In an editorial in this week’s issue, the journal Nature wades into the debate about funding for various astronomy missions within NASA triggered by NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s AAS speech last week. In that speech, Griffin warned that Congress’ decision to provide extra funding for the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)—the result of what he called “external advocacy”—could force NASA to delay or cancel a number of other missions. “I hope this is what you want, because it appears likely to be what you will get,” he said.
Nature spreads its criticism of the current process for identifying and funding missions broadly. Astronomers, the editorial argues, need to revise their approach to the decadal surveys that identify the highest priority missions, including the addition of a “use-by date”: “after a certain time, perhaps as little as five years, it is reasonable to ask whether a given mission is still the best way to achieve its stated goal.” Griffin, though, is warned to avoid the zero-sum arguments he used in his speech: “if astronomers thus threatened successfully lobby for a significant transfer of funds from human spaceflight to science, his position will be weakened” (So, presumably, would be the positions of human spaceflight supporters within Congress, who would fight any such shift.) And Congress, the editorial concluded, “should, when exercising its powers, open up a public debate on all the issues involved – which may often go beyond the merits of a single mission.”
Of course if astronomers lobby for such a transfer and lose–as I think likely–then it will be their position that is weakened.
Public debates are well and good but seldom give the desired results for many reasons. I would think that only space advocates, lobbyist and aerospace related companies would get involved in a “public debateâ€. Logic would dictate if we had an expert group with members from all space related fields including the miltary, the group in general would be able set priorities for the nation. Unfortunately past results of simular groups only show that the output from these groups either falls on deaf ears or the results are distroted by personal/special interest priorities. Money trumps everything and bureaucracy trumps logic. Congress has fallen into their old ways of setting high priorites and than not giving money to fund it. This isn’t in reference to the ‘No child left behind’ mandate, since I don’t think education money should come from the federal government. I think federal mandates, quotes and standards is another debate. This relates to only fed run programs. CAIB had said either fund the humman spaceflight at levels to meet the goals or cancel/delay it (paraphased) and I think this applies to all federal programs. Of couse a delay could cost more in the long run which should be understood before the program is delayed.
Is there good article/reference on space related spending by all governments? I haven’t been able to find one.
If I was a suspicious man, I’d suspect that JPL got Nature’s ear and gave them an incentive to write that editorial.
What the Nature editorial misses is that SIM got money not because “Congress” decided to intervene, but because the money was earmarked at the request of somebody acting on JPL’s behalf. This is what the decadal survey is supposed to prevent, which is why Griffin was telling the astronomers at the AAS to “police your own community.”
The Nature editorial writers don’t really seem to understand the process. They’re called _decadal_ surveys for a reason, i.e. so that they are not undercut after five years. That doesn’t mean that they are perfect, but the way to make course corrections is not to let anybody with a lobbyist insert their priorities at the head of the line.
John, you may have over looked the link in the editorial to
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451228a.html
Where they specifically identify Adam Schiff Representitive from Pasadena and the lobbying firm Lewis-Burke Associates representing California Institute of Technology as possible players in this farce.
It’s the conclusion about “used by” dates in the Nature editorial that is out-of-date. The third recommendation on page 3 of the 2007 NRC astrophysics mid-term report stated last year:
“NASA should recognize that ambitious missions could require significantly more than 10 years to complete, from conception through technology readiness and launch. NASA should insist that future decadal surveys specifically include in their prioritizing deliberations those projects carried over from previous surveys that have not yet entered development (NASA Phase C/D or equivalent).”
See (add http://):
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11828&page=3
The community has already asked for a “used by” date in future decadal surveys. It’s somewhat sloppy editorializing for the Nature writers to not do a little research and find out that this was a non-issue before putting pen to paper.
“What the Nature editorial misses is that SIM got money not because “Congress†decided to intervene, but because the money was earmarked at the request of somebody acting on JPL’s behalf.”
Actually, the SIM funding does not constitute an earmark. It’s a Congressional increase to an existing, competed program that the Administration has requested funding for. It’s not an uncompeted, site-specific project for which the Administration has not requested funding. (The latter is an earmark.)
“This is what the decadal survey is supposed to prevent, which is why Griffin was telling the astronomers at the AAS to ‘police your own community.'”
Griffin is as much, if not more, to blame for this situation than the community is. Not only did Griffin cut a lot of space science activities (including SIM), but he went back on a promise not to do so (“not one thin dime out of science”) and he did so without consulting with the relevant communities about what their priorities are within a smaller budget.
It’s one thing to cut science (or any other) programs. It’s another to break promises to the science (or any other) community. And it’s yet another thing to arbitrarily cut activities without conferring with the community about priorities within the reduced budget.
If I was advising the astrophysics community, I would tell them that the Administrator’s past actions clearly demonstrate that they need to look out for their own interests. It’s little wonder if the astrophysics community no longer trusts Griffin and is circumventing him by lobbying Congress directly.
“That doesn’t mean that they are perfect, but the way to make course corrections is not to let anybody with a lobbyist insert their priorities at the head of the line.”
“…in this farce.”
Whatever lobbying led to this increase is arguably just resetting astrophysics priorities to what they were before Griffin’s cuts. Whether the astrophysics community will be able to afford continued SIM development or will choose to pursue a lower-cost or more capable alternative in the future remains to be seen. But SIM has appeared as a priority mission in prior decadal reviews. It’s not a “farce” from out of left field that’s getting randomly inserted “at the head of the line”. It’s a mission has a long and well-documented justification and heritage.
“Of course if astronomers lobby for such a transfer and lose–as I think likely–then it will be their position that is weakened.”
Lobbyists argue for increased funding for their priorities. They rarely, if ever, identify where the money is going to come from (that’s the job of the appropriations staff), and they certainly don’t identify offsets in other programs that would create enemies for their priorities.
That said, one could argue that human space flight lost out to space science at the margins this years, and thus the space scientists are winning the budget argument. For example, one could argue that part of the COTS cut paid for the SIM increase this year. It would be a false argument, because no such explicit trade-off was made. But there are winners and losers in budgets, and space science won at little more than requested this year while human space lost little less than requested.
Of course, in the big picture, human space flight, at $11 billion and growing, is still well ahead of the $4 billion and flat space science budget.
FWIW…
John, you may have over looked the link in the editorial to
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451228a.html
Where they specifically identify Adam Schiff Representitive from Pasadena and the lobbying firm Lewis-Burke Associates representing California Institute of Technology as possible players in this farce.”
Actually, I stand by my statement. The editorial itself is oblivious to the fact that this was not a decision made by the full Congress or in deliberations of the relevant committees. The editorial implicitly accepts that Congress _should_ intercede and inject projects into the queue. The Nature editorial demonstrates that its writers don’t understand the way the decadal survey process works.
“That doesn’t mean that they are perfect, but the way to make course corrections is not to let anybody with a lobbyist insert their priorities at the head of the line.”
“…in this farce.”
“Whatever lobbying led to this increase is arguably just resetting astrophysics priorities to what they were before Griffin’s cuts.”
You need to be more careful. You cut two quotes from two different posts (one mine, the other not) and responded to them both as if they were written by the same person. Don’t put people’s words in the wrong mouths.
That said, you are also wrong in your statement that this action concerning SIM is “resetting astrophysics priorities to what they were before Griffin’s cuts.” The next priority after JWST is one of the Beyond Einstein missions. Last year the National Academies evaluated the BE missions and selected one of them:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12006
SIM was _not_ next in line, and in fact, now that it has been elevated by a lobbyist, this runs the very real risk of rendering all that effort to decide upon the next mission after JWST moot. Contrary to what some on this board wish, not every problem can be laid at Mike Griffin’s feet.
But why not simply give up on the science priorities establishing system (that has worked well for four decades) and turn this all over to the lobbyists?
(Answer: because that would be bad.)
“You cut two quotes from two different posts (one mine, the other not) and responded to them both as if they were written by the same person.”
My apologies. I am guilty of replying to two separate posters with the same comment.
“The next priority after JWST is one of the Beyond Einstein missions.”
As much as I like the Beyond Einstein missions, this statement is inaccurate and the reference provided is non-relevant. That report only prioritizes the Beyond Einstein missions, i.e., JDEM is first among Beyond Einstein mission but not among all astrophysics missions. (V/IR astronomers, for example, would have something to say about that.)
“Contrary to what some on this board wish, not every problem can be laid at Mike Griffin’s feet.”
Agreed. But Griffin’s actions — going back on commitments to the community and not seeking (or just following) community inputs on what priorities should be within a smaller budget — are a major factor, if not the overriding factor, in the astrophysics community going directly to Congress.
“But why not simply give up on the science priorities establishing system (that has worked well for four decades) and turn this all over to the lobbyists?
(Answer: because that would be bad.)”
Again, agreed. But again, to enforce priorities, both sides (Griffin or other NASA managers and the relevant science community) need to respect established priorities and relationships. Griffin has done neither when deciding what to cut in the science budget.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
“As much as I like the Beyond Einstein missions, this statement is inaccurate and the reference provided is non-relevant. That report only prioritizes the Beyond Einstein missions, i.e., JDEM is first among Beyond Einstein mission but not among all astrophysics missions. (V/IR astronomers, for example, would have something to say about that.)”
Do some more research. This is wrong. NASA commissioned the report precisely _because_ BE is next in the queue and they had five missions to select from. JWST (hopefully) hits peak funding this year. After that, a funding wedge is expected to open in the NASA budget and NASA budget docs showed that funding wedge going to a BE mission. You can look that up.
NASA is currently flying a V/IR observatory (Hubble), an IR observatory (Spitzer), an X-Ray observatory (Chandra) and is developing the far-IR observatory (JWST). BE is next in line, but NASA had a bunch of missions, some of which are being pushed by the Department of Energy, and it had to select one. They asked the NRC to assemble a committee to prioritize those missions and the report does that. NASA and the science community did not plan for SIM to be next in line for funding, which is what Griffin was saying and what he is telling the community to enforce.
One possible outcome from the SIM augment is that the JDEM call for proposals will end up only funding pre-phase A studies (even though this was already done two years ago). It would give some of the proposing team some vapors to burn until getting the new-starts budget back in order in FY09.
From the committee’s statement of task:
“Assess the five proposed Beyond Einstein missions (Constellation-X, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Joint Dark Energy Mission, Inflation Probe, and Black Hole Finder Probe) and recommend which of these five should be developed and launched first [emphasis added], using a funding wedge that is expected to begin in FY 2009.”
That funding wedge is opened by the expected decrease in budget required for JWST.
It is worth noting that this study was in some ways kicked off by the same maneuver that JPL has pulled with SIM: congressional language directing NASA to do something. That was a result of the fact that DoE was funding a mission that required NASA support and NASA was not funding it. So somebody at DoE talked to their congressman and got language inserted into a bill directing NASA to do the dark energy mission (a DoE mission under consideration for the Beyond Einstein program).
The problem there is that whereas NASA follows the advice of the decadal survey, the DoE as a government agency barely knows what a decadal survey is. They are not primarily a space agency, and they are not used to competing their science projects. So this created a dilemma for NASA, because the agency had planned on conducting its own evaluation of the missions in the Beyond Einstein program and picking one, and now Congress was forcing NASA’s hand.
NASA sought higher-level intervention (OSTP–see the report’s introduction) and the result was to get the National Research Council to conduct a study to select a Beyond Einstein mission. The fact that the committee ultimately selected the mission that had been in the original legislation was (for the most part) coincidental. If you read the report, one of the factors in selecting the JDEM mission was not simply that it was the most doable of the missions, but that DoE had already expressed interest in partially funding it. Put another way, if the committee had selected one of the other BE missions, all that money would have had to come out of NASA’s budget alone, but by selecting JDEM, some of the money comes from DoE’s budget. The astronomers on the committee logically concluded that two funding sources are better than one.
Now something similar could happen with SIM. But the problem is that right now SIM is breaking out of its cage and stomping all over NASA’s astronomy plans, shoving everything else off the cliff. Considering that this recently happened with JWST, naturally many astronomers may not want it to happen again.
“Do some more research.”
I don’t mean to be snotty, but it’s not my job to do your research. Feel free to offer evidence to support your claims. But don’t make a claim and then argue that it must be true because I have not done enough research. You’re responsible for your arguments, not me.
SIM was endorsed by the entire astrophysics community in not just one, but two Decadal Surveys. From the 2001 Survey:
“The committee reaffirms the recommendations of the 1991 Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee (NRC, 1991) by endorsing the completion of… the Astrometric Interferometry Mission (now called the Space Interferometry Mission, or SIM).”
See (add http://):
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9839&page=4
JDEM, by comparison, is endorsed by only a segment of the astrophysics community, in only one document, and that document is limited to consideration of the Beyond Einstein queue of missions only.
In between each Decadal Survey, the NRC will publish a number of reviews by segments of the astrophysics community on any number of various astrophysics topics. But a publication on one topic does not trump the mission priorities set by the entire astrophysics community across the entire astrophysics enterprise in the Decadal Surveys.
“NASA commissioned the report precisely _because_ BE is next in the queue”
Evidence?
“JWST (hopefully) hits peak funding this year. After that, a funding wedge is expected to open in the NASA budget and NASA budget docs showed that funding wedge going to a BE mission.”
JWST does hit peak funding at about $555 million in FY 2008. But Beyond Einstein does not ramp up until FY 2010. See links at (add http://www):
.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
The direct causal connection you’re drawing between the budgets of these two programs does not exist and it’s certainly not supported by the figures in the FY 2008 budget request.
“You can look that up.”
Again, it’s not my job to do research in support of your arguments.
And when we do go to the budget figures, they don’t support the causal connection being drawn between JWST and JDEM. Beyond Einstein does not ramp up (FY 2010) until two years after JWST peaks (FY 2008).
“From the committee’s statement of task… That funding wedge is opened by the expected decrease in budget required for JWST.”
The quoted statement of task says nothing about JWST, and again, the budget figures don’t support the causal connection being drawn.
“NASA is currently flying a V/IR observatory (Hubble), an IR observatory (Spitzer), an X-Ray observatory (Chandra) and is developing the far-IR observatory (JWST). BE is next in line,”
The logic in this spectrum argument does not follow. Every concept for JDEM (ADEPT, Destiny, and SNAP) is a near-infrared/optical telescope. By this list, which is 75% populated by infrared/optical telescopes, Beyond Einstein should not be next in line. Under a spectrum argument, the opportunity should be going to a telescope in a different part of the spectrum, not JDEM.
“It is worth noting that this study was in some ways kicked off by the same maneuver that JPL has pulled with SIM: congressional language directing NASA to do something.”
This _is_ an accurate statement. The timing on Beyond Einstein is not community generated but driven by DOE and Congressional externalities.
Again, I support Beyond Einstein and JDEM as much as I support the Astronomical Search for Origins and SIM. And I’m not claiming that SIM is affordable within the budget.
But to claim that the community has decided that JDEM is next in line because of one report authored by only a segment of the astrophysics community that was limited to consideration of Beyond Einstein missions only — or because the Beyond Einstein program is scheduled to ramp up two years after JWST — is false. JDEM’s schedule is driven by DOE and Congressional externalities that do not reflect the priorities set by the astrophysics community as a whole.
SIM, however, has the endorsement of not just a segment of the astrophysics community, but the entire astrophysics community, and not just in one, but in two, prior Decadal Surveys.
And getting back to the original point I was making, this is just one example of the community’s carefully and painfully constructed priorities that Griffin has upset by cutting science programs without consulting the community about what programs should have priority in a reduced budget. Had Griffin consulted with the community, there would be no need for the community to go around Griffin to Congress. But Griffin didn’t do that, and so the community is going to Congress to police Griffin and reset priorities in the agreed-to order.
FWIW…
A small but interesting point you’ve both missed is that a few years ago, after SIM’s two Decadal endorsemets, it was in the budget “queue” ahead of JWST. In a surprise, non-transparent, non-community-based process, a decision was announced to set SIM back ( in spite of rigorously prepared and reviewed technology efforts) and put JWST on a path ahead of SIM. The original “deal”, undoubtedly never documented, was that JWST would start up in the wedge opened when HST shut down. So, various forms of lobbying have always been and undoubtedly will always be embedded in the human condition.
wow ))
its very reasonable article.
Nice post.
realy gj
thx