Reports that the White House may propose nearly a 50% cut to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate are both mind-boggling and, if true, nothing short of disastrous. To make those cuts happen — a total of $3.6 billion — NASA would have to close the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, and cancel the mission that will bring back samples of Mars, a mission to Venus and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which is nearly ready to launch.
Every space telescope besides the Hubble and the James Webb would be shut down. According to the American Astronomical Society, some cuts would include projects that help us understand the sun’s effects on global communications, a potential national security threat.
Casey Dreier, the policy advocate for the Pasadena-based Planetary Society, says, “This is an extinction-level event for the Earth- and space-science communities, upending decades of work and tens of billions in taxpayers’ investment.”
In addition, NASA as a whole would see a 20% cut — just as we are moving forward with the Artemis program. Artemis is NASA’s step-by-step “Moon to Mars” human spaceflight campaign. Artemis II is set to launch sometime next year and will send four astronauts on a lunar fly-by, the first time humans have been in close proximity to another celestial body in more than 50 years. While it seems likely that Artemis will continue in some fashion, a 20% overall agency budget cut won’t leave any part of NASA unaffected.
The president promised a “golden age of America”; his nominee to head NASA promised a “golden age of science and discovery.” This would be a return to the dark ages.
Taking a blowtorch to space science would also have little effect on the federal budget while setting back American leadership in space — and the inspiration it provides across political divides — by generations.
The Astronomical Society warns that our cutbacks will outsource talent “to other countries that are increasing their investments in facilities and workforce development.” And, as Dreier points out, spacecraft would be “left to tumble aimlessly in space” and billions wasted that have already been spent. “Thousands of bright students across the country,” he wrote recently, “would be denied careers in science and engineering absent the fellowships and research funds to support them.”
Here’s the dollars-and-cents context. NASA’s budget since the 1970s “hovers” between 1% and 0.4% of the federal discretionary spending, according to the Planetary Society’s analysis, yet for every dollar spent, NASA generates $3 in the national economy. NASA’s giveback was worth nearly $76 billion in economic impact in 2023, supporting more than 300,000 jobs. In California alone, NASA and its associated partners in industry and academia provide more than 66,000 jobs, more than $18 billion in economic activity and $1 billion in state tax revenue. NASA’s bang-for-the-buck is astronomical, pun intended.
Cutting waste is one thing. Evisceration is another. When it comes to science — from public health to climate change — the current administration is doing the latter, not the former.
Meanwhile, China continues its space ambitions, with plans for a human lunar campaign and its own “sample return” mission to the Red Planet. For now, fortunately, the bipartisan support for NASA seems to be holding. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, led by the Planetary Science Caucus, have spoken out against this attack on NASA. And the Planetary Society has engaged thousands of passionate activists to fight this battle.
Humans yearn for connection to the universe — so we watch launches on social media, we follow the tracks of rovers on Mars and we marvel at creation in pictures transmitted from the James Webb Space Telescope. We borrow telescopes from the public library and look to the heavens.
Bending metal — the actual process of making rovers and spaceships and telescopes — drives economic activity. Fascinating results — the data from space science missions — fires the imagination.
We choose to go to space — sending humans and probes — and we pursue knowledge because curiosity is our evolutionary heritage. We explore other worlds to know them and, in doing so, we discover more about ourselves.
If you agree, let Congress know. That may be the only backstop against dumbly going where no budget has gone before.
Christopher Cokinos is a nature-and science writer whose most recent book is “Still as Bright: An Illuminating History of the Moon from Antiquity to Tomorrow.”
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The author argues that the proposed 50% cut to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate would terminate critical projects like the Mars sample return mission, the Venus-bound Da Vinci mission, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, while shuttering most space telescopes besides Hubble and James Webb. These cuts risk undermining U.S. leadership in space science and could outsource talent to countries increasing their investments in space exploration[4].
- Economic impacts are emphasized, with NASA’s budget generating $3 in economic activity for every $1 spent, supporting over 300,000 jobs nationwide and contributing $18 billion annually to California’s economy alone[4]. The author warns that slashing science funding wastes tens of billions in prior taxpayer investments and leaves spacecraft “tumbling aimlessly,” squandering operational missions[3].
- Bipartisan congressional resistance is noted, with lawmakers and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society mobilizing against the cuts, highlighting the cultural and inspirational value of space exploration as a unifying force across political divides[1][2].
Different views on the topic
- The Trump administration’s draft budget frames the cuts as a reallocation of resources toward priorities like the Artemis program, aiming to streamline NASA’s focus on human spaceflight while reducing overall agency spending by 20%[1][4]. Proponents argue this reflects a shift toward “efficient budgeting” and prioritizing crewed missions over robotic science[1][2].
- Supporters of the cuts suggest that terminating ongoing science projects could free funds for future initiatives, with unnamed officials citing the need to “right-size” NASA’s portfolio and avoid perceived redundancies in Earth and space science research[2][4].
- Some advocates claim the reductions align with broader fiscal austerity goals, emphasizing that NASA’s science budget has grown significantly in recent decades and requires “tough choices” to balance national priorities[1][4].
