[X] My Assistant

[Greg Hullender]

Science 1 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5829, p. 1269

News of the Week
SPACE SCIENCE:
Stern Looks for Way Out of NASA's Budget Squeeze
Andrew Lawler
His $5.4 billion budget is stretched thin, but rather than cancel space projects nearing launch or ask for more money, NASA's new science chief Alan Stern says he intends to beef up lunar science, champion smaller and less complex spacecraft, and insist on hard-nosed cost estimates before larger missions can win approval.

Full article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5829/1269a

I especially liked this line: "I don't have to kill any missions," he insists. But he said NASA will consider firing those principal investigators in charge of missions that spiral out of control.

[PhilHorzempa]

NASA has convened the NOSSE committee to review future Space Science
options, including how to shape the next AO for New Frontiers. A recent letter
from Beta Reebe and Warren Buck, who are on the committee, discussed some
of the issues concerning future New Frontiers missions. Here is a link to that
letter -
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/nosse_letter.pdf

You will notice toward the end of the letter that they ask whether mid-size Mars
missions should be allowed to be offered for New Frontiers projects. My firm
reply would be NO! Please do not allow Mars missions to engulf any more of the
Space Science budget.
As Alan Stern recently pointed out, Mars exploration already consumes almost
HALF of NASA's Space Science funds. The other half is devoted to ALL of the rest
of the Solar system! I'm sure that anyone of us could think of 10 interesting missions
to places besides Mars.
Don't get me wrong - I like Mars as much as anyone. However, I also believe that
it should not account for any more of NASA's unmanned exploration effort than it already
does. In fact, if there is a need for more robotic probes to Mars than is now planned,
I propose that it come from the Constellation budget. I'm sure that there will be a need
for precursor missions for manned landings, and these could serve double duty as
science missions.

Another Phil

[JRehling]

The link doesn't work, but this small modification worked for me:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/nosse_letter.pdf

I agree wholeheartedly on the Mars issue, although I think we need an even more detailed policy principle than to say that Mars should perpetually consume 50%, or 40%, or 25%, etc., of the budget. I think we should see the Mars emphasis that somewhat goes back to the failed Mars Explorer and continues to the present day as what is probably a temporary (if decades-long) bump in Mars emphasis in order to address specific science goals that are of particular interest and that have therefore garnered extra attention to Mars. But the point is to seek answers to those questions, not to emphasize Mars above all others until we can emphasize it no more. We could launch 100 more missions to Mars this century and still know it far less well than we know Arizona. But what is the goal? In science, we can always say that knowing more about Mars is better (true), but the opportunity cost needs to be addressed.

I believe that if you never give someone a budget or a deadline, at least an implicit one, you never get results. The Mars program has no incentive to answer the questions, and there is even programmatic incentive for investigators to dally around the big questions, keeping Mars the top funding draw into perpetuity.

I'd like to see a Mars program that identifies its goals, identifies a proposed, if tentative exploration architecture for meeting those goals, and a firm expectation that when that architecture has run its course, the gravy train for Mars will no longer be assured (unless new or ongoing conditions further increase the interest in Mars relative to the rest of the solar system).

Reason for edit: Removed quote of entire last post.

[dvandorn]

I'd like to see a Mars program that identifies its goals, identifies a proposed, if tentative exploration architecture for meeting those goals, and a firm expectation that when that architecture has run its course, the gravy train for Mars will no longer be assured (unless new or ongoing conditions further increase the interest in Mars relative to the rest of the solar system).

Ah, but this assumes that the bureaucracy can agree on an exploration strategy (i.e., a set of goals) upon which to design an architecture.

Are we trying to find signs of extant life on Mars? Are we looking for signs of extinct life (paleofossils, etc.)? Are we trying to gather all of the information needed to support a manned landing? A colony? Do we require the knowledge needed to manufacture consumables and fuels from indigenous sources?

Or do we just want to better constrain our theories of the origin and history of Mars?

I think you'll all agree, the amount of money needed to achieve the goals associated with the various broad-brush strategies I mentioned above vary just as wildly as the strategies.

Anyone care to guess how long it will take for the American government (or any government, for that matter) to agree on, and commit to, any of these strategies? Or how long any government will remain committed to any of them?

Until that happens, scientists and engineers have to keep playing the best games available to get *any* missions designed, developed, built and flown. I can't fault anyone for seeking out any and every means possible to get that done.

When NASA, or ESA, or JAXA, or anyone else can show that they can not only agree on a strategy but stick to such a strategy for more than two or three years at a time, I'll agree with you two. Until then, I suppose we'll just continue along doing things the old-fashioned, chaotic way.

-the other Doug