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.
Budget

Gutting NASA's Planetary Research and Analysis Programs

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 4, 2014
Filed under , ,

The Obama Legacy in Planetary Exploration, opinion, Mark Sykes, Space.com
“Now, the Obama Administration is preparing to go after the seed corn of the U.S. solar-system exploration program: its planetary research and analysis programs. Actions to be implemented over the next couple of months will have their primary impact in 2015, when many planetary scientists (primarily younger members of the community) will be forced to find other employment and careers — and many will not wait. This loss of critical manpower and capability cannot be restored overnight. It will take a generation. … This restructuring is occurring at the direction of NASA Planetary Division Director James Green. There is no immediate need for it.”
NASA’s Starvation Diet For Planetary Science, earlier post
SMD Planetary Town Hall: Time For Planetary Scientists To Job Hunt, earlier post
NASA’s FY 2015 Budget Process Is About To Get Nasty
NASA Town Hall, AAS meeting, Tuesday, 7 January 2013, 12:45pm-1:45pm, Potomac Ballroom A

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

12 responses to “Gutting NASA's Planetary Research and Analysis Programs”

  1. savuporo says:
    0
    0

    Right. The organization as a whole has a lot of funds, even in the face of shrinking budgets.

    So if individual programs start feeling the squeeze who do we blame ? President ? Micromanaging meddling coming from congress ? Head of the agency ? Or the department heads actually who are the accountable decision makers here ?

    I guess everyone picks the scapegoat according to their prejudices or level of uninformedness.

  2. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    Wholeheartedly, I agree with Sykes Op-Ed. Separately, there is the issue of spending on SLS and Orion but the planetary science missions of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) are the crown jewels of NASA. The engineering accomplishments leading to the Apollo landings, to Space Shuttle and ISS are great engineering feats; with all due respect to the families of the 17 astronauts lost. However without the astrophysics and planetary science missions and all the data analysis and associated research, our view and understanding of our Planet, our Solar System, our galaxy the Milky Way, the Universe would be a shadow of what it is today.

    The NASA planetary science missions and the research and analysis are besieged by the budget cuts and also by lack of leadership. NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has failed to improve the order in the organization. The combination of extreme budgetary pressures plus the lack of leadership has led to the critical decisions that are at the heart of Sykes Op-Ed piece. The changes announced by Green are due to Obama’s unwarranted cuts and due to the lack of leadership at NASA HQ.

    Leadership. We should turn to Charlie Bolden and call to him to stop these changes by Green and order the Senior Review. There have been criticisms of Bolden’s lack of leadership and there is the interview in the Washington Post where he admits his shortcomings. This is his chance to partially redeem himself and give reason for his filling out his remaining tenure.

    Funding. The 2014 budget was only set at the highest level. An Ominbus bill will be needed to divvy up the $Trillion+Plus spending bill. President Obama and his advisers need to urgently reassess the allocations to Planetary Science and see it through into the Omnibus bill. During the Obama administration, mismanagement and cost overruns by JWST and MSL damaged the reputation of Planetary Science but Obama needs to take a step back and recognize the legacy and continued potential of Planetary Science and SMD as a whole. Also, these overruns pale in comparison to the pork barrel spending that has been a part of Human Spaceflight (HEOMD) for decades. It is also those big projects in HEOMD that have limited the resources available to SMD and at the same time has limited what NASA could do in human spaceflight. The funds and time expended by HEOMD were more than enough to land humans on Mars or build a Moon base. Instead, it took the Chinese to make the first landing on the Moon in 40 years.

    The public criticism, quite derisive by Sykes of Green’s actions are an indicator of significant splits in the planetary science community. These issues with funding and with re-organization are clearly not being handled behind closed doors. There is chaos and unilateral actions being taken. It is up to Obama and Bolden to step in and save this science community from the breakdown that Sykes explains will occur.

  3. MarkVSykes says:
    0
    0

    In times of limited funds, prioritization and good management is key. Different priorities will have different consequences. The recommendations of the recent NRC planetary decadal survey for prioritization in the context of lower than anticipated funding (our current situation) would have avoided the upcoming long-term negative impact on the US planetary workforce that is about to occur. Those NRC recommendations have been ignored.

    Poor management of limited resources bodes ill for how more resources will be managed. It makes it more difficult to advocate for additional funding. Ideally, the Administration will quickly get a handle on what is going on in the NASA Planetary Science Division before more damage is done. It reflects poorly on the Administration to allow things to spiral out of control.

    I recommend anyone interested in being informed by source materials to look

    at:

    Visions and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (National Academies Press, 2011).
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog….
    Note the top of page S-13.

    An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (National Acadamies Press, 2010)
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog….
    The initial analysis required to consider a restructuring of research programs may be found in Appendix C (Traceability of Mission-Enabling Activities from Strategic Goals). This exercise has not been undertaken. An initial unfunded effort to do so by the NASA Planetary Science Subcommittee was abandoned once the scope of the task was recognized.

    Assessment of the NASA Planetary Science Division’s Mission-Enabling Activities (NASA Planetary Sciences Subcommittee, 2011)
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss
    Note the last paragraph of page 1. Jim Green likes to quote its third sentence. Read the rest of the paragraph.

    Additional relevant documents and surveys may be found at
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/PSD

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Thank you for speaking up loud and clear. Hoping that more voices join – as Lori Garver just did a few days ago

  4. MDAT says:
    0
    0

    Planetary science is dying by budget cuts. Simple as that. There is a lack of leadership when It comes to space.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      According to the article, its dying from mismanagement and decisions made behind closed doors much more than budget cuts.

  5. Eli Rabett says:
    0
    0

    Science has always been the stepchild. Did something changes?

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    NASA was created to send a man to the moon for purposes of national prestige. The science mission has existed since Explorer 1, but was always an added-value rationale, a “nice to have”, not the primary driver for political support. If planetary science wants to take the role of primary mission it must build much stronger political and public support for taxpayer funding of science. The Planetary Society has made a start at this, but only a start. This would be a good time to form a coalition with commercial spaceflight, aeronautics, and technology development to support a new, more rational prioritization of resources across NASA.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      Vulture4 posts:
      NASA was created to send a man to the moon for purposes of national
      prestige. The science mission has existed since Explorer 1, but was
      always an added-value rationale, a “nice to have”, not the primary
      driver for political support.

      Opinions on this site vary by personality and preference and maybe even self interest. NASA is what you want it to be appears to be the point here. Keith and a large group is a big non SLS, others, do not find value in planetary science. Others find no value in earth science. SO, so much of the arguments about expensive robot trailers or wasted money on meet and greets (forget the question of all the NASA travel budget), keeps us mired on topics that have such little value, that big issues get lost. Thanks for the reminder of how this whole ting started Vulture4. So then it IS MARS then and maybe if we got on that boat, we would reach at least one target with the money available. First Moon, now Mars. Just a simple straight progression for a simple minded person.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Don’t get me wrong. I think science is more important than geopolitical “flags and footprints” missions. I’m just saying that sciece advocates need to build public support for taxpayer financing.

  7. Todd Martin says:
    0
    0

    Mark Sykes objects to both Mars2020 (Mars Rover with sample cache) & ARM (Asteroid Re-direct) as misguided since they did not receive “external review” & priority. It is no coincidence that the “external review” model he cherishes is incompatible since both missions are designed to benefit both Science objectives & Human Spaceflight programs. If NASA administration is so untrustworthy as to need “Senior Review” of its strategic planning by 3rd party “Experts”, then the participants of that review must be comprised of members beyond Planetary Science. The review must also include stakeholders across the programs the project is intended to serve. The silo approach to program management is wrong and needs to change.

  8. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    This problem has an easy solution: terminate the JWST.

    Oh what’s that you say? You don’t want to do that? Okay, well you made your bed, time to lay in it.

    Seriously, SMD pleading poverty in the age the James Webb Space Telescope, which is still “space science” even if they don’t directly manage it anymore, while it is devouring space science is beyond the pale. A budget is by it’s very nature, a list of priorities. JWST is the priority. That means other things aren’t. That’s really all there is to it. Maybe people should have been more concerned about the loss of a a generation of experience before they kept pushing for their $8.9 billion albatross.

    This is what it’s like to be in the middle of a crisis, rather than looking at one ahead. Cassini? It’s been fun. WFIRST? See you late next decade. You can stick a fork in Mars too. All because the JWST has gotta fly. The story of SMD on this site has been one of wanting their cake and eating it too. Sorry. That simply isn’t happening.