Proposed NASA Budget Cuts Would End Chandra X-Ray Observatory (spacenews.com) 81
A NASA committee determined that the Chandra X-ray Observatory would have to cease operations under the proposed budget cuts in NASA's 2025 budget. The committee reviewed various options but found that only shutting down Chandra fit within the proposed budget, although alternatives could keep the observatory running with limited capabilities. SpaceNews reports: NASA established the Operations Paradigm Change Review (OPCR) committee this spring to look at ways of reducing the costs of operating Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope as part of broader efforts to deal with a billion-dollar shortfall in agency science funding. The fiscal year 2025 budget proposal included a 40% cut in Chandra's budget, with further reductions through 2029, while cutting Hubble's budget by 10% in 2025. Astronomers strongly opposed the proposed cuts, particularly for Chandra. They argued that the reductions would effectively shut down the telescope, a conclusion backed by Patrick Slane, director of the Chandra X-Ray Center, in an open letter shortly after the release of the budget proposal.
The OPCR concurred. "The committee agreed that the continuation of a scientifically viable Chandra mission is not possible within the funding guidance," said Rob Kennicutt, an astronomer from the University of Arizona and Texas A&M University who served on the review committee, in a July 23 presentation at a meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory Committee, or APAC. "This is a serious threat to the observatory." Shutting down Chandra was one of four options presented to the OPCR by the Chandra team and the only one, he said, that fit within NASA's proposed budget profile. Three others would keep Chandra going with reduced capabilities and with budgets higher than what NASA proposed but below current levels. "We think it's possible to run Chandra for less money" than today, he said, "but more than what they were given."
The OPCR concurred. "The committee agreed that the continuation of a scientifically viable Chandra mission is not possible within the funding guidance," said Rob Kennicutt, an astronomer from the University of Arizona and Texas A&M University who served on the review committee, in a July 23 presentation at a meeting of the Astrophysics Advisory Committee, or APAC. "This is a serious threat to the observatory." Shutting down Chandra was one of four options presented to the OPCR by the Chandra team and the only one, he said, that fit within NASA's proposed budget profile. Three others would keep Chandra going with reduced capabilities and with budgets higher than what NASA proposed but below current levels. "We think it's possible to run Chandra for less money" than today, he said, "but more than what they were given."
Budget (Score:3, Insightful)
Time for Kamala to show her commitment to science.
Re:Budget (Score:5, Informative)
You mean by saying words? She's the Vice President, not President, yet. Even when she is president she doesn't have the authority to unilaterally add money to NASA's budget. The only way to get NASA the funding it needs is for the House and Senate to be Democratically controlled.
The way to get funding for NASA so it can properly do its job is to get rid of business subsidies which cost taxpayers billions each year. Such as using crops for biofuel rather than people or animal food, or the subsidies for oil and gas extraction, or the subsidies to keep sugar prices high, or the general subsidies many businesses get because they can't stay in business otherwise without all that massivae taxpayer support.
The money is there. It just needs to be applied in the right direction.
Re:Budget (Score:4, Interesting)
Before the blame game, could someone please add to the discussion, as it's missing from the article and I for one is ignorant on the matter. What is the expected value of continued operation?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] the Chandra was launched in 1999 on a planned 5 year mission that was later extended to 10 years. It's now been 25 years and looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] there's a bunch of x-ray telescope satellites operating, some by nasa.
Re:Budget (Score:5, Informative)
Roughly the same as operating Hubble, which few in NASA, Congress, or the public at large would be pleased with abandoning.
In their respective slices of electromagnetic spectrum, Chandra and Hubble are both flagship observatories. Hubble, even with its degraded gyros, is still taking great observations and feeding the scientific community here at home. Same with Chandra, which is still in great operational shape.
Scoring observation time is the result of a competitive academic process, and there's always way more proposals than there are hours available. About 400 academic papers per year [harvard.edu] source Chandra data. Some of that is mining old data, but a lot of it comes from new observations. The longer the observation history, the more valuable the dataset becomes.
Hubble has been succeeded, partially, but JWST. There is no replacement in the pipeline for Chandra.* And unlike visible wavelengths, where ground-based observatories with adaptive optics can exceed Hubble, one cannot do X-Ray astronomy from the ground.
* The recently launched XRISM [nasa.gov] is another x-ray observatory, but with different capabilities and mission than Chandra. Plus, it's just coming online - the longer it and Chandra overlap, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the blame game, could someone please add to the discussion, as it's missing from the article and I for one is ignorant on the matter. What is the expected value of continued operation?
From what I know Chandra has been comparable to Hubble in x-rays as Hubble was in visible light [astrosociety.org]. It has provided value to astronomy.
Cutting budgets is always a quick win for someone, but the often ignored side is replacement cost. Launching a satellite using Ariane 6 is more than $70M per launch alone and that does not include the cost of the telescope. There does not appear to be a replacement for Chandra anytime soon with Athena scheduled for 2035 launch. [wikipedia.org] It is often far cheaper to keep something working
Re: (Score:2)
But not necessarily better. These cost billions to operate each year, a $70M launch is pretty negligible and almost certainly also needed for whatever repairs and upgrades are required to keep it operating.
Baseline budgeting FUD (Score:2)
https://democrats-appropriatio... [house.gov]
The Biden Administration's fiscal year 2025 budget request for NASA is $25.4 billion, an increase of $508.7 million above fiscal year 2024.
- Budget increases
- Head of Nasa proposes cutting one program to create a worldwide 'news' story
- Academics worldwide, science journalists, academic publishing houses, universities - all who benefit from this FREE to them government program do nothing contribute nothing to NASA, yet want it around so they can keep their jobs
- Politicians
Re: (Score:2)
I've got the fix for them. They have a couple billion allocated to promote DEI in small businesses [for some reason] and since the Supreme Court has found DEI is racial discrimination the federal government cannot legally promote the practice... So there you have it, get your $20 million for a telescope and just return the rest of that money to the Treasury, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA builds their shit for an expected lifetime, but, because they plan, as best they can, for as many eventualities as possible, and because the scientists and engineers are top notch, their stuff usually far outlives the expected mission length. Chandra has been revolutionary in the data it has provided, Hence the fact, as cited by
Re: (Score:2)
"NASA builds their shit for an expected lifetime, but, because they plan, as best they can, for as many eventualities as possible, and because the scientists and engineers are top notch, their stuff usually far outlives the expected mission length."
Then they did not build for the mission lifetime. It is generally more productive to build something which is meant to last a short time and be regularly replaced than something which is supposed to last as long as possible. The "build it to last forever" enginee
Re: (Score:2)
Probably so much time listening to Trump's campaigning that many people think the president can rule by decree. If congress can't bother to read the constitution then don't expect the public to do so either.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably so much time listening to Trump's campaigning that many people think the president can rule by decree.
Only on Day 1, or so he's said. And there's absolutely no reason to think he'd lie about that, or anything really ... oh, wait.
Okay, there's absolutely no reason to think he'd be wrong abou ... oh, wait.
Okay, damn, now I'm confused and have a headache. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Try again. If they aren't spending their budget on the things they need then guess who is responsible for that... [hint: It is Kamala Harris]. Nobody said they didn't have the money, they said THE PROGRAM won't have the money under Kamala's budget.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/spa... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
"is for the House and Senate to be Democratically controlled."
For anyone paying attention this is exactly what this rogue political force has been doing lately. They've begun calling their agenda 'democracy' and calling for a one party state AND court to 'preserve democracy.'
Note, they didn't even ask their 'party' about Kamala... why waste time when the leadership knows their brainwashed followers will just along with whoever they pick for them. Your so called representatives certainly didn't take any time
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get NASA the funding it needs is for the House and Senate to be Democratically controlled.
What makes you think that will change the trajectory of NASA's budget? Wasn't Hubble going to get axed by a Democratic majority a few decades ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop buying so many expensive toys for the military and redirect some of that money to NASA where it can do some GOOD for humanity.
Re: Budget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The United States is a sovereign nation, the idea that it needs "independent funding" - outside funding - suggests that it can't take care of itself.
That's not an assumption I buy. Why do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, 20 years down the line, with Russia now owning Ukraine, Finland, Poland etc., and able to determine policies upon the EU as a whole and the UK; plus China having taken the lead and being able to order around Japan, South Asia, Africa, and South America -- how, exactly, do you think the USA will be faring?
What about having a basket of currencies composed of Rubles and Yuan as its two main assets, as the world currency, so that to buy anything imported, food included, you first need to exchange your
Re: (Score:1)
with Russia now owning Ukraine, Finland, Poland etc.
Well, they've so far taken Donetsk and Crimea from Ukraine. Crimea was their old vacation hot-spot and Donetsk was where the majority of Ukrainian shelling and Russian depopulation efforts were going on that Russia wasn't on board with. Somehow they are going to take Finland and Poland now for .... what again? Despite most credible military analysts disagreeing and Russia themselves stating pretty clearly what's motivating them you think they are just going to magically roll into a couple of NATO powers and
Re: (Score:2)
they are just going to magically roll into a couple of NATO powers and start WW3 for... what again?
Glory and religion. There's a mystical nutjob called Alexandr Dugin who developed an entire civil religion about Russia taking rulership over the EU, whose books are read in Russian military academies. If you want to know every step of what Russia plans to do, all you need to do is to read his main book on the topic [wikipedia.org]. Everything Russia did so far, up to and including the invasion of Ukraine, follows the program that had been set up there, so it follows they'll continue following it afterwar they're successfu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, the United States can take of itself but it can't spend limitlessly and irresponsibly as it has been under Biden/Harris.
Re: Budget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that NASA can't fund this program with the total amount they've been budgeted. I think it more likely that Harris is setting policy which causes them to allocate funds elsewhere and cut where nobody will accept a cut and create the appearance of an opposition caused shortfall.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/spa... [whitehouse.gov]
It is a fine political strategy. Just like the border crisis Biden/Harris created and collaboratively maintained for four years all it takes is one order from the admin to 'fix' it... after
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a big expensive telescope and their shortfall is only $20 million. Shutting it down would be a bigger waste of resources than keeping it running as that would throw out the value from building it. We'd be better off handing half its operation time over to another country to share 50/50 in return for a share of funding. Or selling 100% of its use and at least keeping it operational for somebody.
It's in the realm of something a couple cities could fund the shortfall on.
Re: (Score:2)
Of they could cut $20 million from somewhere else that isn't a publicly loved and essential scientific telescope project. But we all know the VP runs the space council and sets white house space policy, NASA reports there so if the VP wants it to look like the 'other guys' caused problems by not giving NASA enough money.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a bake sale or arts and crafts festival, we're talking about $70 mill.
Re: (Score:2)
That's peanuts for private enterprise, NASA, the federal budget, etc. It's a token amount that was almost certainly docked and left somewhere more sensible to cut in a politically motivated decision by Harris. The guy she's running against tossed in trillions from tariffs they just raised again and hundreds of billions from required chinese purchases of US exports. That is all discretionary money, toss a billion at NASA instead of using it to buy Chinese made wind turbines and solar panels... or just undo t
Re: (Score:2)
Grants from who? Most grants are government grants. Sure, there are corporations and individuals that provide grants as well, but not usually on the scale required to cover these kinds of projects. It's also the kind of research that corporations typically have a hard time seeing the value in.
Of course, the real problem is that these projects cost a lot of money to start with. If you don't continue to fund them, you're basically throwing away the money you put into them to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
The house ways and means committee (if I recall correctly) is then authorized to fund the various departments to the level's authorized, but... this committee is kinda famous for then not necessarily funding everything as the budget authorizes
Re: (Score:2)
"VP's aren't really in a position to have much of a voice in that, officially."
Actually the VP heads the National Space Council which is the WH arm for setting policy for the space agencies. Not only could she say 'we gave you billions, take $20m from something that doesn't matter so much and give it to this highly visible publicly loved telescope program' but it was probably an order from her that caused the situation to begin with, intentionally, for political reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Her first priority will be to send another $100 Billion to Ukraine.
Why throw it away? (Score:2)
Re: Why throw it away? (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m sure theyâ(TM)d love to. âoeHere, weâ(TM)ve got all the prestige for this thing, now do you guys want to pay to then get to maintain it?â You mean, maybe they could pay ESA to take it off their hands.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's cool, but ATHENA isn't supposed to launch until 2035. What is the high-energy astronomy community supposed to do for the next decade?
Re:Why throw it away? (Score:5, Funny)
That's cool, but ATHENA isn't supposed to launch until 2035. What is the high-energy astronomy community supposed to do for the next decade?
Copulate and train the offspring to be astronomers?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you haven't seen the high-energy astronomy community... it'd be cheaper to fund the telescope than buy that many paper bags.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol at that. Anyway, if everyone needs a bag, then no one needs a bag.
Maybe I have seen some of them. They (some Chandra people) were supposed to be at Dragoncon in 2019. I was there, but I don't recall if I got in to see their talks. It all runs together in my head anyway.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I've been big and muscular and I've just been big and I can tell you at no point did my own number changing suddenly drop what worked for me when looking at the opposite sex. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Would you like a program near the end of its life with no failover gyros left?"
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, would you like to continue to be able to do X-Ray astronomy for the next decade until your athena project comes online?
They've gotten the scientific benefits for the life of the mission already, they just haven't gotten the bills.
All money is needed for the SLS rockets (Score:4, Interesting)
What else could be more important to spend +$60 billion on so far plus 4 billion per extra launch?
Re:All money is needed for the SLS rockets (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an easy problem to solve. Kill Artemis and keep Chandra. In fact, one can stop right after "kill Artemis."
Re:All money is needed for the SLS rockets (Score:5, Informative)
This is an easy problem to solve. Kill Artemis and keep Chandra. In fact, one can stop right after "kill Artemis."
Unfortunately, as the Senate Launch System is directed funding (i.e. earmarks), the money could not be used for other things.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is almost certainly money which isn't directed which could be used for this high profile and highly desired program instead of wherever NASA put it because they knew this was a better case for asking for more money.
Re: Cut out the NASA middle management to save $$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
Who do you think develops Elon Musk's toys? That's ex-NASA folk with their knowhow, bought away after taxpayer funded experience.
Who do you suggest trains the next batch of experts? Elon Musk? For the price of a car?
Re: (Score:3)
Who do you think develops Elon Musk's toys? That's ex-NASA folk with their knowhow, bought away after taxpayer funded experience.
Who do you suggest trains the next batch of experts? Elon Musk? For the price of a car?
While I'm sure he's had a few NASA vets working for him, looking at SpaceX's Org Chart [theorg.com], the overwhelming impression you get is that his engineering troops are 1) Young... some are really young, and 2) of Eastern European and Chinese origin. Musk has often stated that he wanted SpaceX to have a much different culture than your Boeings and your Lockheeds, so no, it doesn't appear that he gets his guys by poaching them from NASA or other American military contractors. He seems to be growing his bunch from the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hubble flies for free in the atmosphere...
I stopped reading there.
Save Chandra (Score:4, Informative)
NASA, part of DOD (Score:2)
For a perspective:
NASA operates at about $27 billion: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-conten... [nasa.gov] (.pdf)
The total of the Department of Defense gets about 30x that at $750 billion: https://about.bgov.com/defense... [bgov.com]
Re: (Score:1)
There will always be more money in ending life than discovering it.
Re: NASA, part of DOD (Score:1, Troll)
For perspective, their budget is an increase of 2% over last year, includes $15M for DEI initiatives and $2B to support small business with a focus on DEI. Instead of focusing on building and supporting racist ideologies, they should focus on building and supporting space missions.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a troll. Take the $2.015B allocated for DEI [which the supreme court found unconstitutional] and spend it on decent perpetually released and upgraded scope programs to replace both of these AND the new bad plan giant expensive and supposed to last forever scopes.
Re: (Score:3)
For a perspective:
NASA operates at about $27 billion: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-conten... [nasa.gov] (.pdf)
The total of the Department of Defense gets about 30x that at $750 billion: https://about.bgov.com/defense... [bgov.com]
That, and we spent about $11 billion on imported beer last year in the USA. A 10% tariff on just that beer would cover it.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, taxing alcohol in the USA has a tendency to go badly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He said IMPORTED beer and the US never stopped taxing alcohol.
Can someone else run it? (Score:4, Insightful)
If NASA doesn't have the budget to run it, assuming it's in a good condition, can they hand over to another friendly nation / group to run it?
Maybe ESA, JAXA, etc, assuming someone is interested?
Or must they shut Chandra down / deorbit it?
Re: (Score:2)
The budget shortfall is about $20 million from what I can tell in the articles. Compared to the cost of building and deploying, that doesn't seem like a huge amount. It would be way smarter to have someone make use of it even if it isn't us or exclusively us.
Re: Can someone else run it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite as simple as handing the keys to your old Mercedes to your nephew and telling him to drive carefully.
The actual instrument is only just the tip of a very large spear. There's about 200 engineers and scientists employed on Chandra in the Boston area, and more people in the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL. The instrument is already up there; the only thing we're spending money on is the expertise to run it and manage the data.
If we were to hand the instrument over to the ESA, t
Maybe Israel can return some cash? (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't need more bombs after the ICJ ruling anyway, so there's a billion dollars right there, from the latest gift we sent.
Is it? (Score:3)
Of course according to every bureaucrat, their own dept is underfunded.
And whenever budgets are threatened, it's also a bureaucrat-standard move to immediately advertise that "super critical or beloved project" is the FIRST thing that's going to get cut. With cities, it's invariably cops/fire dept that are "at risk".
https://www.planetary.org/spac... [planetary.org]
Let's be clear: this is NOT A REDUCTION in the budget. This is $500 million MORE than the 2024 budget.
This is the government version of cuts: "our increase isn't as much as we wanted"
to wit:
"NASA released its fiscal year 2025 budget proposal March 11, requesting $25.384 billion, the exact amount it received in fiscal year 2023. It is a little more than half a billion dollars more than what the agency received in the final fiscal year 2024 spending bill enacted last week. "
I love NASA; I deeply love and am convinced that space exploration is critical to the future of humanity. But, let's be clear that despite being the richest civilization ever in history, we have to borrow 1/4 of our budget every year from the future. We're living on credit cards, folks.
We can't afford everything we want.
Re: Is it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't afford everything we want.
You mean that "we" can't afford what the aristocracy wants. There is absurd amount of wealth in America and it is all hidden behind made-up bullshit to keep YOU from realizing how badly YOU are getting fucked.
We are becoming more poor as a country each day though as this wealth is wasted on transient desires from a relatively small number of personnel.
Oh, yes, we have to cut NASA's budget (Score:2)
... but as GOP, we'll be happy to give the DOD tens of billions of dollars *more* than they asked for.
Standard technique to get more budget money (Score:3)
Step 1: Complain about current funding levels.
Step 2: Threaten to cut a very popular and/or important project.
Step 2a: Completely ignore any actual wasteful spending, don't mention that part.
Step 3: Public outcry forces Congress to allocate more money.