Senators Signal They're Prepared To Push Back Against NASA Cuts (bloomberg.com) 41
Senators from both parties are preparing to challenge the Trump administration's proposed 24% cut to NASA's budget, with the Senate appropriations committee advancing a $24.9 billion allocation that matches the agency's 2025 funding levels.
The bipartisan pushback directly contradicts President Donald Trump's budget request, which sought to slash NASA's science portfolio funding nearly in half and terminate dozens of operating and planned missions. "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47% and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said.
The Senate bill allocates $7.3 billion for science programs. Senators also refused the administration's call to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule after their third flights, programs Trump's budget labeled "grossly expensive and delayed." "The bill reflects an ambitious approach to space exploration, prioritizing the agency's flagship program, Artemis, and rejecting premature termination of systems like SLS and Orion before commercial replacements are ready," said Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican.
The bipartisan pushback directly contradicts President Donald Trump's budget request, which sought to slash NASA's science portfolio funding nearly in half and terminate dozens of operating and planned missions. "We rejected cuts that would have devastated NASA science by 47% and would have terminated 55 operating and planned missions," Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland, said.
The Senate bill allocates $7.3 billion for science programs. Senators also refused the administration's call to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule after their third flights, programs Trump's budget labeled "grossly expensive and delayed." "The bill reflects an ambitious approach to space exploration, prioritizing the agency's flagship program, Artemis, and rejecting premature termination of systems like SLS and Orion before commercial replacements are ready," said Senator Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican.
How about the NIH ? (Score:5, Informative)
They are cutting NIH (National Institute of Health) funding from 47 billion to $20 billion even though thanks to NIH research death rates from diseases like cancer have reduced by 30% of the last couple of decades. Reference: https://www.ctpost.com/lifesty... [ctpost.com]
And yes included in the cutbacks is $2.7 billion from the National Cancer Institute: https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
Re:How about the NIH ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically pure pork but good pork. But of course everybody else is pork is always bad pork.
We should be moving away from a competitive civilization to a cooperative one but as soon as you suggest that everyone thinks you're a big wussy. Never mind the fact that we are fundamentally a social species. Unfortunately tribalism came with that deal...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Libertarian crap like this is just that: crap. Space is not "competition". Space is dangerous, hard... and is not a cash cow like some New Smartphone With New Features That No One Ever Asked For. "Competition" as you describe it is more like the Pennsy and the NYC running tracks not a mile apart to Chicago.
We're still at the explore and experiment. There's no "competition" for studies in the Antarctic.
Re:How about the NIH ? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet it's been private companies like SpaceX that have done far more to advance humanity's space faring capabilities than NASA has of recent.
In launch services yes but outside of manned spacecraft NASA has always relied on contractors and even those were all NASA designs built by contractors. Titan rockets the Voyager probes flew on were a product of Martin Corp.
Also SpaceX was built on the foundations of all that NASA knowhow built over decades. Did they have to material science their own heatshield material? No, NASA said here take our PICA and use that.
Not to discount what SpaceX has done which is very impressive but it's a sterling example of the power of public/private cooperation, not "free market private actors".
Re: (Score:3)
And yet it's been private companies like SpaceX that have done far more to advance humanity's space faring capabilities than NASA has of recent.
In launch services yes but outside of manned spacecraft NASA has always relied on contractors and even those were all NASA designs built by contractors. Titan rockets the Voyager probes flew on were a product of Martin Corp.
Also SpaceX was built on the foundations of all that NASA knowhow built over decades. Did they have to material science their own heatshield material? No, NASA said here take our PICA and use that.
Not to discount what SpaceX has done which is very impressive but it's a sterling example of the power of public/private cooperation, not "free market private actors".
What pure science has Spacex done? I mean to hear the cult talk, Elon Invented the Rocket. Granted, he designed and built the Voyager probes, the Saturn rockets and landed the first people on the moon/ When are people going to realize that we don't need NASA any more, only Spacex /s
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and that's a perfect reason there shouldn't be this manufactured choice to where these these things compete with each other when really they work great together.
Once reason I have been so hyped on Starship is the type of science it could enable NASA to do, suddenly having giant planetary orbiters becomes way more feasible with way shorter timespans. The first boots on Mars should be NASA astronauts carried by a SpaceX ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup and that's a perfect reason there shouldn't be this manufactured choice to where these these things compete with each other when really they work great together.
Once reason I have been so hyped on Starship is the type of science it could enable NASA to do, suddenly having giant planetary orbiters becomes way more feasible with way shorter timespans. The first boots on Mars should be NASA astronauts carried by a SpaceX ship.
What to you think about the fact that it keeps rapidly disassembling? I hear people talk about "Move fast and break things".
Would you buy a car that blows up every time, using the concept of move fast and break things?
Now that sounds kinda of specious at least to me, because liquid fueled Rocketry is over 100 years old. And modern rockets are pretty well based on the concepts of the V2 rocket designed and built in Germany in WW2.
Now if were me in charge of the StarShip program, I'd be placing a hard
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a good concept with smart people behind it but with absolute chaos at the top of the corporate structure.
SpaceX probably has or had the deepest bench of aerospace engineering talent but when there is rot at the top of the pyramid in a company structured to revolve things around that one person, well, shit gets sloppy and there no impetus to slow down and take a step back, is Musk gonna give that directive?
He either needs to take a sabbatical or get his shit together, leave Tesla and focus on Sp
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a good concept with smart people behind it but with absolute chaos at the top of the corporate structure.
SpaceX probably has or had the deepest bench of aerospace engineering talent but when there is rot at the top of the pyramid in a company structured to revolve things around that one person, well, shit gets sloppy and there no impetus to slow down and take a step back, is Musk gonna give that directive?
He either needs to take a sabbatical or get his shit together, leave Tesla and focus on SpaceX, it's really where the guy has been historically good, at that pushing the envelope stage and just keeping a team going. Maybe he is no longer capable of that, just fried on drugs and conspiracy propaganda.
Also I can imagine a lot of that engineering talent is bleeding off, I thin losing someone like Tom Mueller who designed the Merlin engines left a big gap. I am sure there are others. That adds up.
I do believe you are 100 percent correct. From where he was to where he is, I fear the changes in Musk are probably due to drug use. He has said in the past that he "microdoses" ketamine, but has also said he uses more for partying. Some of the abuse indicators fit. His flipflopping from liberal to far right conservative, then getting into a fracas with Orange Daddy and making threats about the Epstein documents, then saying he over-reacted. Damn you need a scorecard to figure out where his mind is on what
Re: (Score:2)
The issues they are facing are with the structure. The Raptor engine hasn't had any issues. The problem they are facingnis that they need the vehicle to survive re-entry unscathed yet deliver a large payload to orbit. They need the solution that can be robust using up the least possible weight.
Re: (Score:1)
That would smell a lot more like a libertarian success story, if SpaceX hadn't received billions of dollars in government subsidies. But since We The People paid for it in taxes, instead of private investors, it's merely just another government success story.
Agreed, though, that Space X has kicked major ass. Regardless of however we think they're "supposed to" do it
Re: (Score:3)
NASA continues to run groundbreaking missions. "Competition" from the private sector is nothing more than the private sector taking space technology from Nasa, then getting huge government kickbacks (SpaceEx), and using that.
There is no 'competition' in space without the government kickbacks, and the reason THAT is happening is pretty simple: Corporate Welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of tripe. NASA continues to run groundbreaking missions. "Competition" from the private sector is nothing more than the private sector taking space technology from Nasa, then getting huge government kickbacks (SpaceEx), and using that.
Spacex is following in the tradition of companies like:
First stage of the Saturn V: Boeing
Second stage of the Saturn V: North American Aviation (which has since become part of Boeing)
Third stage of the Saturn V: Douglas (also now under Boeing)
Instrument unit for the Saturn V: IBM
Engines for the Saturn V: Rocketdyne (now operating as Aerojet Rocketdyne)
For the Apollo spacecraft:
Command and Service Module (CSM): North American Aviation
Lunar Module (LM): Grumman (now part of Northrop Grumman)
Servic
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Lack of competition is why NASA ultimately devolved into little more than pork projects. Competition from the private sector has made them irrelevant for any actual space travel or other projects.
You do realize that this "competition from the private sector" was entirely the result of NASA funding, right? The current poster-child for private spaceflight, SpaceX, developed their workhorse Falcon-9 from NASA funding (the space station commercial resupply and commercial crew programs), because NASA invested in them at a time when SpaceX's entire record of rocket launches consisted of three attempts to launch their Falcon-1 rocket resulting in three failures.
Re: (Score:1)
So NASA is a cash cow for multiple districts. Especially ones in red States. I haven't looked in a while but they were entire cities that basically popped up and are completely dependent on there NASA jobs. It's basically pure pork but good pork. But of course everybody else is pork is always bad pork. We should be moving away from a competitive civilization to a cooperative one but as soon as you suggest that everyone thinks you're a big wussy. Never mind the fact that we are fundamentally a social species. Unfortunately tribalism came with that deal...
Socialist communist, not wussy. Which, of course, is far worse.
Some would say we're "evolving" out of being a social species and that that is a positive thing. Because greed overcoming decency is apparently a net positive? I dunno. I tend to glaze over when I start having it explained to me that treating each other with respect is somehow going to cause the world to end.
Re: (Score:2)
Hand wringing (Score:1)
Does it matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whatever budget Congress sets, the majority party has already been clear that they have no intent to enforce it. If the president uses the NASA money for something else, or even just puts it into his own personal pocket, we can be confident that he won't be impeached, and if impeached, he won't be convicted.
The only thing that matters is the total budget. The president is free to spend that total however he wishes. This isn't the law as written, but it's the law defacto. If voters have a problem with that (do they?) they can choose a different party to be the majority.
lying blowhards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm it is before...
Big Beautiful Act, was for 'mandatory spending'; Congress will now pass several appropriations bills between now middle September for 'discretionary' spending.
Some of the negative covfefe around the BBA is fair but a lot of it is just negative partisan propaganda that only works because they convinced a huge portion of their base that just because the had a degree, or whatever that must mean they also know someone about the federal budget and political process that generates it. When the
Re: (Score:2)
The Inflation Reduction Act was also mostly garbage, just the other side of the same broken coin.
Sure, the Republican side of the coin wants to pretend global warming isnt happening and defunds large amounts of policies that have been set up by multiple administrations to help combat it as they've just done with their budget bill. The Democratic side of the coin acknowledges that global warming is in fact real and that we need to collectively do something about it as seen in the inflation reduction act.
And yes, I will take some government waste (which there likely was with the IRA) over inaction on the
Re: lying blowhards (Score:2)
Yes and no -- you're correct that the appropriations process for discretionary spending is separate, but it's coupled together because the revenue half of the equation got slashed. I predict suddenly folks will be screaming loudly about deficit spending in the face of all the steps of the appropriations process now
Re: lying blowhards (Score:2)
You're right, they're separate processes, but they're not independent. Now that the revenue side of things has been slashed, chime in the folks who suddenly are very concerned about the deficit arguing that there's no way to keep nasa funding at previous levels
Boeing (Score:3)
Can't cut Starliner! It's such a successful program! Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Orion is not Starliner.
Re: (Score:2)
Starliner and SLS are often associated with one another. They're both crap and over budget.
Now watch the ideological capture of /. (Score:1, Interesting)
There will be a wave of posts about how these Brave Senators are fighting the Nasty Orange Fascist Tyrant and his anti-Science agenda(tm).
When in fact, let's be clear:
- SLS is an hilariously borderline disaster. Behind by years, $billions beyond budget, tests constantly fail. And it basically doesn't work.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress... [wordpress.com]
- Should we talk about how their original mandate was more or less just to REbuild the Saturn V/Apollo a little bigger with modern materials? You know, that system that
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, Lockheed's response is they need more money [b17news.com]:
A Lockheed representative said that addressing these issues comes down to reliably investing in parts and maintenance. Edward Smith, the companyâ(TM)s F-35 business development director, said that âoeto maintain a fleet at any given readiness level, you have to fully fund your supply system.â
Smith said that the F-35 has historically been underfunded in terms of the supply purchased for the aircraft and depot repair capacity, adding that itâ(TM)s important to get the supply of sustainment parts at a level that matches the jetâ(TM)s readiness needs.
Re: (Score:1)
1000% agree. I don't know if you expected I'd disagree, but absolutely: the idea of a $100 million plane (and what they don't tell you is that the quote to allies is +$400 million in life costs for the plane's operational span - this is a $half BILLION plane).
You could FILL THE SKY with crazy awesome drones and deploy a "can't miss" directed-energy weapon AA defense system for the cost of 1 stupid F35.
DoD exactly like NASA: the government needs to aggressively prune these programs.
We are $37 BILLION in deb
Kinda late to signal now (Score:2)
Hey idiots, you had power before
SLS (Score:3)
Senators also refused the administration's call to cancel the Space Launch System
It wasn't nicknamed the "Senate Launch System" for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't nicknamed the "Senate Launch System" for nothing.
You misspelled "lunch"
Short Sighted (Score:3)
The NASA budget is such a small part of the overall United States budget that it's just short sighted to cut it, I'm sure there are plenty of other things that can be cut instead
Backbone at last? (Score:2)
Nah. False alarm.