Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space NASA

JPL To Cut 5% of Workforce, Its Third Layoff This Year (behindtheblack.com) 46

Posted by msmash from the tough-luck dept.
An anonymous reader writes: JPL in California announced this week a layoff of 325 workers, about 5% of its workforce, the third major layoff imposed this year.

The JPL press release indicates the layoffs are because of NASA budget cutbacks, but does not provide any specificity. The cause centers mostly around NASA's decision to pause its Mars Sample Return project, which JPL was leading. From this report:

This is the third round of layoffs at JPL this year, a reduction spurred primarily by major budgetary cuts to the Mars Sample Return mission, which is managed by JPL. NASA directed $310 million this year to the effort to bring Mars rocks back to Earth, a steep drop from the $822.3 million it spent on the program the previous year.


This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

JPL To Cut 5% of Workforce, Its Third Layoff This Year More

JPL To Cut 5% of Workforce, Its Third Layoff This Year

Comments Filter:

  • NASA is basically going to shut down (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday November 14, 2024 @10:22AM (#64945397)
    With how the election has gone we are going to privatize it almost entirely. I think a little bit of it'll be kept around is a pork project at least the time being. But it's going to get gutted. Like the old saying goes, privatize the profits and socialize the losses...

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by avandesande ( 143899 )
      It's called SpaceX

      • It's called SpaceX

        I do like to remind people that the most significant source of funding for SpaceX has been NASA.

        SpaceX's first major customer was NASA, which supported SpaceX to design and build the Falcon-9 rocket and Dragon capsule for Space Station resupply (and, later, for crew launch).

        • SpaceX's first major customer was NASA, which supported SpaceX to design and build the Falcon-9 rocket and Dragon capsule for Space Station resupply (and, later, for crew launch).

          And I wouldn't be surprised if Elon's new objective is to pull the ladder from underneath SpaceX so that NASA doesn't create or support any future competitors to SpaceX's newly established, effective monopoly on the US space industry.

      • And in the drive for efficiency I am sure Musk will skip NASA and just send all money to SpaceX

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          And in the drive for efficiency I am sure Musk will skip NASA and just send all money to SpaceX

          Exactly. And lets not forget Musk will need to spin it since he decries "government handouts".

    • It's a chaotic situation and difficult to predict. Republican politicians seem to be very bad at getting anything from Trump, and Trump seems very good at making them fall in line. So maybe the pork barreling will end.

      Musk tried working with Trump in the previous Trump administration and gave up in frustration. Maybe this time will be different, and SpaceX will get all of NASA's work because Musk wants the money, or Trump decides he can take credit or skim something from it.

      Or maybe it'll all get shut d

      • It's a chaotic situation and difficult to predict. Republican politicians seem to be very bad at getting anything from Trump, and Trump seems very good at making them fall in line. So maybe the pork barreling will end.

        My guess is that there will just be fewer barrels, and the biggest one will be labeled "SpaceX."

        Musk tried working with Trump in the previous Trump administration and gave up in frustration. Maybe this time will be different, and SpaceX will get all of NASA's work because Musk wants the money, or Trump decides he can take credit or skim something from it.

        See above.

        Or maybe it'll all get shut down as part of 'trimming the fat'. After all, that's going to be Elon's job and he might be forced to do it over his SpaceX conflict of interest. It's not like the Republican base is pro-science, or worried about hurting themselves with the cutbacks they have been conditioned to demand.

        I don't see how shutting down NASA conflicts with Elon Musk's interest. Mind you, I don't think it will happen, because Musk still wants NASA as a customer.

        I wouldn't bet on any particular outcome.

        Nor would I, except one: SpaceX is going to grow significantly.

        • Depending on how chummy Musk and Trump can become this go-around, I could see NASA becoming a direct funnel for money to SpaceX. While in the short-term, that's probably a positive for space launch enthusiasts, as SpaceX is the fastest, most proficient launcher today, ultimately it'll be a loss as competition is driven out of business altogether. I'd like to see the legacy shitbird brigade lose their cost-plus perpetual contracts that spend billions on vaporware every year, but I'd still like to see some of

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by spitzak ( 4019 )

            The JPL projects were highly likely to be launched by SpaceX boosters. You seem to be confused about whose budget is being cut.

            I agree the pork project of the other booster, carefully distributed to many states to get support from as many congress as possible, should be cancelled. But JPL has nothing to do with that.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

            We need competition within the launch vehicle sector if we're going to continue to see launch costs drop as SpaceX has always promised they will. They get monopoly power and it'd just be shuffling off the old shitbirds for a brand new, much bigger single shitbird. I'm not down with that clown.

            I'm no fan of Musk, but SpaceX has been doing good work and launch costs are dropping even without meaningful competition. Starship is supposed to be cheaper, but we'll see.

            Falcon Heavy (fully expended): 63,800kg to LEO, $150M per launch
            SLS: 70,000kg to LEO, $2.5B per launch

            It's... really hard to throw stones about "competition" when costs are >90% less than what NASA is giving us.

            • We need competition within the launch vehicle sector if we're going to continue to see launch costs drop as SpaceX has always promised they will. They get monopoly power and it'd just be shuffling off the old shitbirds for a brand new, much bigger single shitbird. I'm not down with that clown.

              I'm no fan of Musk, but SpaceX has been doing good work and launch costs are dropping even without meaningful competition. Starship is supposed to be cheaper, but we'll see.

              Falcon Heavy (fully expended): 63,800kg to LEO, $150M per launch SLS: 70,000kg to LEO, $2.5B per launch

              It's... really hard to throw stones about "competition" when costs are >90% less than what NASA is giving us.

              I can't disagree with that. I just don't want to see SpaceX become the only launch vehicle provider, even if they have done some tremendous things to bring launch costs down. Maybe Musk's dreams of cheaper spaceflight would keep him on the straight and narrow when it comes to prices, but something tells me the ego would kick in once he was the only available player. I hate to say it, but we may get the chance to find out.

      • It should be OK to ask government agencies to rank their programs, program budgets, priority, benefit to citizens in 5 years, and a 2, 5,10 year plan.

        The current mess of baseline budgeting (4% growth without Congress voting), guarding and bring home your Congressional district's pork projects, and programs exist in perpetuity once created (sacred cows) should be changed.

        • Anyone care to list the accomplishments of NASA in the last 20 years which have practical benefits to ordinary citizens today?

          Things in the 'in 5 years it will do X, cure cancer, zero G manufacturing in 5 years", and other future promises excluded."

      • the current GOP senate majority leader has said he won't remove the filibuster.

        Without that they can't repeal the Affordable Care Act, meaning pre-existing conditions protections will still exist (for now).

        What's crazy to me is how many old farts here on /. are all in on Trump even though he's repeatedly said he'll repeal the ACA (with "Concepts of a Plan" to replace it), when they are heavily dependent on the ACA's protections. They're old enough to remember what it was like pre-ACA, but folks forg

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by deKernel ( 65640 )

      What profits...what losses...do you even know what you are saying? This is a government agency so those "things" don't exist. Is it even possible for you to see something beyond the prism of socialism is good and capitalism is bad? Look NASA and it's old school contractors have wasted more money than we can even imagine with very little to show for it. It is time for a shake up because right now SpaceX is leaps and bounds in front of Nasa and Boeing when it comes to delivering and costs which are all good.

    • We should shut down the Marine Corps because they're not making a profit.

      • While a complete shutdown is unlikely, what do you think ultimately comes from the US giving up the 'world police' role and becoming more isolationist again?

        Ultimately, unless a war breaks out the US can't avoid, there will be personnel reductions across the services.

        • Ultimately, unless a war breaks out the US can't avoid, there will be personnel reductions across the services.

          Perfect! Generate a large number of unemployed people with no job prospects whose main skills are killing humans. What could possibly be wrong with this plan?

          • Back in the day, you'd put them in post office sorting centers and occasionally they'd shoot up some posties.

            But the Republicans want to shut down the USPS too, so I'm guessing homeless vets with PTSD shooting randomly? It'll be nice to see the violence somewhere other than a school.

    • NASA already does privatize a lot. Most space probes are built by private companies and/or universities via contracts. That's partly why the category is called "Aerospace". It's a myth that NASA builds most of the space equipment themselves.

      The problem with the new administration is that Don doesn't value science, he wants glory, and thus seeks photogenic missions, leaning toward manned missions.

    • "My side didn't win, universe is ending"

      Jesus won't you people shut up already?

      You lost. Maybe you'll do better next time. Trump isn't Hitler.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        which 2 Trillion dollars are you going to be happy doing without?

        Have fun win an anti-vaxxer in charge of health

        And a Russian asset in charge of intelligence department
        No not Trump, the other Russian asset.

        A rapist & sex trafficker in charge of justice department
        No not Trump, the other rapist pedo

        • One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and believing the outcome will be different.

          You just keep sucking on that media firehose you call "news" and we'll see how 2028 turns out. I hear you guys mostly want Kamala to run again, and that's something we can ALL agree on!

  • Technically correct, there was a budget cut in 2024, from $25.3 billion in 2023 down to $24.8 billion. That was after a budget increase from $24.0 billion in 2022.

  • dogshit vendors (Score:2, Insightful)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 )

    NASA needs to stop spending money on crap vendors like Boeing. The faster Boeing offloads its space program the better.

    NASA's high standards drive cost but when vendors flub the job cost really goes up.

    • You understand those decisions are made by politicians, not NASA management, right? Congress makes those decisions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      The contract with Boeing is written such that Boeing eats most the costs if things go wrong, not NASA. However, the side-effects of schedule slips etc. trickle to NASA.

      And the contract was probably signed before Boeing's suckage was exposed.

      Having a back-up vendor is a sound concept, though. I give NASA kudos for that one. In fact Boeing's screwups show why a back-up vendor is important. Suppose Musk grew too stoned over time and let slimy bean-counters run Space-X.

  • As usual the human spaceflight directorate ( Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD) at NASA) is up to its old tricks, stealing money from science missions to fuel their super-pork, super-pointless manned missions. NASA has a long history of doing this all the way back to the late 70's. It is why Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman formed the Planetary Society. At one point, NASA spent more on a new space toilet (made in Russia no less) for the ISS (about 30 mil) than for the Europa mission

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Close