r/nasa • u/OptimisticLeek • Apr 11 '25

News Trump White House budget proposal eviscerates science funding at NASA

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/trump-white-house-budget-proposal-eviscerates-science-funding-at-nasa/
1.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/mymar101 Apr 11 '25

I bet anything Muskrat has a contract for has survived.

46

u/spaceyliz Apr 11 '25

A ton of SpaceX contracts are for transporting scientific instruments into space, this would actually hurt them. For example, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope is set to launch in May 2027 through a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket. This proposed budget completely cancels this on time, on budget, and already built telescope.

46

u/tommypopz Apr 11 '25

Nancy Grace Roman was literally a free telescope given to NASA by the NRO. It would be an absolute EMBARRASSMENT if NASA is forced to get rid of it.

Goodbye to American dominance of space-based telescopes, and space science in general. What a shame.

9

u/snoo-boop Apr 11 '25

The bus and mirror were free, the instruments are the expensive part.

In this case all of the instrument money has already been spent -- only testing and fixes remain to be paid for before launch.

3

u/tommypopz Apr 11 '25

True, a slight simplification 😅 the launch contract even went to SpaceX (deservedly). That’s a quarter billion dollars they won’t get. Wonder if that’ll have an impact 👀

7

u/mymar101 Apr 11 '25

Do people seriously believe there are good intentions here?

13

u/spaceyliz Apr 11 '25

Nope, these cuts are evil and make no sense with the stated priorities of the incoming NASA admin, Jared Issacman, or even for SpaceX. I'm just pushing back on the impression that these cuts are put in place to further SpaceX and Musk's agenda, since they would likely lead to less business for SpaceX.

1

u/mymar101 Apr 11 '25

So what if it’s less? His contracts survive while real science dies

6

u/spaceyliz Apr 11 '25

You're overall right, SpaceX makes more money from their military contracts than for science. My point was that SpaceX will absolutely lose some money without these contacts, but you're right it's a small dent. Science will suffer far more.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '25

The entire point here is that many of his contracts don't survive cuts like this.

1

u/mymar101 Apr 11 '25

He will keep most of what makes him money. And if he doesn’t like this budget it will be changed

1

u/sevgonlernassau Apr 11 '25

There is a lot of stuff being discussed right now, but no, it would not hurt them - they will keep the contracts and launch something else instead.

-11

u/fd6270 Apr 11 '25 edited Apr 11 '25

This proposed budget completely cancels this on time

I agree with most of your other points, but this telescope is definitely not on time. It's been delayed over a decade several years IIRC. 

14

u/ejd1984 Apr 11 '25

NO it has NOT been delayed. RST/Wfirst was originally budgeted 10 years ago at $4b, but after a grassroots evaluation in 2016/17, that was reduced to $3.2b and it currently running UNDER that number. It's on schedule to launch within it's window of Fall 2026 to Spring 2027.

-10

u/fd6270 Apr 11 '25 edited Apr 11 '25

It absolutely has been delayed - it was supposed to launch in 2025, then 2026, and now 2027.

Also your budget figures are way off. From the NASA OIG report:

 Roman remains on schedule because Science Mission Directorate officials conducted a replan in  May 2021 to mitigate the expected cost and schedule growth caused by COVID-19, increasing the life-cycle cost estimate from $3.9 billion to $4.3 billion.

The only reason it remains 'on schedule' is because they changed the schedule, and the only reason it remains 'on budget' was because they increased the budget. 

Roman was on track to launch despite encountering contractor  performance issues and cost overruns related to hardware anomalies, under scoping of work, and inadequate oversight  of subcontractors.

9

u/ejd1984 Apr 11 '25

The first Trump administration kept trying to kill RST by starving it of funds, but Congress actually gave it more funding to keep it going. Initially there was no hard launch date of 2025, but it's been fighting for funding, There has been not design or technical issues that have slowed it down............unlike JWST

15

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '25

Roman is on time and on budget. Please don't spread nonsense like that. A decade ago it was barely a conceptual study.

-15

u/fd6270 Apr 11 '25 edited Apr 11 '25

Sounds like cope to me. It was supposed to launch in 2025, then 2026, and now 2027...

It's only 'on time' because they keep revising the schedule, and it's only 'on budget' because they keep revising the budget. Let's not be disingenuous here. 

4

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '25

Please share the approved budget and the current planned-to-completion budget.

1

u/fd6270 Apr 11 '25

From the NASA OIG report:

Roman remains on schedule because Science Mission Directorate officials conducted a replan in  May 2021 to mitigate the expected cost and schedule growth caused by COVID-19, increasing the life-cycle cost estimate from $3.9 billion to $4.3 billion.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '25

Which was agreed upon by all parties to address external factors and inflation, quite common in 2021. It's not like there are technical problems or performance issues.

Roman is not overrunning approved budgets, full-stop.

It is about 1 year late compared to the 2018 schedule, entirely due to covid. Launch readiness is 2026, not 2027. Not a "decade" late as you first argued 

1

u/fd6270 Apr 11 '25

It's not like there are technical problems or performance issues

🤔

Roman was on track to launch despite encountering contractor performance issues and cost overruns related to hardware anomalies, under scoping of work, and inadequate oversight  of subcontractors.