Space Policy Edition #11 – Big Science and a Skinny Budget

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode combines a fundraising appeal for the Planetary Society’s advocacy work with an analysis of the Trump administration’s FY2018 “skinny budget” for NASA and a wide-ranging discussion of “big science.” The hosts argue that while NASA survived relatively well in the budget, the targeted cuts to Earth science and education reveal troubling priorities. They then place NASA and CERN in the broader history of large-scale, publicly funded science and explain why coalition-building and long-term government support remain essential.

Main Topics: Planetary Society advocacy fundraising appeal: Casey Dreyer explains that member donations directly fund the Society’s small but influential advocacy team, including a new third staffer, Matt Reninger, and argues that donor support has produced outsized returns for planetary science and exploration. FY2018 Trump 'skinny budget' and NASA: The hosts review the early 2018 budget outline, noting that NASA was cut only slightly relative to other agencies and that planetary science was one of the few bright spots, while acknowledging that the outline is incomplete and politically contested. Cuts to Earth science and NASA education: They discuss the proposal to cut selected Earth science missions, especially those tied to climate, and to eliminate NASA’s Education Directorate, warning that these moves reflect political motivations and likely face resistance in Congress. Congress, appropriations, and presidential discretion: The conversation clarifies how presidential budget requests differ from appropriations and why, absent specific congressional direction, the White House retains substantial leeway in spending within budget silos. The politics and history of big science: The second half of the show explores how massive, multi-nation, multi-decade science efforts emerged from the postwar period, especially World War II, the Cold War, Sputnik, and the growth of federal R&D funding. Successes, risks, and coalitions in mega-projects: Using examples like the SSC, JWST, ISS, and ITER, the hosts examine why large projects often overrun budgets, how coalition breadth can protect them, and why they can still be worth funding because they enable smaller science as well.

Key Arguments: Planetary Society advocacy is unusually effective because it is independent, member-funded, and capable of sustained engagement with Congress and the White House. NASA’s FY2018 skin-and-bones budget outline is comparatively favorable in a brutal government-wide proposal, but the cuts it does make are politically and symbolically significant. Earth science cuts appear targeted at climate-related missions, suggesting the budget is making a statement about priorities rather than merely saving money. Eliminating NASA Education would remove programs Congress has repeatedly chosen to restore, including Space Grant and teacher/student outreach. Congress can and often does override White House requests, but the president retains broad discretion inside appropriated budget categories if Congress does not explicitly restrict him. Big science arose because postwar governments could marshal resources and coalitions for projects too large for individuals or private firms to manage. Large science projects are most sustainable when the technology risk is reduced before full-scale construction and when the coalition includes many stakeholders beyond one institution or state. Big projects often appear wasteful in the short term, but they enable both headline discoveries and a pipeline of smaller grants, labs, and researchers. The private sector is not currently able to replace government in funding most planetary-scale or astronomy-scale science because the costs are too high and returns too uncertain.

Data Points: Planetary science budget goal: $1.9 billion - Trump administration proposed level for FY2018 planetary science; described as a bright spot. Planetary science goal previously reached: $1.6 billion and growing - Casey says the program is now past the Society’s target of 1.5. NASA top-line budget: about $19 billion - NASA is described as back up to around this level after several years of growth. NASA cut in skinny budget: just under 0.8% - Roughly a $200 million cut from a nearly $19 billion budget. Non-defense discretionary transfer: $54 billion - White House plan would shift this amount from non-defense to defense spending. State Department proposed cut: about one-third - Used to illustrate how severe the skinny budget was for other agencies. NIH proposed cut: $6 billion / 20% - Presented as especially striking given prior promises to cure disease. Earth science cut: $100 million - Overall Earth science reduction in NASA’s proposal. Earth science budget after cut: $1.8 billion - Despite targeted reductions, Earth science remained substantial. Education Directorate budget: about $100 million annually - NASA’s education office is small relative to science and operations but supports Space Grant and outreach. Science Mission Directorate education/outreach: about $40 million - Used to distinguish general science outreach from the Education Directorate’s broader mission. Annual ISS operating cost: about $3 billion - Used to illustrate the scale of big science infrastructure. ISS science budget share: about $200-$300 million - Only a fraction of ISS spending is devoted directly to science. Manhattan Project cost: $100-$130 billion in today’s dollars - Cited as an early exemplar of big science. Manhattan Project workforce: 150,000 people nationwide - Illustrates the scale and complexity of wartime science mobilization. SSC original proposal: $4.4 billion in 1987 - Superconducting Super Collider initial cost estimate. SSC cost in today’s dollars: about $9.5 billion - Adjusted original estimate for comparison. SSC spending before cancellation: about $3.5 billion in 2016 dollars - Amount already invested when the project was canceled. SSC projected end cost at cancellation: about $20 billion in 2016 dollars - Used to explain why the coalition collapsed. JWST original proposal: about $2 billion - Initial budget baseline for the telescope. JWST re-baselined cost: $8.8 billion - After overruns, the project was restructured and kept on track. U.S. debt to GDP: over 100% - Used to argue that modern fiscal pressure constrains long-term science funding. Annual federal interest on debt: $250-$280 billion - Compared to NASA’s budget to illustrate opportunity costs.

Pivotal Quotes: "You, listening, if you're a member or a donor, you pay my salary, you pay Jason's salary..." — Casey Dreyer: Fundraising pitch explaining that member support directly enables advocacy work and the podcast. "This is a statement of priority more than anything else." — Casey Dreyer: On the significance of NASA being largely spared in the skinny budget relative to other agencies. "The biggest threat to big science in this country is a lack of appreciation of the role of government in funding fundamental research." — Jason Callahan: Conclusion of the big-science discussion about long-term public investment and political will.

Implications: Listeners are urged to support advocacy if they want NASA science protected. The episode suggests Congress will likely soften proposed cuts, but future big-science programs still depend on durable coalitions, political literacy, and public investment.