8 ms·
NASA's James Webb Space Telescope faces potential 20% budget cut
- Jun8 2y agoYou can find NASA's 2025 Budget Request Summary here (PDF link: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-budget-request-summary-updated.pdf?emrc=67b8cb43aba95 https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-budg...). It's a visually great deck that provides a lot info. From Slide 26: "$317M supports the operation of Great Observatories including the James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble, and Chandra". Can't some of the money that's been saved from other cutting channeled to NASA?
- rqtwteye 2y agoThey could stop with the Mars nonsense and cancel SLS.
- preisschild 2y agolol the Mars project is a prestige project for Musk now, no way that gets defunded.
- radicalbyte 2y agoIt's a distraction and likely a way to fund money to his companies.
- rockemsockem 2y agoI find people like you fascinating. Like it's so obvious that the guy is actually legitimately obsessed with going to Mars. You can question whether that's a good idea and everything else about him, but it's so obvious that this is legitimate. So I'm seriously so, so curious, because you are far from the only person to think this, why do you think Mars is actually a facade to funnel money to his companies?
- sdenton4 2y agoWell, at one time he was obsessed with going to Mars... Now he seems more obsessed with being the most based twitter user and wrecking people's lives for upboats from his cronies.
- brandonagr2 2y ago[flagged]
- slopeloaf 2y agoIf youre using the term “wokeness” seriously. You are not interested in a dialogue. You merely want to own the libs. Much of your comment history is defending Elon too and a lot of data driven replies to your past comments go seemingly unreplied by you I don’t think you have any interest in an actual discussion here. You just want to signal youre right and the other party is wrong. There are far more productive uses of your time then defending a stranger you’ll never meet. It’s a beautiful world out there. Please go enjoy it
- throwaway173738 2y agoThis might surprise you but you can’t always take what people say at face value. You also have to think about why they say they want something and what else they might want. Mars is a great example of something he could fund himself, and something he presumably has funded in the past. So if he’s going to take government funding now when he’s holding the strings, it stands to reason that he’s taking advantage of his position. And you can see that play out with the $400 million dollar purchase of Cybertrucks for example where there are tons of more cost-effective tools for the job. So it seems like whatever he says his real goal is to strip-mine certain agencies for profit while he does it. Why would we trust him?
- rockemsockem 2y agoI'm really not just looking at what he says, but his actions over the last 20+ years, combined with the fact that starting a rocket company is not a particularly great way to become richer. It certainly hasn't made Jeff Bezos more rich. I think what you're saying is that he is obsessed with Mars and is simply taking advantage of his position to fund this goal more and also massively profit. This I can understand and I think is a very real concern. I don't think it's what the poster I originally replied to is saying though.
- worik 2y agoThe SLS being a government funded competitor to SpaceX has little hope... That said I am unsure if that is that much of a blow. The government is very good at some things, it looks to me (I am a casual observer) that SpaceX has eaten their lunch in terms of a space programme. But the James Webb was exactly the sort of incredibly difficult, high risk project that NASA (and Government labs generally) excel at. No private company would ever do something like that. It is a huge achievement and is changing our view, again, of the Universe. So I guess it will be doomed now too. Noting so dangerous as a good example.
- SubjectToChange 2y agoThe SLS being a government funded competitor to SpaceX has little hope SLS was never about being the most practical and/or efficient launcher. It is a pork barrel project, but one with an important role. In particular, it is maintaining vital aerospace industrial capacity. If the US wants things like ICBMs then programs like SLS are a necessary evil.
- jandrese 2y agoOh man, Elon is going to propose a Falcon-9 based ICBM isn't he? Might as well go full Bond villain at this point.
- fooker 2y agoICBMs have usually been solid fuelled as they can be stored ready to launch. Typically when you have a situation warranting nukes you won't have time to fuel a falcon 9.
- ben_w 2y agoThere's lots of bad ideas currently becoming government policy, and that's not even a unique flaw of the USA or Trump or Musk. So, just because idea of using Falcon 9s as a delivery solution for a strategic nuclear deterrent may be as bad as ordering your chief designer to throw a big steel ball at the window of the new model of car you're currently in the middle of announcing even despite the guy's obvious reticence, doesn't mean it won't happen.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoSLS has been to the moon and back. Starship hasn't yet made it to orbit.
- nickff 2y agoSLS has been around the moon and back; that mission was equivalent to an unmanned Apollo VIII. Going around the moon is much easier than landing on it and coming back.
- kelnos 2y agoSure. And not-quite-getting-into-orbit is easier -- significantly easier -- than going around the moon. What's your point, really, aside from nitpicking, when "orbiting the moon" is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the statement "been to the moon and back"?
- nickff 2y agoI think the difference between the US lunar exploration program and the Soviet one qualifies as more than mere nitpicking.
- bpodgursky 2y agoStarship has made orbit several times.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoNo it has not. Cite a source please.
- ben_w 2y agoKinda. They demonstrated orbital delta-v, but the perigee was always low enough to guarantee re-enter atmosphere after just half an orbit from launch, because of SpaceX's unreadiness to confidently perform a controlled de-orbit otherwise.
- 2y ago
- justinator 2y agoStop trying to use logic to make sense of these budget cuts. The budget cuts aren't about saving money. They're about destroying whole parts of the Government.
- sennalen 2y agoNot just the government. Destroying whole parts of the future and the potential of humanity, just to stoke the egos of two men.
- knightfall21 2y ago[flagged]
- dandanua 2y agoYou see, those are necessary steps since billionaires are tired of rules and regulations that don't let them grow and thus hold America back, so it can't be great again.
- jisnsm 2y ago[flagged]
- y33t 2y agoThey don't want to destroy it, just make it so useless they have pretext to privatize it.
- nickff 2y agoI don’t think anyone wants to privatize any of the space telescopes or NASA as a whole. Do you have any evidence that there is someone who does?
- ericmay 2y agoGenerally speaking the current administration is looking to cut some functions and programs from federal agencies and then pay private entities to perform those same functions because they believe that private industry can perform those same functions better more cheaply [1]. There is certainly some merit to that, however I think being dogmatic one way or the other is for simpletons. Specifically for privatizing space telescopes or privatizing NASA as a whole I don't think that has been on the table, but you can imagine a scenario in which eventually something like 20%, 40%, 90% or some other significant portion of NASA's "funding" is just a pass-through vehicle for private contracts. Honestly if you want to learn and understand more about some of these activities you can just read the news because a lot of analysis is being done, well-informed opinions are being written, and indisputable factual evidence including quotes, interviews, and detailed data are publicly available. Admittedly some reporting is behind paywalls, but that's easy to get around. I understand it's not very fair to tell someone to "go read the news", but if you can't keep up with current events or you aren't willing to that's kind of just your problem. There are plenty of websites across the political spectrum ranging from the Financial Times to the Economist, to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, international journals, and more including locally focused websites that keep tabs with events going on at the federal, state, and local level. It's certainly a lot but it's your responsibility as a citizen (assuming you are American, apologies if not) to keep yourself informed and well read. [1] I'm being charitable here because I personally believe that the goal is to just funnel money from government agencies to specific private enterprises that have the favor of the current administration. Crony Capitalism is what that is called. The current administration has not yet earned my trust to believe otherwise.
- jandrese 2y agoI'd say at least the SLS program is in jeopardy. NASA has notably had some real scares recently about massive job cuts that have thus far not panned out. Since the administration revels in chaos this probably won't be resolved neatly or soon. IMHO if someone wanted to cut the James Webb the time to do it was 15 years ago. Now that it is actually flying and producing the best images of the cosmos to date it is too late. Those costs are fully sunk. The ongoing running costs are downright modest by government standards. Plus the project is visible enough that cuts are likely to result in public outcry.
- righthand 2y agoOnce the money is approved it is then the receiving agency/orgs money. Not the Executive branch’s money to redistribute. There is no money being “saved” or “cut”, there are only corrupt people halting payments of the budgeted money and illegally laying off workers.
- epolanski 2y ago> Can't some of the money that's been saved from other cutting channeled to NASA? What are you a socialist? /s
- micromacrofoot 2y agoMore likely to end up at Space X
- rurp 2y agoMany of the announced savings are fake. The actual savings are a paltry number that will be dwarfed by the 100s of billions that will be spent on border security theater, not to mention the trillions in upcoming tax cuts for the wealthy.
- kelnos 2y ago> Can't some of the money that's been saved from other cutting channeled to NASA? Why would they want to do that? This administration is hell-bent on reducing spending, period, not moving it around, as well as crippling the executive branch's ability to govern. And they don't care what useful initiatives die due to their actions. And I can't see Trump's supporters caring about this at all. He won the presidency in no small part because he acknowledged that people were facing financial strife, while Harris just kept repeating that the economy was great (implying that anyone with financial issues was either imagining it, or themselves at fault). Why would a Trump supporter care about some "elitist" scientist being able to look at celestial phenomena? They don't care about this stuff, sadly.
- postalrat 2y agoNo. Because the people in charge of NASA will make sure to make sure that every dollar cut will go to the most loved programs to keep awareness high.
- oldpersonintx 2y ago[dead]
- bradly 2y agoNot commenting on the budgets cuts themselves, but operations, monitoring, and maintenance of JWST is under contract with Northop Grumman until 2027.
- aaronbrethorst 2y agoWhew, good thing Musk and Trump love respecting existing contracts and settled law then. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/02/18/g-s1-49220/trump-ignore-congress-spending-laws-impoundment https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/02/18/g-s1-49...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y agoWhy would that matter? Trump can break the contract and there's nothing they can do about it
- chrisweekly 2y agoEveryone able to make it to the Boston Museum of Science should make a point of watching "Deep Sky" in IMAX (the story of the JWST and tons of new-to-mankind images of the furthest reaches / oldest objects in the universe), it's breathtaking. https://www.mos.org/visit/omni/deep-sky https://www.mos.org/visit/omni/deep-sky
- qzw 2y agoNot sure if it's the same one, but I saw a similar IMAX with my kids at the Kennedy Space Center a few months ago. Agree that it's well worth seeing and has some spectacular images from the JWST.
- amarcheschi 2y agoOh I thought I had seen it at ksc and then I saw your comment. I agree, it's breathtaking and moving. It's a shame that all of this is happening to save a bunch of money for the wealthy elite that see "you, the people" as disposable items
- jgalt212 2y agoI'm bummed to have missed that when I was last there in 2024. Overall, I was pretty disappointed with the place. It's a good stop for kids under 7, though. To the contrary, I found the London science museum amazing. Great exhibits and great presentation.
- willis936 2y agoIt says tickets are unavailable.
- slowhadoken 2y ago[flagged]
- ben_w 2y ago> Hillary Clinton Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago. But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
- slowhadoken 2y agoHillary Clinton set a negative tone in the Democratic party for decades. Watch a video of British liberal Christopher Hitchens ranting about her and Bill. It all culminated in her pact with the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders. That's a major part of how we got here. Young men are the backbone of every economy in the world, that's a real thing and you need them, you also need their tax dollars. Men are most labor and put more into the government then they take back.
- tdb7893 2y agoThe "identity politics" stuff is just exhausting. Not to get too political here but I'm only aware of one presidential campaign running a lot of ads in swing states on trans issues and it wasn't the Democrats. Then with all the talk about men and masculinity when I've tried listening to right wing media (even the politicians) and somehow that isn't "identity politics".
- slowhadoken 2y agoIdentity politics was originally the idea that people can vote based on measurable core values instead of political party rhetoric. Then Cambridge Analytica was shut down, Mark Zuckerberg got questioned by Congress, and identity politics was replaced by intersectionality and ESG.
- badosu 2y agoWe could have had Bernie
- EcommerceFlow 2y ago[flagged]
- jmward01 2y agoSpaceX shows the natural boom, decay to a rut, bust out of rut cycle that happens in every industry. Strong independent government institutions make sure that the growth phase when that bust out of rut phase happens stays (relatively) positive for society and free of corruption. I personally define a corporation as 'evil' when they try to change the regulatory framework to be in their favor since they cross the line from 'playing by the rules defined by society' to 'making up the rules instead of society making them up'. In a democracy it is important that society makes the rules to give the average person a chance to have their priorities listened to. Now that SpaceX is in politics they are an evil company because they aren't beholden to society. Musk will do whatever he thinks is valuable and there are no stops on him. I don't care how amazing the tech SpaceX comes up with, the danger posed by Musk and SpaceX are not even remotely worth it anymore.
- zmgsabst 2y ago[flagged]
- lesuorac 2y agoPeople did not vote for this. Trump literally distanced himself the entire election cycle from Project 2025.
- cowboylowrez 2y agoTrump has this unusual ability to 1) get his followers to accept his worldview to the exclusion of all other worldviews, and 2) lie like a cheap rug haha Just imagine the worlds you can sell with this pair of superpowers, you don't have to materialize them into reality, you just need to say the right things during the right election cycle. Say what you want about Trump but he's really pulled off an amazing stunt coming back from jan 6 to get right back into office. The powers of persuasion that he has coupled with the ridiculous things he says are just unprecedented and his followers either believe him or think he's trolling the libs for their benefit. We'll be discussing Trump for a long time, through whatever communication channels still exist after he departs the scene haha Maybe me characterizing Trump as "less than truthful" might be offensive to some here, but I'm certainly not alone in this observation.
- d3rockk 2y agoThis is basically "Don't Look Up" in real life.
- sega_sai 2y agoObviously it's pointless to try to make any reasoned arguments. These people don't care, they just want to destroy for the sake of it. In the past I wondered how great civilizations collapse and how this could happen. It is just becoming clearer and clearer every day.
- nine_zeros 2y agoYep. History of humanity is littered with stories of super powers crumbling under their own foolishness. Very strange to actively witness the death.
- munchler 2y agoTrue, but you'd think that Musk, given his background and aspirations, would have greater appreciation for the JWST.
- georgemcbay 2y agoAccording to Sam Altman "Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it", this (and a lot of Elon's actions, see for example the Thailand cave incident) seems to perfectly fit that assessment. [and to be clear, my quoting of Sam Altman is not meant to be taken as an endorsement of Sam Altman, but I suspect he has decent insight into Elon]
- munchler 2y agoThat is interesting, and pathological if true. Thank you for the insight.
- verytrivial 2y agoThat Musk is dead.
- lamontcg 2y agoDoubt he ever really existed, he was just better at keeping his psychopathy under wraps.
- renegade-otter 2y agoA hedge fund manager, somewhere out there, does not have enough tax cuts to pay for the 5th infinity pool and a lambo. Science can go suck it! Queue "In the eyes on an angel" by Sarah McLachlan.
- herodotus 2y agoGee, I wonder if this will maybe benefit Space X in some way?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoYou're gonna have to connect the dots here...I don't see the benefit to space x
- guywithahat 2y agoIf anything it would hurt spacex since they (theoretically) might do fewer support/maintenance missions. My experience on NASA projects leads me to believe they could cut 20% of staff and have things run smoother, since fewer people would be bored, standing in the way looking for things to do.
- BurningFrog 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- consumer451 2y agoYour comment raises an interesting issue. TFA is free of politics, aside from mentioning the incoming NASA administrator. 1) As political decisions impact things like science, is this not fit for discussion here, because there is a tinge of politics? 2) What are some not dumb points to make about this story? Or, are there none possible?
- BurningFrog 2y agoAll I know is that in this discussion, normally thoughtful and smart people are screeching that their outgroup are mean poopheads who want to ruin everything.
- consumer451 2y agoBroadly speaking, there are two possibilities. These "normally thoughtful and smart people" are either correct, or they are not. Have you considered that the prior is a real possibility? I mean, the accelerationist view requires destroying that which now exists. This is not something being invented out of nowhere. I guess my real question is: what happens if "mean poopheads who want to ruin everything" is what is actually happening? How would one have a thoughtful discussion about that? Is that even possible? Let's take a 30,000 foot view on this. Swap, or avoid, in-out group positioning for this thought experiment.
- BurningFrog 2y agoI'm complaining about manners and communication style. If they're right or not doesn't enter into my argument. > How would one have a thoughtful discussion about that? Is that even possible? Is absolutely is. Also a pretty minimal skill requirement for me to take anyone seriously.
- aaroninsf 2y agoStart to take seriously that the current crisis: - will affect EVERY aspect of public life, and ripple through everyone's private life - is exactly as bad as it seems - with goals as venal, selfish, and compromised as it seems QED the appropriate solution if you don't want to ride the collapse into a dystopian horrorscape cum shithole, is to figure out what direct action you and your closest circles need to do for - personal survival - community survival and hopefully - national survival where the latter is going to obviously mean some real, literal effort, short term, to reverse the soft coup that is going down. Doesn't matter if these people were voted in; they can never be voted out and the sooner they are taken out of power by whatever means avail, the better. Think on the scale of national strike and national shutdown. Nothing short of that is going to save what generations built.
- andrew_eu 2y agoDepressing politics aside, I'm curious about how this affects the long term usability of the telescope. I guess as long as the orbit is sustained and it doesn't suffer physical damage, it would still be basically operable for it's design life. If major cuts essentially leave a skeleton crew, or no crew, for an extended period of time would later reinvestment be able to put the observatories back to use with only lost time? Or do these things need constant remote maintenance to stay operational?
- recursivecaveat 2y agoApparently it uses ~2.7% of its fuel every year to station-keep in the right semi-stable orbit, so presumably you need at least some crew to manage that. (and any time it's not taking observations you never get back!) I know the voyagers have needed adjustments and reconfigutation from ground crews as equipment as decayed over the years, so I assume similar things would happen on a semi-mothballed JWST.
- otikik 2y agoJust name a random star “Trump” and the Oompa Loompa will be happy