Congress, NASA, White House

OMB blamed for placing NASA’s Mars plans in limbo

It’s not uncommon for NASA to be on the hot seat in Congressional hearings, criticized by members of Congress for what the agency is or is not doing. Yesterday, though, at a hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee on the future of NASA’s planetary exploration programs, NASA was treated like a victim of decisions being made, or pending, by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

“On the one hand, NASA is actively seeking international partners to collaborate on future missions,” said subcommittee chairman Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in his opening statement. “On the other, the administration appears to be interfering with the agency’s efforts to reach out and engage foreign governments in future flagship missions.”

That alleged interference is a reference to the current state of limbo that NASA’s cooperation with ESA on 2016 and 2018 Mars missions is in, after NASA had to back out of an agreement to launch ESA’s 2016 Mars orbiter. The concern of committee members, and the planetary science community, is that OMB may treat those missions, and other large “flagship” planetary missions, as a lower priority and not seek funding for them in future budgets. An OMB official, Sally Ericsson, program associate director for natural resources, energy, and science, was invited to testify but declined, Palazzo said. (Her name was added to the public list of witnesses for the hearing only about an hour before it started.) “I am not surprised but I find it regrettable,” Palazzo said of OMB’s decision not to appear.

Steve Squyres, the Cornell University planetary scientist who chaired the most recent planetary decadal survey, one that found that a Mars rover to cache samples for later return to Earth to be its highest-priority flagship mission, said he was confused by the current situation regarding support for that mission. “I’m perplexed, sir,” he said with a sigh when asked about it by Palazzo. “I sense within the agency a strong desire to do flagship missions,” he said, citing work being done to lower the cost of the 2018 Mars rover mission. “And yet, there’s no commitment being made. I’m perplexed.”

Sqyures said later he has talked with OMB officials about the future Mars missions and making a commitment to cooperate closely with ESA. “In those conversations I have been told the administration, at this current time, is not ready to make such a commitment,” he said.

Caught in the middle of this debate was the other hearing witness, Jim Green, the director of the planetary science division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. He described his role as the “advocate for planetary science” within NASA and the federal government, but acknowledged that his office and his agency have to work within “a difficult budget situation” that will require compromises. “Currently, OMB has not officially notified NASA of canceling Mars ’16 or ’18,” he said, adding that NASA meets with OMB “on a regular basis” on those missions and other issues. He later said that NASA is continuing to work with ESA on those missions based on the 2009 agreement between the two space agencies, and not because of any explicit approval from OMB.

On a separate subject, though, Green did offer a little bit of good news. Asked about efforts to restart production of plutonium-238, the isotope used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that power some planetary missions, Green said NASA was moving forward with the Department of Energy on those plans. “We’re on the path to do that,” he said, citing funding provided to NASA (but not DOE) in draft FY12 spending bills and cooperation between the two agencies. “Production could begin within the next couple of years.”

33 comments to OMB blamed for placing NASA’s Mars plans in limbo

  • Let’s see … On the same day Congress decides to butcher the NASA budget, they criticize OMB for worrying about Congress deciding to butcher the NASA budget.

    “It’s a mad house! A mad house!”

    — Charlton Heston, Planet of the Apes

  • Dennis

    I think a lot depends on what happens with the new Mars probe about to be launched. Should it fail, as did the Russan Phobos mission, then future Mars missions will most certainly be on the chopping block. Im really surprized but glad the James Webb Tele survived, at least for now.

  • GeeSpace

    It’s not really fair play to invite an official from the Office of Management and Budget (TOMB) with only an hour notice.

    Congress receives a Budget recommendation from the Administration (TOMB’s judgment or opinion included) but Congress decides. To say that TOMB has final approval would be funny if the situation was not so serious

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I think that this goes to reflect the fact that The Powers That Be just want a big rocket built for economic and prestige reasons. There is no interest whatsoever in funding any substantive utilisation.

    It all reminds me of the story of the Dreadnought-type battleship back before World War One. The Dreadnoughts were probably the most powerful pre-Carrier capital ships ever built. The problem was that they were also so expensive and so prestigious that it was actually financially impossible to use them and politically impossible to actually risk in battle. So, all the ocean-going nations of the world had several super-battleships that never left port.

  • amightywind

    Should it fail, as did the Russan Phobos mission, then future Mars missions will most certainly be on the chopping block.

    NASA’s Mars program is nowhere near as low as Russia’s moribund program. In the last 20 years Russia ability to conduct any mission has declined markedly. They are no longer a playa. But the risk of failure of these one off US Battlestar Galactica missions is a valid criticism. It highlights the lack of continuity of the US unmanned Mars exploration architecture. A follow on, modestly improved MSL should already be in the works for launch in 2 years. Squyres and the NASA team deserve great credit for the success of the Mars rover missions, but it is inexcusable that they are only being followed up 6 years later. I disagree with Squyres that a sample return cache is a high priority. It is a silly diversion for the geochemists. At this point in-situ material analysis by landers and rovers has a lot of mileage left. With the phenomenal discoveries and vistas revealed by the Mars Rovers, we need (lots) more of the same.

  • Space Cadet

    amightywind wrote “I disagree with Squyres that a sample return cache is a high priority. It is a silly diversion for the geochemists.”

    The Decadal Survey expresses the consensus of the entire planetary science community, not just Steve Squyres. In particular the consensus of the Mars science community (not just the geochemists) is that the next logical step for Mars science should be sample return.

  • NASA Fan

    Squyres hasn’t figured out yet that the word ‘flag ship’ is now DOA given the fiasco that is James Webb (which should be renamed the Barbara Mukulski Space Telescope)

    SMD will be avoiding the ‘flag ship’ tag for the next 10 years, as NASA is proving again it does not know 1) how to cost such behemoths or 2) manage them to cost and schedule.

    Smaller is the way to go; too bad for those of Squyres ilk who still think it takes big bucks to get a Nobel in Science.

  • Byeman

    “I disagree with Squyres ”

    Yeah right. You have none of experience or knowledge to even come close to having a relevant opinion on this.

  • amightywind

    Yeah right. You have none of experience or knowledge to even come close to having a relevant opinion on this.

    You’d be surprised. He was a few years ahead of me in grad school. I have a world of respect for his work.

  • amightywind wrote “I disagree with Squyres that a sample return cache is a high priority”

    We may have a first, I agree with him. I think we can wait on the sample return mission.

    Why? “Curiousity” hasn’t even launched yet, let alone landed and started the ‘follow the water’ trail. Mars sample return, 3 missions? How much? Is it really time for a sample return? Why not additional landers with on-site sampling? We are talking about a planet-wide landing zone here. Why not a Mars airplane overflight?

    http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/

    I would love to see ‘Ares’, (no not that Ares) take flight over the red martian terrain. The amount of land that the proposed Ares mission could cover would indeed then give the eventual positive nod for a sample return. And by that time, maybe the quote, “Landing on Mars is hard”, could be changed to “Landing on Mars is routine.”

    Gary Anderson

  • tps

    Odd but I agree with some of what Windy says too… We’ve should have launched more Spirit class rovers in the past six years. Change some of the equipment to search for biological items for instance. Maybe use a modified design for a lunar rover as well.

    How about this instead of a sample return mission: Land a couple of rovers that can carry back samples to a lander that has a larger lab system on board. That way you can do more sample testing without the complexity of a return mission. If you run across something really cool then you can bring it back. The US/Japan builds the rovers and the Euros/Russia the lab.

  • Byeman

    “We’ve should have launched more Spirit class rovers in the past six years. Change some of the equipment to search for biological items for instance. Maybe use a modified design for a lunar rover as well.”

    More MER cargo cult. MEr rover fly in other years is not viable. MER was a point solution only applicable to the planetary alignment that occured in 2003.

    A. There are very few instruments that can be supported by the low power provided by the solar cells.

    b. 2003 was a minimum C3 on a 16 (?) year cycle. MER would have required larger vehicle like an Atlas II if launch 2005.

    c. But still if launched in 2005 , the alignments would have caused a higher entry speed for which MER could not handle.

    Also, the MER landing system would not work on the moon.

  • amightywind

    Mars sample return, 3 missions? How much? Is it really time for a sample return? Why not additional landers with on-site sampling?

    I’d like to see Mars exploration go wider rather than deeper. The success of the Mars Rovers and the unbelievable landscapes revealed MRO provide the means to examine hundreds of new landscapes. One can imagine the Mars Rover missions massively duplicated, hopefully improved and cheaper. That’s why I find the MSL architecture so puzzling. Great, it will climb a sediment mountain. Can’t wait. But how aggressively can they maneuver? The Mars program will now be hostage to one vehicle. Wasn’t it nice to lose Spirit in the sand at Gusev, learn something about navigating treacherous terrain and still have Opportunity to apply the lesson? You don’t drive a new Mercedes in a demolition derby.

    Why not a Mars airplane overflight?

    Not a great place for gliders. A balloon experiment might be interesting.

  • Dennis

    They need to find a thermal vent and then dig deeeeeper then they ever have. Whether the sample should be analyzed on site, or after a return to Earth, I think there are better chances of finding life beneath the surface.

  • Dennis

    One other thing is if Curioity fails, I dont think U have to worry about a sample return mission any time soon!

  • GClark

    NASA Fan:

    IMNSHO you do Squyres a disservice. The Decadal is quite clear. In terms of actual missions, the priorities are Discovery class, then New Horizons. Flagships are to be done only if/as we have the money. Squyres has been very emphatic about this. He has publicly used phrases like “If you can’t afford it, you don’t do it.” Doesn’t sound like someone devoted to Flagships to me.

  • “Not a great place for gliders. A balloon experiment might be interesting.
    No not gliders, but NASA has done experimental flights of a plane of sufficient wingspan at alititudes equivalent to martian atmospheric pressure. Heavier than air powered flights on Mars with electric propulsion is one of the scenarios being considered as well as balloon flights.

  • E.P. Grondine

    No one from the NEO detection community has ever been asked to participate in these priority setting groups.

    My guess is that Mars is not the highest priority for NASA right now. My other guess is that NASA cooperation with DOE will become even greater shortly. But then I’ve been wrong before, and maintain the right to be wrong both now and in the future. (For example, a while back, I thought DIRECT/USA had a chance.)

    Aside from that, there is a tremendous immediate need to learn in greater detail exactly how the Earth’s weather works.

    I think Steve Squyres understands or wants to understand any of that.

    Its “funny” to me (but then I have a strange sense of humor) how none of you manned Mars flight enthusiast talk about turning Mars entirely over to the private sector, including the rovers.

    How much would any of you pay per month for real time 3D 1080 hi-def images from a rover going up Vales Marinaris?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Should read “I think Steve Squyres does not understand or want to understand any of that.”

  • NASA Fan

    @GClark

    Indeed,, Squyres is brilliant, and his service to the Decadal effort laudable. And Flagships are dead for another 10 to 15 years, arguments for balance between Flagships and Discovery/New Frontiers notwithstanding.

  • Aremis Asling

    “No not gliders, but NASA has done experimental flights of a plane of sufficient wingspan at alititudes equivalent to martian atmospheric pressure. Heavier than air powered flights on Mars with electric propulsion is one of the scenarios being considered as well as balloon flights.”

    Given the difficulty of putting anything begger than a golf cart on Mars, I’m awfulyl curious how they expect to get a plane of “sufficient wingspan” up there. Even with some devilishly clever folding, it would be absurdly complex and failure prone, a la the torn solar arrays on ISS. To give you an idea of what’s required, for a more standard Earth aircraft to fly in Mars’ atmosphere, most would need to fly at what would be roughly, in Earth’s atmosphere, Mach 3. It would require a runway several miles long. They may be looking at it, but I highly doubt they’ll pursue it much farther than concept tests. Balloons are a much more effective option on Mars.

  • Aremis dude, did you look at the link? did you watch the stage presentation?

    http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/

    Great technical comments highlighting the difficulties, but ‘they’ already know and are working your arguments (for) as you state (against).

    You can find presentations on utube videos as well.

    Gary Anderson
    (Yes I’m at work and little time for grandiose, flowering paragraphs I often see here)

  • “To give you an idea of what’s required, for a more standard Earth aircraft to fly in Mars’ atmosphere, most would need to fly at what would be roughly, in Earth’s atmosphere, Mach 3.”
    That depends on wingspan, lightness and thrust.
    http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/

    Here are the details:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/joel_levine.html

    Competence in physics (especially related to celestial bodies) is essential to my career and I would not post anything that was obviously flawed from that standpoint.

  • Coastal Ron

    Aremis Asling wrote @ November 17th, 2011 at 9:42 am

    Given the difficulty of putting anything begger than a golf cart on Mars…

    That’s because of the reliance on one-rocket transportation methods – everything going to Mars has to fit on one rocket.

    If you launch just the payload on existing rockets, then rendezvous with an EDS in LEO, you can get a 10,000 kg mass to Mars using existing med-heavy commercial rockets. And this scales up by using more in-orbit rendezvous and clustering departure stages.

    Although propellant depots would be useful for this type of thing, just doing in-orbit rendezvous of multiple stages would be enough to let you push much large payloads to Mars. If self-driving cars are becoming a reality here on Earth, bringing two masses together in space using robotic systems shouldn’t be that hard to master.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Okay, guys.

    Mars, Mars, Mars, Mars again this morning, as though that’s the only thing in space.

    But we’re already in space, 7,000,000,000 passengers on spaceship Earth. Right now, life support systems are functioning at the edge of their capacities, and we have some space junk headed our way.

  • ROBERT OLER

    A mars sample return is in my viw a poor goal. At best the return would be a few pounds from a single site..and when it proves out to prove nothing conclusive the mars folks will argue for something else to try and prove or disprove various things that are probably left for another generation Of course if it came back and had a microbe or two well that would be worthwhile but the odds of that a remote
    …this is not a worthwhile goals. RGO

  • amightywind

    Heavier than air powered flights on Mars with electric propulsion is one of the scenarios

    Mars surface pressure is about equal to that at 100,000′ on earth. Ever hear of an electric aircraft that flies that high? I thought so. Furthermore such a craft would have to stowed for launch and have a small enough, light enough power source to do the job, and then somehow deploy and takeoff on Mars surface. You aren’t thinking clearly. Most of you don’t.

    But we’re already in space, 7,000,000,000 passengers on spaceship Earth.

    It is believed population will grow to 15 billion and stabilize at mid century. I foresee plenty of resources for all and plenty of opportunity for profit, especially if we keep drilling the heck out of Spaceship Earth!

  • amightywind wrote “…and then somehow deploy and takeoff on Mars surface..”

    If you watch one of the many presentations you will find it never ‘takes off from the martian land’. Its powered flight begins immediately after descent from orbit.

    Further, testing has already occurred at high earth elevations equivalent to the altitude they are designing for Mars flight.

    (Even this non-techie can read).

    Gary Anderson

  • “Mars surface pressure is about equal to that at 100,000′ on earth. Ever hear of an electric aircraft that flies that high? “
    Mar’s gravity is only 1/3 of Earth’s, so a plane on Mars doesn’t need as much power in the same density of atmosphere. The record for an electric aircraft is over 70,000 feet rivaling many high altitude balloons.

    http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/Pathfinder/HTML/EC97-44138-1.html

    Considering Earth’s much greater gravity, flying at 70,000 feet would actually be tougher than flying on Mars, even with the air somewhat denser. I should have been more succinct and stated the plane went to an altitude where lift conditions would be the same or worse than that for Mars. But I was in a rush to get out the door to meet my wife.

    It is NASA scientists working on the problem who are claiming this can be done. I gave the links to that in my last post. If you disagree, then take it up with them.

  • amightywind

    Aremis dude, did you look at the link? did you watch the stage presentation?

    I just did. Thanks for the link to the physically impossible video simulation. Interesting. You pack an aircraft into the nose of a Delta 2, origami style, and it miraculously unfolds itself at high mach and starts flying. Brilliant. Would it using ‘impulse power’? You know that World of Warcraft is fake too, right? Oops. Sorry. Glad to see where some of my NASA tax dollars are going.

    high earth elevations equivalent to the altitude they are designing for Mars flight.

    I am not familiar with any 100,000′ elevation airfields on Earth. Can you tell us where it is?

  • “I am not familiar with any 100,000′ elevation airfields on Earth. Can you tell us where it is?
    Read my last post. You’re making a false assumption. You claim to be a software engineer, so you should be familiar with the trap you have fallen into known as GIGO.

  • Faster Higher

    I am not familiar with any 100,000′ elevation airfields on Earth. Can you tell us where it is?

    A JP Aerospace powered high altitude airship?

    No, wait, that’s a launch pad, sorry.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ November 16th, 2011 at 7:49 am .

    “It’s a mad house! A mad house!”

    — Charlton Heston, Planet of the Apes”

    Always a joy to see commerical HSF advocates seeking solace sourcing and quoting science fiction given their own efforts at an orbital flight remain in that realm. BTW the spaceflight in POTA was a government funded exploration- and even featured a scene with a national flag planted, not a banner w/a corporate logo. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Leave a Reply to amightywind Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>