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.
Space & Planetary Science

Mars Cuts Spur Protest Letters & White Papers

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 16, 2012
Filed under ,

Life on Mars? Funds to Find Answer Fade, NY Times
“In a letter sent March 5, a group of Mars scientists that provides feedback to NASA said it was “appalled” by the proposed budget cuts. “Among the many dire impacts, the cuts threaten the very existence of the Mars exploration program which has been one of the crown jewels of the agency’s planetary exploration,” wrote David J. Des Marais, a scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center in California and chairman of the group.”
Researchers Call for Continued Exploration of Mars
“A new position paper by researchers at the Planetary Science Institute calls for sustaining NASA funding for the exploration of Mars. Concerned by the administration’s budget proposal to scale back and effectively bring to an end what has been a spectacularly successful program, the paper’s authors have outlined a path to continue and benefit from a robust American effort to explore Mars.”

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

34 responses to “Mars Cuts Spur Protest Letters & White Papers”

  1. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    This descent was predictable. It is the endgame of the process that has been going on for decades, whereby all of the budgetary “sins” of the past conspire to tighten the noose around the space exploration neck.

    You can’t talk to people about this – they simply put their fingers in their ears and hum real loud.

    Here’s what is happening. Lack of realism in dollars per result has slowly eaten away at the sizable fat of budgets, to the point where the undernourished  muscle is being catabolized.  And still people think they can describe fat as muscle to be saved, by catabolizing the real muscle they’ve described as fat. At some point, others conspire to wind down the game, to limit the scale of damage, expecting that eventually reason will prevail, and everyone will agree on the realities of muscle/fat, and then its worthwhile to consider for funding.

    But by then, it may not grow back.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      People warned about this for years.  You simply cannot have this massive level of overruns forever and expect things to continue humming merrily along.

      Constellation got killed for a lesser level of sin than this.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Constellation was not killed. It lives on as Orion/SLS and continues to steal all agency R&d funding. Just this year $400M was added to Orion for a one-off unmanned test flight on a Delta booster that the ESAS rejected (falsely) years ago in order to claim it needed the Ares I. This was almost exactly the amount cut from the administration request for commercial crew. Coincidence? I think not.

        • blamethemall says:
          0
          0

          Commercial crew is not all agency R&D.  Commercial is supposed to be … commercial, not reliant on tax dollars for funding.  It was sold as SO EASY to do that it was just a matter of slapping a capsule on a rocket and launching.  How much agency R&D funding is JWST responsible for stealing?  Why is the fight always between manned space and “science?”  In this case science is stealing from the science budget.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think this was ever the case. Commercial crew was sold as a program with the goal of providing human access to LEO at a cost the might be sustainable, which SLS/Orion is not. It uses the Atlas and Falcon LVs which are also marketed for commercial satellite launches and are at least potentially feasible for commercial space tourism. The choice is not between Commercial Crew and JWST, it is between Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion.

  2. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    What are the priorities for Mars today?  Why is the search for life of such an incredible level of priority that it trumps everything else?

    Why not a high power radar mapper to map the extent and distribution of subsurface water?

    Why not more missions to explore the resource potential for future colonization?

    Is Mars to remain the exclusive province of science forever?

    • Doug Booker says:
      0
      0

       I agree wholeheartedly!  I see several solutions to this that perhaps the highly educated individuals have overlooked.

      1. Go start a company, create hundreds if not thousands of jobs, sell the company for a billion dollars and then do whatever the heck you want with your own money.  Far fetched?  Off the wall?  Do the names Paul Allen and Elon Musk sound familiar?

      2. If that seems too strenuous an endeavor, come up with a good design and business plan for whatever you want mission you want.  Get a copy of Forbes list of billionaires and start hitting up each of them for say $20 million each.  Most have charitable foundations if only for tax purposes.  Present your plan and if it seems reasonable to them they will contribute. 

      Oh, and then stay within your budget because I doubt your benefactors will be as patient and reasonable as the American taxpayers have been.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Not an unreasonable idea…

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         To the limits of philanthrocapital. Which is “bragging rights”.

        You wonder why SpaceX talks up so much, puts so much on its plate … when it is constantly under the gun to get out a reliable launch services product? This is the cost of such “bragging rights”.

        And if you can’t manufacture such a constant presence of “big” and “bigger” … you won’t even get dollar one here.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Mr. booker Just a business idea and a way to do heavy lift too.

        TINKER
        Been mulling your 7 core falcon heavy lifter idea.
        I took note that the idea you put up could very easily be added to SLS instead of waiting 8 years for NASA to build that second stage.
        If I understand you right your design is very similar to having two falcon heavy boosters bolted on a central core (which could be SLS first stage), only the cross tanking is set up so that each “ 3 cluster of boosters has 3 staging events instead of 2 like a falcon heavy does. Right???
        So this is THE solution to get SLS flying sooner and cheaper if THEY really wanted SLS to go faster and cheaper and safer(NO SOLILDS YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!)
        YES I recall you and NOOFCSQ talking about that and think that’s what all the liquid instead of Soild Rocket booster talk was about Right?
        In your design was there any cross tanking with the air lite 7th center booster? No of course duhhhh tank full when lite.
        Couldn’t your design have ALL the cores the same size and have them in an H pattern all under a struss structure to make your payload faring be a cube like volume??
        If your 6 liquid falcon cores were on SLS would they air lite too or fire all engines at launch. If they did air lite the SLS center core the added weight of that big core would make all your staging events at slower speeds making them easier to recover than your 7 falcon core version Right?
        SOOOO NASA contracts out liquid boosters in the next 28 months with 6 liquids maybe Spacex wins the contract. They design that 3 stage (Falcon Heavy) for SLS and can easily make their own heavy lifter just as you discribe should SLS get canceled which it most likely will.
        Am I missing anything?
        Hummmm 7 core falcon heavy sure sounds easy !
        Kicks SLS for TAX PAYER VALUE all over the place.

        JOE TAX PAYER

        JOE Q PUBLIC

        On orbit used falcon upper stages for sale!!!
        During the shuttle program ALL the External fuel tanks were allowed to be burned up and wasted when they could have become valuable on orbit Real Estate or fuel depots . Now Spacex is about to burn up its second stages and its trunk with solar energy system. We do not need to make the same mistake twice!
        What should be done to save this resourse?
        I think that Spacex should fly a mission to put a fuel beam in orbit that can save this hardware and have the ability to transfer fuel from one boaster to another. Either NASA should pay for such a mission or a private investment group or company or Spacex themselves. Reusing these boosters and trunks along with used older dragons capsules could be a way to start building that Inner Solar System Railroad. ON THE CHEAP.
        What could Spacex do to make this doable. Where is tinkers saw-saw ? couldn’t Space very easily add Dracos to their upper stage and their trunks to make them dockable? Could a little bit of height be added to the second stage to leave that stage in orbit with a little bit of fuel to so it can find a trunk and get itsself to the docking depot?

        Imagine the possibilities
        Fleet of used robot Dragons sent to the moon to start mining
        Dragon rider mission to ISS carries a lunar car in the trunk to later be sent to the moon for Apollos 50th.
        ISS crew work to pre assemble used dragon trunks and stages and dragons to send a fleet/flock of dragons to four of jupiters moons to land and on and leave a satellite in orbit all for a price cheaper than the famos NASA galileo mission.
        Falcon 9 7core to dock at space beam near ISS to make turn the beam into a fuel depot using all of its central core as fuel depots main tank.
        Deep sea missile launch sends fuel to space beam to bring saved cots hardware back to life saving the tax payer tons of money starting the exploration commercial age.
        Mr. C said we need robot tracks on the moon that can be turned into infrastructure for manned missions. Earlier tinker outlined a dragon landing on the moon with its trunk still under it. Couldn’t a dragon full of fuel land on a special dragon trunk with wheels to refuel the trunk/rover? The dragon trunk/rover could even have a drill hummm maybe my dragon flock should be a dragon trunk flock.
        Mr. C in another thread you said that manned missions should grow straight from robot missions. I never really thought about that but knew it all along. Its just common sense but thanks for pointing it out.
        CANCEL SLS CANCEL ORION CANCEL JWST!!!!!!
        USE ISS COTS MISSIONS/ to start to build that infrastructure/railroad to send us beyond.use that money to partner with commercial and do something smart like planning to use every resource launched into space in a WISE way.
        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist!!!!

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      OK, in short why is Mars getting the attention. One answer:

      MEPAG Inputs to the Decadal Survey from “Why Mars Remains a Compelling Target for Planetary Exploration”
      foil 6 – Last Decade Discoveries: 
      “We have made significant advances in understanding the processes and history of climate, as well as understanding the evolution of the surface”

      To be crisp – they under promised and over delivered on results.

      And foil’s 21-26 are in answer to the rest of your questions.

      Take it up with them, not me. But this presentation clearly works. With Senate staffers too I might add.

      Note I am not advocating just communicating.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Take it up with them, not me. But this presentation clearly works. With Senate staffers too I might add.

        Considering the cuts in funding, it only worked so far…..

    • Hallie Wright says:
      0
      0

      “Why not more missions to explore the resource potential for future colonization?”

      Very simple answer. Because colonizing Mars is not a national priority. Go find ANY reference to Mars colonization as a goal in any congressional legislation. Bet ya can’t.

      That’s not to say it isn’t a good idea, but just that if you want the taxpayer to pay for it, you have to get Congress to formally endorse it. So many space advocates seem to have forgotten that very simple rule of process. So the real work to be done is selling Congress on the need to do it, and not building mission hardware.

      Now I’d love to see Warren Buffet or Bill Gates go do it. And hey, Elon says he’s going to retire there. But let’s not make NASA go prospecting for future colonization when those who fund NASA haven’t told it that colonization is a goal. It’s not like Charlie can just say “Hey! We’d better go find some resources on Mars so we can live there! Pay up, taxpayer.”

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Very simple answer. Because colonizing Mars is not a national priority. Go find ANY reference to Mars colonization as a goal in any congressional legislation. Bet ya can’t.

        Neither is Mars science now is it.  Mars is being sacrificed for the excesses of JWST and the last Mars lander.  Congress and NASA knows that the next mission to Mars will be just as overbudget and in this time period it is unaffordable.

        So many space advocates seem to have forgotten that very simple rule of process.

        It is far more complicated than that and you know it.  Today Mars missions are done in the Science Mission Directorate.  Those peer review teams are scientists.  Guess what, they are going to recommend science missions, not colonization preparation missions.  Decadal planning?  Same people.  The National Academy of Sciences?  Different scientists, same goals.

        I have spent two days recently as an attendee of the Augustine blue ribbon commission on the future of Antarctica and some interesting observations were made.  One of them is that the scientists are always pushing for money for science and paying little attention to infrastructure.  This is exactly what is happening at NASA in planetary exploration as well.  

        There are a LOT of scientific missions that are dual purpose and dual use, just as much of interest to science as to exploration and development.  Guess what, if you did this, you might have more support out there in the congress and the general public.

        • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
          0
          0

          Mars is being sacrificed for the excesses of JWST and the last Mars lander.

          I think it’s also the case that further Mars exploration does not look very promising.  The reason we spent so much money on missions there was it initially looked like a place we would find a form of life that evolved independently from Earth.  It now looks like that is not the case and further expenditure of dwindling budgetary resources on those missions does not appear to be justified.

          Unless MSL finds something unexpected and revolutionary, I think it’s over.  Spending billions of dollars to learn more about the rock chemistry of Mars can no longer be sold to the tax payers.

          JWST will, at the very least, re-write the cosmology textbooks.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            To me this focus on finding life on Mars, while interesting, is not a compelling reason to spent tens of billions of dollars.

            To focus on taking Earth life to Mars is compelling.  In popular culture, literature, and in effort up until the 1970’s or even until the mid 80’s this was the focus of the American space program.  

            In an era of austerity and extreme concern about the future of our civilization the science alone is insufficient to power further Mars exploration.  

        • Hallie Wright says:
          0
          0

          What part of “Congress reaffirms its sense that a balanced and adequately funded set of activities, consisting of research and analysis grants programs, technology development, small-, medium-, and large-sized space missions, and suborbital research activities, contributes to a robust and productive
          science program and serves as a catalyst for innovation” do you not understand? That’s in PL 211-67, the NASA Auth legislation. You won’t find the words settlement or colonization in there. Also, the Space Act refers directly to the importance of space science. Not a word about human space flight.

          Guess what. SMD and NRC scientists aren’t going to recommend colonization preparation missions, because no one has told them that colonization is important! My point is not that this work can’t be important, but that the funding agencies have to be TOLD that it’s important by Congress.

          You want dual-use missions to get support from Congress? Congress has asked that SMD and HEOMD coordinate their activities. But those activities aren’t related to colonization or settlement. Congress will support NASA efforts that Congress asks for. They will almost certainly recoil from NASA plans to do things that they didn’t ask for.

          My point isn’t that colonization and settlement isn’t a fair goal, just that right now it isn’t a goal.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Guess what. SMD and NRC scientists aren’t going to recommend colonization preparation missions, because no one has told them that colonization is important! My point is not that this work can’t be important, but that the funding agencies have to be TOLD that it’s important by Congress.

            I guess they missed the Bush VSE speech and John Marburger’s Goddard Symposium speech and the congressional authorization language from 2006.

            My point isn’t that colonization and settlement isn’t a fair goal, just that right now it isn’t a goal.

            And my point is that this is why NASA suffers today.  Without that focus, without that vision, NASA is just the NSF of space.

          • Hallie Wright says:
            0
            0

            Since it isn’t obvious how to reply to Dennis below, I’ll do it here.

            Dennis, please do explain where in Marburger’s speech (which was hardly a formal statement of policy) or in the authorization language, there were ANY references to colonization or settlement. There weren’t. So don’t make stuff up.

            If you mean “bringing the solar system into our economic sphere”, that’s all well and good, but it hardly implies colonization and settlement. Historical templates don’t apply here because of our vastly increased technology. Mining the Moon telerobotically is well within our capabilities right now.

            Yes, I guess NASA is the NSF of space because, you know, that’s how it was chartered. I see no reason why we shouldn’t have an “adventure and colonization” agency for space, but you aren’t going to make NASA into that by just beating your fists on the table. I’m waiting for Congress to make that new agency, or to recharter NASA.

          • Steve Pemberton says:
            0
            0

            P.L. 111-267 SEC. 202. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
            (a) LONG TERM GOAL.—The long term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit

            If Dennis re-worded his statement to say:

            “Why not more missions to explore the resource potential for future permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit?

            would that work for you?

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Hallie

            Dennis, please do explain where in Marburger’s speech (which was hardly a formal statement of policy) or in the authorization language, there were ANY references to colonization or settlement. There weren’t. So don’t make stuff up.

            Marburgers words

            As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.

            The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security, and economic interests. Stated this way, the “fundamental goal” identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed. This is extremely important for policy making because science, security, and economic dimensions are shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type.

            You cannot incorporate the solar system within our economic sphere without people.  

            And yes, it, along with the Bush VSE speech (Which specifically called out propellant and possibly even vehicle production on the Moon) are policy statements.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Hallie

            Yes, I guess NASA is the NSF of space because, you know, that’s how it was chartered. I see no reason why we shouldn’t have an “adventure and colonization” agency for space, but you aren’t going to make NASA into that by just beating your fists on the table. I’m waiting for Congress to make that new agency, or to recharter NASA.

            You are kidding right?

            You might want to read the NASA charter.  

            http://www.nasa.gov/offices

          • Hallie Wright says:
            0
            0

            Let’s be careful now. Don’t overreach. The NASA charter not only says nothing about settlement and colonization, but it doesn’t even say anything about human space flight. There are words that can credibly be taken to indirectly justify human space flight, but none that come close to colonization and settlement. Just read the words.

            As to VSE, that doesn’t either. And the presumption you’re making, that “You cannot incorporate the solar system within our economic sphere without people” is, at best, arguable, and even if people out there are required, settlement and colonization are not. Ever wonder why Marburger didn’t use those words? He could have, very easily. But he didn’t. I wonder why not. To a funding agency, those are scary words.

            Much as the historical template for “exploration” doesn’t really pertain to the present day, the historical template for mining and refining, by humans in hard hats with pickaxes, doesn’t really apply either.

            I’d very much like for there to be a compelling national priority for
            colonization and settlement. But there isn’t. Before you ask Congress
            and the Administration to pay for it, one really has to get them to
            admit it. That, rather than lowering launch costs, is the ultimate challenge.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            I’d very much like for there to be a compelling national priority for 
            colonization and settlement. But there isn’t. Before you ask Congress 
            and the Administration to pay for it, one really has to get them to 
            admit it. That, rather than lowering launch costs, is the ultimate challenge.

            I will have to dig up a congressional resolution from 1977 on this one as well but your argument that words can be used one way or the other as you parse them, is really not tenable.  We can’ even do fully automated manufacture here on Earth much less off the Earth so that is a diversion no matter how much some people think that it will work that way.  Things break, and they break in unexpected ways that it takes humans to do.

            I really don’t get this aversion to stating it like it is, that economic development, settlement, and colonization are our goals.  Using the excuse that since congress has not said it means  that it is not going to happen is not in keeping with the history of our country.  The vast majority of new ideas for the expansion of our nation have come from the people and then passed to congress for implementation.  Ours is not a top down society and congress people work for US, not the other way around.

            From the Bush VSE Speech

            Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.

        • Doug Mohney says:
          0
          0

           NASA wants to align dual-purposeness for future robotic missions to Mars. We’ll see how that and the Mars Czar work out in a couple of months.

  3. hamptonguy says:
    0
    0

    What does one expect when ISS and SLS are eating billions and will likely yield nothing in the end?  Science?

  4. Doug Mohney says:
    0
    0

    Be interesting to see what new “discoveries” come out over the next 6 months. Just saying.

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    The first space launch to ISS soon

    A private company has made a deal with spacex and NASA to put a beam up near ISS to be used to save every falcon second stage and trunks this beam is designed to become a fuel depot as well. Spacex has agreed to let used cots dragons be sent on mission to mars. With a plan something like that imagine how cheaply we could send many missions.
    The time to think in a completely new commercial way is now.

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Tinker

    I took note that your 7 core falcon heavy lifter could be around an SLS center core making SLS cheaper sooner safer. I have been away a while not wanting to bother while you all cry about the shrinking pie.

    Steve
    Tinkers 7 core lifter has the same flight staging has my 6 pack.
    Which makes me question you scalability issue the last time I said just bolt 6 falcons together.

    Cancel SLS and Orion lets use used robot dragons to go to the moon mars and moons of jupitar

  7. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Mr C
    Tidbit question

    Couldn’t that deep sea launcher get fuel to that spacex used dragon beam to send. Cheap missions every where?

  8. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    On orbit used falcon upper stages for sale!!!
    During the shuttle program ALL the External fuel tanks were allowed to be burned up and wasted when they could have become valuable on orbit Real Estate or fuel depots . Now Spacex is about to burn up its second stages and its trunk with solar energy system.  We do not need to make the same mistake twice!
    What should be done to save this resourse?
    I think that  Spacex should fly a mission to put a fuel beam in orbit that can save this hardware and have the ability to transfer fuel from one boaster to another. Either NASA should pay for such a mission or a private investment group or company or Spacex themselves.  Reusing these boosters and trunks along with used older dragons capsules could be a way to start building that Inner Solar System Railroad. ON THE CHEAP.
    What could Spacex do to make this doable. Where is tinkers saw-saw ? couldn’t Space very easily add Dracos to their upper stage and their trunks to make them dockable? Could a little bit of height be added to the second stage to leave that stage in orbit with a little bit of fuel to so it can find a trunk and get itsself to the docking depot?
     
    Imagine the possibilities
    Fleet of used robot Dragons sent to the moon to start mining
    Dragon rider mission to ISS carries a lunar car in the trunk to later be sent to the moon for Apollos 50th.
    ISS crew work to pre assemble used dragon trunks and stages and dragons to send a fleet/flock of dragons to four of jupiters moons to land and on and leave a satellite in orbit all for a price cheaper than the famos NASA galileo mission.
    Falcon 9 7core to dock at space beam near ISS to make turn the beam into a fuel depot using all of its central core as fuel depots main tank.
    Deep sea missile launch sends fuel to space beam to bring saved cots hardware back to life saving the tax payer tons of money starting the exploration commercial age.
    Mr. C said we need robot tracks on the moon that can be turned into infrastructure for manned missions. Earlier tinker outlined a dragon landing on the moon with its trunk still under it. Couldn’t a  dragon full of fuel land on a special dragon trunk with wheels to refuel the trunk/rover? The dragon trunk/rover could even have a drill hummm maybe my dragon flock should be a dragon trunk flock.
    Mr. C in another thread you said that manned missions should grow straight from robot missions. I never really thought about that but knew it all along. Its just common sense but thanks for pointing it out.
    CANCEL SLS CANCEL ORION CANCEL JWST!!!!!!
    USE ISS COTS MISSIONS/ to start to build that infrastructure/railroad to send us beyond.use that money to partner with commercial and do something smart like planning to use every resource launched into space in a WISE  way.
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist!!!!

  9. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I have  a little advice for all of you that work with NASA and congress and primes and subs.
    I have a brother-in-law named John.  Both his parents have college degrees and were near the top of their classes. John was breach born and even though he won most of his grade school spelling bees and knew up to 800 cows and all their histories by their TAG number.  He tested about 90 on IQ tests. Well John loved animals but wasn’t fond of the long long hours of hard labor it took to work a fair size family beef cattle Operation. SO when the work got hard John was pretty hard to find.
    Anyway whenever I, the yankee city boy was working with John  doing some farm task,  John would come to me and say don’t do it that way, do it THE EASYY WAY! And sure as fire he had an easier way to do it. Some called that lazy but really it was SMART. Wouldn’t it be grand if over the last 45 years or so, or better yet, over the next 45 years NASA AND CONGRESS just stopped and thought for a minute and do like John says,  just do it THE EASY WAY!
    WHAT all these BRAINS here could do if only they were as SMART as John.
    JOE Q
    I’ll skip the examples y’all know em!
    LOL I’ll do it THE EASY way! lol
     
    OUT!