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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lc89 said:
There are people here on this post who have repeatedly commented on how stupid Trump is. And am I the problem? Has this enriched the Thread?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but I *DO* note your propensity to not answer questions directly posed to you, so at the very least you do not appear to be part of the solution either...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Weird is a *SERIOUS* understatement for that train wreck manifesto - shades of the Unabomber creed come to mind in that drivel...
Click to expand...
That's because this regime is one of serial killers. Some things really are much simpler to comprehend than they appear.
 
Lc89 said:
There are people here on this post who have repeatedly commented on how stupid Trump is. And am I the problem? Has this enriched the Thread?
Click to expand...
We can talk about how he's an adjudicated child rapist and that one specific fact being the fulcrum this entire regime spins around. Lc89 why do you support a child rapist at all, much less this vehemently?
 
There's seems to be a lot of gloom and doom here, but all of these draconian budget cuts could be simply reversed by the next administration in less than 4 years right ? NASA's been through a lot worse than this and they can ride this out.
 
alberchico said:
There's seems to be a lot of gloom and doom here, but all of these draconian budget cuts could be simply reversed by the next administration in less than 4 years right ? NASA's been through a lot worse than this and they can ride this out.
Click to expand...

Nope, NASA is currently planning for the worst, that is the OMB slashed budget. Congress may eventually overturn the slashing, but not before early October... if all goes well, gridlock, cough, government shutdown, cough.
 
OP:
Flyaway said:
To summarise the article. This would decimate multiple existing science missions still productively producing data. It could mean killing missions that cost billions of dollars to make. It could be mean the death of missions in development. It would destroy the crown jewel of NASA, something that only makes up 30% of NASA’s budget. And finally it would effectively mean ceding scientific exploration of the solar system to China, and to a lesser Extent to ESA. Private industry cannot fill the gap, and wouldn’t do. The writer of the article is someone who has always been very supportive of private space, so if he’s showing concern then we’ll draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...
Identifying the projects and operations that will be affected by this policy is certainly appropriate to this forum.
We are drifting further and further into discussing the wisdom (?) in and the motives behind it all. Or consequences.
I have hinted at my feelings about them here:
Important issues worthy of discussion. But not on this forum, I believe.
 
alberchico said:
There's seems to be a lot of gloom and doom here, but all of these draconian budget cuts could be simply reversed by the next administration in less than 4 years right ? NASA's been through a lot worse than this and they can ride this out.
Click to expand...

These cuts have several results:
1. people get fired, and will leave the field. This results in a loss of expertise. People who have been burned once are unlikely to return, so that loss is often permanent.
2. facilities get shut down. Equipment is sold or demolished. This administration is talking about decommissioning satellites, for instance. Once those are gone, replacing them costs hundreds of millions and takes years, and you end up with years-long gaps in long-term records.
3. data is deleted.

I don't think it's been this bad since the decision to cancel Apollo.
 
Hobbes said:
1. people get fired, and will leave the field. This results in a loss of expertise. People who have been burned once are unlikely to return, so that loss is often permanent.
Click to expand...

They could probably be rehired but you'd have to pay them a LOT of money to lure them back and no doubt publicly apologise to them for their wrongful termination of employment.
 
Byeman said:
That wasn't a bad decision.
Click to expand...
The *bad* decision was to replace it with an expendable/reusable Frankenstein kludge "Space Shuttle" instead of an all liquid rocket propulsion clean VTHL TSTO RLV design, no thanks to the even then full on rampant/blatant toxic mix of ignorance and parochial interests in Congress.
 
Last edited:
Byeman said:
That wasn't a bad decision.
Click to expand...
It was an inevitable decision: the US could not sustain spending 4.5% of its Federal budget on Apollo.

I'm saying the decision to end Apollo, and reduce NASA's budget by 90% compared to its 1966 peak did have a major impact on NASA and its contractors: tons of people lost their jobs and had to find employment in other sectors.
 
martinbayer said:
The *bad* decision was to replace it with an expendable/reusable Frankenstein kludge "Space Shuttle" instead of an all liquid rocket propulsion clean VTHL TSTO RLV design, no thanks to the even then full on rampant/blatant toxic mix of ignorance and parochial interests in Congress.
Click to expand...
No, that is hindsight. And even that would have had problems.
 
That's the most terrible thing with the 1971 Space Shuttle... there was no "good" design to be picked up. No silver bullet. Only impossible compromises - and badly compromised designs. Perfect hindsight of course, which is always 20/20.

INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLE PLANS [1963-2001]

web.archive.org

The fully reusable Shuttles needed a monster booster returning to the launch site. And the orbiter was huge too, packed with cryogens inside and reentry inferno on the other, TPS being wholly immature, the whole nine yards.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Someone needs to publicly point out this fact on live TV in the US where Trump will hear about it and he publicly needs to have his nose rubbed into that fact.
Click to expand...
Fox News and OANN will carefully studiously avoid talking about this the way they carefully studiously avoided talking about the bird flu culls that bumped egg prices slightly or that Trump told the Republicans not to support any Biden Border Bill. These are liars, cheaters, thieves, and murderers we're now stuck with as a direct result.

Then people wonder why I'm simply Anticonservative. Not liberal, not socialist, none of these. Just Anticonservative.
 
dannydale said:
Fox News and OANN will carefully studiously avoid talking about this the way they carefully studiously avoided talking about the bird flu culls that bumped egg prices slightly or that Trump told the Republicans not to support any Biden Border Bill. These are liars, cheaters, thieves, and murderers we're now stuck with as a direct result.

Then people wonder why I'm simply Anticonservative. Not liberal, not socialist, none of these. Just Anticonservative.
Click to expand...
I am just as anti Liberal for similar reasons. They are also liars, cheaters, thieves, and murderers and we were stuck with a similar result earlier,
 
Lc89 said:
There are people here on this post who have repeatedly commented on how stupid Trump is. And am I the problem? Has this enriched the Thread?
Click to expand...
If Trump is stupid... What happens to those who have allowed themselves to be defeated by him?

In my opinion, Trump's political opponents were so confident in the indestructibility of their system that they did not see the danger posed by an outsider tired of paying taxes.

They simply said: he is not one of us, he does not know the rules of politics, he cannot win.
 
Justo Miranda said:
If Trump is stupid... What happens to those who have allowed themselves to be defeated by him?

In my opinion, Trump's political opponents were so confident in the indestructibility of their system that they did not see the danger posed by an outsider tired of paying taxes.

They simply said: he is not one of us, he does not know the rules of politics, he cannot win.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the movie Idiocracy?
 
Justo Miranda said:
If Trump is stupid... What happens to those who have allowed themselves to be defeated by him?
Click to expand...
Oh my dear, sweet, naive, Justo, just in case you *REALLY* haven't been following any transhispanic news lately, they get deported (funnily/ironically enough, mostly people with hispanic sounding [well, at least to a blue eyed heritage German like me ;)] names), incarcerated, rounded up, intimidated, criminally charged, prosecuted, put in cages and hastily constructed compounds, and chased/hounded in public streets, venues, and plazas. But I guess, since you, in my best understanding, grew up under Franco, that's perfectly par for the course to you?
 
Last edited:
I will play the devil's advocate here.
1756017796766.png
1756018026953.png

What are the cuts actually directed at? Ambitious projects like reactors on the moon and going to Mars makes it seem NASA has the necessary funding to try to make those things happen.
If they are still creating and launching new satellites, creating and launching new rovers to distant moons or planets, spending money on spacecrafts, launching astronauts, working on nuclear propulsion wouldn't that be considered necessary spending?

A google search is telling me China spent 20 billion dollars on space and the US spent like 79.7 billion dollars on space. Having 1/4th the budget didn't stop China from landing a rover on the far side of the moon. 3.96 billion dollars on space spending didn't stop Russia from their nuclear space tug project, a joint nuclear reactor on moon agreement with China, working on new class rocket designs, working on getting a blimp, lander and an orbiter going in Venus, ROSS space station and launching satellites and astronauts.
 
Null said:
I will play the devil's advocate here.
View attachment 782484
View attachment 782485

What are the cuts actually directed at? Ambitious projects like reactors on the moon and going to Mars makes it seem NASA has the necessary funding to try to make those things happen.
If they are still creating and launching new satellites, creating and launching new rovers to distant moons or planets, spending money on spacecrafts, launching astronauts, working on nuclear propulsion wouldn't that be considered necessary spending?

A google search is telling me China spent 20 billion dollars on space and the US spent like 79.7 billion dollars on space. Having 1/4th the budget didn't stop China from landing a rover on the far side of the moon. 3.96 billion dollars on space spending didn't stop Russia from their nuclear space tug project, a joint nuclear reactor on moon agreement with China, working on new class rocket designs, working on getting a blimp, lander and an orbiter going in Venus, ROSS space station and launching satellites and astronauts.
Click to expand...
What do you want to see happen next?
 
Null said:
What are the cuts actually directed at? Ambitious projects like reactors on the moon and going to Mars makes it seem NASA has the necessary funding to try to make those things happen.
If they are still creating and launching new satellites, creating and launching new rovers to distant moons or planets, spending money on spacecrafts, launching astronauts, working on nuclear propulsion wouldn't that be considered necessary spending?
Click to expand...
The cuts are directed at almost every program NASA runs. Artemis is the sole exception.

The proposed cuts include 41 missions:
- 19 unmanned spacecraft currently in operation, from New Horizons to Osiris-Apex.
- 22 spacecraft currently under construction including the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope

The science budget is halved. The space operations budget (which includes ISS operations) sees a 25% cut. The technology budget (developing new tech for future missions) is halved. Aeronautics sees a 30% cut.
 
Whatever is left of NASA and inherited by the next president, I still think Jared Isaacman would be a good choice for Administrator. I just hope it’s a president with at least some appreciation for science.
 
Hobbes said:
The cuts are directed at almost every program NASA runs. Artemis is the sole exception.

The proposed cuts include 41 missions:
- 19 unmanned spacecraft currently in operation, from New Horizons to Osiris-Apex.
- 22 spacecraft currently under construction including the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope

The science budget is halved. The space operations budget (which includes ISS operations) sees a 25% cut. The technology budget (developing new tech for future missions) is halved. Aeronautics sees a 30% cut.
Click to expand...
This is moron level shit. The current US administration is the among the most self destructive in US history. I just don't understand how American's voted for a second Trump administration. I think it will be something that will be studied for some time to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom