Shea (she/her)

Follow-up comment on how bad it is on the ground at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. 🔭

US women have been a major force standing up for #democracy #healthcare and the #RuleOfLaw

Let's celebrate #Women'sHistory month by demonstrating like never before against #MadKingDonald 's insane domestic & foreign policies.

#NoKingsDay is March 28. 🙏 bring your friends

bsky.app/profile/aflc...

MICHIGAN STATE CAPITOL, EAST LAWN 1:00pm - 3:00pm STAND UP FOR SCIENCE NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION MARCH 7TH

LANSING! Join your local March 7th rally to take back our science! Learn more at standupforscience.net/march7

#March7
#rally
#standupforscience
#March7Lansing
#science

I'm sure there are more/other concerns that folks have. And maybe people got more out of it than I did. I'd be happy to hear both and see if we can sort some of this out between ourselves, or come up with more pointed questions for them to answer in the FAQ document.

📌 Submitted questions and their answers will be posted to the NSPIRES webpage for the HFR, so keep a look out. Not all submitted questions will be responded to.

📌 Specifics and examples only given for SST 2. No real mention of SSTs 1 or 3. No clarification of whether SST 1 must be Dynamo-specific proposals or Dynamo-adjacent (e.g. inertial modes, flux emergence, solar-stellar connection, solar cycle prediction, etc.)

📌 No discussion about what is intended by a "Data Commons" (is this the Google standard or something NASA is trying to define themselves?)

📌 Step 1 proposals won't be given full review (via panels), but will be sent out for independent review by 2-3 individuals. Only Step 1 proposals that are not invited to Step 2 will get their review feedback.

📌 Success rates are based on Step-2, but they are controlling those statistics with Step-1 review. They plan to accept 2-3x the number of intended Step 2 selections (at most 15 for SST 1-2) out of the Step 1, which predetermines a success rate of ~30%, even if there are 250+ Step 1 proposals

📌 I wasn't satisfied with the "double blind" response about early career PI's being at a potential disadvantage. An early career PI has less experience with proposals of this scale and it may show in the proposal at some level. I'm very concerned about this, esp if there's no early-career call.

📌 No budgets are required for Step 1. For those invited to Step 2, proposers will add up to $5000 one-time travel to their budget for the final year, to attend a sort of HFR science symposium that NASA plans to hold. This travel support will be distinct from the annual award budget amount.

📌 Yes, the numbers in the table are per year PER AWARD. This is good.

📌 Proposals do not need to be for the full 1M per year. Smaller proposals are welcome, as long as they have appropriate budgets (Step 2)

Regarding today's HFR informational telecon, I personally did not come away with a lot more information than I already knew (or at least suspected) based on the solicitation.

A few of my takeaways and continued concerns:
(see following comments)

@roguenasa.altgov.info @altnasa.bsky.social @noaa.gov @altnoaa.bsky.social @roguenoaa.altgov.info @altspaceforce.altgov.info @altcdc.altgov.info @altnps.bsky.social @alt-dol.altgov.info @alt-irs.altgov.info @altfda.altgov.info @alt-ssa.altgov.info @roguefema.altgov.info +++

And of course, all of these changes will cost the tax payers more money (OPM estimates $3.5 million).

OPM claims the current performance review system is "inflating" actual performance of feds because supervisors are too lenient.

On the WH's orders, OPM added a ban on filing union grievances over perceived unfair ratings.

Also, bonuses will be affected by these new forced distribution ratings.

Of course, there is an exemption for political appointees.

They are limiting top performance reviews for #feds "requir[ing] agencies to implement forced distribution", putting a cap on current 4/5 ratings, and removing level 2 (now 4 levels - above or below average or, at worst, "unacceptable"). Ratings will be by "relative" performance, not absolute.

Federal Science Workforce Declines Sharply Under Trump The last year was marked by turmoil at science agencies and the administration’s stated desire to shrink the federal workforce.

The administration is getting creative with how they can force more necessary people out of career government positions. A new policy that is sure to push more feds out eventually is #OPM's plan to "grade on a curve" (my words).

#savefeds #performancereview #braindrain

@ucs.org @aas.org @agu.org

- the number of federal employees in the physical sciences fell 12% from 2024 to 2025, compared to an 8% decline from 1998 to 2024.

- #DOD Office of Naval Research lost 14% of it's workforce (other science office reductions not reported here)

- #NASA workforce lost 12%

@roguenasa.altgov.info @altnasa.bsky.social

- #NIST workforce lost 15%

- #DOE workforce lost 17%

@departmentofenergy.bsky.social

- about 20% workforce lost at the #USGS, #NOAA, and #nih in 2025

@noaa.gov @altnoaa.bsky.social @roguenoaa.altgov.info
@altnih4science.bsky.social

- over 30% workforce lost at #NSF in 2025

- 15,000+ employees at science agencies left the federal workforce last year (2025)

- ~5000 took the Deferred Resignation Program deal
(Others left due to RIFs, Reorgs, Probationary firings, "DEIA" cuts, seeing the "writing on the wall," resignations in protest of new policies/actions, etc.)

Federal Science Workforce Declines Sharply Under Trump The last year was marked by turmoil at science agencies and the administration’s stated desire to shrink the federal workforce.

The federal workforce is on the decline after numerous policies, orders and actions were implemented last year.

According to the AIP:
(see comments for list of a few key points)

#Feds #savefeds #performancereview #braindrain

@altnasa.bsky.social @roguenasa.altgov.info @nasawatch.bsky.social @planetarysociety.bsky.social @agu.org @aaas.org @aas.org @ucs.org

@democrats-appropriations.house.gov @senateapprops.bsky.social @commerce.senate.gov

White House stalls release of approved US science budgets The US Congress rejected sweeping cuts to science agencies. But the NIH, the NSF and NASA have had their spending slowed.

Can confirm that although #NASA's SDO mission was given a small budget boost by #Congress in the Jan Minibus, we've been told to expect btw a 12.5% and 18% cut. Haven't been able to track down where cuts are coming from (OMB?). This is actively going against Congress.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...