Of NASA and Budgets

Fine print: While I receive funding from NASA for some of my work, this blog post written by me as a private citizen.

Today was the NASA Town Hall; that 1 or more hour window of time when some official from NASA stands at the podium and tells us how NASA will grow or crush our dreams. The very first NASA town hall meeting I attended was in 2003, at an LPSC meeting very much like the one I’m attending now, but that was a different economic time. It was actually the same week that we started bombing Iraq after 9/11. At that NASA Town Hall a woman whom I don’t remember stood up and outlined how over the next 10 years everything the planetary sciences field asked for in their Decadal Survey planning document was going to be built and flown. It was glorious. For every science goal, there was a planned mission.

That was 2003.

It is now 2012.

Tonight, Steven Mackwell, director of the Lunar & Planetary Institute, opened NASA night by saying it was going to be a “Colorful” evening. He then turned the microphone over to John Grunsfeld, former NASA chief scientist, former Hubble repairing astronaut, former deputy director at the Space Telescope Science Institute, and current Assoc. Administer of NASA in charge of the Science Mission Director.

Grunsfeld is kind of a superhero for most of us. He was a scientist. He fixed the Hubble. And then he did some more science. Now he’s fighting the good fight to try and make sure all of us can do even more science.

Tonight he had the distasteful job of going over the budget with us. “Here’s the NASA budget. None of these numbers are new,” he said. And then he made it clear he doesn’t like it either, “The budget got whacked… Am I allowed to say whacked?” At the end of the day, the problems came down to a lack of paying it forward. Normally, when one mission goes from planning and construction (expensive) to operations (cheap, comparatively) its budget is reinvested into a new mission, paying the science forward and letting new ideas and new missions get a start. This year, when Mars Science Lab launched, and with Ladee nearing launch, we should have seen their budgets reinvested. But we didn’t.

Last year, at LPSC, the decadal survey was released, and things looked bad, but this year, the actual budget is significantly below our worst-case scenario. Planetary Science , this community in particular, saw a 20% budget cut. As was pointed out during the Q&A by Karl Mitchell (JPL), those 20% represent jobs, and there are already people pre-emptively leaving the field ahead of projected layoffs. What a lot of people don’t realize is these cuts will most deeply impact the youth in our field. Many senior people who normally can find funding for themselves and a small fleet of postdocs and students will now just be funding themselves. It’s hard. It’s ugly. Especially when we work so hard to get people to get educations in this field.

Grunsfeld tried to explain where this mess came from. NASA as a whole is pretty much in a flat budget situation. The running joke, as Grunsfeld pointed out, is “Flat is the new up.” You hear it everywhere. But, as Grunsfeld continued (paraphrase) “That is belittling.”

But in this economy, it may also “somewhat mean that we are valued.”

In other words, it could have been a whole lot worse.

NASA has been here before. In that lull between Apollo and the Space Shuttle, between the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz Mission and the 1981 first shuttle launch, we saw ourselves faced with no way to get a man into space. Budgets were tight, the gas crisis had people waiting for hours for gas, and Silicon Valley was just starting its first big boom.

Today, we can get people to space, at the cost of $63 million or so aboard Russian rockets. It’s a solution. Today, we don’t know when we’ll next fly our own NASA rocket, but SpaceX will probably be launching people in a couple years. Budgets are tight, but while gas is stupid-expensive, there aren’t lines. And, well, Silicon Valley is starting to boom again.

We’ve been here before. We just need to brace ourselves for the turbulence.

The president’s budget drops NASA’s entire budget to less then 0.5% of the US budget. This is the lowest percentage we’ve had in decades, and the lowest dollar total we’ve had in a while.

In order to survive, we need to prioritize. Well, not we. I wasn’t there. Actually, poor John Grunsfeld, the messenger we shouldn’t kill, wasn’t there either. He was hired after the budgets were set.

So here is how we got here. And I’m going to use provocative language on purpose here, borrowing from the Republican contraception debate.

NASA doesn’t want to abort or kill its young. This means, missions that are already in gestation – funded, in the process of being built, scientists and engineers actively employed in taking care of all the details – get first priority.

In the planetary sciences, we have two missions essentially in their third trimester: getting MAVEN and LADEE finished and launched is the highest priority. As Grunsfeld put it, “The most dangerous place for a spacecraft is on the Earth.” From problems due to gravity, dust, accidents, let’s repeat gravity, and, well, congress, lots of things can keep the mission from ever flying. It is better to launch something on a sub-optimal date (parking orbits exist), then to not launch. We need these missions launched. So… start the budget by funding them.

The next priority is the just conceived missions – Osiris-REX and the still being finalized next discovery mission (think of this as “the eggs are all fertilized, and now NASA is picking one for implantation”). These are missions were new hires are still being determined, and physical, flight ready equipment doesn’t exist, but there are fully fleshed out plans to get from here to science. The nursery has been painted, and it’s just waiting to be filled with the sounds of screaming rockets, and graduate students crying to be fed their data.

(ok, this is a lame analogy, but I’m trying to make a point)

Beyond this, priorities are making sure there is food on hand for future generations of missions, and food for spacecraft means developing the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Stirling_Radioisotope_Generator).

Then there is the matter of taking care of the children we have; there are a variety of missions still in their primary phase, flying strong and still working to solve their primary questions. Killing them would be like taking a gun to a toddler. You don’t even know what it’s capable of yet – it could discover anything. We need to let these missions see through their science missions.

And then we have the older missions that are still doing good work and requested time to go into extended phases. The committees that decide if we can fund these are essentially death panels that are enjoined to determine who is still employed 6-months from now to work on missions that are working and doing novel science. Think of all the things we wouldn’t know if back in 2004 the Mars Rovers hadn’t gotten an extension? (I’m sweating through one mission’s senior review, waiting to see if it gets carried forward).

Oddly, beneath all these plans is the need to maintain our international commitments to provide promised parts to other nation’s spacecraft. This feels a bit like deprioritizing our child support payments. We agreed with Italy to birth the Bepi-Columbo mission, and we need to hold up our side of that agreement, and provide the instruments and support we promised. We already betrayed our relationship with ESA by backing out of future Mars plans, now we need to see it through with Italy. The same is true with ESA on Rosetta, and Mars Express. We need to keep our commitments and try and re-earn the trust and re-build the relationships we have damaged. We spurned our co-parents, forcing hard choices on them that made the missions suffer. We need to try and repair these relationships.

Beyond this, we need to have a healthy Research and Technology development budget (think college fund), and we also need to start trying to repair the hole left in our hearts when congress aborted the Mars program. We need to move on, and start planning for our next try; planning our next attempt to have a Mars mission.

And when we’re done taking care of our existing children – taking care of our existing commitments – and when we’re done trying to secure our future energy and technological needs… when we’re done, there is simply nothing left. Not until someone figures out how to bring in more money.

You shouldn’t have another child if taking care of it would force you to murder an existing child, and with the NASA budget, finding funding for a new and novel missions would mean killing off missions in extended or primary operations.

This means, the normal calls for proposals for new programs and new missions are on hold. Calls for Discovery missions are moved to 2015, adding a 54-month gap to their normal every 24 month cycle. Calls for New Frontiers missions are getting pushed to 2016. The program I largely rely on, ROSES EPOESS grants, are skipping this year, and hopefully coming back out in 2013.

It’s grim.

And yet….

And yet Obama still plans to have a person on an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars by 2030.

And this is where the new paradigm comes into play. If NASA is going to send people to planetary bodies, the planetary science needs to be done to understand those bodies.

Modern planetary science is 50 years old. In 1962, Mariner 2 went to Venus and sent back our first in situ data from another world. Gone were the days of using telescopes on earth to stare at reflected starlight. We were there.

Today there are spacecraft orbiting Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Earth, the Moon, Mars, and Saturn. New Horizons is on its way to Pluto and Juno is on its way to Jupiter. To use net speak, we’ve used spacecraft to pwn the solar system. All you data belong to us. We have done all of this in 50 years.

Right now, the future looks really bleak. Budgets hurt. A lot. People are getting fired. We don’t know what the next new mission will be. We don’t know when the next mission will be. But with Grunsfeld and his colleague (and I’m guessing cohort) Jim Green, we know why things are the way they are, and we know we’ll be heard as we try and figure out how to keep doing great science with what we have.

One of the ideas that is floating around is the “We need to double NASA’s budget” argument. Neil deGrasse Tyson uses it. Someone used it today. My God that would be amazing if it happened, but it isn’t going to happen if we say we can only do amazing things if you double NASA’s budget. If someone comes to me and says, “I know you only pay $20/hr, and I’ll do a crap job constantly complaining if you give me $20/hr, BUT if you give me $40/hr then I might not complain, and I’ll do all these amazing things…” Well, that’s someone I’m not going to hire. The person I’m going to hire and fight for and find spare dollars and cool opportunities for is the person who comes to me and says, “I’ll take the job. I just want to do cool and amazing things. I can’t work every miracle, but I’ll work hard on what you pay me, and find ways to leverage others to build even better things then you can imagine.” That person, that is the person I fight for and increase the funding for. And NASA, in this moment, in these times of crisis, needs to demonstrate it can do amazing things today, and that it doesn’t need to wait for some flush future that I don’t see coming. If a lean NASA can inspire and innovate Congress will be able to believe that a fat NASA can build a fat portfolio of projects.

We’re in a trust re-earning stage. We’re in a post-shuttle stage. We’re in a stage of some amount of confusion. NASA needs to prove it still has its shit together – and it will.

But we’ve been here before, and we’ll make it as a field.

One key point I want to end on is the need to use what is happening today as a civics lesson. In our Astro 101 classes and in our Geo 101 classes we need to teach people how science and politics play together. People need to want NASA, and they need to be civically engaged, and they need to bring their want and their engagement together to let politicians know they want NASA to succeed.

NASA’s budget is in the grand scheme of things is nothing. McDonalds could easily fund a mission off their marketing budget. No big deal. According to Forbes, there are 38 individuals with personal wealth greater than NASA‘s entire budget. Oh, and the stimulus bill last year, according to Tyson, was more than NASA’s cumulative budget across history. NASA doesn’t get a lot of money. It’s not a lot – but with that not a lot bordering on nothing, NASA has pwnd the solar system with spacecraft.

We’re creative. We’re smart. As a field we will survive this mess. But not all of us. And I already mourn the students, post docs, and young people who may not survive. … And I recognize I’m one of the early career people, and I just hope I survive.

But on the worst of days, we need to remember, NASA pwnd the solar system. All the data belongs to us (and it’s in the Planetary Data System).

8 Comments

  1. Preston March 20, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    The thing that bothers me the most is bailing on the ESA on the Mars mission you mentioned. I remember a few weeks ago in one of your podcasts saying that planetary sciences taking the blunt end of the budget cuts and that manned space flight, education and earth studies came out pretty good.

    I understand the need for astronauts and a space vehicle, but perhaps we would be better off working with other countries versus competing against them. The Russians can get people to the ISS, let them do it while we focus on the planets.

    Personally I don’t think NASA should be in the education business. If that education portion of the NASA budget could fund NASA’s responsibility to the ESA on the Mars mission we pulled out of. I think NASA really needs to look at what it really wants to do as a mission statement.

  2. Andy R March 20, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    In two words: Yes, but.

    I agree with many of your sentiments. My first LPSC was 1993, and I’ve been through too many NASA nights where the agency was, simply, antagonistic to us. I remember being told “The S in NASA is not for ‘science'”, perhaps by Dan Goldin. The transparency of the last several years has been an antidote to years of mistrust and mismanagement.

    However, the way this budget cycle has been playing out is extremely disheartening. In particular, the claim that the NASA planetary budget priorities are in line with the recommendations of the Decadal Survey is demonstrably false and insulting to anyone who worked on (or even read) the Survey. I would rather we be told that the Survey is not binding on NASA and that they’ve decided that maintaining some Mars entry/descent/landing capabilities is more important to them than the Discovery cadence than be lied to that this is what we asked for.

    On a larger scale, planetary science is at a crossroads. One important community, the Mars scientists, seem to have more and more in common with Earth scientists as their datasets become richer and their investigations become more complex. Another important community, the extrasolar planet community, has yet to feel at home at planetary science meetings and is associated more with astrophysics.

    It would be devastating for the field if NASA (or the public) were to be satisfied that cobbling together a Mars mission line that nobody asked for (and that is decidedly _not_ in the Decadal Survey) and eventual JWST observations of exoplanets means “Nothing to worry about! Planetary science is OK!”

    We need to do a better job of communicating to the public and to Congress that there is more to planetary science than “looking for life”. But to do this is to recognize as a community that we need to advocate more for ourselves and recognize that we have a place in this process. We needn’t be spectators and we shouldn’t be spectators. We know more about planetary science than anyone, we should speak up clearly and forcefully to do what we can (while, yes, being realistic about what we can and can’t do).

    OK, I’ll give you your blog back. :)

  3. CM Levin March 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    You wrote: “One key point I want to end on is the need to use what is happening today as a civics lesson. In our Astro 101 classes and in our Geo 101 classes we need to teach people how science and politics play together. People need to want NASA, and they need to be civically engaged, and they need to bring their want and their engagement together to let politicians know they want NASA to succeed.”

    The NASA HQ library has a couple of fact sheets that may help:

    Science Policy

    Public Opinion of the American Space Program

  4. William Gordon March 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm #

    In a message of spirit. To all of those who have worked hard peering through telescopes on long tedious nights, often in very lonely places, to Nasa Scientists and Astronomers who created the most complex instrument in human history, the Rovers, to those who analyze the data for long tedious hours with computers, those who teaching in Universities to spread the knowledge so they can delve into the great mystery of existence and the Cosmos in the most exciting time in Human History for Astronomy, Physics and the new field of Cosmology, I give my praise and thanks.
    Now the budget cuts threaten the jobs and future of these glorious important endeavors for Nasa and those funded by Nasa.
    Hopefully if the economic crises passes, the needed funds will be
    reinstated. Perhaps the work can continue in the private sector also. Most of the people I believe, in these endeavors did not do so for fame and fortune, but because they believed in the scientific method and using technology to finds answers to the question of why we are here and what is this Universe we live in and the fact that Mankind will have to leave the Earth anyway in the far future and our need to explore. The data collected and theories being developed are in some cases the work of pure genius an very hard work without much personal, monetary or social status rewards which seems to be the case in much of our Society now. Many times they work in teams and with those in other societies creating optimism and hope for peace and cooperation instead of which Country can become the most powerful and wealthy.
    I hope the Mars Science Laboratory is funded and the Kepler Mission. They are already deployed. The US and Nasa led the World
    with the telecopes and robotic spacecraft in Space. It has been done and
    the knowledge gained is enormous. Future generations will build on and applaud these achievements as some of the greatest in History building the groundwork for future work and understanding.
    I try to follow as much as I can on Universe Today, Perimeter
    Institute, Seti Institute, Planetary, Nasa, ESA and many other sites on the Web to try to learn the theories and knowledge gained about the Cosmos
    we are a part of. I write music and learning about Astronomy and Cosmology have given me great inspiration, deep meaning and happiness.
    It is a shame our society is now dedicating so much of its resources to become wealthier and more powerful with overwhelming emphasis on comfort and profit to build and buy
    things that are not needed and are meaningless compared to the wonders of nature and the Cosmos of which we are discovering and desperately need for our well being.
    I thank all of those who worked so hard in Nasa and other institutions for this advance in knowledge and hope Nasa will weather the economic storm and return to glory.
    Bill Gordon

  5. Stephen March 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    OK, so the NGST (i’m with the Japanese – name it when it launches) has consumed an extra billion or so. It comes from somewhere.

    SLS is eating a huge part of the budget. What’s the mission for SLS? How are they supposed to design it without a mission? Every time i hear about when it will first launch, it seems further into the future than the last time. It’s Saturn V like, but not a Saturn V. So, its R&D, not just manufacture. If you only go over budget by 2x, that’s good.

    Here’s a good mission for SLS. Launch an 8 meter IR telescope with a decade of coolant to Earth/Sun L2. Yes, a Saturn V could launch a 9 meter scope.

    This isn’t going out on a limb. I predict that the SLS will not send anyone anywhere. The joke used to be that since the Air Force trend was to spend more and more on fewer and fewer aircraft, that it would eventually just buy one. But with the B2, that’s essentially in the past now.

    ISS mostly wasted half a trillion dollars. OK, so now we know that zero G astronauts will likely go blind by the time they make it to Mars. Even if they make it home, their eyesight is unlikely to recover. So, we need gravity after all. Should we set up a Moon base with a centrifuge that gives you Mars gravity and find out how astronauts with a 1G ride to Mars will fare after an appropriate stay there? And what did ISS teach us about radiation protection? The official NASA mantra is that we’ll come up with some mitigation strategy, involving drugs. We’re going to have some great pill popping role models.

    Want real change? We’ve got to convince Congress that sending PhD’s to die in space is not how the citizens want to spend their money.

  6. Steve Locher March 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    Perhaps NASA should seriously develop the “Citizen Scientists” program, deeply organizing the surprisingly large amount of volunteers, and take it a step further and provide them with software to look for astronomical targets on private telescopes. Obviously they would go unpaid, however, they could be rewarded with public credit on published papers, websites and media releases, and offer them rewards such as private tours of NASA facilities or astronaut signed memorabilia. NASA does need to get creative, utilize the internet for both information, education and self-promotion, and take advantage of the world wide citizens who are willing to help for just a simple thank you. This won’t put rovers on Mars, but it could make a huge difference in available data, data analysis, and would greatly increase the interest in NASA and their role in science, knowledge, and society.

  7. Pat May 29, 2012 at 11:24 am #

    Gut instinct should be enough to provoke questionable alliances in having NASA shut down, and having to rely upon (presumingly “pay for”) Russian shuttles for space travel from now on after the 2012 split.

    This can only be a mistake in the long run; why must American taxpayers now pay Russia along with paying for faith based initiatives?

    Just where is the mind of America at this juncture in history?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Can NASA’s Planetary Science Budget Be Saved? - News of the day - March 21, 2012

    [...] of people don’t realize is these cuts will most deeply impact the youth in our field,” wrote Dr. Pamela Gay in her StarStryder blog. “Many senior people who normally can find funding for themselves and a small fleet of postdocs [...]

Leave a Reply