Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts
116 comments
·July 16, 2025trostaft
I hope they manage to do something similar for the NSF. The proposed cuts there are crushing. The NSF funds great science in all parts of the country, and subsequently tons of jobs to the area.
musicale
NSF funds tons of underpaid grad students who are the source of US research productivity per dollar.
javiramos
Different perspective... As an NSF grad student I didn't feel underpaid -- I felt extremely lucky that I got to do cutting-edge research while being paid a low but decent, livable salary. Of course, I could have made more money going into industry -- but at least we have a choice with institutions like the NSF willing to support risky projects that move humanity forward.
jplusequalt
As someone who's friends with multiple grad students who are funded by the NSF ... this is not the opinion I've heard from them. They're all working on awesome research that could actually help people, and yet they struggle to get by.
sandworm101
And they are the underpaid workforce that keeps the undergrad industrial complex so profitable.
Dig1t
[flagged]
oivey
Where did you read this?
perihelions
(Not OP) They're from this .csv table of cancelled NSF grants posted on HN,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43959129#43959536 ("The Academic Pipeline Stall: Why Industry Must Stand for Academia (sigarch.org)"—65 days ago, 150 comments)
ogjerajogae
this user has been making this claim repeatedly for months -- and if you look at the source data they used, the titles are fabricated and non-representative.
They are either a GenAI disinformation bot, or they're a human who is so dedicated to their dishonesty as to be impossible to distinguish from such a bot.
null
moab
You clearly did not look at the proposed cuts for the coming years---it guts the NSF.
autobodie
That would be a great way to spend the money saved by taking away millions of peoples' healthcare.
geuis
It's refreshing that given everything else happening, Congress is still at least functional at this level.
Should be noted that many of NASA's programs are situated in predominantly conservative areas of the country. Brings lots of jobs and resources to the local economies.
somenameforme
Except SLS/Orion should be cancelled. The SLS is pejoratively called the Senate Launch System, because it has no real place in the market yet is continuing to consume tens of billions of dollars. It was mostly obsoleted by Falcon Heavy years ago (SLS has been a black hole of funding since 2011), and its costs are completely ridiculous. You're looking at billions of dollars per launch if it ever is confidently flight ready.
And mind you it's not some amazing technological marvel that's driving these ridiculous costs. It's essentially a really expensive refactoring of the Space Shuttle program to the point that it will be using the literally exact same rs-25 engines.
And you already hit exactly on why they're not being cancelled - there's going to be a very short degree of separation between Congressmen and the people charging absurd costs for simple tech that's being used in this project. To me, this is perhaps the purest embodiment (and reason) for governmental dysfunction, at all levels. It's simple pork and corruption.
mjamesaustin
The real tragedy is that the administration withdrew Jared Isaacman's nomination to be NASA administrator. He had bold plans for modernizing NASA and the experience to lead. But he didn't kiss the ring and instead made comments suggesting NASA's budget shouldn't be eviscerated, so his appointment was torpedoed.
somenameforme
The administrator is definitely one of the weakest links in the system. Bridenstine was looking amazing for NASA then at one point he did a hard 180 and suddenly just became an unthinking Boeing cheerleader, and is largely responsible for the catastrophe that is Boeing's Starliner. And then as soon as he left office he suddenly is in a senior advisory role for some military industrial complex orgs, probably pulling 7 figures for a Zoom call now and then.
But Isaacman? Well he's already a billionaire, and highly ideological towards progress in space. Yeah 0 chance he gets appointed.
7e
A tragedy avoided given his close ties to SpaceX and Musk, which would have been inappropriate at best and corruption at worst.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7
Need some competition to commercial near-monopolization (in the pre-to-mid 2010s when it was funded), some other program, they already funded SLS (which was funded to carry way more payload than FH), let it play out, IMO.
Also, not to say it isn't a time to start acting, if we are another decade out still adding funding to SLS with the current balance sheet, we have major issues.
But $30B over 10Y isn't that crazy when we spend ~$900B a year (with much more in 2026) on defense.
somenameforme
This is the definition of throwing good money after bad. Even if SLS can be completed, it just has no purpose. The latest "estimates" (which means will likely be well below what actually happens) put the recurring per launch costs of SLS at $2.5 billion per launch, on top of the ongoing tens of billions in development costs.
That's for a system that is aiming for an initial payload of 95k kg (to LEO). By contrast the Falcon Heavy costs $0.097 billion per launch and can send 57k kg to orbit. So in other words, 1 SLS launch will costs more than 25 Falcon Heavy launches, with a payload capacity that's 67% greater.
rsynnott
> It was mostly obsoleted by Falcon Heavy years ago (SLS has been a black hole of funding since 2011), and its costs are completely ridiculous
Falcon Heavy: Claimed payload to LEO (though it has never done anything like this): 63 tonnes.
SLS: 95t, 105t or 130t depending on version.
These are quite different capabilities.
pfdietz
The need for such large payloads is highly disputable, especially for propellant (which is most of the mass of any space mission).
This is why the congressional porkmeisters have been so adamant about NASA not developing in-space propellant storage and transfer.
georgeburdell
Your point was stronger 6 months ago before SpaceX started regressing on their Starship test flights. The U.S. needs to have multiple horses in the race
somenameforme
I did not mention Starship, because I'm not comparing the SLS against future tech, but against tech that was finished 7 years ago and is commercially available at this very moment. And I'm contrasting this against SLS cost "projections", which invariably end up lowballing reality. I'm steel-manning the argument for the SLS as much as I can, but it's still just nonsensical.
The idea we need to compete against ourselves is something that came straight from Boeing after they lost their bid for commercial crew, leading to them to use their connections to Congress to force NASA to make an unprecedented decision to give bids to 2 different companies. SpaceX succeeded at commercial crew putting astronauts on the ISS in 2020. Boeing, by contrast, was allowed to skip parts of the testing phase (for Commercial Crew), failed others, and was still greenlit because of corruption. And that's precisely how you ended up with the two astronauts put on their first human launch stranded on the ISS for months, only to end up getting rescued by SpaceX.
It's a nonsensical argument - we didn't create two Apollo programs, because there's no justification. And in any case, Boeing is clearly incapable of producing anything resembling a "horse" for this race. Instead we get a 3-legged mule sold at 5-time Kentucky Derby winner thoroughbred prices.
sandworm101
>> Senate Launch System
A name also thrown around for shuttle. Do a little digging and a surprising number of shuttle crews had ties to the US congress, either as relatives or who themselves would later become representatives. They even flew a handful of serving reps (ie John Glenn, aged 77). Nasa has always known how to foster relations with political power families.
throwawaysleep
SLS is what keeps Elon from having American spaceflight in his own personal vice.
gonzobonzo
Manned space flight in generally is a hugely wasteful money sink. It eats up about 50% of NASA's budget, and there's no real reason for it other than "we're putting people into space because we want to put people into space." People vigorously defend these boondoggles, then finally admit they were a huge waste years after the fact (as we've seen with the space shuttle, and as we're now starting to see with the SLS).
somenameforme
Putting a man on the Moon is something many view as humanity's greatest achievement, ever. Even if we ignore absolutely everything else, I think this alone makes it worth it. People need to be inspired. It's the spice of life.
But if we look the future, the possibilities are even more enticing. Richard Nixon effectively cancelled human space flight after a series of Moon landings. Had he not, we could very well have a civilization on Mars today, industry in space, and who knows what else. I mean there's no realistic argument for why these things should be impossible given what we know today - they're certainly far less to strive for than putting a man on the Moon when starting from effectively nothing.
And these achievements are no longer just flag poling, but stand to genuinely revolutionize humanity - to say nothing how inspiring such achievements will be. Perhaps we might live in a world where our grandchildren will again want to be scientists and astronauts, instead of YouTubers.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7
Well, you have to quantify "waste" to make that claim.
There are many arguments that the space shuttle program's side effects helped win the cold war, foster modern communications, inspire generations to study science, ...
Those are good things, without stating its known direct accomplishments.
esseph
Idk, absolutely does fucking not at all look wasteful:
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/20-breakthroughs-from-...
BlackjackCF
I just wish Congress or the Supreme Court would show any teeth whatsoever. Right now most of the firings have been happening illegally, despite all of these programs already being budgeted for and funded.
kelnos
It's not about bravery. This is what Republican members of Congress want. This is what the conservatives in SCOTUS want.
giingyui
If there is something Congress will always be functional for is increasing spending.
Iwan-Zotow
No, it is not
With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending
lumost
The US can easily afford its obligations. The problem is that the tax base has shifted into alternative forms of income such as dividends and cap gains which are taxed at lower rates.
It’s a policy choice that these returns are not taxed at comparable rates to income. The trend of nation-wide capital returns vs income is telling.
mousethatroared
I disagree.
Instead of looking at where the tax revenues can come from, which I don't necessarily disagree consider what proportion of the nations economic activity is government spending.
I consider govt spending/GDP a much better indicator of economic health. In fact, tertiary_sector/GDP is better still.
The US government has too much presence in the economy and can't even provide health care and free tuition.
Larrikin
So why did Congress increase the deficit, they don't care so why should we cut back spending on actually good things.
unethical_ban
We could
* Not cut taxes on the very wealthy by $4,000,000,000,000 over ten years
* Not give $500,000,000,000 to military and police expansion in the immediate future
* Not have one person dictating global trade policy with the US that impacts our relationships and competitiveness for the next 30 years
mindslight
If the debt is a problem worth addressing, then why did the big ugly spending bill raise the debt by trillions of dollars?
mousethatroared
Presumably the OP believes the BBB is stupid too?
null
insane_dreamer
sure we can
but instead we're giving a massive tax break to rich people and increasing the military budget by $150B
hello_moto
Tax the wealth of your billionaires my dude.
Their wealth grow unchecked depressing yours.
KPGv2
> With level of debt and borrowing, cannot afford more spending
It doesn't matter how much debt you have if taking on the debt raises your revenue by more than serving the interest payments.
Imagine telling a corporation they can't borrow money at 3% to grow 15% because "debt is bad." Or telling someone who needs a car to get to work that they should go without a car (and thus not become employed) rather than taking on a car payment because "debt is bad."
And on this front, the US has been doing great (but is currently shooting itself in the foot under the new administration)
northlondoner
Happy to hear about this. Actually, budget should be increased not reduced. From purely ROI terms, NASA has a stellar return on investment. Immense contribution to human civilisation beyond US.
Just a reminder from 2012: [Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest In NASA, Invest In U.S. Economy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2012/03/13/neil-degr...)
adastra22
As someone who worked for NASA, I can tell you all those spin out numbers are bunk. NASA is indeed a good investment, but not for the reasons given. NASA public relations has cooked the books.
themgt
Just do a quick skim of China's reusable rocket projects: https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1lncgi8/status_of_ch...
There's over a dozen! They're blatantly ripping off SpaceX, which is very smart and what everyone else should have been doing. It's absolutely insane that the US is going to throw another $10 or $30 billion at SLS. Our leaders will go on TV with a straight face and say "China competes unfairly, everything is state run!" but China is probably doing FIFTEEN reusable rocket projects for less than the amount of gov't money we're lighting on fire with SLS rocket to nowhere.
FrustratedMonky
If they are going to try and backtrack, why pass it in first place?
propter_hoc
> Fewer robots, more humans
Exactly the opposite of what they should be funding..
adastra22
Why?
blitzar
I too welcome the rise of the terminator and its fellow machine overlords
aqme28
How does this square with the recent SCOTUS case that says, basically, that the executive can dismantle the DOE with mass dismissals, regardless of Congress? Couldn’t Trump do the same here?
Animats
"The full text of the Senate bill hasn't been released, but the budget blueprint would postpone the Trump administration's plan to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.'
The Senate Launch System strikes again.
ACCount36
If there was one good thing to come out of this administration, it was Jared Isaacman who would just axe Gateway, SLS and Orion.
Now, it seems like even that might end up not happening. What a shitshow.
windows2020
Wait, so are humans actually going to the moon for the first time in my lifetime in 2027?
naysunjr
NASA going back to the moon and Musk to Mars is nothing but pipe dreams to sell the story mode types.
The US government has pivoted to animal husbandry of the populace through techno police state, and handing sycophants to power their own title, land and serfs
notfish
My ex coworkers at spacex are pretty damn motivated to get to mars, many of them despite all the Musking happening. I wouldn’t bet against them.
BobaFloutist
Can they please get him to Mars?
blitzar
We will be on Mars by the end of the year.
naysunjr
You ever see that video of the flat Earther who disregarded what his own eyes saw for his memorized semantics?
Your ex workers goto work whistling Star Trek TNG theme song?
Come on… the shit people believe? Some people just “believe” to make money but so many many more believe in American civil religion, or whatever stream of consciousness they simmered in early on.
I’m not hating. I’m saying direct experience is truth not our visual syntax. Still waiting for my nuclear powered… everything. Where’s my mini commuter helo and …etc etc etc
It’s a government job with extra steps. No hate. Good grift if you can get it.
bongripper
[dead]
protocolture
I wouldnt hold your breath. There was a great writeup here only a few months ago about why 2027 was already an overly ambitious target.
ACCount36
In your lifetime? Probably. In 2027? Fat fucking chance.
That deadline is never going to hold - too many things are just nowhere near ready. By now, I expect NET 2030.
crooked-v
So what are the odds that Trump just takes away the money anyway, and the Supreme Court lets him?
graycat
Budget cuts?
Want to get paid, by the US Federal Government, for pursuing science or technology?
From experience, in simple terms, a word: Have the work for and the funding from the US DOD, department of defense, military, for some work they really care about.
This sounds like a joke, but it's 90+% real.
For years early in my career in applied math and computing, far and away the best parts, funding, technically advanced work, growth in expertise, and working conditions were on US military work, e.g.:
(1) The FFT (fast Fourier transform) and power spectral estimation (as in the book by Blackman and Tukey) for analyzing ocean audio, close to parts of the movie The Hunt for Red October. Also, the movie uses magneto hydrodynamics (MHD), and the specialty of the guy I was working for was MHD.
(2) Some optimization using Lagrangian relaxation for nuclear war.
(3) Given many ships at sea, some Red, some Blue, and some Blue submarines, war breaks out, and how long will the ships last, in particular, the Blue submarines? Sounds impossible or nearly so, but in WWII there were some cute derivations on search at sea and some Poisson process math by a guy Koopmans, and I did a little more on the math, in assembler wrote a random number generator starting with an Oak Ridge formula, and wrote some Monte Carlo code for the whole thing -- yes, used the speeds of the ships, their detection radii, and for each Red-Blue pair the probabilities of none die, one dies, the other dies, both die.
Surprisingly, a famous probability prof was flown in for a fast review. His remark was: "No way can your Monte Carlo fathom the huge sample space tree." Well, maybe, but so what?
"After some days, say 5, let X be the number of Blue submarines still alive. Then X is a random variable and is bounded, that is, is >= 0 and <= the finite number at the start. Then the law of large numbers applies, and can do 500 independent and identically distributed sample paths, add, divide by 500, and get the expected value for the 5 days, and each of the (times) days, within a gnats ass nearly all the time." The prof agreed but was offended by the gnats remark!
Sure, it was simple, but maybe not fully too simple -- was liked, passed the review, and helped my wife and I get our Ph.D degrees.
Also the military funding let me sit alone for some days learning PL/I that later, with a tricky feature of PL/I calling back into the stack of routines called but not yet returned, used to save IBM's AI product YES/L1! Ah, military worked again!
Ah, the military may (still) be interested in computer and communications security and reliability, system design and development methodology, system monitoring, and management, and now in AI, drones, etc. A commercial server farm or network doesn't expect to be attacked by long range missiles, but DOD systems have to be robust in a war!
Once I was at the David Taylor Model Basin (big tank of water to tow candidate ship hull designs), and they were seriously interested in the Navier-Stokes equations -- maybe they still are! Uh, do they have good solutions yet?
We're counting down the days to August 30 in our house as my spouse is a NASA contractor who works at a program with a current expected budget cut of 40%, IIRC. I sure hope these bills pass and the cuts don't happen, but it's abundantly clear at this point that optimism is pretty foolish.