"The budget my team built last year was intensely reviewed by NASA PA&E and by OMB; OSTP also had input. It was not overly optimistic, but it did rely on better cost control, which we were not allowed to ultimately implement. As a result, you have seen missions slip, be canceled, and R&A cut. "
At the Unmanned Spaceflight forum, Mariner 9 posted a quote from the Planetary Society's blog:
"While the previous FY 09 budget request included new initiatives including a Mars Sample Return mission, an Outer Planets Flagship mission, and a Joint Dark Energy mission, among others, that could not realistically be accommodated within the FY 09 budget proposal, the FY 10 budget plan for space science no longer includes these or other major new initiatives. For example, NASA selected the Europa Jupiter System target as the focus of an Outer Planets Flagship mission, but elected to proceed with technology development, further definition, and discussions on a potential partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) on a potential future mission. The FY 10 budget plan for planetary sciences does not include a Mars Sample Return mission. NASA officials have indicated their interest in working more closely with ESA on potential Mars missions for the 2016 and 2018 launch opportunities."Here is my reply to the post:
I think that the portfolio of missions put forth last year under Stern was a tad bit optimistic both in terms of funding that would be made available and the chances that no major missions would have cost overruns. (Alan, if you think I'm wrong, please let us know.) Hence, there is likely to be a number of missions pushed out.
If the Flagship launches in 2020, real money will be needed starting in 2015 or 2016. The current timing for the mission is based on trying to recover from the MSL slip plus aligning with ESA's budgeting for their portion (assuming they select this mission as their next large science mission).
I foresee two problems. First, if NASA's science budget stays roughly flat (with increases, hopefully, for inflation), then NASA will either have to forgo its aggressive Mars program for a few years or forgo New Frontiers and Discovery missions for a few years. I just don't see anywhere to stuff a $3B mission in the current funding profile without giving something up. This, I predict will be the biggest fight of the upcoming decadal survey (with the fight over a series of small or a sample return for the Mars program being almost as big of a fight).
The second problem that I foresee is that the Titan mission will be going through the same kinds of mission definition in the next few years that the Europa mission did over the last decade. That could bring the Titan mission to a high state of readiness. If so, I see the selection of the next Flagship target being revisited, again, which could delay the whole thing into the 2020s.
If the Flagship launches in 2020, real money will be needed starting in 2015 or 2016. The current timing for the mission is based on trying to recover from the MSL slip plus aligning with ESA's budgeting for their portion (assuming they select this mission as their next large science mission).
I foresee two problems. First, if NASA's science budget stays roughly flat (with increases, hopefully, for inflation), then NASA will either have to forgo its aggressive Mars program for a few years or forgo New Frontiers and Discovery missions for a few years. I just don't see anywhere to stuff a $3B mission in the current funding profile without giving something up. This, I predict will be the biggest fight of the upcoming decadal survey (with the fight over a series of small or a sample return for the Mars program being almost as big of a fight).
The second problem that I foresee is that the Titan mission will be going through the same kinds of mission definition in the next few years that the Europa mission did over the last decade. That could bring the Titan mission to a high state of readiness. If so, I see the selection of the next Flagship target being revisited, again, which could delay the whole thing into the 2020s.
I hope that my pessimism proves to be unfounded.
Val,
ReplyDeleteThe budget my team built last year was intensely reviewed by NASA PA&E and by OMB; OSTP also had input. It was not overly optimistic, but it did rely on better cost control, which we were not allowed to ultimately implement. As a result, you have seen missions slip, be canceled, and R&A cut.