The Space Studies Board released a report this morning on NASA’s science programs, concluding that the agency is trying to do too much with too little money. “There is a mismatch between what NASA has been assigned to do and the resources with which it has been provided,” committee chairman Len Fisk said in press release. He noted that NASA’s planned cuts to its science programs in the FY07 and future budgets fall “disproportionately” on small missions and research and analysis funding. “These actions run the risk of disrupting the pipeline of human capital and technology that is essential for the future success of the space program,” Fisk said in the statement.
I had the chance to review an advance copy of the report yesterday on a flight to LA. The report has five major findings:
- NASA is being asked to accomplish too much for too little;
- There’s a lack of balance in existing programs, with too few small- and medium-class missions;
- Microgravity and life sciences programs have suffered “severe” cutbacks that could harm later plans for long-duration spaceflights;
- Costs for major missions have risen out of control, disrupting planning for future missions; and
- There has been a lack of involvement by the scientific community in the latest round of planning.
Going quickly through the report, it appeared that the committee didn’t pull any punches. For example, here’s their conclusion on the state of NASA’s planetary science programs:
The combined impact of these various factors will result in a solar system exploration program that for several years will appear robust to the outside observer, but is actually running on the investment of the past and will enter the next decade with nothing ready to fly, no technology base to support visionary initiatives, and an atrophy and erosion of the current talent base and infrastructure that make ambitious robotic missions possible. The space research community is witnessing a reenactment of the actions taken in the 1970s, when, after the start of Viking and Voyager missions at the beginning of the decade, no further planetary missions were put into the pipeline.
Let’s see what reaction this report gets from NASA—and Congress.
“The combined impact of these various factors will result in a solar system exploration program that for several years will appear robust to the outside observer, but is actually running on the investment of the past and will enter the next decade with nothing ready to fly…”
I don’t know about that. 2010 will see JUNO launch. 2011 will see Mars Scout 2, 2011 will see JWST, 2011/2012 will see RLEP2, 2013 will see MRO follow-up, 2016 will see MSL follow-up. And then there’s whatever Discovery missions get picked during the next couple AOs.
There are indeed *some* things we will be flying in the 2010-2015 window, and while there’s no Europa mission, Flagship, or TPF/SIM, it’s still better than the 1979-1989 gap in planetary science.
Another thing that is being lost in all the noise is that this situation was inevitable. At some point, now or in the future, you need to replace the Shuttle with something. If you are not going to completely abandon human spaceflight — which, for better or worse, is not in the political cards — there will be a period when you are developing a new human spacecraft while continuing to fly the Shuttle. Given that major increases in NASA funding are politically improbable, that means that there had to be a break in the growth in other projects. Once the new human infrastructure is paid for and running on operations costs, presumably that will free up money for a more traditional “balance.”
The growth in science spending during the Shuttle’s operations period has resulted in imbalance, in that the traditional balance between human and automated spaceflight has been weighted toward the latter.
The situation could have been much worse. Since the Administration has chosen one of the cheapest possible options for developing a new human infrastructure, the disruption to other accounts is relatively less than otherwise would have been the case.
The best option for automated science is to get through this period as quickly as possible, shut down the Shuttle, and look to the future human science that the new infrastructure will make possible.
— Donald
Alex,
You are overly optimistic on a number of your assumptions. JUNO has been delayed again (2011 or later, it is still TBD) and is being repeatedly robbed to pay other cost over-runs (DAWN being the latest but not likely the last). Both the Mars Scout and Discovery efforts are questionable, NASA is NOT obligated to fund anything beyond the Phase A studies so these are easily deferred/cancelled to fund over-runs elsewhere (see JUNO). JWST is a huge source of over-runs so I wouldn’t crow about that program and any MRO/MSL follow-up is just an idea right now, especially given the cost challenges MSL is already facing. Of course a change in NASA top management may significantly alter the terrain (yet again) within the next two years and ensures another round of redirection and wasted monies with little to show for it.
GuessWho: Of course a change in NASA top management may significantly alter the terrain (yet again) within the next two years and ensures another round of redirection and wasted monies with little to show for it.
Unfortunately, I think this outcome is very likely, especially given the slow pace of actually implementing the VSE and the way the scientists have been mishandled politically. It’s beginning to look likely that nothing of consequence will have been accomplished by the time Mr. Bush leaves office.
My favorite archaeology professor once stated that most great empires fail, not through invasion or physical destruction, but through an inability to make decisions and act on them.
— Donald
….Or trying to use one beloved solution for every new challenge, even when it fails, repeatedly.
Incidentally, I’ve been publicly wishing that the NASA science community would realize it’s JWST overruns eating their budgets for a year now. Science overruns don’t come out of the human spaceflight budget or anywhere else, they come out of the science budget. Perhaps the penny may finally drop this time.