NASA's Confusing Stance on SOFIA (Update: DLR is Angry)
SOFIA … eine Erfolgsgeschichte ist in Gefahr (in German), January Wörners Blog, DLR
[translation] “As part of the current budget statement of NASA it has now let announced from Washington that the continued operation as of 2015 could no longer be financed. That would not only be a major blow for the science that has planned many interesting astronomical research for the coming years, but also for the relationship between NASA and DLR.”
Keith’s 11 March note: NASA cannot seem to make up its mind as to what it wants to do with SOFIA. If you go to the link for the video “NASA’s SOFIA — An Airborne Astronomical Observatory Without Equal” announced in an email sent out today, you see that the video was “removed by the user”. Is NASA shutting SOFIA off or keeping it flying? Is NASA AFRC PAO trying to promote its value or is NASA JPL OIG trying to prove that it has none? [Click on image to enlarge.]
Keith’s 13 March update: The video is now online again at Youtube.
NASA OIG Seeks Media Commentary For SOFIA Audit, earlier post
“My name is Tiffany Xu and work for NASA Office of Inspector General out of our field office at JPL. Currently we are conducting the survey phase of an audit on the SOFIA project. Since SOFIA has had many delay of instrument deliverables, one of the question that we are be tasked to find out is how astronomical society feel towards SOFIA: is it still an observatory that the general community is excited about, is the project delivering what it has been promised, and is it still relevant considering the up and coming JWST.”
SOFIA Set to Begin Cycle 2 Astronomy Observations, earlier post
“NASA, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the SOFIA Science Center, and the German SOFIA Institute (DSI) have announced the selection of 51 investigations to study the universe using the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). SOFIA, a joint program between NASA and the DLR, is set to begin its second full cycle of science flights from February through December 2014.”
Did NASA Ground SOFIA?, earlier post
Eli suspects the push back from the DLR is amazing. They were certainly making waves in the German media.
Referencing C. Dreier at Planetary Society, “Operations for this telescope were unusually expensive, around $85
million per year, which is the second highest at NASA behind the Hubble
Space Telescope.”. The bottom line is the scientific returns do not justify the cost to maintain operations given the present and anticipated funding level of NASA.
In a previous comment I under-valued the place of SOFIA in the line of assets for IR astronomy. Some compounds and elements can be identified with existing ground-based and space-based assets. There is overlap but the SOFIA’s far IR range provides the capability to identify more molecular compounds and furthermore it provides scope time for graduate students and professionals where demand outweighs the supply.
What I can imagine is that the protracted development life-cycle of SOFIA made it difficult for planners to estimate the cost of maintaining the vehicle and scientific equipment during the operational phase. Also, cost projections ten years back in the project development probably did not seem unacceptably high given NASA budgets that would at least keep up with inflation, which they have not. The shortfalls in NASA funding during the long development may have also contributed to raising final operational costs and the cost for necessary upgrades.
One could argue that the operational cost – $85M/year would fund the development of a space-based instrument but that is not NASA’s thinking. They are just trying to prioritize and utilize the limited funding they have. However, and this is a big however, if you read the budgetary review just presented by Dennis Wingo in SpaceRef, the question is priorities. My previous comment added that the cost of SLS and Orion doesn’t fit into any prioritized list one could reasonably conceive for NASA. If you revise the approach for executing human spaceflight, then you free up all kinds of funds and you could fund SOFIA. But consider SOFIA in another light. NASA also created another magnificent flying machine called the Space Shuttle. In hindsight, did they take the right path to achieve safe, reliable, frequent and affordable human access to space? The greatness of the technology does not always serve the best interests and satisfy all requirements in the end. Beautiful SOFIA, its performance despite its technology, doesn’t justify the cost in comparison to other NASA missions and objectives given the present budget situation.
” …and is it still relevant considering the up and coming
JWST.”
People should not count their chickens before they hatch.
It still has to successfully launch on an Ariane 5, make it to L2, deploy
the sunshield and mirrors, etc. And it only has a design life of five
years.
Maybe keeping SOFIA going isn’t such a bad idea after all.
One of SOFIA’s strengths is that it can always fly state-of-the-art IR/sub-mm instrumentation. When JWST launches, the instrument technology it will carry will already be a few years old. I would like to see an assessment from IR astronomers on the extent to which SOFIA’s science “no longer relevant.”
I am an infrared astronomer. I even have used SOFIA. SOFIA is impossible to justify on a science per dollar basis. As I have said elsewhere, SOFIA sounded great when it was first pushed as a successor to KAO, but that was more than two decades ago. Today, it’s not that great. It’s sensitivity is very poor by modern standards, particularly in the current space telescope (Spitzer, JWST, etc) era. It has some niche science topics where it really shines (like ultra high spectral resolution spectroscopy of very bright objects, like in the solar system). But for extragalactic work there is almost nothing it is actually sensitive enough to do. No fancy instruments will change that. Thanks to the delays, it has now cost more than a space mission would have, and its annual operating budget is as high as a space mission operating budget, in large part due to ballooning fuel costs. To put it in perspective, the SOFIA operating budget is 4x higher than the Spitzer annual operating budget.
cb450sc:
“SOFIA is impossible to justify on a science per dollar basis.” That ratio is mythical. Who can quantify the numerator in terms of value? One can argue that short of clear societal benefits, i.e., a cure for cancer, one cannot make an argument for or against any particular mission on a “science per dollar basis”. Almost nothing NASA is involved in can be based on that type of metric.
As a theoretical astrophysicist I can say that the science of SOFIA continues to be highly relevant in many areas of astronomy. cb450sc correctly points out that there are limitations, particularly for faint object extragalactic work, but that is one of many niches in astronomy. JWST will not even sniff areas of the spectrum where SOFIA will contribute greatly and for a long time.
Moreover, as others have pointed out, SOFIA has the potential to be a continuing asset with state of the art instrumentation. It can continue to operate as long as possible, unlike the Bic approach with JWST where a ton of money is spent for a few years of data and then it is over. All of these instruments contribute, but please do not try to argue for or against any of these on a science value per dollar basis.
And yet the science per dollar is the exact metric that is used at HQ. You would be amazed at the amount of effort that goes into studying citation indices in order to quantify that stuff prior to the senior review.
I know, I have been on Senior Reviews. The fact that NASA HQ uses that as a metric does not mean that it makes sense. We all know the plus and minus of using citation counts as a measure.
Does anyone in the NASA review actually read the papers and understand their importance, or lack thereof?
Many, if not most, of the reviewers are at least familiar with the topic area and in some cases with specific papers. They are not, in general, familiar with the majority of the papers that can get cited in support of a given mission undergoing review. It often boils down to how many times a given mission is mentioned, i.e., a word search, and some publications count more than others. Getting the cover of time is a big deal for example.
The operational costs for SOFIA are substantially inflated because NASA decided, actually it was Mike Griffin and Mary Cleave, to give Dryden a piece of the action to penalize Ames. Dryden had no clue how to run an operational program, it is/was a flight research center.
Rocky, not sure what the comparison to STS is for. Totally different situation. The one aspect of that comparison that may be apt is in operations. Having it done in house at NASA makes it far more expensive than if done outside NASA. Someday NASA should realize it should not be in the business of operating anything but satellites.
NASA is short of funds but not of in-fighting and pettiness. It does not surprise me that it went to Dryden because of non-sense. However, I don’t think Ames has a facility large enough to store and do maintenance on SOFIA. Google’s planes fill the best hangar on Ames’ side of Moffett, and Hangar 1 is presently a bird cage and Google is planning to restore and move its planes there. Also, USRA is the entity responsible for operating SOFIA. I would think Armstrong (Dryden) is more capable of doing maintenance on a 747 than Ames. Well, anyways the USRA website has deleted all SOFIA job openings except one, project manager. There were about 7 openings on the day the NASA budget was released.
Actually N-211 was being outfitted to support SOFIA before the decision was made to transfer it to Dryden. The liquid Nitrogen equipment was dismantled and moved out before Google’s planes moved in a year or two later. SOFIA was still in Waco TX during this time.
Scott007, William, thanks for clarifying.
Someone suggested giving it to Germany for 25% of the observing time. I wonder how much of the development cost is American money. It is a pity to lose so much investment, i.e. to see such poor ROI.
Rocky:
The original plan was for the aircraft to be serviced and stored in the Ames hanger. In fact it was physically modified for that very purpose. The Google usage was after SOFIA was gone from Ames.
Actually, the aircraft is based out of Palmdale not Dryden/Edwards AFB. Fromwhat I understand many of the NASA Dryden aircraft are now at Palmdale using the old North American aviation hangers.
Give the plane to Germany, lock, stock and barrel, at the price of 25% of observation time for NASA allocation. DLR can operate it at a considerably lower cost. Just leave it sitting on the ground would be wasteful in the extreme.
I agree. If Germany does not want to take over the SOFIA project, I would much rather have the hardware wind up at the Smithsonian’s Udvar-Hazy complex than deteriorating in storage…that is if the Smithsonian wants it.
Call me crazy, but this seems like the PERFECT project for some scientific philanthropy. You get to repaint it (“Bill Gates Aerial Telescope”), ride on board while it goes for some cool TV interviews (“Yes this is my FLYING SPACE TELESCOPE”) and you can enjoy it from an airport near your house (NOT in the Chilean Andes or other out-of-the-way place). Team with DLR and a few space science organizations and this seems like a win/win. NASA did the initial investment, another organization can keep it going.
My 2 cents,
Jeff
Or, at $20K/hr x 1000 hrs/yr, one might say your $20M/yr.
Well… not MY $20 million. 🙂
Here at the Max Planck Institute participating in the project the waves are not that high and in the press it was mentioned for one day on the science pages of the news papers. We life with the NASA mismanagement for several years now. The Spacelab, Comet-mission, Dawn, ExoMars, EJSM …. it is always the same. Nasa pulls out in the full knowledge that even with the worst reputation as a headless chicken they offer more then 50% of all chance to go to space for exploration. If they offer the chance to fly a seismometer to Mars or any other instrument to any other location there are enough scientist who will grab the offer. Here in Germany and in the rest of the ESA states only the funding agencies can end this by stopping to fund projects which are NASA lead. This will never happen.
A better translation if you want it. Take home is in the last paragraph: DLR is considering how it wants to screw NASA.