Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Face $1.3 Billion Cut Next Year Under Sequestration

littlesparkvt writes "A budget forecast that was released on Friday shows that the defense department isn't the only department getting hammered: NASA is as well, if the automatic budget cuts happen. According to Nature magazine, NASA will lose '$417 million from its science budget, $346 for space operations, $309 for exploration, $246 for cross agency support, among other cuts.'"

37 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Budget cuts should not be imposed by mostwanted678452056 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is because of NASA we are enjoying the fruits of GPS and other such technical marvels. I don't think there should the any more budget cuts.

    1. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong. The cost of GPS and "other such technical marvels" could easily be absorbed into the federal budget. The real problem is that we choose not to. It's all politics, and neither party really has a good stance on the issue.

    2. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 2

      Who do you think runs Cape Canaveral? Trolls?

    3. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the DoD would have something to say about your assertion, since GPS was their toy from day one, ad it was under their budget that the constellation was launched and maintained...

    4. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh the AF/Navy have their own launch vehicles and launch facilities now? I guess I wasn't keeping up.

      They have had their own launch facilities for years. Vandenberg AFB and the AF operated launch complexes at Cape Canaveral.

    5. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh the AF/Navy have their own launch vehicles and launch facilities now? I guess I wasn't keeping up.

      You are correct - you're not keeping up. Airforce launched them. DOD paid for them. In fact the bloc I GPS sats were launched using Atlas rockets, aka repurposed ICBMs.

    6. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong. The cost of GPS and "other such technical marvels" could easily be absorbed into the federal budget.

      Sure, but you'd have to create an agency to handle development of the "technical marvels". It would need a lot of fancy buildings with high tech gear inside them, a good acronym...and...we're back to NASA.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by AsmCoder8088 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, I would like to point out that as a taxpayer Al Gore contributed to DoD's budget and therefore took the initiative in creating what we know of today as GPS.

    8. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Or DARPA.

      Or NOAA or NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) or DOE. Lots of cutting edge tech in government institutions.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Space Nutters don't like being told their religion is wrong. NASA invented the wheel, the computer, the lever, the Sun, the car, colors, Teflon and Tang. Reality be damned, everything useful ever came from launching rockets.

      Don't go confusing NASA with Apple now.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Budget cuts should not be imposed by craigminah · · Score: 2

      Then why stop with the DoD and just say America launched GPS or say North America or the northern hemisphere or the Western World or earthlings launched it. That's why I think it's silly. The USAF launched and operates GPS (via 2SOPS) not the DoD.

  2. Damn Democrats!!1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those damn Democrats and their spending cuts! Why don't they spend more, like good Republicans?

    1. Re:Damn Democrats!!1 by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither party really tries to spend more or less than the other.

      What people fail to realize is there's very little difference between the two parties. Those issues everyone campaigns on? They're to polarize people to give them a sense of duty to vote for one party or the other. If you'll notice very little actually gets accomplished on polarizing issues, those issues exist to keep you from voting third party.

      What is the real difference in the parties? It's like a sports franchise. Each party is playing for different companies.

      Obviously the Republicans are playing for defense contractors and some other civil engineering types.

      The Democrats are obviously playing for unions, health insurance, and pharmaceutical companies. (non-health insurance companies fall anywhere in the spectrum)

      So in the NFL what happens when two teams go to the Superbowl? One team wins and the other loses. Does that mean the losing team doesn't make any money? NO! The losing team makes a huge profit, the winning team gets the glory and makes an even bigger profit.

      Tax money is like a river to these people. There's a fork in the river with a dam going to each fork. Winning an election is winning the right to open up the gates to your fork a little wider so your team gets more of the profit, like winning the Super Bowl. The other team still gets some.

      As tax payers we've lost focus. We've put all of our focus into deciding who to trust with the gate controls further down the line. Fact is the river is supposed to come off of a lake, the lake is nearly empty because all the waters been diverted to the river. Sure some asshole keeps setting the trees on fire in the mountains to melt snow into water (inflation) but that's destroying the land we live in. We need to close the dam where the river starts and turn our taxes into a stream, not the friggin Mississippi. As long as you're voting for the NFL we all lose.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:Damn Democrats!!1 by Greyfox · · Score: 2
      You kind of lost me there at the end, but I think I want to say "Yup! They're both the same!" Pretty much any method of selecting our leaders would work better than what we have now. We could select people randomly out of a phone book and treat Congress like jury duty and have better leadership than we do now.

      In the past I've thought we should just install a revolving door on Congress and vote in new people in each election cycle. Congress would change polarity every election cycle, but they'd all be new people without much experience and maybe at least somewhat likely to work together. But like you say, they're both the same. Voting for third parties might help a little, but I doubt the people would go for that. Actually most of the people seem to be happy to vote the same guys in over and over again, despite an approval rating for Congress that is fast approaching single digit territory (Unless we've already crossed into it, I haven't checked in a couple of months.)

      This situation can not continue perpetually. Eventually the country will collapse under the weight of this, and then we'll all be much worse off than we are today. And I do mean everyone. The top few percent might be able to flee to another country, but their taxes will generally be higher and their security will generally be lower. I'm not sure I'd want to live in the same world as a country with a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons collapsing, either. Hell, the thought of a nuclear-armed Pakistan collapsing is bad enough.

      Whatever happens, we brought this on ourselves. Russia collapsed due to economics, it looks like we'll collapse due to stupidity. If we're lucky, maybe everyone won't die in the process.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  3. DoD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can we please just cut $1.3B extra from Defense and leave NASA alone? Seriously, $1.3 is only like half a B2 bomber - DoD can absorb that cost.

    1. Re:DoD by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1.3 Billion? That's 5 F-35 Lightning II's the DoD will have to cut out of it's budget! (Yes I know the A version costs "only" 197 million, but just wait...)

      In any case, sequestration will hit the DoD (and Veterans Affairs) as well. If you weren't paying attention, last year Congress refused to raise the misleading named "debt ceiling" -- which is not a ceiling on actual *debt*, but rather securitizing *debt* already incurred. In other words, they wouldn't allow the treasury to issue notes or bonds to pay for expenses already budgeted, authorized and incurred. In order to avoid sovereign default, the administration worked out a deal where it would iron out the budget differences with Congress after the election. To give that commmitment teeth they arranged for automatic budget cuts, split evenly between DoD and the rest of the federal budget, if they failed to achieve 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.

      Since this voluntary deficit reduction will almost certainly have to be achieved without tax increases or defense spending cuts, NASA's prospects don't look any brighter if we avoid sequestration. Without a huge and probably unrealistic economic boom we're going to be cutting stuff that the public cares about a lot more than NASA. Sure, NASA's costing the average taxpayer less than 20 cents a day, but we'll be scrounging under the sofa cushions for pennies.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. How fucking sad. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 3, Informative

    NASA is where all the money should go.

  5. News coverage question of the day by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the republicans temporarily shut down the government while budget battles raged on, we had 24/7 wall to wall coverage of this. Contrast this with today where absolute NO TV and virtually no newspaper coverage exists for this event. Why?

    1. Re:News coverage question of the day by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrast this with today where absolute NO TV and virtually no newspaper coverage exists for this event. Why?

      Because Fox News Corp. and AOL Time Warner doesn't want to show the republicans as the reason nothing gets done during the election season. This way if the republicans sweep all the elections, they can brag about how they were the ones to finally get something passed.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:News coverage question of the day by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      CNN has a corporate bias which tends to favor conservatives much more than liberals.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  6. Nasa is the spearhead by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nasa is the spearhead of innovation, if it wasn't for them, we'd not have a lot of the materials today that we make our innovations even more innovative with. Nasa isn't just all about space exploration, but what we can do with materials in near zero gravity, search for alternative energy sources that can literally save our lives, nanotechnology and beyond.

    To see such an innovative organization being stripped down like that, rips my heart apart.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:Nasa is the spearhead by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I'd much rather see that money diverted towards something with a larger social impact, like curing a disease or producing a vaccine for something like Norovirus which accounts for half of all food-borne illness and affects 20-million people each year. Depending on your wage estimates and taking the person of of action for 1-2 days, that's easily 500-billion in lost wages.

      You know, we're already spending a metric shitload of money on various and sundry illnesses and diseases. A tiny bit towards physics, astronomy and assorted engineering subjects bothers me not a one bit. If you killed NASA completely and gave all that money to the NIH I would argue that very litte (if anything at all) would change.

      Cut back on the DOD more than a little bit, then we're talking.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. much as I like NASA... by kenorland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Much as I like NASA, if that's what it takes to get the deficit under control, then that's what needs to happen. Given that the DOD takes the brunt of the cuts, it seems fair. And a billion dollar in cuts for NASA amounts to pocket change when distributed about all the billionaires that are currently financing private space ventures. We'll probably do better altogether by getting the economy going again and having them work on getting to space than to keep financing bloated DOD and other programs an relying on handouts for NASA to get us into space.

    1. Re:much as I like NASA... by vitriolum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except NASA's budget goes right back into the pockets of the American people, plus we get space missions.

      "The economic benefits of NASA's programs are greater than generally realized. The main beneficiaries (the American public) may not even realize the source of their good fortune. . ." - paper in Nature, 1992

      In 2002, the aerospace industry accounted for $95 billion of economic activity in the United States, including $23.5 billion in employee earnings dispersed among some 576,000 employees (source: Federal Aviation Administration, March 2004).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding

    2. Re:much as I like NASA... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much as I like NASA, if that's what it takes to get the deficit under control, then that's what needs to happen.

      NASA's budget is insignificant compared to the entitlement programs and DOD spending. Cutting NASA's budget doesn't upset the old people, the welfare recipients, and the retired military veterans. Cutting NASA's budget does little for actually balancing the budget. It's just the least important to that good o' red blooded american voter that is so important this time of year.

      The problem with the budget has always been that politicians do not look at what will be good for the nation's future when making decisions. Instead they look at what is good for their individual political future and saying "I cut welfare, defense spending, and social security" won't win them any votes. They particularly love the elderly vote since they outnumber the rest of us and they don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:much as I like NASA... by khallow · · Score: 2

      Except NASA's budget goes right back into the pockets of the American people, plus we get space missions.

      Not taxing people or borrowing money in the first place leaves that money in the pockets of the American people. In the absence of productive use of that tax money, you're just redirecting unproductively a portion of the wealth of the US.

      This is just a variation of the broken window fallacy (here the broken window being the redirecting of funds through taxes). Somehow taking money from one person and giving it to another for a poor reason is somehow seen as good for the US economy. Why I don't know. But that's little different from chucking a rock through a window and forcing someone to buy a new window.

      Now, NASA does do space missions and there is some value to those. But my take is that the US is probably taking at least an order of magnitude reduction in the effectiveness of the money it spends on NASA. Some stuff, particularly, the Space Launch System, probably has negative value (after one considers both the loss to taxpayers and damage to the commercial US space launch market).

  8. Another nail in the coffin of science in America. by QilessQi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure there are a depressingly-large number of Americans who would be overjoyed at the prospect of NASA being monetarily crippled, if not defunded altogether. Not only is it a haven for climate scientists (NASA has Earth-looking satellites, and has monitored the Antactic ozone hole for years), but it's packed to the gills with astrophysicists who maintain that the universe is billions of years old instead of a mere six thousand.

  9. Forrest and Trees by jasnw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this focus on the released details of the bad things that will happen to each agency is a waste of energy. The administration put this document together because Congress insisted on it, and if it had been dropped in my lap I would have done as litle as necessary to put this useless exercise in budgetary masturbation together. This is all focusing on the "trees" of "OMG, my favorite NASA program will be axed" when it should be on the forrest of "DAMN, Congress is about to put a shotgun to the head of the US economy and pull the trigger." We should be furious about the short-sighted, infantile, "he's touching me" inability to work together of what passes for leadership in Congress, particularly on the REPUBLICAN (there, I said it) side of the aisle. NASA losing $1.3B is a candle against the general confligration this disaster will cause to the US.

  10. Nasa is chump change, need to hit the sacred cows. by PerMolestiasEruditio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real waste in the Budget is in things like Medicare. US spends 15% of GDP on health, while most OECD countries spend about 7-8% on evil "socialised medicine" yet have everyone is covered and in many cases they have higher life expectancies. 7% of us GDP is about $1 Trillion per year, I realise that isn't the federal budget but it is money that people could use for other things if they weren't wasting it.

    Higher education 3% of GDP vs OECD average 1.5%. College attendees are getting screwed to the tune of $200 billion per year.

    Around $1000 per person spent on tax filing per year due to ridiculously complex tax system - another 2-300 $billion per year.

    And I am not even going to bother talking about the Pentagon.

    Point is that there are ways of saving all that needs to be saved without impacting negatively on peoples standard of living, but the US needs to be willing to adopt the best practices of the rest of the west, regardless of philosophical objections about free-markets etc.

  11. Ain't gonna happen by mbone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These sequestration cuts will not happen. After the upcoming election, minds will be concentrated, horses will be traded at a furious rate, and this can will be kicked down the road. The details of the can-kicking and horse-trading will depend on the nature of the election results, but the can will be kicked down the road. Of that you can be sure.

  12. Re:It won't matter by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no such thing as "working" hard when you make more in a year than a middle class person makes in their entire lifetime. Human performance doesn't scale up that far, we're talking multiple orders of magnitude. On the way down from middle class you can of course slack as much as you want, but on the way up -- you know, a day only has 24 hours, no matter how bright you are, you can only do so much before you start, effectively, exploiting others.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  13. Re:Please justify NASA's existence by noobermin · · Score: 2

    lol u mad

    If you want to make a point and engage in actual debate, then using a mocking tone like that won't convince or intrigue anyone. It just serves to circle-jerk up people who agree with you and enrages people against your opinion, the latter of which is considered trolling.

    I'll bite by saying this: more money is already spent on feeding the hungry (food-stamps) and some amount goes to NSF, some of which goes to climate research, I'm sure. Not as much as nasa, but then again, it's priorities, I guess.

    Paying down the debt, true. Then again, more revenues would help too.

  14. Re:Briar patch by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, not sure why the Democrats went with that plan. It's exactly what the Tea Party wanted, an enforced budget cut that made the government figure how how to operate on less money. Perhaps the Democrats thought that the Tea Partiers were insincere career politicians like they were and would not want to play chicken.

    The problem with thinking you can play chicken with someone is that, on a rare occasion, the other guy is actually there to see what a car accident feels like.

    I've never been one for the hack and slash approach to budget cuts, but I do have to admit that it might be the only way to do it with special interests having a constant steel cage match to get more and more money for themselves. Look on the bright side, do you really think the Democrats would ever get even close to the amount of defense budget cuts they could under this?

  15. Mainly other middle class people by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But don't worry, maybe some rich person will take pity on your attempts at brown-nosing, and give you a job as a footstool or something.

  16. Re:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Ann by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    Exactly! What's been missing in the dialog is the fact that the federal budget has ballooned in all departments. You can hear the little piggies being called to the troughs in DC while leadership at all levels, congress, the administration and even down to local municipalities has been missing. It's has been easier to say 'spend and borrow' than 'let's make the hard choices that's right for our country.' This is what happened last year when the debt ceiling was being reached and the republicans said they wouldn't support it without budget cuts. So what happened? they compromised for a joint task force with them all being deadlocked and both parties agreed that Sequestration wouldn't happen until after the 2012 elections. Guess what, nobody did anything. The joint task force couldn't come to a consensus and now we have the 'Fiscal Cliff' everybody is talking about. Do we honestly think that our dysfunctional government can come to an agreement of how to reduce the budget? Well for the past four years they haven't been able to so my suggestion to everybody is save your money now and get ready for another recession because there is a complete lack of adult supervision in Washington and it's time we all recognized that. Being a leader means that sometimes you have to make a decision that isn't popular but one that you know is right. There isn't anybody in Washington DC that can do that. Sure they can make speeches and talk about things like women's rights and "The private sector never built anything" but it gets us nowhere fast. I suggest that if you have the ability to vote in November, do so, don't ignore it and then vote against all incumbents. That means if the person has the office now, vote for somebody else on the ballot in all races, even down to your local elections.

    That will send a message and it will also give somebody out there, anybody, a chance to do better than the bunch of clods we have now.

    Getting back on target, if we start to get a handle on all those non-essential things, like 16000 new IRS agents, it would close the budget gap for NASA but let's all face facts, the Obama NASA wants the Private Sector to do the heavy lifting, while NASA continues to explore. This would represent more opportunity for Space-X et. al. Even Burt Rutan would like to see that.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  17. Re:How fucking great! by demachina · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not generally one to defend NASA but they've had a pretty huge role in earth observation satellites, Landsat for example. They've had a huge impact on environmental issues, deforestation, climate change, resource usage, monitoring the destruction of our our ozone layer by CFC's and helping to stop it, this list goes on for a while.

    Their manned space program has moslty been a huge wast of time and money but their earth observation programs have been DOING EXACTLY THE THINGS YOU SEEM TO BE WHINING FOR.

    It pretty delusional to think you should basically stop doing anything ground breaking until you've solved every problem on Earth. YOU WILL NEVER SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM ON EARTH. If you manage to insure everyone is well fed and, and no one dies of diseases, chances are you will just cause a population spike that will push a bunch of people in to starvation or further deplete the earth's resources trying to feed them all.

    Its still a little over the horizon but it wont be that much longer until we start deplete the Earth's easily accessible mineral resources at which point pretty much the first thing you are going to be wishing for is a robust space program so you can start mining near earth asteroids for them.

    --
    @de_machina
  18. Re:It won't matter by khallow · · Score: 2

    Yes, because there is simply no way a producer and a consumer would ever manage to connect without some rich ass facilitating it?

    Do you really believe that?

    It's the world we live in. Reality is what's left when we stop believing in it. Most of the products we buy didn't come from anywhere near us. Somehow in the absence of rich people we'll develop some sort of ESP that allows us to find the products we need and make the products that other people need.

    Remove the upper class in one well targeted plague and the middle class would do just fine.

    There'd be a new "upper class" inside of five years populated by newly wealthy "facilitators".