American Astronomical Society Statement on Proposed FY 2015 Budget
“At a time when space science is one of nation’s brightest lights, delivering outstanding scientific discoveries and substantial public support, the President’s proposed 3.5-percent cut for NASA’s SMD is extremely worrying. We are particularly concerned by the 9 percent cut to the Astrophysics Division and the unanticipated decision to mothball a major mission outside the well-established senior review process. The AAS is also concerned about the imbalance within SMD given the inadequate funding for ongoing mission operations (including damaging cuts to major missions), flat or declining research and analysis grant funding, and the outlook for the Planetary New Frontiers and Heliophysics Explorer competed mission lines.”
Planetary Society Decries NASA Science Cuts – Calls on Congress to Support Planetary Exploration
“NASA’s planetary exploration is one-of-a-kind,” said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Society’s Director of Advocacy. “Our members know this, the public knows this, and we want to make sure that The White House knows this, too. We’ve had very strong support from key members of Congress, and we will depend on them once again to help preserve NASA’s leadership in solar system exploration.” Within two days of the Society’s call, more than 20,000 messages of support have been sent to Congress, once again demonstrating the intense public support for this key NASA capability.”
IMHO anyone who asks for more funding, even for something as essential as the NSF, should always say where the money should come from, either cuts in a specific program or additional taxes.
The following pie chart shows a breakdown of the requested NASA 2015 budget with comparisons to FY 2014 requested and actual allocations. Presently, the most relevant comparison is between the requested FY15 and FY14 numbers. In that comparison, the “sky is falling” for nearly every segment of the NASA budget except – Planetary Science, Heliophysics, Commercial Crew, SLS/Orion and Space Operations. Planetary Science which in effect has their own lobby group – the Planetary Society, is at present the big winner, percentage-wise but they will have to grovel but just less than last year to reach the desired $1.5 billion. This might explain the laugh from Bolden when requesting a copy of the P.S’s statement to the subcommittee. Bolden/Obama et al. were most kind to Planetary Science, relatively speaking. Bottom line is that NASA across the board needs about $500 million more to make everyone’s dreams come true; I could add something to that, but I won’t. Take a close look – open for comments.
Before someone else corrects me, which they still can, let me address a statement above about dreams coming true. No one’s dreams come true with this budget. It is marginal and while the constraints placed on Federal spending are in large part to blame, the Obama administration, as AAS states, has placed a lower priority on science and technology R&D. It is a divestment in our future. Adding $500M will just set us at where we stand with the 2014 budget. If the US is to continue leading the World in space exploration, we need closer to $1 Billion above this budget request, exceed $18B (which NASA had in 2010 & 2011). Bolden told the House subcommittee that NASA does not need the Block II (130 mT) SLS anytime soon and this apparently led to the $300M cut over 2014 (actual). Capitol Hill is likely to bring their preferred programs back up to par – SLS/Orion. Space advocates must help to raise funding for the SMD, Aeronautics and assure that Commercial Crew receives full funding. (Link to worksheet that produced pie chart – https://www.dropbox.com/s/a…
The budget approach including SLS/Orion once again compromises every NASA mission forward and stifles the competition with a twist: substitute Orion/Delta for LEO vs Commercial Crew.
The real budget numbers should also include the deficiencies conveniently omitted from testimony. Examples?
LEO/ISS: Since SLS was not ready in time, an un-crewed Orion without an ECLSS is flown on a Delta later in 2014 to test its inadequate Mars/ARM heat shield. Rather than fund the primary commercial crew activity, the grossly expensive “backup” ,non crew rated Orion/Delta combo is advertised as the fastest way to return crew to ISS by 2016, short changing the Commercial Crew program.
BEO upper stage: A waiver had to be granted to crew rate the upper stage so that Orion can fly on EM-1 in 2017. Crewed EM-2 in 2021? Substitute a Europa mission for EM-1 and shift crewed flight until adequate budget can be found to include all the missing elements ((ECLSS, advanced heat shield, radiation shield, parachutes, etc).. Force the science groups to launch the mission on SLS and offer the 20B launch cost at a “discount”.
Orion is LEO only: Orion’s capability is basically the same as Apollo, but unfortunately lacks a heat shield and parachutes to return from an asteroid or Mars–it was only designed for lunar. Orion has been sold as a BEO vehicle, but all studies show its inefficient to add BEO heat and radiation shielding and extend parachutes and ECLSS to the earth ascent/descent vehicle. 20 days vs 360 required—quite the compromise.
DSH DNE: The deep space habitat houses the crew for all deep space missions and is not funded as part of the compromise. The proper architecture would add radiation shielding to the DSH, not Orion. But w8 for it…..
ARM: To ‘explore sooner’ and provide missions for SLS/Orion, advanced heat shielding, parachutes, and ECLSS have to be added to the lunar/LEO version of Orion, extending its capability to 20 days for the perform the asteroid mission, yet the trip to Mars is a year. All studies indicate that its terribly inefficient to add the BEO mass to an earth ascent/re-entry vehicle. What?! And you thought the BEO vehicles and upper stages were already designed and built for crew rated deep space missions—make sure you read the fine print–a back door to LEO. 😉
Mars Flyby: Lacking key components, Inspirational Mars is at best a stunt or gimmick to sell SLS/Orion and give it a paper mission. Worse, the 2021 date occurs during Solar Min, when the GCR (not SPE) radiation risk is higher than Solar Max. The mission fails to meet the NASA required additional 3% risk for cancer since to meet the mass budget the risk has climbed to ~20% Cost budget? If wishes were horses…..
Europa: Hardware not capable for Mars and ARM, no lander, what to do? Convert the first crewed EM-2 flight into an uncrewed Europa mission to give SLS cadence. Take funding from everything else, create a new mission, force the sciences to launch on a $20B LV rather than the existing fleet.
SLS/Orion for BEO and Orion/Delta to LEO –affordable solutions need not apply….brought to you by……
NASA has become a proving ground for political science majors….
Is this really what the American dream is becoming?
I was referring to those of us who call our congressmen and ask for specific areas to be increased. Personally, although I do not expect agreement from my Congressman, I am happy to suggest that all these shortfalls could be corrected by dropping SLS/Orion.