The FY2006 budget is still far from complete, but JPL has already seen the writing on the wall. The Pasadena Star-News reports that JPL has enacted a lab-wide hiring freeze, the first in recent memory at the lab, anticipating a five to eight percent cut in its FY06 operating budget. Lab officials said they will be feeling the effects of the cancellation of JIMO and Mars Telecom Orbiter, both announced earlier this year.
JPL was responsible for many of the successes that Bush cited in the VSE speech. Punish success, reward failure.
What success? Do we know whether there is life on Mars? Do we know any of the absolute dating record on Mars? Do we know what the core is like and the evolutionary history of the planet?
After well over a billion dollars and years of effort, we do know that there was once standing water on Mars, that there was violent volcanism at the Spirit landing site, and a few elemental measurements. I don’t want to belittle these accomplishments, but what we’ve done is some initial reconnaissance. We have very, very little scientific success to show for JPL’s efforts and money.
— Donald
I would have to disagree Donald; JPL has been successful in implementing its Mars missions. If those missions are not exactly what you believe they should be, that is a different matter. Personally I think they’re been good missions.
On the issue of a hiring freeze, that is all it is. The way some moan over this you would think JPL was shutting its doors.
I agree that the execution of the rover mission has been phenomenal.
However, Greg has consistently implied that scientific results should be the measure of the Space Station, and by extension, of the human space program. Engineering success alone does not cut it. If so, that measure should also apply to JPL’s projects.
— Donald
Sorry to see that happen, but at least NASA is going to do more than send buggies to Mars..
I certainly don’t believe that science alone should be the primary driving force behind the US space program, manned or unmanned. But I do think the Mars Rovers, as well as various orbiters, have been scientific as well as engineering successes. The orbiting craft don’t get as much press as the rovers but they will possibly have more bearing on a future manned expedition to Mars than will any lander. Orbital reconnaissance has already picked out some areas that could very well hold resources that would make a manned base on Mars much more feasible. I don’t know of any such discovery by a lander.
Donald: No, I don’t think that scientific results should be the measure of success of the space station. NASA claims it as the measure of success of the space station. Kay Bailey Hutchison claims it as the measure of success of the space station. But I don’t, because I don’t think that there is any measure of success of the space station. Science is the one measure of success that is the easiest for NASA to distort and for Kay Bailey Hutchison (and others) to misunderstand.
But for other reasons, I agree that science should be a main measure of success of the JPL science missions. And I will even concede that the Mars landers are somewhat overblown. I do not think that it’s quite fair to use the discovery of life on Mars as the standard of success, because I don’t think that there ever was any. The probes have found a lot of unexpected geology, which tell us something about the history of the solar system, and they have revealed a bit more evidence that there isn’t life on Mars. That is at least a modest success.
Besides, even if the Mars probes aren’t quite Fundamental Science, capitalized, they are very popular science, as the TV ratings proved. That ought to count for something. NASA’s human spaceflight doesn’t even do well on TV any more, except for launch, landing, and LOCV.
The real strength of JPL, which Bush didn’t properly explain, is the great diversity of its missions, and other unmanned space missions. Any one of these missions may look a little limited, but if you take them as whole, they are answering questions all over the map.
Kevin: I do not agree that NASA will do more then send buggies to Mars by cutting JPL’s budget. I predict that it will do less.
Obviously, I agree with Kevin and not Greg. By sending humans into the Solar System, we probably delay certain results, but the long-term results will be better in every quantitative and qualitative sense.
— Donald
At least as this was reported on NPR, the money saved will go into rehabilitating the Space Shuttle.
I too regard JPL’s work as a well-executed robotic precursor to a human Mars mission. Now that the Mars exploration baton is being handed to the human spaceflight folks, who are completely unprepared for a Mars mission, it vexes me to think that JPL is downsizing not to speed along those preparations, but to return the Space Shuttle to flight (again).
“At least as this was reported on NPR, the money saved will go into rehabilitating the Space Shuttle.”
Well, in that case I reverse my position. At this point in time, automated missions to Mars (especially if they are oriented toward the information we need to send humans) are far more important than “rehabilitating” the Space Shuttle.
I’d much rather see the money spent on the CEV, or even Cecil and Karen’s HLV.
— Donald
Apparently the Administration has found a way (other than simply pushing it off on our children and grandchildren) to at least partially pay for the various and sundry messes that need to be cleaned up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/14/AR2005091402654.html
Look at the final paragraph … nothing quite like wise stewardship and pay-as-you-go as seen by the current Administration.
Interesting. I note that there’s no attempt to touch the subsidies where the real money is, e.g., agriculture and transportation. Forgoing or making end users pay for, say, one or two large freeway interchanges would more than fund the VSE for a year.
— Donald
Military procurement spending is discretionary. Cut the F-22 and the Future Combat Systems program and there’s your $200bn.
The former is an expensive luxury some in the DOD set their heart on but in today’s world is unnecessary. The later program is almost pure pork with very little to show for it, every sign of continuing ad infinitum, and little hope of returning anything worthy of the massive investment.
End of problem.
Donald: We were on the same page when I said that people, and governments, that are deeply in debt often strip themselves clean of small luxuries. You can’t just nod to that as a criticism of Bush and then move on. The budget deficit is going to grind NASA down.
Incidentally Donald, we may have a rare opportunity at agricultural reform in the next year or two.
France and Germany are in the process of electing new (hopefully brighter) leaders, and Blair will be going after the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is every bit as stupid as the US system.
If the EU maintains the subsidies the US feels the need to as well, but there may be sufficient political pressure on both sides to scrap them at the same time… And the Bush administration did always say the best aid to the third world (who benefit from higher crop revenue) was via trade rather than corrupt government programs.
Greg: “You can’t just nod to that as a criticism of Bush and then move on. The budget deficit is going to grind NASA down.”
Huh? I don’t remember what I wrote — and cannot seem to quickly find it — that generated this response. I fully agree with you that the Bush Administration’s refusal to accept the results of basic Quicken skills is far more likely to damage or destroy the VSE than any other likely event or issue.
— Donald
—