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

[Flyaway]

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.

Also this.

The cuts also seem at odds with the administration's stated goal of commercializing space, that is, allowing the agency to buy more services where they are available from the private sector. Instead, the heaviest cuts—sources said that NASA may face an approximately 25 percent budget cut, overall—would fall on the agency directorate, Science, least able to buy commercial services.

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

“It would be nothing short of an extinction-level event for space science.”…

arstechnica.com

 

[VishnuOsiris]

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 well drawn your own conclusions.

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

“It would be nothing short of an extinction-level event for space science.”…

arstechnica.com

So DOGE has coincidently discovered waste in NASA's budget. Perhaps SpaceX can pick of the slack? If only there were some private entity that could take care of these missions at reasonable prices. Perhaps we could pay this entity with re-directed NASA funds?

This sounds good (for them) on paper, but in my experience, you cannot simply eliminate budgets and transfer the savings to other projects, as if nothing happened. It doesn't work that way. It's Apples v. Oranges.

 

[Kiltonge]

I think one problem of public and political perception of NASA is that they have, for decades, failed to emphasise the 'first A' in their acronym.

Ask most people and they'll call it 'the space agency' and only feel a vague relevance to its work; such perception makes it vulnerable as a budget-cutting target.

With a quick web search I can't even see what proportion of their budget goes to aeronautics.

 

[Flyaway]

As I see it that though NASA has remained popular with the US public, its big champions on both sides of the house have now long gone. That though it only takes up a tiny fraction of the federal budget neither side of the house has much time for space.

 

[publiusr]

NASA funding is always the whipping boy.

 

[Hobbes]

So DOGE has coincidently discovered waste in NASA's budget.

No, they've discovered big numbers in NASA's budget. Scientific missions aren't 'waste' except to antiscientific buffoons.

 

[edwest4]

NASA got its start with captured German rockets. The space race in the 1960s was a proof of concept mission. Starting in the early 1970s, programs were cut, including experimental aircraft. NASA had been placed into hibernation. There was some notable missions later but these were unmanned. In 2010, we were told that a manned mission to Mars would be launched. It never happened.

SpaceX is still having problems with its largest rocket blowing up. One would think that with today's technology, everything would be easier. Nothing's changed. The Starliner suffered specific problems that show Boeing cannot do the job.

In the U.S., the question has always been: What practical benefits are we getting from the space program in light of the money spent?

 

[Byeman]

NASA had been placed into hibernation. There was some notable missions later but these were unmanned. In 2010, we were told that a manned mission to Mars would be launched. It never happened.

SpaceX is still having problems with its largest rocket blowing up. One would think that with today's technology, everything would be easier.

In the U.S., the question has always been: What practical benefits are we getting from the space program in light of the money spent?

Wrong on every point. NASA has been very busy, Shuttle, ISS and many unmanned missions

In 2010, we were told that a manned mission to Mars would be launched. It never happened.

Not true. Not the US that I lived in or NASA I worked for,

SpaceX is still having problems with its largest rocket blowing up. One would think that with today's technology, everything would be easier.

They are trying for 100% reusability and not just another expendable rocket. Falcon 9 first stage recovery took 20 launches

In the U.S., the question has always been: What practical benefits are we getting from the space program in light of the money spent?

Weather, sea and climate research. ISS research.

 

[Byeman]

Perhaps SpaceX can pick of the slack? If only there were some private entity that could take care of these missions at reasonable prices. Perhaps we could pay this entity with re-directed NASA funds?

No, that won't work. SpaceX doesn't do science. It is not money making endeavor. Sure contractors get paid to build spacecraft and make money doing that. BUT, the instruments and experiments on them are done by non profit organizations such as NASA centers, other government agencies like NRL, AFRL, research institutes like APL, SWRI, FFRDCs, and universities. Many missions are competed, where a PI puts together a team and comes up with a mission. SpaceX isn't going to fund and manage all this.

 

[edwest4]

What, exactly, is the research being done on the ISS and how has it solved any problems?

 

[quellish]

NASA got its start with captured German rockets.

No, they did not.
NACA was founded in 1915. NACA became NASA in 1958.

 

[publiusr]

Sadly--we have folks that think no tax dollars should go to science:

This worthy who calls himself Nate at Space News uttered the sunburst:

"Science will never justify the enormous outlays you desire. Ever. Want to see more science? It has to come second to commerce."

Space launch executives warn U.S. infrastructure unprepared for coming launch surge

Industry leaders from Blue Origin, SpaceX and ULA call for modernization of launch facilities to increase capacity

spacenews.com

That mindset is pure cancer.

 

[Byeman]

NASA got its start with captured German rockets.

It was the Army and NRL that used the V-2s. NASA was 7 after the last V-2 launch.

 

[Byeman]

Sadly--we have folks that think no tax dollars should go to science:

This worthy who calls himself Nate at Space News uttered the sunburst:

"Science will never justify the enormous outlays you desire. Ever. Want to see more science? It has to come second to commerce."

Space launch executives warn U.S. infrastructure unprepared for coming launch surge

Industry leaders from Blue Origin, SpaceX and ULA call for modernization of launch facilities to increase capacity

spacenews.com

That mindset is pure cancer.

Much like "big rockets or nothing. Or Delta II is crutch is just as much a cancer.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I don't understand why a probe aimed at Saturn is launched towards Venus "to gain momentum"... why don’t they use a larger rocket instead of extending the duration of the mission by several years? To ensure the work of civil servants?

 

[aim9xray]

Big rocket very expensive.
Little rocket less expensive.
Taxpayers cheap.
Congresscritters don't care about deferred cost.
Cut budget this year.

/caveman

 

[Justo Miranda]

Big rocket very expensive.
Little rocket less expensive.
Taxpayers cheap.
Congresscritters don't care about deferred cost.
Cut budget this year.

/caveman

I can't answer that, because I don't know the REAL difference in price between the two systems, but it seems common sense that it will always be cheaper to use a more powerful rocket than several extra years of mission, salaries and vacations of the controllers, maintenance of the control equipment, electric bill... assuming that there is no corruption in the overpricing of everything. I would never claim something like that without evidence, but it seems that there are suspicions in the new administration.

Our spacecraft use a propulsion system developed by the Nazis and no one has been able to create anything different in eighty-six years.

The blocking arguments are always the same: politics, economic considerations, military secrets, environmental damage...

 

[quellish]

Our spacecraft use a propulsion system developed by the Nazis and no one has been able to create anything different in eighty-six years.

Dr Goddard leaves the chat sobbing…

 

[Justo Miranda]

It was the Army and NRL that used the V-2s. NASA was 7 after the last V-2 launch.

Hi

 

[aim9xray]

I can't answer that, because I don't know the REAL difference in price between the two systems, but it seems common sense that it will always be cheaper to use a more powerful rocket than several extra years of mission, salaries and vacations of the controllers, maintenance of the control equipment, electric bill... assuming that there is no corruption in the overpricing of everything. I would never claim something like that without evidence, but it seems that there are suspicions in the new administration.

Well, for the most egregious example ...
Cost per SLS launch: US$2 to 2.5 Billion
Cost per Titan IV launch US $432 million (unknown year)
Cost for Delta IV Heavy launch up to US $430 million
Cost per Falcon Heavy Launch: US$97 million (2022) Expendable: US$150 million (2017)
Cost per Falcon 9 Launch US$79 million (2022)

This is just from several quick Google searches. Take these as ROM cost only. YMMV. Most precise figures will require a determination as to how may bean-counters can conduct audits on the the head of a of a pin.

On the other side of the scale, "FY19 Budget for keeping track of and operation Voyagers 1 and 2, as well as processing and disseminating the science data they continue to return was $5.8 million. This has been relatively steady (4.5–6 million a year) for the last 15 years and NASA expects the cost to remain around $5 million/year though 2025". (Quora) I will assume that en-route mission support costs for a current mission to Saturn would be twice to four times this amount (WAG).

 

[Justo Miranda]

Dr Goddard leaves the chat sobbing…

As the actor who played von Braun in The Right Stuff movie said. "Our Germans are better than their Germans," Tsiolkowsky was also pushed aside.

 

[Byeman]

.
Byeman said:
It was the Army and NRL that used the V-2s. NASA was 7 YEARS after the last V-2 launch.

Forgot a word

 

[Byeman]

I don't understand why a probe aimed at Saturn is launched towards Venus "to gain momentum"... why don’t they use a larger rocket instead of extending the duration of the mission by several years? To ensure the work of civil servants?

So wrong
a. Cheaper to extend the mission than to use a bigger rocket, because the rocket is insanely expensive.
b. Civil servants do not support the mission (JPL personnel are not civil servants

 

[Justo Miranda]

Well, for the most egregious example ...
Cost per SLS launch: US$2 to 2.5 Billion
Cost per Titan IV launch US $432 million (unknown year)
Cost for Delta IV Heavy launch up to US $430 million
Cost per Falcon Heavy Launch: US$97 million (2022) Expendable: US$150 million (2017)
Cost per Falcon 9 Launch US$79 million (2022)

This is just from several quick Google searches. Take these as ROM cost only. YMMV. Most precise figures will require a determination as to how may bean-counters can conduct audits on the the head of a of a pin.

On the other side of the scale, "FY19 Budget for keeping track of and operation Voyagers 1 and 2, as well as processing and disseminating the science data they continue to return was $5.8 million. This has been relatively steady (4.5–6 million a year) for the last 15 years and NASA expects the cost to remain around $5 million/year though 2025". (Quora) I will assume that en-route mission support costs for a current mission to Saturn would be twice to four times this amount (WAG).

Thank you for the information, but it is still strange that prices do not fall with time, experience, mass production and new technologies. The Russians continue to use basically the same Sputnik launcher, they have been improving it, and it is still useful, while the same is not true of Western designs. It is not only an economic issue, but excessive prices also discourage many projects for the benefit of a few.

 

[Byeman]

I can't answer that, because I don't know the REAL difference in price between the two systems, but it seems common sense that it will always be cheaper to use a more powerful rocket than several extra years of mission,

that would be a wrong assumption.

 

[aim9xray]

Thank you for the information, but it is still strange that prices do not fall with time, experience, mass production and new technologies. The Russians continue to use basically the same Sputnik launcher, they have been improving it, and it is still useful, while the same is not true of Western designs. It is not only an economic issue, but excessive prices also discourage many projects for the benefit of a few.

Prices HAVE fallen. Look at the cost for Falcon Heavy (leveraging off of Falcon 9) compared to Titan IV or Delta IV heavy.

Another thought as to cost reduction due to mass production - did you realize that SpaceX is producing upwards of one Falcon 9 second stage + one MerlinVac engine [both expended each launch] per week to maintain current launch rates?

 

[Byeman]

Thank you for the information, but it is still strange that prices do not fall with time, experience, mass production and new technologies. The Russians continue to use basically the same Sputnik launcher, they have been improving it, and it is still useful, while the same is not true of Western designs. It is not only an economic issue, but excessive prices also discourage many projects for the benefit of a few.

a. They increase with time because of inflation.
b. There is no "mass" production of US rockets (except maybe Falcon 9 upperstage). Production runs of two digits does not constitute "mass" production.
c. R-7 flew so many times because Soviet satellites had short lifetimes. US launch vehicle were "victim" to smaller and longer spacecraft lifetimes.
d. Rockets didn't flight enough to lower costs
e. low to zero tolerance for failure increase cost
f. you really have to look dee[p at the industry and look at the details and not make assumptions.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Perhaps if the new administration manages to cut some expenses, there will be some money left over to research new forms of propulsion that the established paradigm prevents us from considering.

I can still remember a time when the aerospace industry was the most advanced, not anymore.

 

[Byeman]

Perhaps if the new administration manages to cut some expenses, there will be some money left over to research new forms of propulsion that the established paradigm prevents us from considering.

There is no "new" propulsion. We are limited by current physics and chemical propulsion on a planet with a high level of gravity.
Again, making assumptions and not looking at the details.

 

[Justo Miranda]

There is no "new" propulsion. We are limited by current physics

 

[Byeman]

There is no "new" propulsion. We are limited by current physics

doesn't change the facts. Airplanes haven't changed in more than 1/2 century either.

 

[Orionblamblam]

doesn't change the facts. Airplanes haven't changed in more than 1/2 century either.

 

[quellish]

doesn't change the facts. Airplanes haven't changed in more than 1/2 century either.

Looks around forum at various posts

….seriously?

 

[yeetmahboi]

doesn't change the facts. Airplanes haven't changed in more than 1/2 century either.

That's only applicable to 7X7s and similar crafts AFAIK.

 

[Byeman]

Looks around forum at various posts

….seriously?

Wings and jet engines.

 

[quellish]

Wings and jet engines.

Fly by wire.
Digital flight control systems.
New control surfaces / effectors
Multi axis thrust vectoring
Composite construction
Electric power plants
Pulse detonation engine
Tailless supersonic flight
Sonic boom reduction
….etc

 

[Flyaway]

Has anyone heard any more about the process of Jared Isaacman becoming NASA administrator? As that all seems to have gone very quiet on that front.

I was looking forward to him no doubt reviving plans to service Hubble, now if Hubble is already closed that won’t happen.

 

[Avimimus]

So wrong
a. Cheaper to extend the mission than to use a bigger rocket, because the rocket is insanely expensive.
b. Civil servants do not support the mission (JPL personnel are not civil servants

One also needs to support doing the science.

If we're only interested in telecommunications satellites and ballistic missiles than the cheapest way to deliver a payload is central. But if the mission is supposed to be collecting data, it is obviously more complicated.

A lot of NASA's science (and science supporting) budget has to go into R&D and operations (i.e. actually running the missions so the scientists can do their thing).

A lot of discussion in this thread about rocketry, hardware, and even aircraft. This discussion is almost entirely off-topic.

Perhaps if the new administration manages to cut some expenses, there will be some money left over to research new forms of propulsion that the established paradigm prevents us from considering.

I can still remember a time when the aerospace industry was the most advanced, not anymore.

What new propulsion which hasn't been considered? Is there any indication that breakthrough technologies haven't been considered by the established paradigm? If I recall NASA even wasted time on reactionless drive research.

 

[Justo Miranda]

One also needs to support doing the science.

If we're only interested in telecommunications satellites and ballistic missiles than the cheapest way to deliver a payload is central. But if the mission is supposed to be collecting data, it is obviously more complicated.

A lot of NASA's science (and science supporting) budget has to go into R&D and operations (i.e. actually running the missions so the scientists can do their thing).

A lot of discussion in this thread about rocketry, hardware, and even aircraft. This discussion is almost entirely off-topic.




What new propulsion which hasn't been considered? Is there any indication that breakthrough technologies haven't been considered by the established paradigm? If I recall NASA even wasted time on reactionless drive research.

4,600 years ago, there were already slave-propelled rowing ships and galleys were used in the Mediterranean until 1748.

The steam turbine was invented in the first century AD.

The propeller was invented in 950 B.C.

I wonder how many good ideas are being exterminated now in universities and in the editorial offices of scientific publications.

The wise can change his mind, the fool never. Kant

 

[Byeman]

Fly by wire.
Digital flight control systems.
New control surfaces / effectors
Multi axis thrust vectoring
Composite construction
Electric power plants
Pulse detonation engine
Tailless supersonic flight
Sonic boom reduction
….etc

hasn't changed the basics, much like spaceflight hasn't change.