White House may seek to slash NASA’s science budget by 50 percent

Status
Not open for further replies.
Formal declaration of dissent ongoing:
https://www.standupforscience.net/nasa-voyager-declaration
www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02296-1
www.nytimes.com/2025/07/21/science/nasa-formal-dissent-letter-trump.html?

We dissent to changes to NASA's Technical Authority capacities that are driven by anything other than safety and mission assurance. The culture of organizational silence promoted at NASA over the last six months already represents a dangerous turn away from the lessons learned following the Columbia disaster. Changes to the system of Technical Authority, as suggested would be made in the June 25th NASA Town Hall, should be made only in the interests of improving safety, not in anticipation of future budget cuts.

We dissent to the closing out of missions for which Congress has appropriated funding because it represents a permanent loss of capability to the United States both in space and on Earth. Once operational spacecraft are decommissioned, they cannot be turned back on. Additionally, cancelling missions in development threatens to end the next generation of crucial observations.

We dissent to implementing indiscriminate cuts to NASA science and aeronautics research because this will leave the American people without the unique public good that NASA provides. Basic research in space science, aeronautics, and the stewardship of the Earth are inherently governmental functions that cannot and will not be taken up by the private sector. Furthermore, NASA has a nearly threefold return on investment in economic activity, and supports national security by ensuring the United States maintains its lead in science and technology.

We dissent to NASA's non-strategic staffing reductions because they will jeopardize NASA's core mission. Thousands of NASA civil servant employees have already been terminated, resigned or retired early, taking with them highly specialized, irreplaceable knowledge crucial to carrying out NASA's mission.

We dissent to canceling NASA participation in international missions because in doing so, NASA is abandoning America's allies. To date, 55 nations have signed on to the Artemis Accords, and withdrawing support from missions with our long-standing partners at the European Space Agency (ESA), Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), and others threatens NASA's ability to lead the world in the future of space exploration.

We dissent to the termination of NASA contracts and grants for reasons unrelated to performance because it weakens state and local economies across the country. Capriciously terminating contracts and grants reduces the number of private sector jobs associated with the space economy and discourages private entrepreneurship by negating competitive grant selection processes.

We dissent to the elimination of programs aimed at developing and supporting NASA's workforce because it undermines the agency's power to innovate for the benefit of humanity. Cuts to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programming that have already been implemented directly conflict with the agency's core value of inclusion. Eliminating the Office of STEM Engagement would deliver a critical blow to the nation's future space economy workforce.


“We’re all scared that we’re going to get laid off,” said Monica Gorman, an operations research analyst at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “We’re scared of retaliation. We huddle in the bathroom. We go to the bathroom to talk to each other, and look under the stalls to make sure that no one else is there before we talk.” [...] “I really want the general public to be aware that things are being disrupted and cut off now,” she said. “Things are already not OK right now, and once senior scientists and senior engineers and people leave, that’s it. That knowledge is gone, and we’re all going to suffer from that brain drain for years and years.” "I’m already at risk of losing my job, and I’d rather speak out and try to save something at NASA, rather than just hide under my desk until I get laid off"
 
Senate Republicans familiar with Thune’s plans say he hopes to bring a package of appropriations bills to the Senate floor the week before the August recess.

That package would likely consist of the agriculture appropriations bill, the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill and possibly the legislative branch appropriations bill and the commerce, justice, science appropriations measure [which includes NASA].

The senior member of the Appropriations Committee said the goal is to get that package and possibly another one or two passed before government funding expires at the end of September.

 
Too late, Congress recessed early to avoid voting on %reallySpecificpoliticalcontroversy%.

Via NSF

I think that it is possible that the Senate will pass its CJS bill in September but that likely won't mean much because these bills usually get bunched together in either an omni-bus or a mini-bus bill which is likely to take a while.

In terms of the House, they have adjourned but they are still holding hearings until Thursday which means that the full CJS Committee hearing on the CJS House appropriation bill will still be held this Thursday.
 
Also worrying:
https://phys.org/news/2025-07-science.html (get a screen-shot somebody!)

Lying increases trust in science, study finds​

by Bangor University

Research by philosopher of science and Honorary Research Associate at Bangor University, Byron Hyde, looked at the role of transparency in fostering public trust in science.

The paper, published in the journal Theory & Society, starts by outlining the "bizarre phenomenon" known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust.

Hyde argues that, to find a solution to this paradox, it is important to consider what institutions are being transparent about.

The study revealed that, while transparency about good news increases trust, transparency about bad news, such as conflicts of interest or failed experiments, decreases it.

Therefore, one possible solution to the paradox, and a way to increase public trust, is to lie (which Hyde points out is unethical and ultimately unsustainable), by for example making sure bad news is hidden and that there is always only good news to report
.

Now, this could go in one of two ways--

A.) This is evidence that some scientists don't like being questioned

If you want trust in science--well--you have to be open to criticism

B.) Some bloody fool young-earther creationist crank or other snuck this past--which is also galling, and proof garbage is getting through--left or right.

With something like this:

--I am more understanding...the desire to see a new extremophile--to see silicon and ammonia instead or carbon and water--that I get.
 
Last edited:
C.) Bad news upsets people - no, you can't stuff yourself with junk food year after year without getting fat deep fried Mars bars are the new superfood.

There is no cure for stoopid.
 
I don't that lying is going to help science at all.
Science is about the truth ( as we interpret the facts we observe). Lying is making things up (and sometimes forcing an agenda upon facts and figures). You can always be called out on lying about things, which not only decreases trust in the science you (miss)used but also the trust in you. Most people do understand that science can change its viewpoint about how it interpret certain facts and ideas.
You never lie in science... You can omit data that no one asked for.. You can bring out a bad report on a day when everyone else is talking about bigger news...It is not ethical sometimes, but it does happen..
 
The paper, published in the journal Theory & Society, starts by outlining the "bizarre phenomenon" known as the transparency paradox: that transparency is needed to foster public trust in science, but being transparent about science, medicine and government can also reduce trust.

If true this then shows a profound failure in critical thinking skills.

A.) This is evidence that some scientists don't like being questioned

Real scientists will always respond to questions concerning the veracity of their findings.

B.) Some bloody fool young-earther creationist crank or other snuck this past--which is also galling, and proof garbage is getting through--left or right.

That is a distinct and disturbing possibility.
 
Nearly 4,000 agency employees have chosen to accept the Trump administration's "deferred resignation" option, reducing the agency's workforce by more than 20%.

Those numbers come courtesy of NASA News Chief Cheryl Warner, who shared them in an email to reporters on Friday evening (July 25).
 
I don't that lying is going to help science at all.
Science is about the truth ( as we interpret the facts we observe). Lying is making things up (and sometimes forcing an agenda upon facts and figures). You can always be called out on lying about things, which not only decreases trust in the science you (miss)used but also the trust in you. Most people do understand that science can change its viewpoint about how it interpret certain facts and ideas.
You never lie in science... You can omit data that no one asked for.. You can bring out a bad report on a day when everyone else is talking about bigger news...It is not ethical sometimes, but it does happen..
The basic problem is that if there is an utterly deplorable genetic cesspool of science ignorants/deniers/pure idiots that are allowed to vote in the absence of an IQ/knowledge test that may well skew any election or referendum to the truly irrational/detrimental side. In the modern age, *pure* democracy based on the one person, one vote principle (whether it's the equivalent of Einstein or Snooki) should in my view be strongly reconsidered/modified, with mandatorily having to pass an IQ test at the 100 level as well as a general knowledge test as the threshold.
 
Last edited:
Your (assuming that you are a citizen or at least a resident alien [like me!] of the United States of America, and my apologies if my inference is wrong!) two centuries plus *old* political system is just so antiquated that it simply is no longer serving the needs of a modern 21st century truly equitable, multi generational, multiracial, multicultural, multi-creed, multi (sexual and otherwise) identity democracy. But that being said, as a pale, male, stale, staunchly heterosexual *tax paying* (whatever happened to the apparently hollow slogan of *no taxation without representation"?) but still *not allowed* to vote expat/legal guest worker myself, I *really* enjoy the mountains, valleys, forests, beaches, islands, lakes, deserts, museums, harbors, shopping areas, medical infrastructure, transportation hubs, on air information sources, and (sub)urban watering holes in this here state of California, and I fervently do wish it might at some point become a *Nation* of its own as the *fourth* largest economy in the world (but I do realize that realistically all those mouthbreather troglodyte nuckle dragging tooth missing teat-sucking landlocked loser states that casually use California tax dollars to support their hillbilly hick meth based lifestyles while at the same time *daring* to badmouth the Golden State that subsidizes their loser life choices will keep that from ever happening. But, to quote my boss, I'm not bitter...
 
Last edited:
Your (assuming that you are a citizen or at least a resident alien [like me!] of the United States of America, and my apologies if my inference is wrong!) two centuries plus *old* political system is just so antiquated that it simply is no longer serving the needs of a modern 21st century truly equitable, multi generational, multiracial, multicultural, multi-creed, multi (sexual and otherwise) identity democracy. But that being said, as a pale, male, stale, staunchly heterosexual *tax paying* (whatever happened to the apparently hollow slogan of *no taxation without representation"?) but still *not allowed* to vote expat/legal guest worker myself, I *really* enjoy the mountains, valleys, forests, beaches, islands, lakes, deserts, forests, museums, harbors, shopping areas, medical infrastructure, transportation hubs, on air information sources, and (sub)urban watering holes in this here state of California, and I fervently do wish it might at some point become a *Nation* of its own as the *fourth* largest economy in the world....
The political system in California is one of worse in the nation.
 
I wonder if assigned seats might be the answer. No House, only the Senate--and each state is assigned one democrat--and one republican.

Folks will HAVE to find ways to work with each other. No more being outnumbered if you are a blue guy in a red state or vice versa.
 
I wonder if assigned seats might be the answer. No House, only the Senate--and each state is assigned one democrat--and one republican.

Folks will HAVE to find ways to work with each other. No more being outnumbered if you are a blue guy in a red state or vice versa.
Huh, a pseudo puppet democracy then - no more need to have elections, yay! My advice in my post immediately above applies accordingly...
 
The Grand Duchy of Fenwick
OMG, my Kind Sir, can you please point me to a website to apply for immigration/naturalization/citizenship for this proud space-faring micro-nation? Because unlike Disneyland, which, on bad days, depending on the atmospheric conditions, I can hear the nightly decidedly solidly suborbital fireworks ruckus from my home office, I'd like to live in an old fashioned place that actually *focuses* on human spaceflight...
 
Last edited:
Via NSF:

Here are some of the non-human exploration highlights from the House's CJS Report:

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
(In thousands of dollars)

Program Amount ($000)

Science:
Earth Science .............. $1,325,000
Planetary Science .......... 2,500,000
Astrophysics ................. 1,485,000
Heliophysics .................... 625,000
Biological and Physical Sciences ... 65,000
Total, Science ............... 6,000,000

Aeronautics .................... 775,000

Space Technology ............ 912,827

Exploration .................. 9,715,800

Space Operations ......... 4,150,000

Safety, Security, and Mission Services ... 3,044,000

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration ... 200,000

Office of Inspector General ... 40,700

Total, NASA ................ $24,838,32

SCIENCE

The recommendation includes $6,000,000,000 for Science which is $1,334,200,000 below fiscal year 2025 [...]

Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor Mission.—The recommendation includes no less than the OMB Budget request of 266,300,000 for the NEO Surveyor Mission and urges NASA to work to maintain an on-time launch date.

Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program (LDEP).—The recommendation includes no less than the OMB Budget request of $137,300,000 for LDEP.

Mars Sample Return.—The Committee continues support for Mars Sample Return and includes $300,000,000 to advance the mission and maintain U.S. leadership in planetary science. The Committee notes that MSR is the top priority of the U.S. Planetary Science Decadal Survey, and China is investing in a sample return mission scheduled to launch in 2028. The Committee further notes that the MSR program is developing capabilities that are critical to the success of human exploration of the Moon and Mars including the ability to launch, transit, and land significant assets on the Moon and Mars to support human life, and to safely transport humans to and from the surface of the Moon and Mars. The Committee directs NASA to coordinate efforts between the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) on the advancement of these important technologies. The Committee also notes the potential for commercial partnerships to work with NASA on executing the mission at a lower life-cycle cost, providing an earlier sample return, and lowering mission complexity and risk. The Committee directs NASA to report to the Committee within 30 days of the enactment of this Act on the potential for commercial partnerships on the mission moving forward.

Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP).—The Committee recognizes the importance of NTP and the critical role it will play in missions under the management of the ESDMD. To align NTP development with ESDMD mission objectives, the recommendation includes $175,000,000 for the development of the reactor and engine by NASA. Further, to align NTP development with ESDMD mission objectives, the Committee directs NASA to transfer responsibility for NTP development activities from the Space Technology Mission Directorate to the ESDMD Mars Campaign Office.

Space Cargo Vehicle Emergency Crew Return Capability.—The Committee notes that since 2011, it has been NASA’s goal to have two providers for crew services to and from the ISS, yet only one is currently fully operational. Previous experience with Commercial Cargo where NASA was required to use an alternative launch vehicle when both providers were unable to provide services suggests that maintaining emergency crew return redundancy is critical for U.S. cargo service providers. The recommendation includes $5,000,000 for modification and certification activities necessary to convert a U.S. commercial cargo reentry vehicle to safely reenter and land crew on a runway within the continental U.S.

Commercial LEO Uncrewed Platform Services.—The Committee supports NASA taking advantage of commercial LEO uncrewed platform services as a cost-effective means to further NASA research and science objectives and to further commercial LEO development. No later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs NASA to provide a report on commercial LEO uncrewed platform services and how they can be best leveraged by NASA.

Space Transportation.—The Committee continues support for the Crew and Cargo program and the Commercial Crew program and provides no less than the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for both programs.

 
Via NSF:

Here is the human exploration part of the House's CJS report:

EXPLORATION

The recommendation includes $9,715,800,000 for Exploration, which is $2,499,600,000 above fiscal year 2025 and $1,402,900,000 above the OMB Budget request.

Space Launch System (SLS).—The recommendation includes $2,500,000,000 for SLS, including no less than the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for the continuation of the Block 1B Capability Upgrade. The Committee remains committed to maintaining U.S. leadership in deep space human exploration. The Committee prohibits the reallocation of funds from the Artemis Moon to Mars Transportation account or any modification to the Artemis mission directive unless and until a commercial alternative is proven to meet or exceed the capabilities provided by the SLS and Orion system, as demonstrated by the successful completion of Artemis III. The Committee directs NASA to preserve funding necessary for the procurement of spares and long-lead hardware to support a sustained annual flight cadence of the SLS and Orion spacecraft. This cadence is essential to avoid any disruption in the nation’s ability to conduct human missions beyond low Earth orbit and shall continue until such time as commercially developed, human-rated launch vehicle and crew vehicle are successfully demonstrated. The commercial alternative must be capable of delivering no less than 42 metric tons to a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) trajectory, sending astronauts to lunar orbit, and safely returning them to Earth.

Orion Program.—The recommendation includes no less than the OMB Budget request level of $1,370,000,000 for the Orion Program.

Human Landing System (HLS).—The Committee recognizes the national importance of America’s return to the Moon and provides $2,050,900,000 to achieve all contracted HLS missions, as well as development of heavy cargo landing services derived from these crewed landers to support sustainable human exploration of the Moon and Mars. Competition between industry partners will drive long-term affordability and necessary redundancy for the HLS program. The Committee supports NASA’s acquisition of heavy cargo landing services under existing HLS contracts as an example of leveraging and maximizing government investment. As NASA considers deep space exploration, including Mars, the Committee directs NASA to leverage existing HLS contracts and investments when developing deep space capabilities. Within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, and quarterly thereafter, the Committee directs NASA to provide a briefing detailing any updates on the HLS program, the progress made in the HLS program, any anticipated changes to program cost or schedule, and any other relevant issues related to the HLS program.

Exploration Upper Stage.—The Committee directs NASA to evaluate alternatives to the current Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) design for SLS, with a focus on reducing development and production costs, shortening the schedule, and maintaining the required lift capability of at least 130 tons to low-Earth orbit as specified in Section 302(c)(1)(B) of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. NASA should also evaluate how alternative designs could support the long-term evolution of SLS and broader exploration goals beyond low-Earth orbit, consistent with Section 302(c)(2) of the Act. NASA is directed to assess various propulsion systems, stage configurations, infrastructure compatibility, commercial and international collaboration opportunities, and the cost and schedule impacts of each alternative. This plan shall outline how NASA intends to utilize the remaining flight-proven components of SLS for human and cargo missions in support of lunar and Mars mission activities. NASA is directed to report to the Committee on its findings no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act.

xEVA and Human Surface Mobility Program.—The recommendation includes $641,600,000 for the Exploration Extravehicular Activity (xEVA) and Human Surface Mobility Program to ensure that all task orders necessary to maintain schedule for the International Space Station (ISS) demonstration missions and Artemis missions to the Moon and later Mars are fulfilled. NASA shall only procure next generation EVA spacesuits and services for NASA and international partner government astronauts for Low Earth Orbit, Artemis and deep space missions through a provider that has developed, tested and certified an EVA spacesuit through NASA’s xEVA program to ensure any commercially procured EVA capability meets the strict safety and mission criteria required for this program. Further, the HLS, Gateway, and Lunar Terrain Vehicle developed for Artemis missions must ensure compatibility with the EVA spacesuits developed under NASA’s xEVA program. NASA is directed to report to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this Act on how the providers of these elements are working with the xEVA program to ensure integration and compatibility.

Lunar Terrain Vehicle.—The Committee remains supportive of NASA’s Artemis efforts as they are critical to countering China’s influence on the lunar surface. The Committee therefore supports full funding for the Human Surface Mobility Program to support the selection of no fewer than two contractors for the Lunar Terrain Vehicle program.

Mars.—The Committee recognizes that it has long been NASA’s priority human exploration goal to safely land American astronauts on Mars, and it strongly supports NASA’s renewed efforts to accelerate this objective and reduce costs by maximizing commercial innovation and fixed-price development partnerships followed by commercial services procurements. The ability to launch from Earth and land large cargo on the Martian surface is vital to enabling both crewed and uncrewed missions. Of the amounts made available for Mars exploration, NASA shall prioritize and accelerate the development of commercial systems capable of performing entry, descent, and landing of human class cargo and later crew on Mars, with a goal of a launching an initial system demonstration to Mars by the 2026 Earth-Mars transfer window.

Fabrication Laboratory (FabLab) Demonstration.—The recommendation includes up to $10,000,000 for the FabLab demonstration of metal and electronic manufacturing in space.

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) Program.—The Committee continues its strong support for the CLPS program and provides no less than the fiscal year 2025 level of $250,000,000 for CLPS. The Committee notes the ability of the CLPS program to provide innovative lunar surface demonstrations, including demonstrations of lunar surface power. Within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, the Committee directs NASA to provide a briefing on any CLPS program modifications resulting from the move of the program from the SMD to ESDMD.

Advanced Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS).—The recommendation includes no less than 25,000,000 to develop the critical Moon to Mars ECLSS open mission systems capabilities that will be necessary for successful and safe missions in the deep space environment, including open mission system ECLSS architectures, highly resilient and redundant systems, small and lightweight form factors, regenerative capabilities, enhanced operational autonomy, and in situ repair capabilities assuming a deep space mission in which there is little ground intervention possible and no cargo or spares are available. The Committee directs NASA to identify the key technologies necessary for development, test, and certification for long duration Moon and Mars crewed missions, and to determine how these technologies can help accelerate development and testing of these critical capabilities. Additionally, the Committee directs NASA to identify which NASA Center facilities can help support industry testing of these advanced capabilities.

Fission Power Systems (FPSs).—The Committee notes the possibility of FPSs technology to advance exploration and Mars technology development.

Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) Program.—The Committee understands that the HALO module is a vital part of the NASA Gateway station program to support extended human habitation around the Moon and to serve as a remote test bed for eventual Mars-capable systems. Given the critical importance of HALO to the overall mission to return Americans to the Moon and onto Mars, as well as to maintain the high ground in the eventual U.S. protection of the Moon, the recommendation continues support for Gateway and provides up to the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for HALO.

 
One of the driving personalities behind the Hubble Space Telescope is sounding the alarm on president Donald Trump's disastrous space policy.

That former NASA associate administrator for spaceflight is Joe Rothenberg, who warns that the agency's current predicament — mass layoffs and deferred resignations resulting in a loss of 20 percent of its workforce and a complete overhaul of agency culture — may already be too bad to fix.

"What is happening at NASA has long term and potentially unrecoverable consequences to US scientific and technology leadership in not only space but in technology that impacts our quality of life on Earth," Rothenberg said on a LinkedIn post from former NASA astrobiologist and current policy watcher Keith Cowing.
 
Space Shuttle Discovery move to Houston would cost way more than allocated in bill

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYEDvj-4ib4

A provision in President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" orders the Air and Space Museum to transfer ownership of Space Shuttle Discovery back to NASA for relocation near the space center in Houston. However, the Smithsonian Institution is not backing down on its stance that Congress has no legal authority to mandate Discovery's removal, and they're bringing the receipts.
 
Last edited:
Senators raise NASA funding concerns in letter to Duffy:
Duffy told Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chair of the House Science Committee, at a July 16 heating of the House Transportation Committee that he would “follow the will of Congress” when Babin sought assurances that NASA would not take any actions related to the 2026 budget request until Congress passed an appropriations bill.

However, Duffy added, “I do think it’s important, and you would agree, we have to start to move forward. There are very critical timelines that we have to meet.”

 
Space Shuttle Discovery move to Houston would cost way more than allocated in bill

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYEDvj-4ib4



I may have a solution to this mess.

Brick Price's Movie Miniatures (now Wonderworks)

Here is his shuttle cockpit mock-up:

You might remember he has the molds to the Phase II Enterprise.

The money Texas wants to spend robbing the Smithsonian would be better spent preserving Mr. Prices work.
 
I may have a solution to this mess.

Brick Price's Movie Miniatures (now Wonderworks)
Here is his shuttle cockpit mock-up:
You might remember he has the molds to the Phase II Enterprise.

The money Texas wants to spend robbing the Smithsonian would be better spent preserving Mr. Prices work.

So commission this guy to build a high-fidelity, full-scale mockup of the Discovery?
 
Him for the interior certainly.

We got our shuttle back about a year ago

Mike Wing built our Saturn V display back in 1999. He's from Texas.
Turner Universal construction did the build-out

Texas already has a replica

Inspiration goes on display next year in California.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this has been posted, asking for money to use the Juno spacecraft to study a spent booster in Jupiter's orbit .....

2ab4a563-a2c7-4ebf-81c3-d740bf662e22
 
NASA has begun planning to end the mission of several important satellites at the request of the Trump administration, according to a report by NPR.



Unfortunately, the satellite – and a second OCO instrument attached to the International Space Station (ISS) – are now in the firing line from the Trump administration, despite being operational and functional. According to a former NASA employee who spoke to NPR, two anonymous current NASA employees, as well as other scientists who conduct research using the satellites' data, the agency is now planning for the termination of these missions.

"What I have heard is direct communications from people who were making those plans, who weren't allowed to tell me that that's what they were told to do. But they were allowed to ask me questions," David Crisp, a retired NASA employee who helped design the instruments, told NPR. "They were asking me very sharp questions. The only thing that would have motivated those questions was [that] somebody told them to come up with a termination plan."

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom