Trump's cuts to NASA would destory decades of science

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

By Michael Hiltzik / Los Angeles Times

Like all sponsors of science programs, NASA has had its ups and downs. What makes it unique is that its achievements and failures almost always happen in public.

Triumphs like the moon landings and the deep-space images from the Hubble and Webb space telescopes were great popular successes; the string of exploding rockets in its early days and the shuttle explosions cast lasting shadows over its work.

But the agency may never have had to confront a challenge like the one it faces now: a Trump administration budget plan that would cut funding for NASA’s science programs by nearly 50 percent and its overall spending by about 24 percent.

The budget, according to insiders, was prepared without significant input from NASA itself. That’s not surprising, because the agency doesn’t have a formal leader.

https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/comment-trumps-cuts-to-nasa-would-destory-decades-of-science/

Intelligence is considered elitist in MAGA world.

[lapfog_1]

1. basic research is suffering

I spent 10 years at NASA. We were allowed, even encouraged, to do basic research into high risk scientific research... that is research without a known applicable use case or immediate commercial implication.

I certainly didn't work for that "sweet government salary"... I could have ( and have since then ) make many times my government salary in the private sector. But, despite making more money, I would go back to NASA in a heartbeat because of the pride I had in the things I was allowed to do... even the failures. All that was asked is that we publish our results.

I don't think a single person I worked with there did so because of getting a government job. Maybe 1 or 2 out of hundreds.

My time there was bookended by Challenger and Colombia, with Colombia killing a person from my division who had the office down the row from mine... K.C. or Kalpana Chawla.

The space shuttle was never intended as a workhorse space transportation system ( STS ) despite being pressed into service as such. It was designed to be a technology demonstrator. Once that a few flights were complete, the things that worked would be reused in a second version of the shuttle. The things that were dangerous would be re-designed ( tile damage during launch, o-rings on the SRB, both known about long before the disasters ).

BTW, the Columbia disaster can be laid at the feet of just ONE person, Orin Hatch of Utah. He was the person responsible for the SRB contract going to Morton Thiokol ( from Utah of course ). That meant shipping the SRB in segments and that meant O-rings. The other option was a company in New Jersey... single segment, shipped by way of the ICW from New Jersey to Florida.

That was the design that NASA wanted. but to get Hatch onboard...

I cry for my former agency in the age of Trump.