WASHINGTON — Proposed budget cuts to NASA could jeopardize the agency's scientific research programs, as funding shifts heavily toward human spaceflight initiatives like returning astronauts to the moon, according to a recent analysis from a prominent science commentator.
The U.S. administration has put forward a plan that would slash NASA's overall budget by 24 percent, marking what would be the smallest allocation since before the dawn of human spaceflight in 1961. This proposal includes a staggering 50 percent reduction in space science funding and a workforce reduction to about one-third of current levels, as detailed in a blog post by Bob McDonald, host of CBC Radio's Quirks & Quarks.
While these cuts await congressional approval, a report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation indicates that NASA has already begun implementing them. Thousands of scientists have reportedly been let go from facilities across the country, raising alarms about the long-term impact on space exploration and Earth observation.
At the Goddard Space Flight Center, where iconic telescopes like Hubble and James Webb were developed, the cuts have led to significant downsizing. The center has closed its physical Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University, laid off hundreds of employees, and is poised to cancel 41 planned or active programs focused on climate change and green energy if the reductions persist, according to McDonald.
Similarly, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, responsible for robotic missions to every planet in the solar system, has been forced to downsize, with hundreds of employees already laid off. These facilities play a crucial role in building satellites that provide essential data for weather forecasts, hurricane tracking, and monitoring Arctic ice loss.
“Research facilities like these also build satellites that look down on the Earth, providing us with weather forecasts, hurricane tracking, ice loss in the arctic, and more. In fact, just about everything we know about the global changes happening to the Earth is thanks to orbiting satellites and the scientists who analyze their data,” McDonald wrote in his post on cbc.ca.
McDonald emphasizes the efficiency of robotic explorers, noting that they can endure harsh space conditions for years and undertake one-way missions to distant solar system reaches. “It's these robots, and the scientists who design, build and fly them, who are the real explorers,” he stated. Yet, these programs now face existential threats as resources are redirected.
The shift in priorities appears politically motivated, echoing the U.S.-Soviet rivalry that fueled the Apollo moon landings in the 1960s. Today, the focus is on outpacing China through the Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon. Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen is slated to fly on Artemis II early next year, highlighting international involvement in these efforts.
Human spaceflight, however, comes at a steep cost. McDonald points out that sending humans requires accounting for their weight and needs like air, food, and water, plus ensuring their safe return. “From a monetary standpoint, it's far more expensive to send humans into space because they are heavy, require a lot of resources such as air, food, and water, and you have to bring them back alive,” he explained.
The Artemis program's goals include landing at the moon's south pole to establish a colony and search for ice in shadowed craters. This ice could yield drinking water and rocket fuel via hydrogen and oxygen extraction. To achieve this, NASA plans to use its non-reusable Space Launch System rocket, which costs over $4 billion per launch.
Private options like SpaceX's Starship are in development but face hurdles. McDonald notes that Starship “has yet to make one complete orbit around the Earth” and is years from proving it can reach, land on, and return from the moon intact.
Once established, a lunar base would require habitats, mining equipment, ice processing facilities, and regular resupply missions from Earth. McDonald questions whether, amid such expenses, there will be resources left for scientific research on the moon. “When all of that is established, and everyone is well fed and happy living on the moon at tremendous expense, will there be any funds and expertise left for them to do scientific research while the astronauts are there?” he asked.
Larger ambitions, such as generational starships or a radio telescope on the moon's far side, demand the scientific expertise now at risk. McDonald warns that laid-off scientists take irreplaceable knowledge with them. “Once scientists are let go, they take their scientific knowledge with them, and that knowledge isn’t easy to replace,” he said.
Despite the gloom, opportunities may arise elsewhere. Some NASA scientists are reportedly being recruited by the European Space Agency, and Canada's recent budget allocates $1.7 billion to attract experts. McDonald speculates that future moon missions might even receive directives from Canada.
The broader implications of these cuts extend beyond space. With NASA's role in climate monitoring and planetary science diminished, global understanding of environmental changes could suffer. As efforts ramp up for Mars missions alongside lunar returns, the tension between human exploration and scientific inquiry underscores a pivotal moment for the agency's future direction.
Congress will ultimately decide on the budget, but the preemptive layoffs suggest urgency. Observers will watch closely as debates unfold, balancing national prestige against scientific advancement in an era of international competition.