to SLS with the current balance sheet, we have major issues.
But $30B over 10Y isn't that crazy when we spend ~$900B a year (with much more in 2026) on defense.
Just to add to this, somehow the current plan for getting to the moon involves over 15 launches (or 25, the number does seem to vary). With Starship actually having a larger payload than the Saturn V at least to LEO, how 15 launches could possibly be required, and such a plan been approved to spend billions of dollars on, I just don't know.
So as much as I like the idea of NASA, something needs to be done there.
A name also thrown around for shuttle. Do a little digging and a surprising number of shuttle crews had ties to the US congress, either as relatives or who themselves would later become representatives. They even flew a handful of serving reps (ie John Glenn, aged 77). Nasa has always known how to foster relations with political power families.
Manned space flight in generally is a hugely wasteful money sink. It eats up about 50% of NASA's budget, and there's no real reason for it other than "we're putting people into space because we want to put people into space." People vigorously defend these boondoggles, then finally admit they were a huge waste years after the fact (as we've seen with the space shuttle, and as we're now starting to see with the SLS).
I just wish Congress or the Supreme Court would show any teeth whatsoever. Right now most of the firings have been happening illegally, despite all of these programs already being budgeted for and funded.
The US can easily afford its obligations. The problem is that the tax base has shifted into alternative forms of income such as dividends and cap gains which are taxed at lower rates.
It’s a policy choice that these returns are not taxed at comparable rates to income. The trend of nation-wide capital returns vs income is telling.
* Not cut taxes on the very wealthy by $4,000,000,000,000 over ten years
* Not give $500,000,000,000 to military and police expansion in the immediate future
* Not have one person dictating global trade policy with the US that impacts our relationships and competitiveness for the next 30 years
> With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending
It doesn't matter how much debt you have if taking on the debt raises your revenue by more than serving the interest payments.
Imagine telling a corporation they can't borrow money at 3% to grow 15% because "debt is bad." Or telling someone who needs a car to get to work that they should go without a car (and thus not become employed) rather than taking on a car payment because "debt is bad."
And on this front, the US has been doing great (but is currently shooting itself in the foot under the new administration)
We're counting down the days to August 30 in our house as my spouse is a NASA contractor who works at a program with a current expected budget cut of 40%, IIRC. I sure hope these bills pass and the cuts don't happen, but it's abundantly clear at this point that optimism is pretty foolish.
Happy to hear about this. Actually, budget should be increased not reduced. From purely ROI terms, NASA has a stellar return on investment. Immense contribution to human civilisation beyond US.
As someone who worked for NASA, I can tell you all those spin out numbers are bunk. NASA is indeed a good investment, but not for the reasons given. NASA public relations has cooked the books.
These analyses are highly questionable. NASA has a long reputation of being highly inefficient for good reasons. SpaceX did a much better job at optimizing cost in a way that NASA never could have, so it raises the obvious point: how much better would ROI have been in a world where private spaceflight was incentivized earlier? The answer isn't obviously in NASA's favour.
It’s hard to say privatization earlier would have lead to better outcomes. The drawback of privatization is the constant search for profitability which puts undue pressure against safety (Boeing?). Historically, only nation states had the organizational structure and long-term thinking to fund the massive investment required to research space flight in the first place, often motivated by weapons development.
Obviously, this is no longer the case. However, It’s arguably because of these nation-sponsored programs that made companies like SpaceX commercializable in the first place since they’re piggybacking on a lot of the science done by the governments.
Can someone with better search-foo than I tell me when the last time was that the US passed an actual budget? Not a continuing resolution, an actual budget. And maybe what the time before that was?
My impression is that it's happened maybe twice in the last 15 years, but I am open to correction.
This is the most basic duty of Congress, and they've been incapable of fulfilling it lately. (If you wonder why the president rules so much by executive order, it's because Congress can't or won't do its job.) So it will be interesting to see if the current Congress is more functional than recent ones.
There's over a dozen! They're blatantly ripping off SpaceX, which is very smart and what everyone else should have been doing. It's absolutely insane that the US is going to throw another $10 or $30 billion at SLS. Our leaders will go on TV with a straight face and say "China competes unfairly, everything is state run!" but China is probably doing FIFTEEN reusable rocket projects for less than the amount of gov't money we're lighting on fire with SLS rocket to nowhere.
Personally, I prefer more of both. You have to actually do things - as in, develop the engineering, test things, see what works and what doesn't - to advance the state of the art. We need robots for science, humans for engineering.
NASA going back to the moon and Musk to Mars is nothing but pipe dreams to sell the story mode types.
The US government has pivoted to animal husbandry of the populace through techno police state, and handing sycophants to power their own title, land and serfs
Readit News
Dead Comment
Should be noted that many of NASA's programs are situated in predominantly conservative areas of the country. Brings lots of jobs and resources to the local economies.
And mind you it's not some amazing technological marvel that's driving these ridiculous costs. It's essentially a really expensive refactoring of the Space Shuttle program to the point that it will be using the literally exact same rs-25 engines.
And you already hit exactly on why they're not being cancelled - there's going to be a very short degree of separation between Congressmen and the people charging absurd costs for simple tech that's being used in this project. To me, this is perhaps the purest embodiment (and reason) for governmental dysfunction, at all levels. It's simple pork and corruption.
Also, not to say it isn't a time to start acting, if we are another decade out still adding funding to SLS with the current balance sheet, we have major issues.
But $30B over 10Y isn't that crazy when we spend ~$900B a year (with much more in 2026) on defense.
So as much as I like the idea of NASA, something needs to be done there.
A name also thrown around for shuttle. Do a little digging and a surprising number of shuttle crews had ties to the US congress, either as relatives or who themselves would later become representatives. They even flew a handful of serving reps (ie John Glenn, aged 77). Nasa has always known how to foster relations with political power families.
Falcon Heavy: Claimed payload to LEO (though it has never done anything like this): 63 tonnes.
SLS: 95t, 105t or 130t depending on version.
These are quite different capabilities.
Dead Comment
With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending
It’s a policy choice that these returns are not taxed at comparable rates to income. The trend of nation-wide capital returns vs income is telling.
It doesn't matter how much debt you have if taking on the debt raises your revenue by more than serving the interest payments.
Imagine telling a corporation they can't borrow money at 3% to grow 15% because "debt is bad." Or telling someone who needs a car to get to work that they should go without a car (and thus not become employed) rather than taking on a car payment because "debt is bad."
And on this front, the US has been doing great (but is currently shooting itself in the foot under the new administration)
but instead we're giving a massive tax break to rich people and increasing the military budget by $150B
Deleted Comment
Their wealth grow unchecked depressing yours.
If the American congress is blocking this, it’s a glimmer of hope for the US and the rest of the planet.
Just a reminder from 2012: [Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest In NASA, Invest In U.S. Economy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2012/03/13/neil-degr...)
Obviously, this is no longer the case. However, It’s arguably because of these nation-sponsored programs that made companies like SpaceX commercializable in the first place since they’re piggybacking on a lot of the science done by the governments.
My impression is that it's happened maybe twice in the last 15 years, but I am open to correction.
This is the most basic duty of Congress, and they've been incapable of fulfilling it lately. (If you wonder why the president rules so much by executive order, it's because Congress can't or won't do its job.) So it will be interesting to see if the current Congress is more functional than recent ones.
There's over a dozen! They're blatantly ripping off SpaceX, which is very smart and what everyone else should have been doing. It's absolutely insane that the US is going to throw another $10 or $30 billion at SLS. Our leaders will go on TV with a straight face and say "China competes unfairly, everything is state run!" but China is probably doing FIFTEEN reusable rocket projects for less than the amount of gov't money we're lighting on fire with SLS rocket to nowhere.
Exactly the opposite of what they should be funding..
That deadline is never going to hold - too many things are just nowhere near ready. By now, I expect NET 2030.
Deleted Comment
The US government has pivoted to animal husbandry of the populace through techno police state, and handing sycophants to power their own title, land and serfs