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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Congressional action & political context

  • Many welcome Congress resisting deep NASA cuts as evidence it can still function, noting NASA jobs are concentrated in conservative districts, which creates political protection.
  • Others argue the same politicians backing NASA cuts also supported much larger deficit-increasing bills, calling “we can’t afford it” selectively applied rhetoric.
  • There’s concern the White House could still undermine programs via mass firings or under‑execution, and debate over how far Supreme Court decisions might let an administration dismantle agencies despite congressional funding.

Debt, deficits, and what to cut

  • One camp insists current debt and interest costs mean the US “cannot afford” more spending, including on NASA.
  • Opponents counter that:
    • Massive tax cuts for the wealthy and large military/police increases dwarf NASA’s budget.
    • Deficits can be justified when spending boosts growth more than the cost of interest.
    • Real savings would require touching entitlements and defense, not “rounding error” items like NASA.
  • Some emphasize taxing capital gains/wealth more fairly, and question narratives about “government waste” that ignore corporate beneficiaries and tax avoidance.

SLS/Orion vs commercial launch

  • Strong criticism of SLS/Orion as the “Senate Launch System”: decades‑long pork project, tens of billions sunk, estimated $2.5–4B per launch, and politically protected through jobs and contractors.
  • Comparisons highlight Falcon Heavy’s much lower cost per launch and adequate payload for many missions; debate over whether Artemis could be flown on commercial rockets instead.
  • Supporters of SLS cite:
    • Unique heavy‑lift capability (higher payload than Falcon Heavy).
    • Need for a non‑SpaceX government option and “competition.”
  • Skeptics reply that SLS is not a realistic backup, that nationalization of commercial providers is possible in crisis, and that Boeing’s track record (e.g., Starliner) undermines the “second horse in the race” argument.

Humans vs robots; Moon/Mars

  • One side calls human spaceflight a costly prestige project consuming ~half of NASA’s budget with dubious scientific payoff, arguing robots are cheaper and often sufficient.
  • Defenders say:
    • Apollo‑era human exploration inspired generations and delivered broad technological benefits.
    • Future human presence (Moon/Mars) could be transformative, even if today’s timelines (e.g., Artemis 2027) are probably unrealistic.
  • Extended debate covers feasibility of Mars colonization (radiation, life support, self‑sufficiency), with some seeing it as achievable but politically and economically unlikely soon.

NSF and the research ecosystem

  • Several want Congress to also shield NSF from proposed cuts, calling NSF funding “crushingly” important for basic science, grad‑student support, and regional economies.
  • Discussion highlights:
    • Grad students as underpaid but central to US research productivity.
    • University finances where undergrad tuition and professional programs subsidize research, which often runs at a loss even after overhead.
    • Concern that cuts signal a broader hostility toward science and academia.