It will be weeks, months, or perhaps longer until we get an accurate picture of why the head of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, Alan Stern, unexpectedly resigned last week, along with the agency’s chief scientist. One suspects that the reasons are budget related, but frankly, at this stage no one other than those directly involved really knows. The long-term science program that Stern and Griffin had proposed in the 2009 budget submission was as realistic as any government plan could be. It took into account the situation of the agency as a whole and gave the scientists some—but not all—of what they wanted.
It was disappointing to see that NASA would have to cut out some of the Mars missions that it had hoped to fly, but the big and very ambitious Mars Sample Return mission is now planned for the end of the next decade. Developing the technology and building the infrastructure for this project will strain future budgets and make extraordinary demands on the skills of academia and industry.
In contrast, the proposed “flagship mission” to either Jupiter or Saturn, which is now scheduled to launch in 2017, will not require any fantastically heroic feats of engineering. Designing and building any spacecraft that can survive such a trip and effectively gather useful scientific information is not going to be easy, but will not push the state of the art the way the Mars Sample Return will.
Paying for both missions at about the same time will not be easy, especially if NASA continues to be kept on what is, in relation to what they are expected to do, a near starvation diet. The idea that a major flagship mission can be launched, even with support from European and Japanese partners, with a US expenditure of $2 billion is just not realistic. If that sum could be doubled then NASA would be able to begin work on the project with a reasonable expectation that politically damaging cost overruns and delays could be avoided.
I would like to think that we could afford both of these missions, to build the Orion spacecraft, and more. However, a lot depends on the political capital that the next President of the US is willing to spend on space related issues. Truthfully, based on every president that has taken office since LBJ, that's not going to be much at all.
If it were really up to me, I'd be popping off robotic missions all over the place! Three to Mars every launch window: one orbiter and two surface missions of some kind: rovers, landers, or aerial vehicles. I'd send a mission to Venus or Mercury every three years. I'd also like to see a lunar mission AND a small body mission every year. I'd love to pop off an outer systems mission every three or four years too. Except let's look at that price tag: Mars, $1.5 billion/year; Mer/Ven, $200 million/year; Lun/SB, $750 million/year; Outer Sys, $1.2 billion/year. There ought to be a $1 billion/year for interesting ideas or challenging missions. That's nearly $5 billion/year for direct mission costs for the 'routine' missions, nevermind the upgrading of infrastructure necessary to make it work (DSP upgrades, frex). that would probably take it up to somewhere around $8 billion.
That doesn't count aeronautics research. That doesn't count astronomy research. That doesn't count earth observation research. That doesn't count any other basic science research. That doesn't count human space flight: all of you know that I really want a lot more manned space exploration and definitely not just goign 'round and round in low Earth orbit.
To get all of what I want out of NASA you would be looking at tripling or quadrupling NASA's budget. We're talking around $48 - 64 billion per year. Somehow I doubt that it's even remotely politically feasible.
...especially when they're talking about whether or not NASA can afford an outer systems mission and a sample return from Mars!
No comments:
Post a Comment