I know a few of these people. The two I've spoken with since their resignation basically said, "we're definitely getting laid off unless something insane changes with the funding cuts so at least this way we get a severance."
It's really sad how our NASA funding is the lowest it's been since 1961.
I'm so sick of the not only incompetent leadership in the U.S., but the literal anti-science stance our government has taken. We're 6 months into this nightmare, I really can't see how it can get worse.
> The two I've spoken with since their resignation basically said, "we're definitely getting laid off unless something insane changes with the funding cuts so at least this way we get a severance."
I hope they did the math. The DRP is not a severance, and if they were laid off, they'd have been caught in a RIF and should have received an actual severance.
If there's a RIF, they get a severance of 1 week per year for the first 10 years of work, 2 weeks per year above that, and a bonus percent if over 40. It maxes at 52 weeks pay. If you have 18 years (at least 26 weeks of severance, more if over 40) with the fed, waiting for the RIF was always better than taking DRP unless you were going to retire or quit anyways. Under that, the choice should have been "Will a RIF happen before 30 September - my severance?". If you will get a 4 week severance, then will you get RIF'd before 2 September? If you think the answer is yes, taking the DRP makes sense, if no then the DRP costs you money. The only benefit to taking DRP if you're not going to get RIF'd is if you believe you can get another job before 30 September.
After 30 September, if they haven't found a new job they won't qualify for UEI since they voluntarily separated (true in most states, there may be some that would give them UEI but I've not heard of one that gives people unemployment for quitting).
Legally, they also have to ask NASA for approval for any second jobs until 30 September. If they don't and take an industry job (say with SpaceX), I wouldn't put it past this administration to fuck with them. The penalties are mostly administrative, but some ethics law violations can involve some steep penalties and prison time.
i too knew a lot of NASA employed peopled and it’s always regrettable to lose a job but.. what the heck was our space program doing? i know they blamed changing leadership and changing budget but the space shuttle’s replacement program was run horribly.
the only working part of cape canaveral was whatever spy satellites they needed to launch.
thankfully spaceX does a pretty good job and while I wish it was still nasa leading the globe in space travel, the main decline of our era is unwieldy bureaucracy and not even nasa could figure out how to run a profit despite a monopoly.
> and not even nasa could figure out how to run a profit despite a monopoly
You seem to be unaware that NASA does run a profit, and that SpaceX wouldn’t have been possible without NASA’s research and money. NASA has invested tens of billions in SpaceX.
Congress expressly directed NASA to create SLS, and expressly structured it to maximize job creation in designated Congressional districts—a goal obviously in tension with getting shit done*.
I don't think it's correct to blame the NASA, the agency, for management decisions made by their overseer!
*(Imagine what SpaceX would look like if Starbase were split into 50 pieces in 50 states—nosecones from Alaska, winglets from Senator Shelby's district in Alabama... Imagine, if their senior executive wasn't breathing down everyone's necks to build things faster, but instead prioritized employee headcount as his objective function (maximizing–not minimizing). The way Congressional lawmakers run their pet projects is quite ridiculous).
NASA does way more than Artemis. And, absurdly, the budget is cutting almost everything but Artemis and instead shoveling more money into pointless rockets.
Well actually, Trump (or Musk?) cancelled Artemis, and Congress put it back in[0]. This is the same thing as has happened once before, under Obama in 2014[1].
> "The legislation earmarks $9.995 billion to be available until Sept. 30, 2032, for projects that have backing by politicians in states that have held key roles in NASA’s Artemis program."
> "The biggest chunk of that is $4.1 billion set aside “for the procurement, transportation, integration, operation and other necessary expenses of the Space Launch System for Artemis Mission 4 and 5.” The bill states that no less than $1.025 billion should be spent on the heavy lift rocket each year FY26-FY29."
> "It also includes $20 million to fund the Orion spacecraft “for use with the Space Launch System on the Artemis 4 Mission and reuse in subsequent Artemis Missions.”"
> "These two items run counter to the proposed NASA budget from the White House, which sought to end the SLS and Orion programs following the launch of the Artemis III mission."
Run a profit? What does that mean? What profitable business is currently available for an aeronautics and space agency that was never about making "profit".
The US government isn’t a business. In fact the current attack on it by Magats is because businesses want part of their pie to turn into a business, not because it will help or empower the people or because the programs cost too much. They are doing it because they want to charge you more. They want to charge you for your comfortable American excess that you already paid for with tax dollars. They want to double dip, have the government subsidize the business with your tax dollars then charge you again to get the value out of it.
There is no sense in trying to treat the government like a business.
It's really sad how our NASA funding is the lowest it's been since 1961.
https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal...
I'm so sick of the not only incompetent leadership in the U.S., but the literal anti-science stance our government has taken. We're 6 months into this nightmare, I really can't see how it can get worse.