NASA to Cut Back Scientific Missions Because of Budget Options

[David]

Buran was not a flop: it is the country economy which collapsed, together with its political will. Without that unfortunate event, Buran would perhaps be still flying, eventually with more success that the US shuttle.

It is true that it was superior in some areas, for instance in robotics (automated landing)

My understanding from reading a good deal about Buran vs. STS some time ago is that there is nothing in principle preventing the Shuttle from being capable of doing fully a automated launch-to-landing mission -- except that if they started doing that, people might start asking why they needed the astronauts! I understand that the shuttle's descent is mostly managed by computer anyway, and that the main task of the pilots is to lower the landing gear at a specific time - something which could obviously be automated.

If this is the case, you'd think that unmanned STS test flights (especially when there's a present danger to human life, as currently) would be routine, but NASA has never flown an unmanned shuttle mission and I don't expect them to start now. Every other manned system had unmanned tests to work out its capabilities and dangers first, however - except, of course, LEM landing!

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/03dawn/

Let's hope there'll be some money left

[Jyril]

Buran was not a flop: it is the country economy which collapsed, together with its political will. Without that unfortunate event, Buran would perhaps be still flying, eventually with more success that the US shuttle.

By "flop" I meant just that, the shuttle never flight except for the automated test flight. It no doubt took huge amount of resources to built, all for (almost) nothing. Ironically, the spacecraft was better than the American shuttle, but it was too ambitious for a country whose economy was on the brink of collapse.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

By "flop" I meant just that, the shuttle never flight except for the automated test flight. It no doubt took huge amount of resources to built, all for (almost) nothing. Ironically, the spacecraft was better than the American shuttle, but it was too ambitious for a country whose economy was on the brink of collapse.

Err, they did not knew that their country was on the verge of collapse. To be frank, USSR seemed so deeply rooted that nobody would have predicted it could ever collapse, and more that it could collapse so easily. Nobody inside it, nobody outside. Very few people had some premonition that this was to happen, and they were certainly not authorized to tell it in the USSR...

Given this, Buran was a tremendous technical success, and also an incredible economic achievement. There was something really strong linking all these people together, despites the huge problems which were already crippling USSR economy and industrial network long ago before collapse.

[PhilHorzempa]

[size=2]Back to the topic of Space Science, particularly unmanned probes to other
planets, in NASA's FY07 Budget. As I see it, the chief cause of our anguish this year is
the substantial boost in the FY07 request for the VSE. As far as I can tell, it is getting
a boost from $3 billion in FY06 to $4 billion in FY07. That is quite a jump.
If we in the space community can persuade Congress to divert $0.5 billion of that
increase to Space Science, then the VSE will still have $3.5 billion to play with, and we can
see progress on the Europa Orbiter, TPF, SIM, as well as new Discovery and New Frontiers
missions. I am not that enthused about the Space Shuttle or the ISS, but I see no chance
that Congress will divert one dime from those programs. Our only hope of seeing a
healthy unmanned planetary exploration program will be for us to convince Congress
to re-adjust the budget for the ESMD.
Congress needs to be reminded that they bought into the VSE concept because of NASA's
pledge to not divert money from Space Science, to proceed with the VSE on a "go as you
can pay" basis. The Administration's OMB has decided not to increase NASA's budget by
the needed amount. Therefore, the VSE needs to proceed more slowly, no matter how fast
Mr. Griffin wants to go. The "Firewall" between Manned and Unmanned Space needs to
be preserved.
The importance of the struggle over the FY07 budget is not just limited to one year.
If Griffin's NASA succeeds in this attempt to cut back Space Science in FY07, then they
will be emboldened to cut even more deeply in future years. I know that Griffin has said
that Space Science will be frozen for 5 years. However, are we foolish enough to believe
him? We all know what he recently said about not taking one nickel from Space Science.
I submit that he can never be trusted again. What is to stop NASA HQ from maintaining
the freeze in Space Science funding for more than 5 years? In fact, what is to stop Mr. Griffin
from requesting a 10% or 20% or 30% cut in Space Science funding next year?
I submit that the next several months will be crucial in the fight to preserve our
amazing unmanned planetary exploration program. If Mr Griffin's NASA can pull off
this massive heist this year, then I fear for the future of Space Science.

[PhilHorzempa]

[size=2] To continue on the subject of NASA's budget and how more of it can
be directed to unmanned spaceflight, especially planetary probes. I invite those on
this forum to examine NASA's budget closely and suggest programs whose budgets
could be re-directed.
I'll start with NASA's Education program for primary and secondary schools. This
has an annual budget of $47 million according to the proposed FY07 submission. That
is a huge amount of money going to waste. WHY is NASA involved AT ALL in primary
and secondary education? I have given talks in primary school and I have used the various
web sites for NASA missions, projected on a screen, as my lecture resources. That cost
NASA exactly nothing, except for what they may spend on maintaining web sites.
If totaled over a decade, this one item in NASA's budget will add up to almost
$500 million, a half-billion dollar pile that could fund one Discovery planetary mission,
with about $50 million in change.
I welcome more suggestions. Let's see how much we can add up from just one year's
budget. That might make some impact on those who ask where the extra funds for Space
Science could be found. This is not even mentioning possible cuts in the VSE budget.

[djellison]

I'll start with NASA's Education program for primary and secondary schools. This
has an annual budget of $47 million according to the proposed FY07 submission. That
is a huge amount of money going to waste. WHY is NASA involved AT ALL in primary
and secondary education? I

Sorry - educationa and outreach is the #1 thing I would NOT cut.

Doug

[chris]

[size=2]
I'll start with NASA's Education program for primary and secondary schools. This
has an annual budget of $47 million according to the proposed FY07 submission. That
is a huge amount of money going to waste. WHY is NASA involved AT ALL in primary
and secondary education? I have given talks in primary school and I have used the various
web sites for NASA missions, projected on a screen, as my lecture resources.

I imagine that the websites are part of the outreach program, so there go your lecture resources.

Chris

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) sent the following AGU Science and Legislative Alert (ASLA) today to its membership:

****************************************************
ASLA 06-07: Action Needed to Support Science at NASA
****************************************************

President Bush has proposed $16.79 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in FY2007, only a 1% increase from FY2006 appropriated levels, and $1.14 billion less than Congress legislated in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (see ASLA 06-01). This budget marks the second consecutive year that inflation outpaces the President’s NASA request. At a recent House Science Committee hearing, Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) called it “bad for space science, worse for earth science.”

Scientists should take this opportunity to contact their Representatives and Senators via phone, email, or fax and urge them to support science in the FY2007 NASA budget. If you are unsure who your representative is, visit http://www.house.gov/writerep and enter your zip code.

Scientists may want to refer to AGU’s position statement “NASA: Earth and Space Sciences at Risk” (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/position...pace_risk.shtml) that warns “shifting financial resources from science threatens vital investments and capabilities that have taken decades and tens of billions of tax dollars to build.” The statement calls upon the U.S. Administration, Congress, and NASA to renew their commitment to Earth and space science research.

The FY2007 budget proposal reflects the pressure at NASA from financial demands to fund the space shuttle, the space station, and the Moon-Mars initiative. The Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration (SAE) account, which includes almost all the science and academic programs, would receive an increase of 8.3 % to $10.52 billion for FY2007. However, the Office of Exploration Systems, which includes the majority of the programs included in the President’s Moon-Mars initiative would receive the lion’s share, a $928.2 million boost to total $3.978 billion, a 30.4% increase over last year. In contrast, the Science Mission Directorate(SMD) would only receive a 1.4% increase, or $76.3 million, to $5.33 billion, and the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate would receive an 18.1% decrease to $724.4 million.

The three accounts within SMD would receive slight increases. Solar System Exploration (SSE) would be allotted $1.61 billion, a 1.7% increase; the Universe would receive $1.51 billion, a 0.1% increase; and Earth-Sun Systems would receive $2.21 billion, a 2.2% increase.

Each budget request projects five years into the future, and the future does not look good. The 2007 budget calls for reducing SMD funding by $3.2 billion over five years compared to the 2006 budget request.

Specifically within the 2007 budget request, the Mars Exploration program would receive a 7.7% increase to $700.2 million, although more than $600 million has been removed from the five-year run out. The Discovery program would receive an 11 % increase to $161.9 million but it is projected to decrease significantly over the next four years. The Solar System Research program would see the largest cut within SSE, 16.2% to $273.6 million, including a 50 percent cut to the Astrobiology program.

The Explorer mission, co-managed by two accounts, would be cut by 20.7% for FY2007 to $67.6 million in the Universe account, and by 43.5% to $83.4 million in the Earth-Sun System account.

Within Earth-Sun Systems, the Pathfinder program would increase by 13.8% to $161.4 million, although the Hydros program would be canceled. Cuts include the Solar Terrestrial Probes (-11%) and Living With a Star program (-5.4%).

Within SAE overall, funding for Education Programs drops by 5.6% to $153.3 million. This marks three consecutive years of reduced funding for this office, although funding stays level in future years. Higher Education and Informal Education programs absorb most of the cuts.

Approximately 37% of NASA’s FY2007 budget funds the International Space Station (ISS) and Space Shuttle under the Exploration Capabilities account. Its $6.23 billion share in FY2007 is an overall decrease of 4.4% (excluding the one-time emergency funding for Katrina response and recovery in 2006), but funding would rise for ISS and for Space and Flight Support.

During a 2 March House Science Committee hearing on science in NASA’s budget, Space and Aeronautics subcommittee member Mark Udall (D-CO) called NASA science “the Agency’s intellectual ‘seed corn,’” and continued, “these cuts are damaging the... research that is critical to training the next generation of scientists and engineers.”

For official NASA budget info, visit http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html.

----------------

Brad Keelor, AGU, contributed to this ASLA.

Sources: AIP’s FYI #32, NASA.gov, UCAR’s Office of Government Affairs, Sciencedems.house.gov.

[David]

I have to wonder: if NASA was funded in one big lump, and the administration of NASA got to decide, on its own initiative, how much of that would go to manned and how much to unmanned spaceflight, what sort of percentages we'd see in the budget.