Thousands of NASA senior staffers expected to quit after budget slashed NASA senior staff are being offered the opportunity to leave voluntarily before the axes start swinging, and it seems likely that thousands will take the escape hatch. The US space agency is facing massive funding cuts that would put it back to pre-Apollo levels of budgets and staffing. A report in Politico based on internal …
Yes, just spend, spend, spend. Hang tomorrow. Although, Trump doesn't really seem to be pulling back on spending. I don't know the "Big, Beautiful Bill", maybe it is revenue generating but somehow I doubt it. Uniparty stuff? But ... reducing government is a good thing. Maybe now is the time to outsource space things.
Can we leave out the TDS stuff and just have normal criticism. It's childish and usually without substance.
"reducing government is a good thing"
That's a very loaded statement, and doesn't correlate with what most people perceive as desirable outcomes.
Places where the population is happy tend to have government making people's lives better.
Less Trump is probably a good thing, but the concept that "less government" is a good thing is fundamentally flawed. Is it always true? If so then no government must be best... but then you have no infrastructure, no education, no law...
If the roads still existed there would be noone to enforce driving on the correct side. There would be no food standards at all, but that's ok, there would be no way to get that food from the farm to you.
Places where the population is happy tend to have government making people's lives better.
Or governments that say they're making people's lives better when public opinion polls often show the people are getting increasingly p'd off. Case in point being a lot of the media being rather quiet about Reichsfuhrer von der Leyen's censure and vote of no confidence. People are rather unimpressed by her somehow 'negotiating' a 30bn vaccine deal with friends and family by text. And her refusal to show those texts. So much for democracy, transparency, or just following the EU procurement and record retention rules.. Which were put in place precisely to avoid this type of issue, and real or apparent conflicts of interest. And of course she blamed Russia, the 'far right' and 'conspiracy theories'.. And probably doesn't realise that the key to a good conspiracy theory is official denial, and the counter is transparency.
..the concept that "less government" is a good thing is fundamentally flawed. Is it always true? If so then no government must be best... but then you have no infrastructure, no education, no law...
No cherries to pick, no DEI waste. But infrastructure might be a bad one to pick given a lot of it is crumbling, despite 'record investment'. Or just wondering how infrastructure projects like HS2 can be so eyewateringly expensive per mile. Think it still works out cheaper and is more advanced than California's link to Vegas though. Or even SLS. Barrels of pork to the Moon, maybe, and maybe China or India will get there first. But SLS might be an example of the sunk cost fallacy. It's got this far, might as well keep going rather than scrapping it and staring again.
There's a lot of waste that can be cut from government spending. There's also the odd curiosity-
https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/07/08/bees-are-losing-their-buzz-climate-change-reduces-frequency-pitch-of-wing-vibrations-researchers-warn/
Bees are losing their buzz! ‘Climate change’ reduces frequency & pitch of wing vibrations, researchers warn
Which reads like a lot of 'Global Warming' science. Mention it to get grants, then increase the chances of the media picking up & running with the story. Conclusions seem just a tad dubious to me given normal daily & seasonal temperature variations, and that err.. beevolution happened when air was denser and the Earth was hotter.. along with most plant life. Exposure to heavy metals is arguably more interesting, still an environmental issue and bees are rather important to agriculture and our environment in general. So the kind of science that probably should get funded, but by paying homage to the Carbon Cult, getting funding was probably easier.
Ok - my guess is that you'll not consider any of the following to be reasoned...
The countries consistently coming at the top of the "happiest" and "best place to live" are ones with active governments, universal education, healthcare etc.
Basically things that the government are there to provide - you're suggesting that anarchy and no social safety net at all is preferable, which I'd like to suggest is clearly false.
"No cherries to pick, no DEI waste"
I've got no idea what you're even talking about here. You seem to be confused in the whole paragraph.
"Which reads like a lot of 'Global Warming' science."
Have you actually studied science at any point?
you're suggesting that anarchy and no social safety net at all is preferable, which I'd like to suggest is clearly false.
No, I am not. As is often the case, you're using a crude strawman to create a logical fallacy. At no point did I suggest, or imply that anarchy would be prefferable, or the only alternative. Some public spending is obviously a good thing, however a lot is not. Cutting government waste is obviously a good thing because then more money could be spent on 'essential' services, or borrowing could be reduced, taxes lowered
I've got no idea what you're even talking about here. You seem to be confused in the whole paragraph.
I'm not suprised. You picked a few services that the public sector arguably should provide. I countered with DEI projects where billions have been wasted, and transferred money from the public into the pockets of activists running those projects. Those activists are naturally upset that their gravy train has been derailed. But this includes NASA. Budgets for their DEI programs have been cut. They'll still have HR people to ensure employment law is being followed. NASA's core mission is aerospace.
Have you actually studied science at any point?
Yes thanks. Have you? But this is also an activism issue. So the CEO of the Planetary Society, is Bill Nye, who is an activist rather than a climate scientist. He advised Obama. Obama decided that NASA should look down, not up and spend a lot of money on 'Global Warming'. That isn't really NASA's job, although a perk of being CEO of the US is you can make it their job, even though it's more suited to other agencies like NOAA. Now there's a new US CEO, priorities can be reset and agencies refocused on core activities. Obviously this is bad news for anyone supping at the Green trough.
But here's a quote from the esteemed CEO of the Planetary Society-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye#Science_advocacy
Here, I've got an experiment for you—safety glasses on. By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another 4 to 8 degrees. What I'm saying is the planet's on f**g fire. There are a lot of things we could do to put it out. Are any of them free? No, of course not—nothing's free, you idiots. Grow the f**k up. You're not children anymore. I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12, but you're adults now and this is an actual crisis. Got it? Safety glasses off, motherf**s.
— Bill Nye, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, May 12, 2019, Business Insider
Does that sound.. very scientific, or more like the rantings of a 12 year old? But it's quite amazing how the 'science guy' gets so many things wrong in one simple paragraph. There's no need for safety glasses, except maybe to avoid his foam-flecked rant. But more importantly, no serious scientist was expecting the average temperature on Earth to go up 4-8 degrees. The IPCC WG1 reports did not say this, or support that level of increase. The planet is not on fire. NASA even has IR sats that can detect fires from orbit. Adults know this. There is no actual crisis, and at an observed (and modelled) 0.1C/decade average increase, there never will be.
If Nye was a scientist, he would know this. But as he's just an activist making money out of the Global Warming scam, he seems very content just to spread misinformation and discredit the Planetary Society. But this is always the problem when science becomes pseudo-science and activism.
"No, I am not. As is often the case, you're using a crude strawman to create a logical fallacy."
What you said was a blanket "less government is better". What I did was point out the ultimate result of applying such a blanket statement.
"Some public spending is obviously a good thing, however a lot is not"
And there's the rub - what you consider waste will be beneficial to some other group, whilst they consider waste something beneficial to you.
Your assertion that billions have been "wasted" on DEI is a case in point... it rather strongly suggests you're a straight white middle aged cis male.
"Have you studied science": "Yes thanks. Have you?"
Well I have a degree in physics. You didn't think that any of your academic achievements were worth listing in answer to that question?
The results of cuts to NASA aren't bad news for the "green trough", they're bad news for the planet. It's important to understand what is happening, and we can't do that as effectively without proper research, and that style of research has to be government funded.
"Does that sound.. very scientific, or more like the rantings of a 12 year old?"
It sounds like someone utterly fed up of fools like you claiming that some dude on twitter said that it used to be hotter once, so what's the problem. It sounds like he's fed up of people claiming the earth is flat, and only 6,000 years old. It sounds like he's treating people as the adults they ought to be, but getting back toddler tantrums because he hasn't said "go ahead, burn the house down". We don't have insurance, or anywhere else to live.
"But more importantly, no serious scientist was expecting the average temperature on Earth to go up 4-8 degrees"
> According to the 2017 U.S. Climate Science Special Report, if yearly emissions continue to increase rapidly, as they have since 2000, models project that by the end of this century, global temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and possibly as much as 10.2 degrees warmer. If annual emissions increase more slowly and begin to decline significantly by 2050, models project global temperatures would still be at least 2.4 degrees warmer than the first half of the 20th century, and possibly up to 5.9 degrees warmer. (NOAA)
"There is no actual crisis, and at an observed (and modelled) 0.1C/decade average increase, there never will be."
Well, it's been more like 0.2 degrees since the early 1980s... so maybe there is a crisis.
And in case you're confused:
> The 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade (2015-2024). (NOAA)
> The average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975 (NASA)
That's not normal, and the rate of change *far* exceeds anything the earth has seen previously.
> The PETM ... figured among the fastest periods of warming observed in the geological record, but as the Smithsonian’s Scott Wing explains, continued high greenhouse gas emissions and the projected amount of warming they are likely to cause over the next few centuries could amount to roughly the same amount of warming at a rate 10 times faster. (climate.gov)
"But this is always the problem when science becomes pseudo-science"
Psuedo-science is what you're peddling, not climate change.
Of course the fact that you persist in referencing it by the very out of date name "Global Warming", and still think that temperature changes are at their 1980s levels says plenty about how up to date you keep on relevant research.
> Bill Nye, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ... Does that sound.. very scientific
Ah, good old JE, having to dig up a piece from a 2019 John Oliver show to have a dig at Bill Nye and his ilk.
If Last Week Tonight is JE's standard for a scientific forum to criticise, we will be in for a treat when he catches up with Professor Hannah Fry's turn at chairing Have I Got News For You.
Ah, good old JE, having to dig up a piece from a 2019 John Oliver show to have a dig at Bill Nye and his ilk.If Last Week Tonight is JE's standard for a scientific forum to criticise..
Actually wiki chose it as a particularly noteworthy quote, which is why I cited that unhinged and unscientific rant. Nye is CEO of the Planetary Society, who El Reg quoted. They're complaining that someone who appeared on a couple of TV shows before becoming a DA and congresscritter might be appointed as NASA Administrator. So someone who has made millions from pretending to be a scientist on TV doesn't think a lawer/politician would be a suitable head of NASA.
But unhinged rants are sadly normal from reality deniers. Nye is also-
Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. nonprofit scientific and educational organization that promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.
But of course when it comes to Global Warming, and protecting his cash cow, Nye is not at all sceptical. Keep giving millions to NASA GISS to fake temperature records, even though that kind of thing is really NOAA's job. But as the old saying goes, Nye is not, and never has been a climate scientist. And of course scientists ard supposed to be sceptics. Of course reality deniers realised this, and rebranded anyone that questioned the orthodoxy 'deniers', with those Holocaust connotations.
Which still doesn't change the fact that Nye's rant was wrong, and contradicted the IPCC claims. It also doesn't explain why JR cherrypicked the 2017 U.S. Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), a comprehensive assessment of the science of climate change, focusing on the United States. to supposedly support Nye's claims regarding Global Warming. Slight snag though. Nye's rant came from May 2019, the US CSSR wasn't published until November 2019. JR might have realised this, if he could do more than clutch at cherries. But it's fairly normal in reality denial to confuse cause and effect. CO2 levels increase in response to warming, therefore because effect precedes cause, CO2 must be responsible, right?
But then understanding how to make cherry pies, become a true believer and call anyone who dares threaten to derail your gravy train a 'M**f**er' is the hallmark of activists and reality deniers like Nye. To set the planet on fire, it requires a lot of leaps of faith. So another 2017 paper, Hsiang et al., 2017 said-
By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)
Which is.. not exactly an accurate statement because RCP 8.5 is not a BAU scenario-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#RCP_8.5
In RCP 8.5 emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century. RCP8.5 is generally taken as the basis for worst-case climate change scenarios.
But that's how the Global Warming scam works. Take a worst-case and entirely unrealistic economic/business model, plug that into a climate model programmed with their own set of worst-case assumptions, and then you might get something problematic. Otherwise observations and hindcasting models point to climate sensitivity being low, then the Earth won't catch fire and Nye's rant is still nothing but an unhinged rant.
But despite supposedly being a 'scientist' and sceptic, Nye wouldn't tell you this, despite his reality denial bringing organisations he represents like The Planetary Society into disrepute.
It's funny how US politicians in favour of slashing "big government" never seem to want to reduce the spending of the most profligate department of them all - the DoD.
37% of all defence spending in the world is by the USA. I'm sure there must be some "efficiency savings" to be made there.
37% of all defence spending in the world is by the USA. I'm sure there must be some "efficiency savings" to be made there.
Defence is still a very large cash cow. See for example-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crl04200dp4o
Trump told NBC News that in a new deal, "we're going to be sending Patriots to Nato, and then Nato will distribute that", adding that Nato would pay for the weapons.
The Bbc still can't get NATO right, and kinda glosses over how this deal will work. So a Patriot system costs a bit over $1bn. Possibly 10 systems being provided by the US, athough where those are coming from is a bit of a mystery. Not sure you can buy them on Ebay. Then $1m+ per missile, 2 missiles typically launched per target, targets cost a lot less than $1m and the waves Russia has been launching since Trump announced resumption of aming Ukraine have been 500+ drones & missiles per day.. And Russia can apparently now produce around 1,000 a day.
So the numbers don't really add up, unless you're making a lot of money flogging weapons. So in this deal, the US makes money, NATO minus the US has to pay for it. Somehow. But then wars have always been a great way to transfer public money into private pockets, and then pay for hiring a lot of slightly used public servants to keep that gravy train rolling. But presumably these 'NATO' sales count towards US-EU trade imbalances, so we can look forward to sanctions being lifted.. right?
I forgot, you're a Trump supporter. Facts are meaningless.
Ah, classic projection. The Demorats are all about feelings, not facts. So-
...according to Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for non-profit advocacy group The Planetary Society. "So they're saying, do these two insanely difficult things with a workforce that's the equivalent to that before the first humans even went into space," he told The Register.
That would be The Planetary Society with Bill Nye, the pseudo-science guy as CEO. $250k a year for a 20hr week is a nice lil earner, and leaves him time for all his other money making activism and lobbying. Dreier's having to make do with around $170k. $3.5m in salaries and benefits, $1m in fundraising expenses, $3.7m in 'other expenses' and only $174k actually paid out in grants. 'Non-profits' may not make money, but they sure know how to spend it on lunches & jollies.. But I digress. And I've been to some of their jollies.
So what Dreier is saying is 'give money!', which is typically of NGOs. He's also saying NASA's learned nothing since the '60s, hasn't taken advantage of technology advances or figured out how to work more efficiently since the days of slide rules and magnetic coil storage. So OK, they're being forced to given a smaller budget, but that's also a more focused budget. It's also something that happens to NASA every 4yrs with the changing of the guard. Obama directed NASA to look down, not up because Global Warming. Nye didn't complain then because he makes a lot of money from that scam. Trump wanted them looking up again, Biden just wanted ice cream. And in the background, the Senate wanted their Launch System, even though they won't be on it because that provides their donors with a lot of pork. NASA might have preferred to cancel it years ago, but it isn't their decision, so may as well light the blue touch paper and put boots back on the Moon. Hopefully.
NASA staff are of course free to take redundancy and take their chances in the private sector. Which may mean a lower salary, less benefits, longer hours and termination at the whim of executives or investors. All the stuff that NGOs and people who aren't suckling from the public teat have to put up with.
"NASA staff are of course free to take redundancy and take their chances in the private sector. Which may mean a lower salary, less benefits, longer hours and termination at the whim of executives or investors. "
Ah - isn't it good to have a government that doesn't look after worker's rights.
Ah - isn't it good to have a government that doesn't look after worker's rights.
I'm a fan of equal rights. Government workers should have exactly the same rights as private sector, which includes being let go. NGO workers should probably have fewer rights because they're often parasites. But that's also why so many are making much the same noise as a piglet taken away from a sows teat. As for science deniers like Nye, well, he said it himself- "In July 2017, Nye observed that the majority of climate change deniers are older people, and said: "So we're just going to have to wait for those people to 'age out', as they say."
But he's done very well for himself as a failed comedian and 'reality TV' personality..
followed 'privatisation' over this side of the pond, once you start cutting staff, the knowledge is gone.
Those with the knowledge are clever enough to find alternative jobs, leaving the less able behind who'll move into vacant managers roles before out sourcing the previous service to reduce costs even more
However , the knowledge is gone, it never comes back and 10 years down the line when you really need the knowledge......... its gone.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but .... it does say 1960, NOT the 1960's!
1960 was before JFK's famous speech, before the USA commited to going to the Moon, and before the massive ramp up in NASA funding and headcount.
1960 was when the US was being trumped by the Russians.
.
2025, the US is just being Trumped!
Point taken and accepted. But ... overall the space program / stuff is moving to commercial. So I think there is a need for NASA but maybe it can refocus into areas that can't be commercialised. I also want small government. Big government is what has lead to many of the problems and the huge debt bubble that will splatter death and destruction as it pops or even just deflates. Anyone analysed that bill - is that just another bid debt or can it generate more in revenue?
Before the bill, I thought wow, he's for real, he's going to actually fix stuff. Now ... beginning to look just a different type of corrupt. Only time will tell. I still have some hopes left.
A "reality TV star" and I use that word STAR very loosely, is our new NASA leader. THIS is the main point about Trump, he's installing a bunch of CLOWNS or worse CROOKS, and that's because he's the BIGGEST CLOWN/CROOK at the top. The guy has an IQ score of about 70. And why so many regular people CAN'T see through this guy is a great mystery to me. Maybe he's the Anti-Christ. LOL even the devil wouldn't want him leading the apocalypse, so there's no way he's the Anti-Christ.
A "reality TV star" and I use that word STAR very loosely, is our new NASA leader.
I'm guessing you never looked at any of the Demorat nominees, and their career historys? Or lack thereof? But 2 TV shows and he becomes a "Reality TV star". Just ignore the 8yrs as a DA, 8yrs as a Congresscritter..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
