The Presidential budget proposal is a death sentence for NASA | Hacker News Reader

The Presidential budget proposal is a death sentence for NASA

badastronomy.beehiiv.com

21 pointsxqcgrek213 comments

I don't like the reasoning behind these changes, but I'm not morally outraged. Space exploration is really just a luxury product for nerds, and no one actually needs it (despite the numerous sci-fi fantasies that claim otherwise).

There are a lot of really basic needs that are going unmet in society, so it would totally make sense to redirect money towards away from NASA, or at least to systems and projects that are "dual use" (e.g. not space telescopes and probes). I know that's not what Trump's doing here, but I'd rather some NASA space probe be cut than a similar cut to Medicaid.

I disagree on the reasoning.

I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies.

You are looking at cost relative to per capita income assuming 100 percent perfect productivity, when it is more proper to look at metrics tracking ROI versus potential other investments.

The government has never cared to track the above as a matter of organizational efficiency, because every 4 years we swap the organization. ("DOGE" certainly is attaining nothing.)

Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans.

In comparison, I would be perfectly OK with .005 percent of my income tax being dedicated to space research, as that is the clear future for low touch technology/networking/travelet. It is very easy to track ROI.

> I would bet the US DOT, for example, is as costly or more in terms of monetary input->realized output of all the federally supported space agencies.

No. Everyone uses and needs roads and other kinds of transportation. No one actually needs space probe pictures or chemical analyses of Mars rocks, so that output should arguably be valued at 0 when you're evaluating "monetary input->realized output." NASA could be incredibly "efficient" at turning tax dollars into large volumes of esoteric research findings, but that money would still be better spend on less efficient organizations whose output is far more valuable (e.g. giving large numbers of real people access to medical care).

This might make my point clearer: think of NASA as an organization that builds giant stone penises in the desert. NASA is very good at that job, efficiently builds a lot of them, and I suppose the penises provide some shade. But do we really need them (even if some people are huge fans and are really inspired by them), when that money could be used to feed people who have no food?

> Regularly, highway projects in any of the 50 states turns from "3 months, 30 million" to "actually, 2 years, 110 million." and VERY rarely is that challenged by the public. It is mind boggling, as it's our tax dollars going to the pockets of scummy contractors connected to politicans.

That's a problem, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question of what output to prioritize.

Now don't get me wrong. NASA does do some valuable stuff, but that stuff doesn't have anything to do with Mars or taking pictures of deep space.

I understand your point, and in real life as a working commuter feel exactly the same. If the world where to end tomorrow, I would be upset that I cared so much about space research and less about for example infrastructure or access to water at that specific moment in time.

However without using hyperbole, I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS. Weather tracking/extrapolation. Satellite comm standards. Titanium alloying. Water Filtration. Vaccum efficient powerplants. subterranean imaging. 100 percent recyclables. Outer Space Treaty (1967.) FIber Optics. Solar Power. I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA. We are extremely lucky that the power structures going back in history have had a scientific sexual organ measuring contest, because it for better or worse resulted in all those things at minimum.

> I can say as fact that "rock analyses and probe pictures" = GPS.

No, sorry. NASA does some stuff that has valuable and practical Earth applications, but it's false to equate that stuff with ""rock analyses and probe pictures:" the former can be done without the latter.

> I could go on and on, but, it is 100 percent true to say that we would not have the life we have today where it not for NASA.

That may be true, but it's a long time since NASA space-exploration tech has had a large amount of impact on Earth-bound technology.

Deprive us economically slowly, leave us sick, and then we'll be divided and conquered and unable to appreciate art, basic science, joy, or hope that better days are ahead.

I totally disagree with your reduction of NASA to luxury space exploration.NASA provides numerous benefits through projects monitoring earth. I'm confident cutting NASA funding will lower our quality of life. You are also completely ignoring that the budget cuts are being applied to basic needs and military spending is going up. These cuts are being applied to save the wealthy money. It's not a situation of basic needs or funding NASA. We can have both.

Well at least we have China doing real science. Off to backwater status the US goes. Kids, if you can afford it, go to college in non-US countries.

I used to be a NASA holdout but we’re at a point—we have been for a while now—where NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis. We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore. Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars?

> Would the average person today think it a good use of public funds to put people on mars?

Yes, support for public funding of NASA has only been increasing for the last 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/260309/years-moon-landing-suppo....

> NASA is lagging the private sector on essentially every axis

What private companies are ahead of NASA in designing and running space telescopes and other fundamental scientific research? You can see a list of active scientific missions here: https://science.nasa.gov/science-missions/#all-missions.

What private companies are currently operating rovers somewhere besides Earth? What private companies are monitoring for solar storms and providing advance warning to power grid operators on Earth?

It took the private sector 60 years to catch up to where NASA was, using the technology NASA developed. Everybody and his brother has a launch vehicle - that's no longer a differentiator. NASA is the entity building telescopes, rovers, explorers, and space weather satellites. The private sector isn't building any of that stuff. They're largely focused on joy rides to space and being NASA's pack mule.

What has the private industry done for space exploration and research in the last 20 years?

Hint: Perfecting Rocket boosters and LEO satellites for commercial use are not tenants of NASA and the reasoning should be obvious.

Research is rarely sexy, and it being "space based" won't get it on TV with 8k cameras attached. We DO NOT want that. Private commercial entities trying to inflate stock and consumer opinion want that.

> We don’t need the government to kickstart space exploration anymore.

Oh, the government still funds space exploration. That’s still where most of the money comes from. It’s just, the government (and by extension, we the people) no longer owns the results of that funding. It’s instead owned by a handful of billionaires that are attempting to own everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com