Saturday, March 15, 2014

2015 Planetary Science Proposed Budget – Steady as she goes and then big changes

The President’s proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget details were released this week.  For the next several years, the budget proposes a steady as she goes plan (but with two “what are they thinking?” surprises).  Then as the current missions in development head to the launch pad, the budget suggests major changes that would dramatically remake the mix of missions that would launch in the next decade.

The broad outlines of the proposed NASA budget have been widely reported.  I’ve gone through the proposed budget and found a move to a very different mix of missions that I haven’t seen reported elsewhere.  To start with the big picture, here are the highlights:

Status quo for missions in flight or under development except that the Mars Opportunity rover and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter missions could end on September 30. 
NASA is recommitting to a vigorous Discovery mission program, but its plans for filling out the rest of its mission portfolio leading into the next decade are unknown. 
Selection of future New Frontiers missions is suspended indefinitely. 
While the Administration finally includes some money to consider options for a budget Europa mission, it’s a one shot affair with no mission development expected until the 2020s.

The President’s budget generally proposes little change in NASA’s science programs for the rest of the decade.  A $65M cut is proposed for the Planetary Science program for FY15, which equals the change in the amount proposed for studying a mission to Europa from FY14.  Solid lines are actual spending, dashed lines projected spending.

Before we look at the details, I’ll provide some background information on the budgeting process.
  1. The President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) annually prepares a budget proposal for the next year.  The proposal contains two sets of numbers: the proposed spending for the next fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) and a notional budget for the following four years (through FY19 in this proposal) that agency managers use to plan multiyear programs.
  2. Each house of Congress then passes its own version of the budget, which are reconciled between the two.  The President must sign the congressionally approved budget for it to become law, giving OMB significant negotiating power with Congress.
  3. The final signed budget law will expire on September 30, 2015.  NASA’s managers must spend to match the budget (with some wiggle room) for that fiscal year.   However, they cannot start any multi-year program that isn’t also shown in the President’s out year notional budget.

To understand the impact of the budget on future planetary exploration (the focus of this blog), I've learned to look at three sets of numbers: Funding for missions in flight, funding for missions in development, and funding to start development of future missions.

Funding for missions in flight

Proposed funding for missions in flight (or in the case of GRAIL, just completed).  The budget for operating the Cassini mission isn’t reported separately, and the figures shown are approximate.

The President’s budget proposes to fund all missions in flight with two exceptions.  The first key change in this budget from last year is that the new proposal includes full funding for the Cassini orbiter at Saturn through the planned end of its mission (and fuel) in 2017.  This would mean that the final orbits close to the rings and atmosphere will occur.  As recently as last summer, funding for the Cassini mission past 2015 was in doubt.

Other missions are either funded throughout the five year budget projection (the Curiosity rover, for example), until their expected end of life (the MESSENGER Mercury orbiter), or until the end of their originally planned missions when they will be eligible to justify further funding for extended missions (New Horizons).

The other key change to this portion of the budget, however, is the proposal for premature termination of the Opportunity rover and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission.  Both missions are producing good science, and the budget document doesn’t explain why funding isn’t proposed.  In addition to the main budget, the President proposed a supplemental budget enhancement that would be funded through new taxes that would fund both of these missions (among many other programs).  This supplement is given no chance of passage by the current Congress.  Continuing these two missions, then, depends on Congress adding funds to support them in next year’s budget (quite possibly taken from elsewhere in NASA’s budget since NASA’s total budget is unlikely to change much under the two year budget compromise worked out last year by the two political parties).

Proposing to not continue funding the popular and still very productive Opportunity rover is one of the two, “I can’t imagine what they were thinking,” lines in the budget.  I hope that Congress will overturn this.  (I also disagree with not continuing the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter which is still producing good science, but it doesn’t have the popular following of Opportunity.)

Funding for missions in development

The budget would fully fund development of the three approved NASA missions in development.  Funding is proposed to continue evaluating options for a possible Europa mission that may be developed in the 2020s and for future Discovery program missions.  Solid lines are approved missions, dashed line are funding for expected future missions.

The proposed budget would also fully fund the planetary missions that NASA has in development: the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample return, the InSight Mars geophysical station, and the 2020 Mars rover mission.  Funding is also included for NASA’s contributions to the European Space Agency’s Bepi-Colombo Mercury orbiter, the 2016 ExoMars orbiter and 2018 rover, and the JUICE Jupiter-Ganymede orbiter.

Funding to start development of future missions

By the end of the decade, NASA would be completing development of the Mars 2020 rover and developing new Discovery-program missions.  No new missions in the New Frontiers or Outer Planets programs are foreseen in the budget for the rest of this decade.  Solid lines are actual spending, dashed lines projected spending.

By funding most missions in flight and continuing development of missions already approved, the budget is largely status quo.  The radical changes to NASA’s program would come for the missions that will follow these.

NASA’s mission strategy has been to fly a mixture of mission that fall into different cost classes.  Some scientific priorities require expensive, highly capable spacecraft, such as the 2020 Mars rover in development.  NASA refers to these missions as Flagships that would cost $1.5B to $2.5B.  (More expensive Flagship missions were flown in the past.)  Flagship missions would do the difficult, high priority studies that simply can’t be done more cheaply.   The expectation has been that one or two Flagship missions would be developed per decade, with missions to Europa and Uranus (in that order) having the highest priority. 

NASA has a second mission class for high priority studies that can be done more cheaply ($700M to $1B), known as the New Frontiers program.   In the past, this program was used to develop the New Horizons spacecraft on its way to Pluto, the Juno orbiter en route to study the interior of Jupiter, and the OSIRIS-REx  asteroid sample return mission that is in development.  For the future, the scientific community has prioritized a Venus lander, a Saturn atmospheric probe, a Trojan asteroid tour and rendezvous, a comet surface sample return, and a Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin sample return for this program.   The expectation had been that New Frontiers missions would be selected every five to seven years.  As recently as last summer, NASA was planning to select the fourth mission in the series in the next year or two. 

Discovery program missions cost approximately $450M and are competitively chosen from proposals submitted by scientific teams to study any solar system body except the sun and Earth.  (NASA has other programs to study those two bodies.)  NASA originally selected Discovery missions every two years, but that has been stretched to every five years recently.

The new budget proposal would radically shift the mixture of mission classes for the future.  The budget for the Discovery program would be ramped up to a level that would again allow selection of missions every two years.  (In a past meeting, Jim Green, head of NASA’s Planetary Science program, has said that a budget of ~$350M would support starting a Discovery mission every two years.)  However, the budget states that after the launch of the OSIRIS-REx mission, the budget for the budget for the New Frontiers program drops to near zero and no money is foreseen up to 2019 to develop future missions.  (It is silent about whether New Frontiers missions might be selected after that.)

The proposed budget also doesn’t foresee any new Flagship missions to be started before 2019 and looks to see if the highest priority future Flagship mission could be descoped to the equivalent of a New Frontiers mission.  The approach proposed in the budget is the second case where I am left scratching my head wondering what the thinking is.   Thanks to generous funding added by Congress in the last two budgets, NASA has extensively studied a ~$2B proposed mission called the Europa Clipper.  For the FY15 budget, NASA proposes to spend $15M (a substantial cut from last year’s $80M inserted into the budget by Congress for Europa mission studies) to assess the potential for a $1B Europa mission.  Testing different cost points to learn what each could provide is a smart management move.  What doesn’t make sense is that the budget proposes to spend $15M next year, and then nothing for a Europa mission until possibly sometime in the 2020s.  The engineers who will study the descoped mission will have moved on to other projects or retired; technologies available today will be obsolete.  So why bother? 

While Congress has strongly supported doing a Europa mission earlier than the 2020s, it can’t force the formal start of development on a new mission.  Congressional budgets expire every September 30th.  To start development on a new mission, NASA needs both for its budget to show proposed budgets in future years to complete the development and for Congress to appropriate the funds for that development each year.  Under the proposed budget, we would have one more year of studies and then nothing for perhaps another decade. 

This budget proposal presents almost no vision for NASA’s planetary program following the completion of the missions currently in development.  No money would be spent to prepare for a Flagship mission to launch in the 2020s.  The Outer Planets program shrinks to near zero, and the same for the New Frontiers program.  In the proposed budget, the only firm plan for the following decade appears to be a robust program of Discovery missions, but that alone isn’t enough for a robust planetary science program.

Unless the Planetary Science budget suffers a severe cut at the turn of the next decade, funds should be available for a relatively rich program.  By my back of the envelope calculations, continuing the current budget (with inflation adjustments) would support development of the $2B Europa Clipper, a New Frontiers mission, and five Discovery missions in the 2020s.  Alternatively, NASA could fund three New Frontiers-class missions (including perhaps, a budget Europa mission) and five Discovery missions.  However, preparing to fly these missions requires funding in advance of mission selection to have robust programs ready.

My take is that the new budget proposal is an interim document when it comes to preparing for the next decade’s missions.  The President’s budget managers have placed a low priority on planetary science compared to other NASA programs, and the program’s budget has suffered substantial cuts as a result.  This is the first budget proposal in several years that shows essentially flat spending into the future instead of new cuts.  NASA’s managers likely are revamping their expectations for the planetary program given the new budget realities.  We haven’t heard (and NASA may well not know) what mission portfolio it plans to support in the future within that reality.

The proposed FY15 budget is the first in several years that doesn’t propose substantial cuts in future years compared to the previous year’s budget.  Lines for each fiscal year show what spending was expected in that budget for the next five years.


  1. Obama really is a dim bulb, not nearly as smart and curious as supporters say he is. He is doing to NASA and the planetary science program what he is doing to the country, running them both into the ground.
    I agree with Van, this lacks vision.

  2. The Keystone GarterApril 15, 2014 at 12:46 PM

    I have a good emergency asteroid intercept contingency. Probably terrorists, AI or aliens are more of a future reality than is a natural impactor.

    1) Find a few mostly/all volatile (frozen ices) comet or asteroid likely in the asteroid belt. These are valuable resources for other economies like as fuel stations and to provide life support services. They will likely be house sized to skyscraper sized but I'm not sure the bomb physics. Lots of silicate might ablate okay too and rocky asteroids are common.
    2) Bombard it lightly with iron-based asteroids nearby probably basketball to bar sized.
    2) Wait for the seismic and "surface weather" properties to stabilize to inert status.
    3) Rendevous a probe equipped with a drill and if necessary drill through the crust that has been created by the bombardment. Drill/melt/steam through to the core. Insert a neutron bomb.
    4) Obama's asteroid mission will be useful here: bag the asteroid.
    5) Send the dozen or so "Sentinal Impactors" orbiting, maybe around an asteroid belt orbit. Might be too high a danger of inadvertent collisions right at the asteroid belt. There are many ways of towing a bagged asteroid to an optimal orbit. An elliptical orbit might result in too much ablation if the Sentinel travels near the Sun.
    6) The part I haven't figured out yet is the best way to tow the asteroid into the path of a big asteroid headed for Earth. The Sentinel might be fragile but you want a quick diversion.
    6) Spin the Sentinel for a uniform distribution of iron post-detonation.
    7) Once the Sentinel is in the path of the doomsday asteroid, probably a week to a few minutes away, detonate the neutron bomb. The volatiles will ablate. The iron shrapnel will be small particles and disperse uniformly on the surface of the doomsday asteroid. This will limit the odds of doomsday fragmentation and eliminates the risk of "flashback"; the refraction from the surface of the doomsday asteroid that Jay Melosh discovered in the reference paper (I think).

  3. The Keystone GarterApril 15, 2014 at 12:52 PM

    #4 means bag the Sentinel. Towing it to the path of the doomsday asteroid will probably be easiest using the volatiles as rocket fuel. This mission requires neutron bombs in Solar System orbit. I don't believe these volatiles are much of a threat to Earth.

  4. The Keystone GarterApril 24, 2014 at 2:27 PM, the Sentinels asteroid contingency obviously favours asteroid and comet missions. And the more I think about it the more I like it. No asteroid disintegration risk. You could keep the bombs on Earth but that makes launch a fail-mode.

    I like the Star Shade better than WFIELD if Star Shade is much better at finding human-inhabitable worlds. If we find them nearby, we will want to direct our politics and propulsion system R+D towards this means. If not, other objectives will be more important.
    For Mars, the potential for active liquid water interests me most. If you combine it with a AI/pandemic WMD sensor network, this suggests launching a network of sensors to function on Mars, finding all the tubules that have recently flowed water (or useless liquid CO2 if the thesis is flawed). It may be possible to find a historic clock, such as soil sampling that unearths how many major abrasive dust-devils there have been since last water flow.
    Materials science is important for a sensor network. PVDF-trifluor...ethylene looks like it is capable of forming a physically tamper-proof barrier for sensitive infrastructures like biolab equipment and supercomputer databases. I like visual pattern recognition AI, and quantum key research of all types here. The PVDF- can create lamb waves to look for damage to a surface, lamb waves being a discovery by the most likeliest of Auzzie researchers, a researchers with the whitest hair and a bleating voice tone.
    The potential NASA budget for this kind of basic research appears a few dozen million dollars a year larger than is the DARPA budget. If James Webb doesn't bankrupt America.
    Perhaps a better and thinner CNT coating will be found that is cheaper than is PVDF-trifluo-ethy

  5. ESA is thinking about reflying a second version of the TGO to Venus among other things.

  6. When are you planning to do an update?

  7. The Keystone GarterMay 1, 2014 at 12:53 PM

    Where JW should have been cancelled is when the cost increased from $3B to $4.5B one year. It is primarily to look for dark matter or dark energy (I forget). Basic research is important, but now it is around the same cost as the Large Hadron Collider, built to look for the Higgs Boson.
    There is a lack of understanding that humans need human gravity, so Venus would preferable for colonization over Mars.
    If there are Earth gravity planets orbiting stars nearby, we will want to consider colonizing them. If not, we will prefer rotating colonies, maybe out of Oort Cloud matter. Is why I like star shade. Less precise exoplanet observatories are good for estimating the odds of technological aliens, but not for our future colony plans. Can a solar sail go to proxima century (a useless two or three star system) in 50 years? Maybe in my lifetime.

  8. Will The Keystone Garter volunteer to go to Venus to enjoy it's terrestrial gravity? Mars has less gravity but at least you won't get roasted in a high pressure, over heated oven!

  9. Hi Bill I was wondering if instead of trying to find life on other planets, we could create our own planet, using a large nuclear powered electromagnetic,we could launch it into space and have it set in a orbit that's just the right distance from the sun, near a large asteroid field, when it is turned on it would pull in metal asteroid fragments in, and begin to grow in size, as it grows in size, it would all so start to have a gravitational pull, to pull in asteroids that are not metallic, the Earths core is liquid Iron, a nuclear reactor melt down inside the new planet, could create this liquid metal core, after it no longer needs the giant electromagnetic to help it grow.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.