Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 248 posts

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#151

Post by [deleted] »

somenameforme wrote: post #94
gonzobonzo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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…

[deleted]

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#152

Post by msgodel »

softwaredoug wrote: post #135
msgodel wrote: post #132

The aggressive cutting meant we ran a budget surplus for June. This has to happen or everything gets cut. We're pretty much at the end of the road. The Democrats had control of the white house and legislature at the beginning of Biden's presidency and could have chosen alternatives to cut but did not. As I've said so often: if you don't like what Trump is doing you need to campaign for viable alternatives.

The viable alternative is pretty obvious. Don’t renew the tax cuts and cut entitlements and defense. That’s what you have to do to get a balanced budget. You don’t get a balanced budget trimming random measly costs that might look nice but are infinitesimal parts of the budget. But we tend to cut taxes, not substantive spending. Which is going to saddle my kids with a mess.

What do you think the tariffs are? We've just about maxed out domestic tax. Already we're probably past the peak of the laffer curve.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#153

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

somenameforme wrote: post #10
geuis wrote: post #2

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.

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…

Just to add to this, somehow the current plan for getting to the moon involves over 15 launches (or 25, the number does seem to vary). With Starship actually having a larger payload than the Saturn V at least to LEO, how 15 launches could possibly be required, and such a plan been approved to spend billions of dollars on, I just don't know.

So as much as I like the idea of NASA, something needs to be done there.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#154

Post by ragnese »

supertrope wrote: post #139
ceejayoz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. Any district with a college or university is likely getting some.

What I mean is universities tend to be in cities with a few satellite branches in rural towns. Spread the “production” across as many Congressional Districts as possible to optimize for votes. When the system incentivizes pandering to rural areas that is the only winning move.

Is this different than how military spending is spread, though? That's not a rhetorical question- I'm not tuned in enough to know.

Even though I've seen military bases in the middle of nowhere, I've certainly seen some bases and defense contractors (Raytheon, Lockheed, etc) in non-rural areas.

I'm cynically, and pessimistically, kind of assuming that it's really just about what's being funded in this case. Military spending is pretty much always supported by both politicians and the public, whereas there is a VERY strong anti-science and anti-academia wave in our culture at the moment (even more so than I always used to think there was...).

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#155

Post by Aurornis »

supertrope wrote: post #139
ceejayoz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do. Any district with a college or university is likely getting some.

What I mean is universities tend to be in cities with a few satellite branches in rural towns. Spread the “production” across as many Congressional Districts as possible to optimize for votes. When the system incentivizes pandering to rural areas that is the only winning move.

If you start spreading the money away from universities it and research institutions it begins to defeat the idea.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#156

Post by kyo_gisors »

geuis wrote: post #2

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.

[dead]

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#157

Post by Arubis »

somenameforme wrote: post #10
geuis wrote: post #2

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.

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…

Senate Launch System sounds more appealing every day. All aboard!

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#158

Post by graycat »

IAmBroom wrote: post #138
graycat wrote: post #60

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 adva…

That is a nice autobiographical summary, but it has almost nothing to do with the current topic.

The topic was about Federal budget cuts for the STEM fields. My point was, budget cuts or not, if want to work in the STEM fields, 'bout have to pursue work and funding for national security. I gave some "autobiographical" examples.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#159

Post by cvoss »

aqme28 wrote: post #70

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?

SCOTUS has not issued a judgment in that case (McMahon v. New York). They merely granted the case and will hear it next term. The headlines you likely saw were commenting on how the court chose to deal with the preliminary injunction that was in place in the meantime. It's a major peeve of mine when those headlines make it sound like such an order is actually disposing of the case. In reality, the case is just starting.

Anyway, on the question of whether the chief of an organization can fire his or her own employees, the answer is usually "yes, of course, how could it be otherwise?" That's why it matters who the chief is.

Re: Congress moves to reject bulk of White House's proposed NASA cuts

#160

Post by ragnese »

javiramos wrote: post #107
musicale wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NSF funds tons of underpaid grad students who are the source of US research productivity per dollar.

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.

I always felt the same way while I was in grad school. The fact that my tuition was covered by working as either a teaching assistant or as a research assistant on a grant, AND that I actually got a paycheck that was mostly-enough to survive on, was something that I was very grateful for.

It was not something one could live on long-term (no chance to save money whatsoever, could never buy a home or decent car, etc). But, I wasn't starving and I wasn't taking on debt.

At the same time, it is a sacrifice. Most of my friends the same age were making "real" money, buying homes, going on nice vacations, saving for retirement, etc. So, I get extra irritated and defensive when I hear people who have no idea what they're talking about repeat conspiracy theories about science and academia. If I wanted to be a rich scam artist, I'm pretty sure there were better options than a science PhD...

Post reply on HN