Action: Planetary Society Response to 50% NASA Science Cut

[Navier–Stokes]

For any members in the U.S., the Planetary Society has created a form letter (full text below) that will be sent to President of the United States, your United States Senators, your United States Representative, and U.S. Office of Management & Budget. It takes less than 30 seconds to complete so I highly encourage everyone who can to do so.

For context see:
White House may seek to slash NASA’s science budget by 50 percent (Ars Technica)

"It would be nothing short of an extinction-level event for space science."

Dear [[Recipient's Title and Name]]:

I am writing to express my profound concern about reports that the White House will propose a 50% cut to NASA's Science Mission Directorate in the FY 2026 budget request.

Such a cut would have disastrous consequences for space science and exploration, not just the loss of breakthrough discoveries, but for the harm it would cause students, teachers, and skilled engineers and scientists around the country.

Existing missions such as the Hubble Space Telescope, Mars rovers, and Earth satellites would all be subject to premature termination. A senseless waste of taxpayer investment and scientific opportunity.

There are no private or commercial options for breakthrough space science activities. Only NASA has this capability and responsibility.

I firmly believe that something unique would be lost if we abandoned scientific space exploration, both economically and as a symbol of our ideals and values as a nation.

I strongly urge you to work to reject these and any significant cuts to NASA Science efforts and support America's continued leadership in space exploration.

Thank you,
 
[ Your Full Name ]

[RedLineTrain]

I think that letter is taking the wrong approach by being against any significant cuts to the science budget.  That's an unreasonable position to have when we are printing 7% of GDP deficits.

[yg1968]

I think that letter is taking the wrong approach by being against any significant cuts to the science budget.  That's an unreasonable position to have when we are printing 7% of GDP deficits.

The most likely scenario is that the FY26 spending will be frozen at the current levels (or at best reduced by 1%). I don't expect the Senate to accept any more reductions to discretionary spending than that since a clean CR would get you to that level of spending.

Having said that, I do expect significants cuts to be proposed to Earth science in the President's FY26 budget but they are unlikely to be enacted because Senate Democrats simply won't accept these.

[deltaV]

These large proposed science cuts are presumably caused by the combination of two factors: Trump wanting to reduce overall federal spending and the new crewed Mars program needing lots of money.

[sstli2]

I think that letter is taking the wrong approach by being against any significant cuts to the science budget.  That's an unreasonable position to have when we are printing 7% of GDP deficits.

One could argue the unreasonable position is what that deficit would be spent on instead.

[RedLineTrain]

I think that letter is taking the wrong approach by being against any significant cuts to the science budget.  That's an unreasonable position to have when we are printing 7% of GDP deficits.

One could argue the unreasonable position is what that deficit would be spent on instead.

We could just keep it on a practical level and argue about the optics, the persuasiveness of arguing for no substantial cuts in the midst of major adjustments by others.

[RedLineTrain]

These large proposed science cuts are presumably caused by the combination of two factors: Trump wanting to reduce overall federal spending and the new crewed Mars program needing lots of money.

There's little money for Mars, and what could be arranged through our political system would be way too late.

[Navier–Stokes]

I think that letter is taking the wrong approach by being against any significant cuts to the science budget.  That's an unreasonable position to have when we are printing 7% of GDP deficits.

I don't think the deficit has anything to do with what is happening but I don't want to take the thread off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1898488480000319713

[sstli2]

I'll quote Jeff Foust's recent article on a related matter: https://spacenews.com/trump-says-mars-missions-are-of-interest-but-not-a-top-priority/

posted Jared Isaacman, Trump’s nominee to be NASA administrator, on social media March 8. He didn’t elaborate on what “fraud, waste and abuse” he saw at the agency.

In an earlier social media post, Isaacman suggested he supported cuts to some science programs. “Personally, I think there is a lot of taxpayer-funded science that should be reviewed & potentially reduced,” he said, but did not give any examples.

The cynical take on this is that he's allowing Trump/DOGE to do the unpopular (and I would argue ill-advised) cuts so that he can come in with a clean slate and have plausible deniability on all of it. Given his prior statements, and the broader political climate, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

I would challenge those in favor of this action to enumerate what they think should be cut and why, as well as where - and to whom - that money should be spent instead.

[yg1968]

I'll quote Jeff Foust's recent article on a related matter: https://spacenews.com/trump-says-mars-missions-are-of-interest-but-not-a-top-priority/

posted Jared Isaacman, Trump’s nominee to be NASA administrator, on social media March 8. He didn’t elaborate on what “fraud, waste and abuse” he saw at the agency.

In an earlier social media post, Isaacman suggested he supported cuts to some science programs. “Personally, I think there is a lot of taxpayer-funded science that should be reviewed & potentially reduced,” he said, but did not give any examples.

The cynical take on this is that he's allowing Trump/DOGE to do the unpopular (and I would argue ill-advised) cuts so that he can come in with a clean slate and have plausible deniability on all of it. Given his prior statements, and the broader political climate, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here.

I would challenge those in favor of this action to enumerate what they think should be cut and why, as well as where - and to whom - that money should be spent instead.

Isaacman hasn't been confirmed yet, so he isn't part of the budget process. So he wouldn't know. We don't even have a budget date yet. My guess is that cuts to Earth science will be proposed in the President's FY26 budget but in the end, Republicans will have to compromise on these cuts. It's possible that there will also be a full year for FY26. So essentially, the NASA budget will be frozen at 2024 levels for a while.

[Greg Hullender]

I think the root problem is that we've recently seen high-profile missions go wildly over-budget, like the Webb Telescope and the Mars Sample Return. This leaves the impression that there's enormous waste and fraud.

My friends who've been part of the process for other (non-NASA) science projects tell me that a big problem is that if you don't lie about the expected cost, you won't get funded. Once a project is funded, it's much easier to come back and ask for more money. So everyone lowballs their estimates.

Perhaps what's really needed is a massive overhaul of the whole process for funding science projects. One that makes allowances for the unexpected--because it's always hard to make estimates for things no one has done before--but which also includes accountability for gross misrepresentation as well as gross mismanagement.

That said, the science budget is so small in comparison to the manned budget that it's sad they're looking for cuts here. Especially since that's where the big waste and fraud really is.

[RedLineTrain]

I would challenge those in favor of this action to enumerate what they think should be cut and why, as well as where - and to whom - that money should be spent instead.

Rather, I think that they (DOGE, especially) are looking at it from the opposite perspective:  a zero-based budget.  This approach is particularly difficult for a science organization to navigate.  That said, a large part of the science projects are actually engineering, which should be somewhat easier to approach from a zero-based budget perspective.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1899256272131703053

Charles Webb (Acting PSD Dir) says people are taking the rumors about a 50% cut to NASA science as the truth, but he has no indication it's the truth. It's "complete speculation." He's not saying it won't be true, but he has no info about it so is not planning for it.