Editorial: The Webb Telescope is making incredible discoveries. It may go dark.
The political news these days is enough to make some Chicagoans wish they were a million miles away. But consider this: Even in the depths of space, there's no escape from politics.
The $10 billion James Webb Space Telescope is literally parked 1 million miles away. In the nearly three years since it became operational, 'Webb,' as it's called, has made some incredible findings.
Webb uses infrared scanning to show how stars and galaxies form, and to study the atmospheres of distant planets. Its capabilities complement the aging Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits Earth at an altitude of only 340 miles or so.
Among other discoveries, Webb has uncovered the slow-motion process of a star engulfing a planet and provided data about an asteroid traveling at high speed in our direction (It will miss us).
You might think any U.S. president would view this as an asset. Alas, like so much of the country's ongoing scientific research, Webb is at risk of being defunded.
President Donald Trump's administration has removed NASA's top scientist and proposed a nearly 50% budget cut to the agency's Science Mission Directorate, which oversees planetary science, astrophysics research and more.
The White House reportedly is pushing to scrap the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, a wide-view instrument undergoing final testing and assembly that is scheduled for launch within two years. Next-generation satellites meant to improve human understanding of the planet are on the chopping block as well.
While NASA's proposed budget retains some funding for the Hubble and Webb telescopes, they could become practically useless given the cuts planned for the agency's science staff.
Pointing these gadgets at the right targets to obtain useful data is no simple feat. Without a critical mass of scientists 'the science from these instruments stops,' Daniel Holz, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, told us. 'It's just not viable if these cuts go through anywhere near what's proposed. There is no bare-bones mode to run these highly complex, state-of-the-art facilities.'
The Trump administration's planned cuts at NASA are being repeated at other agencies employing scientists to do everything from vetting new prescription drugs to predicting hurricane landfalls. Similarly, Trump's pressure campaign on elite universities uses federal research funding as leverage, in some cases threatening to destroy years of work by disrupting long-term studies.
While this page supports fiscal responsibility and eliminating wasteful spending, the latest moves have an ulterior motive. They are aimed at gaining control over institutions likely to push back against Trump's agenda by citing inconvenient truths: Climate change is no hoax, vaccines save millions of lives and sweeping tariffs amount to a huge tax hike on American consumers and businesses.
Of course, politics has always influenced federal spending, especially at NASA. Just a few years ago, some on the left protested the telescope, claiming namesake James Webb discriminated against gay people when he headed the space agency in the 1960s. Now advocates on the right appear determined to eliminate climate-related research.
Big cuts at NASA would play into the hands of America's rivals across the globe. China and Europe are working aggressively to overtake the American lead in science and technology, and actively recruiting top scientists who feel under siege in the U.S.
On a practical level, attacks on scientific research could undermine the nation's ability to cure diseases, upgrade defense systems, or make computers and phones work better in the future. Critical risks — even world-ending threats — would be more likely to go unmitigated without the science to accurately assess them.
Along with researching gravitational waves, Holz heads the Science and Security Board at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists responsible for setting the legendary 'Doomsday Clock,' which ticks closer to midnight as the risk of Armageddon increases.
The clock, based at the University of Chicago, lost much of its relevance when the Cold War ended. Unfortunately, it's relevant again today, and stands at the closest point to doomsday in its 80-year history.
When the Bulletin started, Holz explains, the overriding threat was nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union. These days, additional factors push the world closer to the brink. To the extent climate change leads to mass migration and conflicts over resources, for instance, it makes all-out war more likely. A man-made pandemic or misuse of artificial intelligence could lead to the same outcome.
Last fall, Holz's board decided to move the clock one second closer to midnight, announcing in January that the world was only 89 seconds away. Since then, he said, the group has been following the administration's actions and it's alarmed by the broad and deep attacks on science.
The board reserves the right to change the clock at any time, Holz said, not just annually. Anyone interested will need to stay tuned, but we're willing to bet that if the clock moves any time soon, it will be moving closer to doomsday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Starliner launched 1 year ago on failed mission. What's next for NASA, Boeing?
Starliner launched 1 year ago on failed mission. What's next for NASA, Boeing? While the Starliner's first flight didn't exactly go to plan, both NASA and Boeing still hope the spacecraft can one day fly again. Show Caption Hide Caption Starliner astronauts reflect on extended mission in space Astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore discussed their extended stay aboard the International Space Station. On June 5, 2024, the Starliner got off the ground from Florida with two experienced NASA astronauts aboard for what was to be a brief trip to the International Space Station. But issues with the spacecraft prompted NASA to undock it without its crew. Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams ultimately spent more than nine months and 280 days in orbit as part of NASA's contingency plan to get them back home. The first human spaceflight for Boeing's Starliner made headlines for all the wrong reasons. But one year after its launch, it appears neither Boeing nor NASA have given up the spacecraft. On June 5, 2024, the Starliner got off the ground from Florida with two experienced NASA astronauts aboard for what was to be a brief trip to the International Space Station. Days then stretched into months after mission engineers noticed that the vehicle had encountered a slew of mechanical issues during its orbital voyage. As a result, the Starliner's crew, Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, spent more than nine months and 280 days in orbit as part of NASA's contingency plan to get them back home. While the flight test went far from according to plan, both NASA and Boeing have given signs that there's still hope for the Starliner to fly again – following a lot more development, no doubt. Here's what to know about the Starliner mission and what's next for Boeing and NASA. Boeing Starliner: On anniversary of Starliner's doomed launch, look back at the mission's biggest moments What is the Boeing Starliner? Why NASA wants to certify vehicle Boeing is developing the Starliner spacecraft with the goal of it becoming a second operational vehicle for NASA to transport crews and cargo to the space station. The missions would be contracted under the U.S. space agency's commercial crew program, under which NASA pays private companies to conduct orbital spaceflights using their own commercial vehicles. SpaceX has already been making routine trips since 2020 to the space station under the program using its Dragon capsule. Standing nearly 27 feet tall and about 13 feet wide, Dragon capsules can carry up to seven astronauts into orbit, though most of SpaceX's Crew missions feature a contingent of four. The Crew missions launch on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket – one of the most active in the world – from NASA's Kennedy Space Center inFlorida. What happened to the Boeing Starliner, 'stuck' astronauts? As the two astronauts selected for the Starliner's maiden crewed flight test, Wilmore and Williams launched June 5, 2024 on a mission to test a vehicle intended to one day join the SpaceX Dragon in transporting NASA astronauts to orbit. The astronauts reached the International Space Station a day after launching, where they were expected to remain for about 10 days before returning home. But the mission ended in failure when a slew of technical issues with the spacecraft prompted NASA to determine that the Starliner was not able to safely transport its crew back to Earth. Instead, Wilmore and Williams had no choice but to watch the spacecraft that brought them to the station undock Sept. 6 without them to make an autonomous landing in New Mexico. Under a plan NASA announced in August 2024, a SpaceX Dragon that was already due to reach the space station on a mission of its own was selected as the vehicle to ferry Wilmore and Williams home. That mission launched as planned in late-September, but with one crucial change: Just two astronauts were on board the Dragon instead of four to leave two extra seats for Wilmore and Williams. That meant the astronauts who crewed the Starliner were due to remain at the station for a few extra months as Crew-9 spacefarers, NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Aleksandr Gorbunov, completed their six-month mission. Then, once the Crew-10 replacement mission arrived March 15, the stage was set for the original Starliner crew members to finally return to Earth. The SpaceX Dragon vehicle carrying Wilmore, Williams, Hague and Gorbunov made a parachute-assisted water landing March 19 off the coast of Florida. What's next for Boeing, NASA in Starliner development? As of late March, NASA was moving ahead with plans to work with Boeing toward making Starliner operational. The aerospace company had plans to conduct more tests this summer at NASA's White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico while making modifications to the vehicle to prepare it for routine spaceflight, NASA officials have said. That includes fixing the thruster issues from the first crewed spaceflight and conducting more propulsion system testing. Teams have also been testing new methods for sealing the helium system to mitigate the risk of future leaks, NASA said in a March 27 blog post – its last public update about the Starliner spacecraft. The USA TODAY Network has reached out to NASA for more information on the status of Starliner. An independent watchdog report further determined in its 2024 report that other problems with Starliner also require modification before it can be certified. That includes a battery redesign plan and work to strengthen the landing airbag backing panel. "NASA is seeing the commitment from Boeing to adding the Starliner system to the nation's crew transportation base," Ken Bowersox, NASA's associate administrator for space operations, said in a March statement. But when Starliner could next fly – with or without a crew – remains to be determined. Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@
Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
NASA scientists describe ‘absolute sh*tshow' at agency as Trump budget seeks to dismantle top US climate lab
Federal agencies Space programs Climate changeFacebookTweetLink Follow NASA scientists are in a state of anxious limbo after the Trump administration proposed a budget that would eliminate one of the United States' top climate labs – the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, or GISS – as a standalone entity. In its place, it would move some of the lab's functions into a broader environmental modeling effort across the agency. Career specialists are now working remotely, awaiting details and even more unsure about their future at the lab after they were kicked out of their longtime home in New York City last week. Closing the lab for good could jeopardize its value and the country's leadership role in global climate science, sources say. 'It's an absolute sh*tshow,' one GISS scientist said under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. 'Morale at GISS has never been lower, and it feels for all of us that we are being abandoned by NASA leadership.' 'We are supposedly going to be integrated into this new virtual NASA modeling institute, but (we have) no idea what that will actually look like,' they said. NASA is defending its budget proposal, with a nod toward the lab's future. 'NASA's GISS has a significant place in the history of space science and its work is critical for the Earth Science Division, particularly as the division looks to the future of its modeling work and capabilities,' NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner said in a statement. 'Fundamental contributions in research and applications from GISS directly impact daily life by showing the Earth system connections that impact the air we breathe, our health, the food we grow, and the cities we live in,' Warner said. GISS has a storied history in climate science on the global scale. James Hansen, a former director, first called national attention to human-caused global warming at a Senate hearing during the hot summer of 1988. The lab, founded in 1961, is still known worldwide for its computer modeling of the planet that enable scientists to make projections for how climate change may affect global temperatures, precipitation, extreme weather events and other variables. The about 125 scientists who work there are also known for tracking global temperatures, with GISS' records serving as one of the independent checks on other labs around the world monitoring global warming. The lab stands out, the scientist said, for its 'fundamental work contributing to our understanding of global warming, volcanic and aerosol forcing of climate, and advances in detection and attribution' of climate change impacts. 'All work that was curiosity-driven and enabled by the autonomy we had at GISS to pursue these questions,' they said, adding: 'Everyone is stressed because we have no clarity from leadership on even what the long-term plan is. (It) Really feels like we are just being left to die on the vine.' Another GISS scientist, who also spoke under the condition of anonymity, said the lab's independence has been key to its success, which can be seen in the abundance of published studies from researchers at the facility. The autonomy afforded to GISS over the years, given its distance from NASA headquarters in Washington, and its academic-like freedom helped its researchers take on important studies that might not be pursued in other circumstances, they said. And unlike high-level managers at NASA, GISS' leadership received high marks for their communications and advocacy of the center's work, according to three researchers. 'It is important for climate modeling to continue,' one of the GISS researchers said. 'They're the best tools that we have for the planet.' A technical NASA budget supplement released late last week committed to 'strengthening America's leadership in space exploration while exercising fiscal responsibility. NASA is adapting the way we work and invest to accomplish our mission,' Warner, the spokesperson, said. That Republicans' proposed NASA budget includes funding for climate modeling at all is notable, considering its cuts for space exploration and overall Earth science. Numerous space exploration missions and satellites would be abandoned under the budget, including some satellites already in space that are actively sending climate-related data back to Earth. The budget supplement makes GISS' fate both clear and hazy. It states Earth system modeling activities at four different NASA centers will be merged into one 'virtual institute.' This would incorporate 'core capabilities' of GISS 'as needed,' it adds. 'GISS as an independent entity will not continue,' the document says. This fate may be considerably better for NASA's climate scientists than the worst-case scenario seen at agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where the budget for nearly its entire weather and climate research portfolio would be zeroed out and most of its research labs shuttered. Overall, the NASA budget would be a 24% cut compared to last year, with a 47% cut to agency science activities, according to The Planetary Society, a group that advances space science and innovation. Its analysis found the NASA funding level would be the smallest since 1961 when adjusted for inflation. The ultimate decisions on the future of climate modeling at NASA, as well as its space exploration activities, will fall to Congress as members consider the budget proposal, adding even more uncertainty to an already fraught period for GISS's staff.
