American Astronomical Society on FY 2014 Budget
American Astronomical Society Statement on President Obama’s Proposed FY 2014 Budget
“The AAS is deeply concerned about the Administration’s renewed proposal to cut NASA’s Planetary Science Division, this time by $200 million compared to the 2013 level enacted by Congress and signed by the President last month. At this level, the budget precludes a major mission to any planet other than Mars after 2017, and precludes exploration of Europa, a high priority for the planetary science community. The request also threatens the cadence of Discovery and New Frontiers missions, which are a cornerstone of the Planetary Sciences Decadal Survey to ensure balance among mission classes. The U.S. planetary exploration program has a storied history and a compelling plan for the future. The AAS urges the Administration and the Congress to find a path forward that maintains U.S. leadership in planetary science, rather than ceding future exploration of our solar system to other nations.”
If the AAS thinks another probe to the outer planets is warranted, let them fund it.
So another probe to the outer planets is not warranted? We shouldn’t make steady progress in planetary science missions to the outer planets? Should we myopically cut off such research, or claim govts should not fund it because of the inability of two parties in the US to compromise in funding the govt? Is this country in such dire condition that we can’t maintain leadership in this area? I don’t believe so. The economic downturn will not last forever. Things will improve at some point in the near future. If not with this Administration and Congress, then the next. Space science and planetary science missions are examples of bright spots in these tougher times. We might not be able to fund the most grand Europa mission, for example, but we can scope it properly or at the very least advance key technologies needed to make it happen when things do get better. If it ever came to a point where we had to depend on an organization like AAS to fund such a mission, that signals something went south with the govt. Understanding our solar system and our place in the universe is worth the meager funds we spend on it. We’re not yet at the point were non-govt entities can fund such missions.
Mike,
I agree with, in principle. But some things are unfortunately going to have to be cut. Within the context of the day-to-day lives of the majority of taxpayers, planetary science is, on average, unfortunately a non-essential expenditure; a discretionary expense.
Although there will be an obvious loss of synergy and people skills from delaying things like Europa (which will drive up their costs), I think we’re better off settling for a delay, as opposed to getting a nickels-and-dimes program that will only do a fraction of what we want. Attrition seems to bleed the already underfunded programs hardest, down-scoping them repeatedly, especially when cost overruns happen, which is inevitable with an underfunded program.
In the long run, it’s going to be better and cheaper to wait and do it right than to do it twice.
I think we’re going to see a lot more groups advocating not cutting whatever program is closest to their hearts. But obviously they can’t all be “saved.”
It just might be that those who are willing to play ball and propose delaying their pet program(s), citing a time frame an estimated cost impact, will get more consideration from the government later on. Perhaps this idea could be incorporated into an internal “contract” (MOU?) or legislation to give some assurance to the parties involved. If enough groups were willing to go this route, it would theoretically lessen the “damage” done by the sequestration and get things back on track a little sooner.
Just an idea.
Steve