Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0xffff2 | Hacker News Reader

I do hope the doomers who think that the entire US government has been completely gutted will take note of this. The government workforce is in a bad spot for sure, SLS is far from a perfect program, but this still demonstrates that we are doing some real work still.

View on HN

Take note of a project that’s about 15 years behind schedule and many multiples over budget finally progressed because we lowered safety standards to just launch?

I’m not sure how that’s proof the government isn’t gutted. Let me know what our schedule is for the next one and how that timeline has changed. Ignoring the projects that have been outright canceled…

You’re currently the guy saying “ya, all you haters that said I’d lose my house if I stopped paying my mortgage, who’s laughing now?” - one month into not paying your mortgage.

We’ll still be dealing with the after effects of doge 20 years from now.

> we lowered safety standards to just launch

Aren’t they still well above anything in the history of human space flight?

We keep treating these systems in popular discourse as airliners. They’re not. They’re experimental craft. With mass production maybe SpaceX can bring launch closer to general aviation. But the notion that any loss of life is intolerable is (a) unsustainably expensive and (b) not a view shared by the lives actually at risk.

They aren’t in the same magnitude as F9 and Dragon to ISS, so no. I question if they are as safe as the shuttle (final computed risk 1:90).

> aren’t in the same magnitude as F9 and Dragon to ISS, so no

Fair enough. For a heat-shield discussion I guess we should talk about higher-energy missions. But conceded. LEO has normalized safe space travel.

If it's 15 years behind budget and many multiples over budget, it wouldn't be DOGE's fault then?

The main critique of the handling of heat shields also happened at NASA in 2022-2024 and the project continued on. Artemis is largely a product of congress.

Remember when DOGE tried to cut out the inefficiencies and failed miserably? The "inefficiencies" and "bloated budgets" are there for a reason.

If Elon ran this project "without bloat", there is probably a 70% chance that the vehicle would have exploded, much in the way of his Starship and early Falcon vehicles.

But that explosion would have cost one tenth the cost a single SLS launch and the next one would go a little further. And eventually you would be flying the most reliable rocket in history more frequently than any other rocket for one tenth the cost of the competition.

This works for getting things to LEO. This doesn't scale well as the distance increases. You can't keep launching shit to the moon, crashing it over and over, until you get it right.

Indeed. The GSA with 10k employees is going to fall apart without the 40k unused winzip licences DOGE so cruelly took away from them in their senseless spree of madness.

That logic is very short term and while comical isn't close to reality.

I hope you live a long and prosper life so you can see the consequences of this presidential term fully unfold.

Don't confuse bureaucracy with "gutted." The federal government is bigger than at most any point in US history. Arguably that fact is -why- it's 15 years behind schedule.

Nope, the federal workforce is now the smallest it's been in a half century[1].

February 2026: 2.693 million, the lowest number since July 1965.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001

That's per 100k (which just says it's mostly flat per 100k), net spending of the federal government is more than ever, and actual workforce is bigger than ever. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is stubbornly high despite us being in "peace time," and not recession spending.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W068RCQ027SBEA

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USGOVT

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

If you all don't think bureaucracy is the main driver of government delays...well you clearly have never worked with or in and around government. I try to live in reality.

> That's per 100k

No, it's a plain headcount. Your first link is a chart of non-inflation adjusted spending. Your second link is all government, not just federal employees so it's not really germane to the discussion, and your third link includes things like Social Security, and frankly...good. Without the government stabilizing spending the economy would be even more of a dumpster fire of random investor panics.

I'm close to a number of people in the public sector. They're brilliant, they do great work and they aren't paid what they're worth. I've also worked for a long time in a mega-corp. It was frequently just as bureaucratic and wasteful, if not more so, than the government.

Even assuming what you're saying is correct and government spending doesn't matter (odd thing to say when you're arguing that the government has been "gutted,") your own chart is only flat over time because of USPS workers being less due to automation/retirement and there being less military recruitment (both account for about ~1.5M employees lost,) and doesn't include offloading to contractors. Underlying agencies and government is bigger than ever before. The government (federal AND state levels) itself is much larger, with more regulations, than it was even 20 years ago.

Every company has bureaucracy, but it's nothing compared to government work. Also, government has no competition, bureaucracy in big companies will eventually be punished (even if it takes a long time.) In government it is often rewarded, both internally and externally (via regulatory capture, etc.)

In any case, saying the federal government has been "gutted" is a flat lie. I don't see how people can argue otherwise. I want more money going to NASA, and more money going to civil projects like HSR, but would that magically remove 15 years of bureaucratic mess? No. More money to these projects can only happen on a large political scale if/when the bureaucratic red tape is cut to lower the costs. Adding an additional layer of bureaucrats and middle managers and pot of gold everyone can dip their hands in before it reaches the final project doesn't fix the issue.

> No, it's a plain headcount

> They're brilliant, they do great work and they aren't paid what they're worth

The headcount of such wonderful people you are describing has been reduced but then replaced by 3x+ times the rates Gov is paying for the contractors that were hired (I am one of them). so this headcount being low is a nothing more than political smokescreen that will probably be used in campaigns leading up to November election (not probably, certainly cause there is nothing else to run if you are member of the ruling party)

I am willing to concede that it would be more financially responsible for the United States to greatly increase the size of the permanent federal workforce, and to stop making its size a political football.

I have a really hard time telling if this is despite the current administration’s best efforts, because the current administration’s policies, or just an artifact of government inertia.

Top level: Super excited to witness this in my lifetime.

Edit: Also, my 40 years of life leads me towards the latter category.

For sure this is 90% inertia, although like Bridenstein in the first administration, who turned out to actually be a pretty good administrator in the grand scheme of things, I'm cautiously optimistic that Isaacman is working in good faith to make NASA the best it can be. (Which isn't to say that I agree with him 100% mind you.)

NASA has been well treated by both parties in general, with their budget rising faster than inflation most years. This administration also appointed Isaacman to be the NASA administrator which I think is a 10/10 choice for that job.

All of NASA's climate work is under attack by the current administration.

I’d argue that NASA should not have ever got into studying climate science, it should be a responsibility of NOAA. NASA should be focusing on NEP, atmospheric satellites, better aircraft, making life interplanetary and astronomy.

It’s not that simple. Trump admin requested a massive cut to NASA’s budget, which after much delay Congress finally rejected. Isaacman’s path to NASA administrator was also, erm, circuitous. Having a competent and knowledgeable NASA head was not really Trump admin’s priority.

How exactly would you interpret this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program#Redefinition_a...

Definitely despite.

Have you talked to any actual NASA employees (not just contractors) that work in science?

For what it’s worth, I watched today’s Artemis II launch with them. While proud of the mission, they’re likely in your “Doomer” category after a year being devastated and demoralized by having their science budgets slashed, grants/projects cancelled, having been forced to fire good contractors of 10+ years and then watching some of the most knowledgeable/skilled folks take early retirement. Don’t let the awe or Artemis fool you — NASA, especially when it comes to science, has been gutted and functionally degraded. For what it’s worth, they’re not focused on earth/climate science.

Yep, I work with them every day, since I am myself a NASA contractor. I'm curious what you think the major distinction is between a contractor and a civil servant in the first place. I work directly as part of a division (used to be "on site" before 2020, but now I'm remote so that doesn't quite fit) doing 80% the same job as any of my civil servant colleagues. I really don't think the range of opinions is all that different on either side of the fence.

I'll repeat that there are a lot of problems, but it's not nearly as bad as some people on the internet make it out to be.

Fair question—I probably overly delineated the two as I currently only know people on the civil servant side at NASA. Decades ago (!) I worked in the DC, hung out some folks, and often the ones who had strong opinions related to policy were the ones at risk of losing/keeping/winning a contract, not the government employees. That was probably in the back of my head when I made the distinction. I don’t really have a strong opinion either way now, but I felt it was only fair to answer you as best I could. Either way, I’ll try to be cognizant of that potential bias in future.

With that said, and while I haven’t had much exposure to what folks on the internet are saying, all I know is I’ve never seen this group of friends this worried or impacted. Most of them are also the type to just keep their heads down, focus on the mission, and wait for the winds shift.

While the current administration has multiple areas of improvement and isnt really taking feedback in an adult manner, the federal workforce has some of the most competent people working for it inside certain parts of the organization. im thinking especially of NASA and NASA JPL.

This is true, but a lot of the top positions are being replaced with unqualified loyalists. It's only a matter of time, if this continues, that the competent workforce gets eroded

JPL has been strangled by both parties. They had huge staff cuts in 2024, and then more in 2025. They've gone from ~6,500 to ~4,500. Trump closed their research library[1].

Of course this is a drop in the bucket, the entire science research apparatus of the United States is being burned to the ground[2]. This administration is doing to the future of scientific research what the Mongols did to Baghdad.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/31/climate/nasa-goddard-libr...

[2] https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-026-00088-9/index.ht...

NASA also has some of the most incompetent people working for it, and a lot of them are responsible for overseeing SLS and Orion. JPL hasn’t been doing to well lately either (Mars Return?).

Let's not jinx them; let them get home safe before we take a victory lap.

Exactly. The heat shield problems and lack of full disclosure are quite troubling.

It’s Orion that’s dodgy as fuck not the booster. I.e the new thing. Not the decades old, proven, launch engines.

Let’s wait for the back patting when they splash down.

I genuinely hope not but i am worried about this craft.

>Not the decades old, proven, launch engines.

Which are, I will note, being expended on this single launch, despite being designed, built, and functioning over decades as re-usable engines.

Just like to point out the a SRBs aren’t really the same.

> Orion that’s dodgy as fuck not the booster. I.e the new thing

I mean, newly shaped and partly reformulated.

Avcoat was “originally created…for the Apollo program” [1]. (“A reformulated version was used for the initial Orion heat shield and later for a redesigned Orion heat shield.”) The new things are Orion’s size and weight and the size of the tiles. All of which has precedented flight in Artemis I.

At the end of the day, I’m going to trust the astronauts. This issue was openly discussed, despite NASA’s original—and fair to criticize—instinct to cover it up. While any manned reëntry is a nail biter, I don’t think this one is especially so.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCOAT

Aren't astronauts by definition bat shit crazy? We have people lining up for one-way missions to Mars. Not to say this is a bad thing, but their ROI calculations are not normal.

> Aren't astronauts by definition bat shit crazy?

By poetic definition, e.g. “Here’s to the Crazy Ones,” yes. Clinically and technically, no. They’re paragons of human explorers, and exploration is a fundamentally human trait.

> We have people lining up for one-way missions to Mars

How many astronauts?

I think sometimes, clinically: yes.

https://www.houstoniamag.com/news-and-city-life/2018/11/astr...

> How many astronauts?

More than we can send. Wasn't there a country-wide competition?

> sometimes, clinically: yes

Sure. Compared to population, no.

> More than we can send

Which astronauts said they’d be fine with a one-way mission?

> Wasn't there a country-wide competition?

Was there? You’re the one making the claim.

Glad you agree with the crazy.

Google is your friend re; Mars one-way astronauts.

> Glad you agree with the crazy

I don’t. Having mental illness in a population below baseline rates isn’t crazy. Nowak’s story is notable for a reason.

> Google is your friend re; Mars one-way astronauts

So you don’t have a source. Because I’m not finding any astronauts going on the record on this.

Go look at the amount of grants getting funded this year and tell me we aren't completely gutting the national research apparatus.

I just need to look locally and see we're in trouble. NIST, NCAR. Super Drought conditions forming in the West.

This isn't good.

But hurray Moon missions, I guess. Pity we're causing the entire World Economy to collapse with a unneeded war.

Rather unfortunate timing that the original Apollo moon landing also happened in the middle of the Vietnam War.

Well, when you zoom out a bit, it’s not a stretch to say that both Apollo and Vietnam shared the same goal of countering the USSR.

The Vietnam War was us violating Vietnamese sovereignty and self-determination and losing.

…and why did the United States feel the need to do so?

Honestly, that coincidence was NOT lost on me.

Part of me finds it inappropriate to do the two things at once. Advancement in scientific knowledge being somewhat at odds with blowing up one of the oldest civilizations in the World.

Your life must pass by really slowly with a lot of waiting if you don’t do more than one thing at a time.

It's a game of priorities I guess when resources are limited. And no: I can't do everything, everywhere, all at once. Can you?

Big rocks in the pickle jar first. For you that includes wars when talking was working?

I certainly hope the mission goes as planned but it does feel like SLS is the wrong approach in the time of reusable rockets, even if this specific mission profile would probably have demanded the booster be expendable. Using the Shuttle main engines - designed and made to be 'refurbishable' rather than 'reusable' but still dumped into the ocean after each mission - and the SRBs (solid boosters) still gives the impression of the booster design being dictated (at least in part) to accommodate the needs of former Shuttle contractors. If either Starship+Superheavy or some other fully reusable heavy left vehicle comes on-line it will be hard for NASA to justify spending billions of $ on, well, a flying pork barrel. Sure, it has been proven time and time again that canned pigs can in fact fly but that does not make them the go-to transport.

Conversely SLS is ready now. Starship and Super Heavy are not and cannot do this mission today.

Not entirely a doomer, but I would wait to grandstand until after the crew is returned safely, considering the allegations regarding the capsule heat shield.

We are basically going this to funnel more tax payer dollars to musk or bezos. What a moment for humanity

Wrong in every way.

> The mission's objectives are to conduct tests in low Earth orbit with one or both commercially developed lunar landers—SpaceX's Starship HLS and Blue Origin's Blue Moon—and the Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit (AxEMU) space suit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_III?wprov=sfla1

April 1; I see what you did there, well played.

"That this Artemis launch is happening in the lead-up to America’s 250th birthday has heightened the sense that it’s a nostalgia act for the Baby Boomer gerontocracy. All the more so because Donald Trump, the oldest person ever to be elected to the White House, is presiding over the whole affair. His administration has sought to sabotage NASA’s scientific missions, but the president seems delighted to have the agency gin up a national spectacle on his behalf, just as he was happy to have a military parade on his birthday."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/artemis-moon-lau...

We'd look better if there was still a USAID.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com