NASA's next fiscal year budget request was released today, with new starts for a small lunar orbiter for 2011, two small lunar geophysical network landers for 2014, and an official start for the solar probe mission in a lower cost, non-nuclear version. These new spacecraft really snuck up on me, I'd only heard about solar probe before. A good summary of all the Science Mission Directorate budgets for FY2009 is at:
www.nasa.gov/pdf/210258main_SMD_budget_presentation.pdf
runs about 760KB
sorry, 723 kb
For those interested in reading the entire NASA 2009 Budget Request:
Full Document (5.9 MB PDF 792 pgs) - http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf
Sob! There goes the Mars campaign!
On the other hand I think its wise for NASA to concentrate their money on the Earth for a change.
Interesting, and truly systemic, analysis, VJ.
It's a bit dismaying that apparently three communities of interest are seemingly destined to compete for (let's face it) sparse funding largely based on financial/technological driving factors rather than scientific goals, however. The core dynamic seems to be cost vs. potential return, modulated by risk.
I submit that this prima facie risk-averse strategy may have adverse effects on future innovative exploratory efforts if it becomes a paradigm. Speaking broadly here (and mindful of political factors that have a great deal of influence on outcomes), 'exploration without risk' is an oxymoron. It would be tragic if NASA's UMSF efforts become moribund for lack of a willingness to assume risk.
Thanks for your crstal clear explanation VJ. But one more question.
The Solar Probe mission is mentioned in the budget. Since I stink in busines would you care to clarify on the financial status as well as the office politics concerning this mission seeing as it is (in my opinion) the most interesting notion in the budget request.
The Mars community is starting to complain about the new Mars budget: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26923. Two pertinent quotes:
"Funded at $386.5M, well below the FY08 Congressionally-mandated floor ($626.4M) and void of launches in several opportunities over the next decade, NASA's FY09 budget request for Mars exploration is neither aligned with the past success of this program or this recent Congressional direction. In fact, this budget request includes more than a $200M reduction (~35%) relative to that planned for FY09 in the December 2007 enacted legislation. Making this request even more alarming is the proposed five-year annual budget average for Mars exploration of about $350M, with only $300M in FY10 (less than one-half of the FY07 Mars program budget). This compares to an average annual budget plan of about $620M from FY09 to FY12 in last year's budget request...
"By removing any semblance of a continuous exploration sequence, this week's announcement puts the future Mars program on a path toward irrelevance. Let's take a closer look at one likely future. Following the Phoenix landing later this year, MSL will be launched in 2009. Beyond this date, the future Mars program launch opportunities consist of: nothing in 2011, a Mars Scout orbiter in 2013, the potential for a single medium-class mission in 2016, nothing in 2018, and the glimmer of hope for an international MSR campaign that may begin in 2020. Of course, since this is a five-year budget request that runs through FY13, there need be essentially no funds for MSR contained within it. This is not a program that will produce compelling science. It is the beginning of the end of what has been a dramatic advancement in our understanding of the Mars system. In addition, this budget request portends a potential decade gap between MSL and our next Mars surface mission. The NASA administrator has spoken eloquently about the ramifications that a gap in human spaceflight would have on our Nation. Is this Mars surface exploration gap no less significant or concerning for the scientific and engineering literacy of our country? "
I think we're seeing the practical impact of enabling a new outer planet flagship and a new frontiers in the next two years. To enable those, something had to go down. My concern isn't that Mars is being cut back -- it's had a hell of a run -- but rather that the scientific community isn't being given a chance to replan the program to the new budget. In addition, the most expensive possible mission sequence, a sample return, is being inserted into the budget. Something isn't right here.
I love Mars - uh, in a manly sort of way - but I have to.. no, let me rephrase that - in a sort of brotherly way. - but I have to say I think it got an exaggerated share of the exploration budget ever since the infamous Mars meteorite story a decade ago.
The idea that Mars has to have a flight every 2 years is unjustified. Continuous presence - unjustified. It's a very interesting place, of course. But there is no reason why we shouldn't accept a Mars slow-down, especially if it is replaced by additional efforts elsewhere. And Mars Sample Return will be expensive, so banking some cash by missing an opportunity is quite reasonable.
If some Mars efforts were redirected elsewhere, there are numerous targets in the outer solar system to be picked up. And personally I'd love to see a series of Venus landers going to geologically distinct regions.
I think some responses to the budget changes could be considered a bit exaggerated.
Phil
PS - my brothers are not as weird as this might suggest!
Quoting from above:
Let's take a closer look at one likely future. Following the Phoenix landing later this year, MSL will be launched in 2009. Beyond this date, the future Mars program launch opportunities consist of: nothing in 2011, a Mars Scout orbiter in 2013, the potential for a single medium-class mission in 2016, nothing in 2018, and the glimmer of hope for an international MSR campaign that may begin in 2020.
I agree that the MSR right now is still just a glimmer of hope, but let's look at the rest of this scenario. This would launch missions in 2009, 2013, 2016, 2020, and no launches in 2011 and 2018.
Essentially that ammounts to missions in 2 out of every 3 opportunities. That is still a comparatively healthy rate, and still gives Mars a continuing program.
However, this new budget seems to just about wipe out MSR. When the annual budget was 500-600 million, skipping a launch window essentially gave you anywhere from 500-900 million extra in the bank for MSR at a later date (assuming that continuing operations of existing missions, and other expenses will always eat up some of your annual budget even if you have no launche).
But with an annual of 350 million, I just can't see a lot of extra money being socked away for a rainy day. You have to skip the 2011 and 2018 launch windows just to save up enough money for the upper end of the medium class missions. And just about forget any MSL class projects.
If NASA and the science community decide that Mars should be a focus, but at a lower expenditure, there are other ways to keep returning excellent science at lower cost. The key is to not re-invent the entire mission each time. Here are two scenarios:
The MSO study group identified 4 sets of high priority science that a follow on orbiter could do. One mission set would be to design a single orbiter, and then refly that design each opportunity with a different instrument set. (this is pretty much was was done with MGS, MCO, and Odyssey if I recall correctly)
Design a medium size rover (between MSL and MER) and refly the design each opportunity. I have a couple of Mars geologist friends who would just love this option so they can get ground truth on more areas.
However, redirecting your program to the most expensive option and then cutting the budget doesn't make sense to me. Do one or the other.
More from the budget proposal on Solar Probe:
"NASA is examining a cost-constrained Solar Probe mission (Solar Probe Lite) during FY 2008,
FY 2009 activities will be determined as a result of these analyses."
"Two missions are starting pre-formulation studies, Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter Collaboration (SPC) with
the European Space Agency. Solar Probe will explore the Sun from very close range, from two to 10
solar radii, to improve our understanding of the generation and flow of the solar wind that links the
Sun to the Earth and the solar system. The Solar Orbiter Collaboration will investigate the links
between the solar surface, corona, and inner heliosphere from as close as 45 solar radii and image
the side of the Sun not visible from Earth."
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)