Make Nasa Great Again is a hilarious acronym, my dudes
yebyen on
Seeing “what went wrong at NASA” interview with Jared Isaacman today gives me pause! I don’t want to discount his experience, maybe he truly knows more about it than I do, but he wasn’t ever confirmed as the NASA Administrator. It seems pretty rich to move on so quickly to talk about the problems there, acting like some kind of insider. Edit: It is also nice to get his perspective unencumbered by the burden of his nomination, before we all move on and the moment has passed. I don’t want to pick on him.
[deleted] on
[removed]
BigMoney69x on
On one hand I understand wanting to focus with exploratory missions and building space colonies and outposts over Pure Science missions. The NASA of old did both very well but modern day NASA is mostly doing Pure Science missions plus they diverted some of the budget towards non Space roles. So a focus on Space Exploration is great in my book. The problem is that the NASA who went to the Moon had a MASSIVE budget compared to today. They had 3% of GDP when we went to the Moon. Today we have less than 1%. It’s so miniscule yet Trump administration wants to cut even more. There’s so much we can cut from Government (Hi Pentagon) yet we cut Billions from NASA? We won’t be going to Mars with such a pittance of a Budget.
halo_ninja on
$2.1B is cost over runs to build SLS launch tower. Delayed Orion. Botched and worthless Boeing Starliner. We are so great right now. NASA has no accountability in the last 20 years.
fatherseamus on
Today I learned that the US military spends more on air-conditioning in the Middle East than the entire NASA budget. What the fuck are we doing?
Rough_Shelter4136 on
My controversial take is that NASA was great when the main mission objective was to put as Nuke at the dinner table of the Temporary Soviet leader and then it became kinda meh. Muricans are mostly just a militaristic empire
[deleted] on
[removed]
Decronym on
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5bl3e “Last usage”)|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5gr6p “Last usage”)|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5q0en “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
Hilarious how NASA gets such an INSANE amount of budget scrutiny, it is unparalleled. It is one of, if not the single most efficient US government agency, especially the science division.
The budget of NASA is miniscule (even smaller if the budget cuts go through). It is a tiny amount of discretionary spending which itself is already only a minority of US federal spending. There is barely anything to be saved, and any inefficiencies and cost overruns (such as SLS and Orion, which yes, are indeed way too expensive) are in the grand scale completely inconsequential.
The US military is an actually decent fraction of discretionary spending, and while sure, every now and then someone complains about all the money that disappears in accounting, nobody suggests cutting the Air Force funding in half to “trim the fat” like they do with NASA.
It is treated with exceedingly higher scrutiny and has to meet far higher standards than any other agency or branch, the crazy thing is, even then it manages to fare pretty well and has high support among the population.
So – don’t fall for the propaganda, NASA is highly efficient and could do even more if it had more money. Usually you don’t increase efficiency by cutting the most efficient parts of spending but hey, go on I guess, try it out and see what happens.
Besides all that, id still like to see the logic behind “we will make NASA great again by giving it the biggest proportional budget cut in history”. Would you also have raised taxes on the semiconductor industry in the 70s and 80s? Usually, if you want to better something, you increase resource allocation instead of kneecapping it.
10 Comments
Make Nasa Great Again is a hilarious acronym, my dudes
Seeing “what went wrong at NASA” interview with Jared Isaacman today gives me pause! I don’t want to discount his experience, maybe he truly knows more about it than I do, but he wasn’t ever confirmed as the NASA Administrator. It seems pretty rich to move on so quickly to talk about the problems there, acting like some kind of insider. Edit: It is also nice to get his perspective unencumbered by the burden of his nomination, before we all move on and the moment has passed. I don’t want to pick on him.
[removed]
On one hand I understand wanting to focus with exploratory missions and building space colonies and outposts over Pure Science missions. The NASA of old did both very well but modern day NASA is mostly doing Pure Science missions plus they diverted some of the budget towards non Space roles. So a focus on Space Exploration is great in my book. The problem is that the NASA who went to the Moon had a MASSIVE budget compared to today. They had 3% of GDP when we went to the Moon. Today we have less than 1%. It’s so miniscule yet Trump administration wants to cut even more. There’s so much we can cut from Government (Hi Pentagon) yet we cut Billions from NASA? We won’t be going to Mars with such a pittance of a Budget.
$2.1B is cost over runs to build SLS launch tower. Delayed Orion. Botched and worthless Boeing Starliner. We are so great right now. NASA has no accountability in the last 20 years.
Today I learned that the US military spends more on air-conditioning in the Middle East than the entire NASA budget. What the fuck are we doing?
My controversial take is that NASA was great when the main mission objective was to put as Nuke at the dinner table of the Temporary Soviet leader and then it became kinda meh. Muricans are mostly just a militaristic empire
[removed]
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules|
| |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)|
|[GAO](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5bl3e “Last usage”)|(US) Government Accountability Office|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5gr6p “Last usage”)|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
|[SLS](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5q0en “Last usage”)|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starliner](/r/Space/comments/1l40sgh/stub/mw5r7fw “Last usage”)|Boeing commercial crew capsule [CST-100](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner)|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1l38sbq)^( has 21 acronyms.)
^([Thread #11405 for this sub, first seen 5th Jun 2025, 15:59])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Hilarious how NASA gets such an INSANE amount of budget scrutiny, it is unparalleled. It is one of, if not the single most efficient US government agency, especially the science division.
The budget of NASA is miniscule (even smaller if the budget cuts go through). It is a tiny amount of discretionary spending which itself is already only a minority of US federal spending. There is barely anything to be saved, and any inefficiencies and cost overruns (such as SLS and Orion, which yes, are indeed way too expensive) are in the grand scale completely inconsequential.
The US military is an actually decent fraction of discretionary spending, and while sure, every now and then someone complains about all the money that disappears in accounting, nobody suggests cutting the Air Force funding in half to “trim the fat” like they do with NASA.
It is treated with exceedingly higher scrutiny and has to meet far higher standards than any other agency or branch, the crazy thing is, even then it manages to fare pretty well and has high support among the population.
So – don’t fall for the propaganda, NASA is highly efficient and could do even more if it had more money. Usually you don’t increase efficiency by cutting the most efficient parts of spending but hey, go on I guess, try it out and see what happens.
Besides all that, id still like to see the logic behind “we will make NASA great again by giving it the biggest proportional budget cut in history”. Would you also have raised taxes on the semiconductor industry in the 70s and 80s? Usually, if you want to better something, you increase resource allocation instead of kneecapping it.