Science Eviscerated In NASA Budget, Planetary Society call to action Options

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The figure I have is 5-10 pictures per orbit. (I'm still trying to find out whether they may add the combined IR spectrometer/camera described in http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1564.pdf to the mission -- possibly by replacing JunoCam with it.)

[ljk4-1]

In that context your idea for a manned orbital mission makes a lot of sense. It would be one way of overcoming the headaches. The astronauts and their hitchhiking menageries can stay in orbit (or on Phobos) while (decontaminated) unmanned probes are sent down to do the onsite investigations and do the sampling. If no native Mars life is found future missions can go all the way down to the surface. (If native Mars life *is* discovered the future becomes much more complicated: do future manned missions land regardless or is the surface of Mars to be declared a wildlife preservation zone, offlimits to human beings and their terrestrial microbial menageries?)

How do you know there isn't life under the surface of Phobos? And/or Deimos?

What if Shklovsky was right about Phobos being hollow?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)...hobos.22_claims

Will we need to just stay on the spaceship in orbit? Should we just not
boldly go anywhere?

[mcaplinger]

...possibly by replacing JunoCam with it.)

That really wouldn't be a very nice thing to do to the JunoCam vendor, would it?

At any rate, they certainly haven't told us anything about the possibility of deleting JunoCam.

[ljk4-1]

NASA NEWS

- Mikulski Calls for Balanced Space Program To Increase Support for NASA

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mikulski...t_for_NASA.html

Washington DC (SPX) Apr 28, 2006 - Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), the
senior Democrat on the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, today called
on the Bush Administration to increase funding for NASA in the federal budget,
which cuts billions from science programs.

[gpurcell]

There seems to be a consensus developing recently that the next mission to study a giant planet itself after Juno should consist of a craft to fly by Saturn without stopping and drop off one to three Galileo-type vented entry probes, as well as doing Juno-type microwave spectrometry of the planet (an instrument which Cassini lacks), to study its atmospheric composition and structure. This craft could almost certainly be NF-class -- it could even use solar power at that distance for that particular kind of mission. Similar missions could be flown for Uranus and Neptune, which could also somewhat extend Voyager 2's imaging and spectrometry of the Uranus and Neptune systems -- and all such missions could provide adequate "context" for the entry probes.

What about a Saturn/Uranus or Neptune flyby (with perhaps one probe for the second target)? Seems to me if you're flinging an expensive piece of kit out there you ought to try for at least two planetary encounters.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Unfortunately, the outer three giant planets aren't lined up for any such neat billiards shot any time in the next couple of decades or more (I believe -- although I need to double-check on the possibility of a Saturn-Neptune mission). Obviously we SHOULD take advantage of any such opportunity we get, but we seem to have passed the deadline for them over the last two decades.

What you COULD do, of course, is send any such mission on to observe a KBO. And, given the ability of the strong gravity fields of the giant planets to produce radically different trajectories into the Kuiper Belt using just minor changes in the craft's flyby path past a giant planet, you could pick your KBO in advance, unlike New Horizons (and like the proposed New Horizons 2, which we won't be seeing -- at least in 2008). Most such missions to any of the outer three giant planets also utilize a Jupiter flyby, raising the possibility of a close Io flyby in which we could make more useful observations of that still-underexamined world. (As I've noted before, if that nitwit Dan Goldin had approved a New Horizons-type mission for Nov. 2003 -- instead of being totally opposed to any Pluto mission because "nobody gives a damn about Pluto" -- it would have made a Jupiter flyby close enough that it could easily have included a close Io flyby as a bonus.)

[dvandorn]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I had a chance to watch Mike Griffin's report to Congress (well, the House science committee, whatever its official name) from last week. It was rebroadcast on NASA-TV last night, and I ended up staying up late watching it, rather than going to sleep like I ought to have. (I *love* living in a civilized community that puts NASA-TV on its cable system. Well, OK, they sometimes pre-empt NASA-TV for videotapes of local high school football games from last fall... but the 20 or so hours a day we get of NASA-TV is generally good enough for me.)

Anyway... Griffin was being *very* careful about how he spoke of budget requirements. He spoke of understanding that, in a world in which Iraq war and Katrina recovery costs were far more immediate needs than NASA's programs, there wasn't much likelihood of NASA getting any more money than it's currently receiving. He spoke of working hard to set priorities, getting the most important things (CEV and CLV development, according to him) done first, and then deploying other elements of the science and exploration infrastructure as time and budgets permit.

The chair of the committee, a guy named Shelby, responded to this by insisting that NASA needed more money. Griffin stopped him and said that he was *not* there to beg for more money -- he was only there to give a status report on what he was able to do with the money he had available.

Shelby just plowed on, insisting that no, NASA really did need more money. Griffin, tellingly, responded with an almost muttered comment, "You can say that, sir, I can't."

Griffin was asked some very pointed questions about specific programs, including the RLEP2 program. Griffin was challenged with the perception that NASA has lost all interest in pursuing the RLEP2 program, to which he replied that NASA was firmly committed to flying that mission -- but that he couldn't afford to start funding it for at least another two years.

And, as I mentioned in passing in another thread, Griffin was asked what the current estimates look like for repairs of hurricane damage at Michoud, the Stennis Space Center, and the Kennedy Space Center. He said that the current estimate is looking like about $550 million. This same committee had recommended that NASA get emergency hurricane repair funds of some $300 million last year, but that money never made it into the budget. Shelby asked how NASA was paying for the repairs, and Griffin said he was stealing the money from the Shuttle/ISS budgets. So, look at it this way -- there are even concerns so immediate that Shuttle/ISS, the Great Hog (as some of y'all would put it), is even getting some funds pinched, here and there...

All in all, Griffin gave the appearance of a basically good juggler suddenly finding himself with 20 or 30 more objects in the air at once than he's ever juggled before...

-the other Doug

[Stephen]

Shelby just plowed on, insisting that no, NASA really did need more money. Griffin, tellingly, responded with an almost muttered comment, "You can say that, sir, I can't."

Yes, Griffin may be the boss of NASA but he is still just a public servant. If his own boss says "no more money" Griffin would doubtless be hauled over the coals should be try to get that funding out of Congress directly. That would be seen as going behind the boss's back.

Griffin was asked some very pointed questions about specific programs, including the RLEP2 program. Griffin was challenged with the perception that NASA has lost all interest in pursuing the RLEP2 program, to which he replied that NASA was firmly committed to flying that mission -- but that he couldn't afford to start funding it for at least another two years.

And, as I mentioned in passing in another thread, Griffin was asked what the current estimates look like for repairs of hurricane damage at Michoud, the Stennis Space Center, and the Kennedy Space Center. He said that the current estimate is looking like about $550 million. This same committee had recommended that NASA get emergency hurricane repair funds of some $300 million last year, but that money never made it into the budget. Shelby asked how NASA was paying for the repairs, and Griffin said he was stealing the money from the Shuttle/ISS budgets. So, look at it this way -- there are even concerns so immediate that Shuttle/ISS, the Great Hog (as some of y'all would put it), is even getting some funds pinched, here and there...

All in all, Griffin gave the appearance of a basically good juggler suddenly finding himself with 20 or 30 more objects in the air at once than he's ever juggled before...

-the other Doug

As a general rule you can't fill a hole except by digging another.

Right now the Shuttle/ISS may be paying to fill that $550 million hole, but it presumably did so at the cost of digging a hole in the Shuttle/ISS's own budget. Since getting the Shuttle back into orbit and finishing the ISS seem at present to be among NASA's highest priorities that presumably means that at some point down the track that new hole will need to be filled in. Unless Congress comes to the rescue with an extra $550 million do not be surprised if that other hole is eventually filled in by digging further holes in other areas of NASA expenditure. Like space science.

======
Stephen

[PhilHorzempa]

The figure I have is 5-10 pictures per orbit. (I'm still trying to find out whether they may add the combined IR spectrometer/camera described in http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1564.pdf to the mission -- possibly by replacing JunoCam with it.)

I do hope that the JunoCam is retained for both scientific and PR reasons. The science
value speaks for itself, i.e., detailed views of Jupiter's polar region.

To me, however, equally important is JunoCam's value in capturing the interest of the
American public and Congress. They, after all, are the ones that fund these robotic
explorers that we love so much. Without PICTURES an event does not happen in our
modern world of 24/7 TV news coverage, and if it does not register with the collective
conciousness of the nation, then, subtly, support for planetary exploration is hurt.

I support spending a few million on JunoCam since it is the lever by which the
"real" science of JUNO has a fighting chance to be funded.


Another Phil

[ljk4-1]

NASA Lacks Resources Needed to Sustain Vigorous Science Program

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=19764

"NASA does not have the resources necessary to maintain a vigorous science
program, complete the International Space Station, and return humans to the
moon, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies'
National Research Council.

"There is a mismatch between what NASA has been assigned to do and the
resources with which it has been provided," said Lennard A. Fisk, chair of the
committee that wrote the report."

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The "guy named Shelby" is Senator from Alabama, which makes it rather unsurprising that he favors an overall increase in NASA's budget.

As for RLEP-2: I have advance word -- solid this time, but I can't say a thing about my source -- that the gargantuan version of it has been mercifully axed, and that they're planning a sensible small version now.

And as for how Congress will handle this whole problem: as always with democracies, they'll delay dealing the crisis as long as possible, until the entire roof is actually starting to fall in -- at which point they'll finally start frantic jury-rigged home repairs, leading to God knows what final outcome.

[Stephen]

And as for how Congress will handle this whole problem: as always with democracies, they'll delay dealing the crisis as long as possible, until the entire roof is actually starting to fall in -- at which point they'll finally start frantic jury-rigged home repairs, leading to God knows what final outcome.

As opposed to non-democracies where you may only find out that there even was a roof problem a decade or so after the roof has fallen in--and then you have to flee the country to keep the secret police from throwing you in a gulag to shut you up.

======
Stephen

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Entirely correct. I hope to God no one thinks I'm recommending non-democracy as a preferable alternative. What I was trying to do is point out that a tendency to delay dealing with tough problems at all is an inevitable, if undesirable, side effect of political democracy, and that this kick-the-can-down-the-road behavior is now predictably being applied to NASA's funding crisis.

Meanwhile, the reports are just in from NASA's four Space Science Subcommittees on how to cope with the funding crisis:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20587
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20588
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20589
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20590

As one might expect, they all wax indignant about the cuts in Research and Analysis and demand that they be restored. Most of them, however, dodge the question of how this is to be paid for, and just how the reductions in actual missions should be divided up if NASA refuses to increase total space science funding. But the last of the four -- the Planetary Science Subcommittee -- does not dodge this issue: "The ratios of launch frequencies for small, medium and large missions given in the latest Solar System Exploration Roadmap are appropriate. Actual launch frequencies should be paced by budgetary considerations." Also: "The plan for the next five years should include an investment in concept or Phase A studies of one or more candidate outer planet missions. In the absence of such an investment there will be too long a hiatus between major outer planet missions."

Two other important recommendations:

(1) " Strategic planning for solar system exploration should integrate the currently distinct plans for Mars and the Moon with those for other solar system bodies. Maintaining separate planning efforts runs the risk that intellectual gaps will arise between plans for different solar system targets and that technological and programmatic efforts will be unnecessarily duplicative. Such a synthesis of planning efforts does not imply integration at the programmatic level."


(2) "The cuts to the Astrobiology Program, apparently made in the absence of advice from the scientific community, are particularly damaging. First, even if a 50% cut to an R&A program were warranted on scientific grounds, because many awards are for multiple years, the implementation of such a reduction over 1 or even 2 years means that many of the research projects that will be terminated, sharply reduced, or simply not started will include some of those most highly rated by the peer review process.

"Moreover, the central scientific themes of astrobiology underpin strategic plans for the exploration of Mars and the outer solar system, inform plans for the renewed exploration of the Moon, and constitute the basis for elements of the plans of the Astrophysics Division to characterize the habitability of planets around other stars. Targeting the Astrobiology Program for anomalously large cuts is sufficiently inconsistent with the rationale enunciated for a broad sweep of SMD programs that budgetary restoration for that program should receive immediate attention."

[PhilHorzempa]

NASA Lacks Resources Needed to Sustain Vigorous Science Program

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=19764

"NASA does not have the resources necessary to maintain a vigorous science
program, complete the International Space Station, and return humans to the
moon, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies'
National Research Council.

"There is a mismatch between what NASA has been assigned to do and the
resources with which it has been provided," said Lennard A. Fisk, chair of the
committee that wrote the report."

The latest word on NASA's FY07 budget is that Congress probably will not save them
by adding $1 b to its budget. See details in this article.

http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_060515.html


How do the members of the UMSF community feel about this situation now that
a "rescue" of NASA's budget does not appear likely this year?

I feel that, since Bush has obviously withdrawn his support from the VSE, the Congress
should restore about $500 M to NASA's Space Science programs. The funds should
be taken from the VSE. If Bush were serious about returning people to the Moon and then
going to Mars, then his adminstration would obviously have given NASA sufficient
funds. They, just as obviously, did not.

Therefore, I urge Congress to restore the balance in NASA funding and allow
NASA's program of unmanned explorers to continue to return exciting results.
In particular, the Europa Explorer project needs to be started THIS year, as
Congress earlier directed. I was shocked to learn recently that not only is
NASA planning to delay the Europa Explorer (Orbiter/Lander) this coming year,
it is not contemplating starting the Europa project until AFTER the next 5-year
budget cycle!

I do not object to continuing the VSE. However, it should only proceed as fast
as manned spaceflight funding allows. Congress should not allow NASA to
accelerate the VSE by stealing funds from unmanned space. By enabling NASA's
attempt at this theft, the Congress will be agreeing to NASA's plan to delay
unmanned science programs for years, if not decades. I want to see landers
on Europa and Titan and Enceladus in the near future.

Also, if Congress allows Griffin to declare a manned spaceflight 'emergency' to
justify draining funds from Space Science, then NASA will be tempted to pull this
same trick in the future. Are we to believe that the CEV, the CLV, the CaLV, and
the LSAM will not overrun thier budgets?

When (not if) they do, we can all imagine a future NASA Administrator telling
Congress that he simply MUST take funds from unmanned Space Science again.
NASA now spends most of its funds on manned spaceflight. Unless the President
adds more money to the manned portion of NASA's budget, that sector
should learn to live within its budget.


Another Phil

[gpurcell]

Just remember that the Senate is called the "upper" house for more than one reason....