NASA employees are expressing concerns that potential budget cuts to the space agency could jeopardize mission safety and potentially lead to disasters like the 1986 Challenger tragedy. Kyle Helson, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and the University of Maryland, highlighted worries about unstrategic and inadequately researched cuts that do not prioritize mission safety.
A group of 362 current and former NASA employees, including Helson, signed an open letter raising alarm about recent policies that may waste resources, compromise safety, weaken national security, and undermine NASA’s core mission. NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens dismissed these concerns, emphasizing that safety will never be compromised, and any reductions will prioritize safety-critical roles.
President Donald Trump is proposing a significant budget cut of approximately $6 billion for NASA, with a 50% reduction earmarked for the scientific research division. Despite claims of ongoing commitment to scientific achievements, critics like Helson argue that such cuts could have serious repercussions.
While Congress has yet to approve Trump’s proposed cuts, leaked audio from a NASA town hall revealed that high-ranking officials plan to proceed with the cuts. Democratic leaders Zoe Lofgren and Valerie P. Foushee have called the premature implementation of these cuts “illegal” and have urged NASA not to proceed with them.
A group of NASA employees penned “The Voyager Declaration,” expressing fears that these cuts could lead to mission cancellations, loss of scientific data, abandonment of international partnerships, program cancellations, staff reductions, and decreased safety measures. The letter is addressed to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, NASA’s interim administrator, appointed by President Trump. Concerns have been raised about potential reprisals against those who signed the letter.
The signatories, including Helson, stress the importance of speaking out against decisions that may endanger NASA’s missions and safety protocols. They reference NASA’s “Formal Dissent” policy, established after previous disasters, allowing employees to voice concerns about decisions not in the agency’s best interests. The signatories fear that a culture of silence at NASA could lead to a departure from the safety lessons learned from past tragedies like the Challenger and Columbia disasters.