4k NASA employees opt to leave agency through deferred resignation program

Blame and Broader Political Context

• Many see the cuts as part of a wider “war on science/education,” lumping NASA with NIH, NSF, NOAA, etc. as targets of an anti‑elite, culture‑war agenda.
• Others emphasize long‑running structural issues: financialization, de‑industrialization, housing and cost‑of‑living crises, and anger at establishment politics.
• There’s dispute over whether “tech” is to blame: some point to a small set of tech billionaires, social networks, and AI‑driven propaganda; others note that most tech workers and firms did not back Trump and argue finance and politics are more central.

Nature and Impact of the NASA Resignations

• Commenters close to NASA say many resigned because their projects were defunded and they expected to be laid off; DRP is described as a way to leave with some benefits rather than be RIF’d.
• Concern is high that voluntary programs preferentially lose the most employable people, accelerating brain drain and destroying institutional knowledge, especially in Earth science and astrophysics.
• Several note this hits science centers (e.g., Goddard) more than human spaceflight, reinforcing the sense that basic research and climate work are being targeted.

NASA vs. SpaceX and Privatization

• Strong debate over whether this is “SpaceX eating NASA” or NASA being gutted to funnel money to private contractors.
• Multiple comments stress SpaceX was heavily funded and technically enabled by NASA, and that launch providers are not substitutes for a public science agency.
• Others cite studies showing SpaceX’s cost and schedule advantage and argue more should be privatized; critics respond that private firms won’t fund long‑horizon, noncommercial science.

SLS, Artemis, and Mission Priorities

• Broad agreement that SLS/Gateway are pork‑driven “jobs programs” imposed by Congress, misaligned with NASA’s needs, and crowding out science missions.
• Some argue NASA is unfairly blamed for designs and constraints it didn’t choose; Congress’s district‑based contracting model is seen as the core problem.

Mars Timelines and Grandstanding

• Claims that the administration aims to land humans on Mars before the term ends are widely ridiculed as technically impossible on current timelines.
• Comparisons to Apollo highlight the difference between sustained, multi‑administration governance then and short‑term, leader‑centric spectacle now.

Bureaucracy, Cuts, and Long‑Term Consequences

• A minority welcome a “sledgehammer” to bloated bureaucracies, arguing incremental reform always spares the politically connected.
• Most counter that cuts are not targeted at waste but at scientifically productive programs, while defense and immigration enforcement budgets grow.
• Widespread worry that once teams are scattered, capabilities lost at NASA will take a generation to rebuild—if they ever are—while rival nations increase their science and technology investment.