This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Astronomy

Extending Missions, Operating Hubble Means Cuts Elsewhere

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 6, 2012
Filed under ,

NASA Astrophysics Urged To Slim Down, Aviation Week
“The SRC strongly urges the HST to consider all possible avenues, vigorously pursuing ways to accelerate cost reductions without compromising mission safety even if some science is not enabled,” the panel cautioned the Hubble team in the April 4 report that included the Kepler extension recommendation. “To keep HST operating while maintaining the overall balance of NASA’s astrophysics program, it will be necessary to seek further cost reductions, even at the expense of some observing efficiency.”
NASA Extends Kepler, Spitzer, Planck Missions
“NASA is extending three missions affiliated with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. — Kepler, the Spitzer Space Telescope and the U.S. portion of the European Space Agency’s Planck mission — as a result of the 2012 Senior Review of Astrophysics Missions. The 2012 NASA Senior Review report, which includes these three missions and six others also being extended, is available at: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/2012-senior-review.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

22 responses to “Extending Missions, Operating Hubble Means Cuts Elsewhere”

  1. gogosian2061 says:
    0
    0

    KEITH – Could you post a ‘link’ to the JPL ‘Press Release’ dated April 5th on extended mission funding for Kepler & Spitzer space telescopes, please – THANKS!

  2. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The astronomy budget is limited and it is really an NSF responsibility; one would think Hubble funding could be trimmed a bit at this point without hobbling it. But Hubble is still producing very useful science. As opposed to …. SLS/Orion??

    • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
      0
      0

      As opposed to …. SLS/Orion??

      You are confusing a jobs/votes program with real science.

    • Hallie Wright says:
      0
      0

      That’s a curious thought, that the astronomy budget is really an NSF responsibility. It’s hardly a novel one, though. In fact, Congress has assigned NASA responsibility for space astrophysics. Be aware that the Space Act, which defines NASA as an agency, doesn’t say anything about human space flight! But NASA does that anyway. So Congress can assign responsibilities as it sees fit.

      If you want to relieve NASA of responsibility for human space flight, probably ought to hand it off to the Air Force. If you want to relieve NASA of responsibility for astrophysics, the technology and engineering, as well as many of the science challenges, are probably better met by DoE Office of Science, rather than NSF.

      My frustration with this Senior Review is that no hard choices were made. Maybe no hard choices had to be made, but if that’s the case, then the Senior Review wasn’t really needed. This Senior Review seemed not to grade missions on a curve.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 2010, Section 20102 (d)(3) “The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space. “

        I would assume humans are living organisms. 

        Aeronautics is barely mentioned in the act yet there is vast detail on visitor center concessions. Neither astronomy nor astrophysics are specifically mentioned in the Act, though NASA is given authority to plan and conduct:
        “scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles”
        If the measurements are ground-based there’s apparently no indication in the act that NASA has any role, though as is often the case the reality may be different.

        Interestingly the Act also gives NASA responsibility for electric vehicle propulsion and solar heating, which one would assume to in reality be under DOE and for bioengineering for treatment of disabilities which in reality is done by NIH and VA. 

        Congressionally defined NSF activities in astronomical research do not identify whether the platform is ground-based or otherwise:

            (11) ASTRONOMICAL RESEARCH AND INSTRUMENTATION.—Anastronomical research program to support competitive, merit-reviewed proposals that—         (A) will advance understanding of—             (i) the origins and characteristics of planets, the         Sun, other stars, the Milky Way Galaxy, and         extragalactic objects (such as clusters of galaxies and         quasars); and             (ii) the structure and origin of the universe; and         (B) support related activities such as developing    advanced technologies and instrumentation, funding under-    graduate and graduate students, and satisfying other    instrumentation and research needs.

        Personally I think the nation would be better served by combining many of these activities under a unified Department of Science and Technology. The divisions by technology and discipline are artificial and inefficient.

        • Hallie Wright says:
          0
          0

          To the extent that we were discussing what NASA should be responsible for, the 2010 National Aeronautics and Space Act has little to say on the matter. That Act articulates what the nation should be doing about space, not what NASA should be doing about space. Just read it.

          I have no objection to our nation developing and operating vehicles that would send organisms (which I’m happy to assume can be humans) into space. I’m just saying that the Act that formed NASA did not explicitly give it that responsibility. This one doesn’t either. Congress gave it that responsibility later. Those are just facts.

          My point is simple. Congress has decided that doing astrophysics is something that both NASA and NSF ought to be doing. So when you say it “really is a NSF responsibility”, it doesn’t mean much. It happens to be a responsibility of two agencies, for what Congress sees as good reasons. That’s the reality, and it makes some sense. NSF has zero credibility in space architecture, especially of the cutting edge variety.

          Obviously the astronomical activities for NSF as defined by Congress don’t specify that their activities have to be ground based. They don’t say anything about mountaintops either.

          About a dozen years ago NASA and NSF were challenged by Congress to form a standing committee that would assess the coordination of astronomical activities of the two agencies. That committee, which reports to Congress, OMB, OSTP, and agency heads, now includes DoE. So while sharing responsibility for this kind of science by two agencies can be awkward, there are ways to make it work well.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Telescopes, as a breed, are very long-lived animals. Trickles of useful science still come from telescopes almost a century old, repurposed for new uses. As long as Hubble’s electronics hold out, it will be something that the astronomical community will want to hold on to and use.

  3. Robin Hood says:
    0
    0

    Were any operable science missions terminated?

  4. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    That’s all the SLS/Orion programs are, flash in the pan/vote solicitation jobs. Its like dangling a carrot before a horse so the horse can move. The administration is using these programs for their own benefit and if re-elected, they’ll be wilted down to nothing feasible. The James Web telescope is another,”money pit”. It’ll be used to drain funds meant for other programs.
    If the NASA funding is restored to the 60’s budget, that of .01 cent per U.S. dollar, adequate funding would be available for these programs. It’s that simple but the politicians are making it complicated and cost prohibitive. We only have ourselves to blame for this. 

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      The term “administration” is used carelessly here. SLS, the MPCV, and JWST all have the foundation of their support in Congress; worse, in certain states and districts. The executive runs these programs because Congress passed laws making it necessary, not because of policy originating within the administration.

    • newpapyrus says:
      0
      0

      The administration didn’t want the SLS/MPCV program. Congress forced it on them after the administration terminated the Constellation program without replacing it with anything.

      But of course, without a manned space program for NASA, Congressional  support for NASA would falter along with its budget.

      A  NASA with no manned space program of its own would become an easy target for a Congress that wants to cut wasteful government spending during hard economic times.

      Marcel F. Williams

  5. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I think that all concerned parties need to be real careful with this issue.  I think most of the public is both indifferent and uninformed with respect to most space programs, but Hubble is a little different.  For a short while Hubble was America’s sweetheart (apologies to Meg Ryan) and the man in the street was aware of it and all for it, largely because of the repair missions.  Combine the fabulous nebula photos, the fact that it was “saved” more than once, and the fact that it made the 11 o’clock news several times, and people who would normally never pay any attention to Hubble became aware of it and connected with it.  If the money allocators, or anybody else, were to cut Hubble funding to the point where it was discontinued, then odds are good that everybody involved would be reviled by a significant section of the public, without regard for who was actually to blame.

    Also, I think it would be good to make a greater effort to explain to people that the newer telescopes (finished or not) are not simply upgrades to Hubble that do the same things.  They each have their own capabilities and are not interchangeable.  I wouldn’t particularly care if the public understood this in any detail, just so long as they all repeat the argument that Hubble is unique, and that nothing is in place or planned to replace it and what it does.

    To my mind, it would be a shame, and institutionally suicidal, to cancel the one and only NASA/space program that common people have related to for more than 10 minutes during the last 30 years, especially since it continues to deliver large amounts of useful data day after day.  The only comparable situation is the MERs, and they’ve been extended more than once.

    A final point: I think the headline for this item is misleading. “Elsewhere” makes it sound like any/every NASA program is at risk of being stolen from. If I understand it correctly, the money for a program can not be made available to other programs by internal decision, but actually requires amended legislation to transfer from one program to another (Congress allocations are specifically for a program, not for NASA as a discretion-spending slush fund). Over there years, within NASA, Administrators have been known to “transfer” funding between programs and get away with it (ironically James Webb was the first perpetrator of record), but the precedent is that these transfers have been within a directorate/division. So, in theory, canceled Hubble money could not be spent on, say, SLS/Orion. In this time of increased oversight and scrutiny I can’t see this precedent changing.

    Steve

    • John says:
      0
      0

      You are missing the main point that I read into the Senior Review comments. That is, STScI is bloated and inefficiently managed for cost. This has always been true, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when most of the heavy lifting for HST has already been done.

      Let me provide more detail. STScI has always claimed that they needed to pay 100% of a scientists salary to spend 50% of his/her time working on HST (and the other 50% on pure research that might not having anything to do with HST); even the “HST” work was largely “make work.” The argument was that being a good scientist would pay dividends to tackle trick new instrument calibrations and new software pipelines. Well, all that stuff has been done and there won’t be any new instruments. So, why the need for hundreds of scientists who are being paid to do very little specific work for HST?

      Add on top of that the fact that STScI actually asked for “overguide” (more!) money in their proposal!

      That’s the point. 

      • solarpup says:
        0
        0

         To be fair to HST (and I’m not one usually to give them the benefit of the doubt), *all* missions were asked to provide two budgets: in guide and over guide.  What *would* you do *if* you had more money?  But reading between the lines, the message back to HST was pretty harsh: if we could hack you down, we would, so don’t even think about getting over guide.  (Several missions were recommended for some over guide funding.) Also, there is a verbal debrief with NASA officials immediately after the SR meeting ends, but before the report is written.  I don’t have any inside info on that, but based upon the language of the report, I would not be surprised if there were some very negative private words about the HST budget.

    • solarpup says:
      0
      0

       Steve, the issue is not that the Senior Review was in any way suggesting that Hubble be cancelled.  It received among the highest marks across the board (accept on publications/$ spent, where it’s near the bottom – rightfully so, since it is among the least productive in that category – go read Virginia Trimble’s 2008 paper on the subject).  It was suggesting two things: 1) that cuts could be made to the operations budget without serious harm to the mission, and 2) the HST budget was written so poorly and with so little explanation and justification that the panel couldn’t figure out what the hell was and wasn’t justified.  Having in the past been on the panel side and reading  HST archive budgets, I can say that both are unequivocally true.  A $3M cut in HST, for instance, would be hugely useful to all the small missions, and would not be noticed at all by HST if they actually tried to streamline and run efficiently.  I remember them previously budgeting *4 man years* to incorporate HST data into Google Sky.  At that point, Chandra had done the same thing, basically with one programmer doing it as a fun side project, in one man week.  That’s what the SR was referring to.  HST has gone for 20 years never asking themselves if they could do it faster, cheaper, better.  Almost every other flying NASA mission has proven that they can.  The SR was merely asking HST to finally step up to the plate in that regard.

      • Jonathan McDowell says:
        0
        0

         To be fair, one typical man week of the programmer in question is about 4 man years of the median employee. But I agree with your general point.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Ironically a large fraction, probably the majority, of the technology NASA has developed which actually provides practical benefits to Americans was developed with the very limited discretionary funds.

  6. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    I’m sorry but these comments are absurd. Sniping against SLS/Orion? Really Astrophyisics and Cosmology community? Shall we discuss how your own “next generation platform” (in the way the SLS/Orion is that with respect to Human Space Flight), the James Webb Space Telescope, has morphed from a simple “Hubble Successor” into the $9 billion Beast that Ate Planetary Science? Any time you folks bring up SLS/Orion, just remember, you have something equally as monstrous on your reputations. The nine billion dollar space telescope should never be built as a matter of principle. No matter what it discovers, it will not be worth the cost invested in it, and the cost of what science won’t be funded because such a telescope exists. 

    It really says a lot about how you folks operate that since day one, and likely through 2018, you folks without fail, have parroted how essential the JWST is to your line of work, because without it and without Hubble, you have nothing. Well, its rather amusing to me then, that every few years (most recently in 2011) the NRO launches KH-11 Kennan Hubble Clones, now with bigger mirrors and undoubtedly many more advacements, for less than a billion dollars. Good enough for them, but apparently, not for you.

    No, you folks don’t want a few upgraded Hubbles, each surveying different parts of the sky simultaneously. No, you folks want your own F-22, your own supertelescope, your own mega project, consequences be damned. That’s because your comments about SLS/Orion betray a simple truth, that this has nothing to do with science. It’s about money, and turf, and the principle of maximizing your slice of the pie. The SLS/Orion mess is just an easy target. The same stuff was said about the Space Shuttle, often by the same people, for years. I don’t blame you for that – the federal budgets squeezed, especially for sciences, who wouldn’t want a seat when the music stop? But be up front about your motivations. It’s not for “better science”. It’s for your careers. It’s for your livelihood. 

    A lot of people have forgotten the fools gold sold to everyone by the DIRECT brigade during the Constellation Era. Some of us haven’t. And just the same, some of us haven’t forgotten the lofty promises of cheaper, faster, better science from investment in robots and space telescopes over human space flight. Well, for the big flagship ones? I’d hardly call The overpriced and late MSL whose lifetime will probably be less than Opportunity’s and the 700%, 10 years behind JWST exactly making the case. 

    So frankly, instead of sniping against another important, but troubled (like your own), sector of space exploration, I’d seriously consider your failures. Because one day, around 2023 or 2024 your $9 billion science project will run out of fuel, and you’ll ask for a successor. And chances are, if it follows the development path that Space Telescopes have followed so far, it’ll cost $20 billion and be launched by, you guessed it, a Block II 130t-SLS to L2 around 2032. So the future of your field of study, beyond the mere $9 billion JWST, is likely inextricably tied to the very program you’d terminate for some real short term benefits.

    Think about it. 

    • hamptonguy says:
      0
      0

      Good points.  Cancel SLS/Orion, ISS, and JWST and start doing things that yield good bang for the buck.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        You list three programs. Only ISS is already operational and ISS support costs should drop considerably under CCDev and CCP. Why not set a goal of making it more efficient?

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      You make some good points I had not considered. My impression was that most of the money for Webb had already been spent but I am ignorant on this. I seem to recall the original proposal for a Hubble successor was much more modest, more of an evolution from the Hubble design, and that Dan Golden substantially increased its size and cost. I certainly agree that it seems a poor use of resources to only make one Hubble when the second would have cost far less.

      OTOH having seen quite a few launches I do not think even a 30m mirror in space is worth what it would cost to maintain the immense infrastructure SLS would need for the time that would be required. It would be more conducive to the evolutionary multiple-instrument strategy you advocate and less risky to carry a series of instruments up to the ISS in segments, assemble them with RMS, improved telerobotics and occasional EVA work, and keep them co-orbiting or ferry them to higher orbits with a SEP thruster. Hey, that’s what was being discussed as one of the primary Station missions back in the Seventies. (makes me feel old)

  7. cb450sc says:
    0
    0

    First, one of the above comments is not entirely correct: only certain programs within NASA’s budget are Congressionally line-itemed. The majority of science projects are funded under broad programs that can be adjusted/rebalanced by NASA.

    Second, I think this whole post misses what was really meant by that recommendation. The exact wording in the senior review in reference to HST is:

    “Because HST has the possibility of operation into the next decade, operations and science systems costs are a significant concern. The committee found the budget justification for these costs to be obscure and inadequate. ” (Section 3e).

    STScI has a staffing profile many times larger than any similar sister institution – this tremendous amount of manpower is the primary driver for why the lion’s share of the funding goes to them. My reading between the lines of this report (and I have read a lot of them at this point) is that the review panel made the strongest statement they could about this situation, namely that there was no explanation for the requested funding level. Factually, HST operations could be a whole lot leaner than it is.