Now NASA Wants Special Treatment From Congress
Keith’s note: It is somewhat strange that Gerstenmaier thinks that future budgets in the next administration and Congress are going to be any more predictable – or clear – than they have been for the past several decades. Had he been more specific about the whole #JourneyToMars thing years ago he might have found more support for what NASA is doing. Oddly when Congress is clear on things i.e. prohibiting ARM, Gerstenmaier still thinks he has options.
As for the influencing the transition teams, past experience should show NASA that transition teams easily see through the smoke and mirrors that NASA tries to distract them with – assuming that they even have any interest in NASA or influence upon what will actually become policy. One way to make a positive impression on these transition teams is for NASA explain why it does things, do things on time/on budget, and stop announcing delays and pushing the blame off on others.
Results speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, dear. Everybody has a boss. Who knew?
“Gerstenmaier thinks that future budgets in the next administration and Congress are going to be any more predictable – or clear – ” or substantial…
Reading more about Gerst’s comments over at SpacePolicy, I couldn’t help but think of the Decadal Survey that has guided scientific endeavors, albeit with a few rough spots (how did Juno jump the Moon sample return, for instance?).
I suppose that some think we can’t really have an analogous ‘HSF Decadal Plan’ without SLS or other BFR, and they would be right.
However, with the emergence of reliability from SpaceX/Dragon and Antares/Cygnus (and indeed even Bezos’ little rocket appears to have an orbital future), Hale’s comment that things have changed in the last year or so would be an understatement.
It’s true these vehicles have markedly different capabilities. Still, this new hardware simply means that if we had some sort of HSF Decadal Survey we’d be able to fund much further down the list.
Mentioning Juno and the PSD Decadal Survey is interesting.
First of all, Juno was selected over the lunar sample return because someone thought they made a better proposal. The Decadal Survey (of 2003, in this case) did not prioritize the potential, New Frontiers targets. It just listed five which would be worth a mission of that scope, and probably too much to accomplish as a Discovery mission. The proposed missions were reviewed for many things, including technical risk (where developing something new is actually a flaw) and management/budget realism, not just scientific value and interest. Personally, I think Juno was a clear winner for both science and technical risk, and I can’t speak to management and budget. But I may be biased.
In any case, Juno also illustrates an interesting point about the Decadal Survey. It is very definitely not the mission the authors of that Survey envisioned. The high-priority science they identified was measuring Jupiter’s water abundance well below the cloud level (where weather and condensation can mess up the results, as it did for the Galileo probe.) But they envisioned this being done with multiple atmospheric entry probes. The Juno proposal showed that it would be easier and better to make those measurements by microwave radiometry from a polar orbiter. That was considered in line with the Decadal Survey because the Survey was very clear on one point: They were describing the goals, and illustrating them with their idea of how those goals could be achieved. But they were not dictating a particular solution.
I find that interesting since you suggest something like a Decadal Survey for human spaceflight. Following the above logic, it should specify goals not a specific way to achieve those goals (e.g. SLS.) There is a precedent for this. Human spaceflight was handed a decadal goal in 1961. President Kennedy specified landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. He did not specify the means of doing so. If it had been possible, X-15-derived spaceplanes and ion propulsion would have been as acceptable as a Saturn V. Of course, it didn’t work out that way. But the high-level goals did not specify or constrain the means by which they were achieved.
I may have misunderstood about the 2003 DS; I’m calling an interview on The Space Show from last year implying the list was ordered.
The DS has worked mostly because it inclusively identifies high-level goals while accommodating fast-changing space abilities, like those incorporated in your Juno project.
As I understand the history, the Survey’s appeal comes from fairness in a world of very expensive instruments and LVs. Left to themselves, scientists are able to identify the big questions of the days. Sure, there’s in-fighting, but still.
HSF lacks any sort of consensus. It’s much easier to, say, prioritize the severe need for a series of devices that observe the larger universe, as one example, than it is to prioritize HSF activities (mostly because the moon vs Mars argument is dominated by parochial speakers describing differences in the two programs rather than identifying similarities, but it’s a very wide subject).
I suppose that the congressional meddling that everyone talks about is a result, mostly, of a “direction vacuum” coupled with fear of tech base/jobs loss. The first would be addressed with the aforementioned survey; the last, dunno.
Actually, now that I go back and read it, the 2003 Decadal Survey did say they were giving a prioritized list of New Frontiers missions. It did imply that the priorities could change (suggesting review of priorities should new discoveries be made, expecting three to fly in the next decade but listing five to, among other things “account for uncertainties.” It also said that the priorities were based on very preliminary concept studies (implying that, if more detailed studies suggested a different budget or technical risk, then the priorities could change.)
It was actually the New Frontiers AO, issued a few months after the survey, that said “ in no order of priority” and that says, “ NASA will
consider any mission concept for any of these archetype missions that goes to the
appropriate object and effectively addresses the majority of the science objectives
identified below for each generic type of mission.”
So it looks like the selection of Juno over a lunar sample return was consistent with the AO, but somewhat out of step with the Decadal Survey. So would be the selection of OSIRIS REx, the third New Frontiers mission, which is an asteroid sample return and which was selected during the period covered by the 2003-2012 Decadal Survey. The 2013-2022 Survey did say “No relative priorities are assigned to these five mission candidates; instead, the selection among them should be made on the basis of competitive peer review.”
But I think the flight rate is central to these discussions. When you are anticipating two or three missions per decade, people aren’t likely to get too worked up about whether their personal favorite is third or fourth on the list. Or one of the top five with no priority assigned between the. It’s still likely happen within someone’s lifetime and probably within their professional career.
In the case of flagship missions, if the quarter century between the Cassini and Europa Multiple Flyby start dates is any guide, the most of the people interested in a Uranus or Neptune mission aren’t going to see it until long after they retire (at least not if it has to be a flagship mission.) I think that changes the dynamics of developing a decadal plan, and that probably applies to developing similar plans for human spaceflight.
Gerst says he is now going to develop detailed plans since its time for the transition. Does he have a mission in mind?
Good point. As its been designed, the Orion is really only good for Moon mission or maybe slightly beyond. Many of the systems on Orion have not been designed for the high speed en try that a Mars mission would require, and many systems have not been designed for redundancy. If they have an Apollo 13 sort of an accident, the astronauts are dead. So what exactly do they intend in a decade or 2. Remember the first manned flight is probably still 5 years away. Even that one out to lunar distance will be dicey with the system as they’ve designed it.