The Planetary Exploration Newsletter (PEN) published a Special Edition this Christmas Eve with a message from NASA Planetary Science Division (PSD) Director Jim Green responding to “community concerns.”

Judging from the newsletter, the planetary science community is worried that the recent decision to fund another Mars rover in 2020 is impacting the amount of money available for research and analysis (R&A) in planetary science overall. 

The planetary science community was stunned earlier this year when the President’s FY2013 budget request reduced funding for NASA’s planetary science program by 21 percent, requiring NASA to curtail planned cooperation with Europe on Mars missions scheduled for launch in 2016 and 2018 — the ExoMars program.  Those are flight projects, rather than funding that goes to R&A, which pays for concept studies of new missions and data analysis of ongoing and completed programs.  The funding goes to university professors and their graduate students, NASA field centers, non-profits, for-profit corporations, and other government laboratories. 

Green’s message, transmitted through PEN, is that the FY2013 budget request includes $228 million for R&A, “more than 19% of the entire Planetary Science budget (a historic high percentage).”  Noting that NASA is operating under a Continuing Resolution for FY2013 at the moment, Green says that means PSD program officers are getting partial funding at regular intervals, but do not have all the funds necessary to meet current R&A commitments.  He then lists the core principles on how R&A is being managed, which includes choosing R&A awards in three categories:  selected, non-selected, and “selectable.”   He goes on to say that recent announcements in Planetary Astronomy and Planetary Atmospheres R&A did not identify the proposals in the selectable category that would be funded as money becomes available later in the year.  “Contrary to reports in the science community, the recent announcement of the Mars 2020 rover has nothing to do with the current R&A selection rates nor has it impacted the current or projected amounts to be spent in the R&A program,” he says.

Athough the proposed budget cut in the FY2013 budget request would have curtailed U.S. robotic Mars missions after next year’s launch of MAVEN, NASA has, in fact, subsequently selected another Mars mission, InSight, for launch in 2016, and another rover mission similar to Curiosity for launch in 2020.  Where the money will come from to pay for the 2020 mission is not clear.  Details are expected when the FY2014 budget request is sent to Congress, scheduled for February 2013.   In the meantime, it appears that the planetary science community is worried that funding for that mission will come at the expense of ongoing R&A and Green’s missive is meant to assuage those concerns.

The timing of the announcement is odd since most people on Christmas Eve are busy tracking Santa Claus rather than federal budgets.  Perhaps it proves that Washington never sleeps and/or is meant to deflect any criticism that might emerge at the American Astronomical Society’s annual meeting two weeks from now.

Landsat 5, launched in 1984, has finally reached the end of its useful life after 29 years of service, vastly exceeding its three year design life. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which operates the Landsat satellites, announced this week that the venerable spacecraft would be decommissioned over the next several months after the recent failure of one of its gyroscopes.

NASA began what is now known as the Landsat program in 1972 with the launch of the Earth Resources Technology Satellite -1 (ERTS-1), later renamed Landsat 1. At least one Landsat satellite has been operational in orbit since then providing a 40-year data set on the ever changing land surface of the Earth. The data enable everything from crop forecasting to environmental monitoring using medium resolution sensors (15 meter resolution on today’s Landsat satellites).

Landsat 5’s decommissioning means that only Landsat 7 remains operational.  Launched in 1999, data from that satellite have been degraded since 2003 because of a failure in its scan line corrector.  The Landsat user community is anxiously awaiting the launch of the next in the series, alternatively called the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) or Landsat 8.  It is scheduled for launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base atop an Atlas V rocket on February 11, 2013.

The future of the Landsat program beyond that is cloudy. NASA designed, built and launched Landsat 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.  The Carter Administration decided that the program was operational and ready to be privatized by transitioning it out of the government and into the private sector.  The Reagan Administration continued that effort and Congress passed the 1984 Land Remote-Sensing Commercialization Act to facilitate the transition.  A tumultous decade ensued including the loss of Landsat 6 in a launch accident and the failure of a commercial market to emerge to enable privatization to succeed.  The end result was that in order to ensure the continuity of this type of data, the Landsat program was brought back into the government.   The 1984 Act was repealed and replaced by the 1992 Land Remote Sensing Policy Act.  NASA and DOD were supposed to jointly build and launch Landsat 7, but DOD withdrew, leaving NASA to carry it out.   NASA then was charged with building and launching the next satellite, LDCM/Landsat 8.   The only portion of the program it has been able to transition to others so far is on-orbit operations, which were turned over to USGS, operator of the Landsat data archive in Sioux Falls, SD for decades.

In the FY2012 budget request, the Obama Administration proposed making USGS completely responsible for the Landsat program, with NASA serving only as the acquisition agent, the same relationship it has with NOAA on weather satellites.  USGS is part of the Department of the Interior, and the appropriations subcommittees that preside over its funding did not concur, worried that the expense of the program would negatively impact other USGS activities. 

Landsat’s fate has been in limbo ever since.  USGS Director Marcia McNutt said earlier this year that the Obama Administration is “full of fans of Landsat,” but that an affordable solution needs to be found.  The National Research Council is engaged in a study to make recommendations on  implementation of a sustainable land imaging program at the request of USGS.  The report is expected in March 2013.

Meanwhile, everyone has their fingers crossed that the upcoming launch of LDCM/Landsat 8 is successful.  Otherwise the continuity of the multi-decade data set provided by the Landsat series will be in jeopardy.

Correction:  The date for the launch of Landsat 8 has been corrected.  According to NASA, the launch is at 10:04 am Pacific Standard Time on Feb. 11, not on Feb. 10.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden sent a letter to NASA employees today reassuring them that the agency will not need to furlough anyone immediately if agreement is not reached by January 2 to avoid sequestration.

Negotiations are ongoing between House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama on the “fiscal cliff” — a combination of automatic spending cuts that will take place on January 2 due to the sequester provision of the 2011 Budget Control Act and automatic tax increases that will take place as existing tax cuts expire on December 31.

Bolden explained that sequestration would reduce the agency’s budget resources for the rest of FY2013, which ends on September 30.  The cuts “while significant and harmful to our collective mission as an agency, would not necessarily require immediate reductions in spending.”  Therefore, he does not expect “day-to-day operations to change dramatically on or immediately after January 2,” Bolden continued.   He did not rule out furloughs entirely, however, adding that if sequestration remains in effect for an extended period of time, they or other measures might have to be considered, but it would be only after examining other options to reduce costs.    If furloughs become necessary, “requisite advance notice” will be provided.

A recent analysis by George Mason University for the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) concluded that as many as 20,500 NASA contractor jobs could be lost if sequestration takes effect.  It would not cause the loss of NASA civil servant jobs, it said, because the 2010 NASA Authorization Act prohibits NASA from conducting any Reduction-in-Force (RIF), the process the government uses to permanently lay off workers.  The analysis did not discuss furloughs, which are temporary layoffs.

Bolden sounded optimistic about the chances of avoiding the sequester.  “Sequestration was never intended to be implemented, and there is no reason why both sides should not be able to come together and prevent this scenario,” he said.

The sequester provision was included in the Budget Control Act as a “poison pill” to motivate a congressional “supercommittee” to come up with an alternative way to reduce the deficit, but it failed last year leading to the current situation.  The back and forth between Boehner and Obama changes daily and it remains anyone’s guess as to whether they will reach agreement in time.

The National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Human Spaceflight held its first public meeting yesterday.  In addition to hearing from NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, the committee listened to other top NASA officials, congressional staff, and other experts on the past and present of the space program and what NASA and Congress are hoping to get from the report.

Congress requested the report in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, a bill written by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.   Senate committee staff members Ann Zulkosky (D) and Jeff Bingham (R) and House Science, Space and Technology Commitee staffer Dick Obermann (D) briefed the committee both on what Congress had in mind back in 2010 when the law was written and what they would find most useful today. 

The key message from the staffers was that the NRC committee should not assume that Congress will remain as supportive of space exploration in the future as it has been in the past.  Zulkosky said “don’t assume anything” and explaining the value of the space program to taxpayers is an “important part of the conversation.”  Bingham agreed, adding that simply because the President’s 2010 National Space Policy lays out principles and goals for a strong space program that does not mean Congress is in agreement.  “The National Space Policy is an Executive Branch statement of policy and I say ‘thanks for sharing,'” but Congress has “a separate and equal responsibility to make policy — we call it law.” 

Like Zulkosky, Bingham stressed the need for the NRC committee to explain the “value proposition” of the space program to make the linkage between space spending and people’s daily lives. “Excitement is easy to generate, but not sustainable,” he argued.  Obermann pointed out, however, that in the 1960s less than half the public thought the Apollo program was a useful expenditure, so he was not as certain that public opinion is a key element in such decisions.   All three stressed that sustainability is essential.  Zulkosky said that the country needs to stop planning in 4 or 8 year increments (referring to the length of 1 or 2 presidential terms) and look at the longer term. That is what she hopes the NRC committee will do. 

Committee co-chair Jonathan Lunine talked about what he sees as a dichotomy in public reaction to individual highs and lows associated with particular missions like the Mars Curiosity rover — which he referred to as an “AC signal” — and the longer term contribution that is in the background of such missions — the “DC signal” — that sparks a different type of public reaction.  Bingham said he hopes the study will recognize that dichotomy.  Obermann said that it also would be helpful if the committee could illuminate whether the space program in its entirety, not just human spaceflight, is sustainable or should be sustained.

Investigating what the public sees as the value proposition for the human spaceflight program was also championed by NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver.    Like Bolden, she read a prepared statement (neither has been posted on the NASA website yet).   The NRC committee had asked her to address what NASA would find most useful coming out of the report.  She urged committee members to focus on the “unique task” it has been given to reach out to the public to determine its views on the human spaceflight program — what the public believes it gets in return for its investment.

The NRC committee is, indeed, focusing considerable effort on that aspect of its task, with one-third of the committee members coming from backgrounds in public opinion polling.  The committee will be supported by two panels, one of which will have additional expertise in public opinion polling.  The members of that panel have not been named yet.   The membership of the other panel, on Technical Feasibility, was announced last week. 

Because so many of the NRC committee members are new to NASA issues, Bolden, John Grunsfeld (head of the Science Mission Directorate), and Greg Williams (deputy associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations), presented primers on what NASA does.  There was little newsworthy other than Bolden’s comments about sending astronauts to an asteroid and that NASA will soon stand up a Space Technology Mission Directorate. 

The NRC committee also heard from a panel of two space historians — Roger Launius (National Air and Space Museum) and Howard McCurdy (American University), a space economist — Henry Hertzfeld (George Washington University), and an English professor — Betty Sue Flowers (University of Texas-Austin), who edited “The Power of Myth.”  

Launius presented data showing that contrary to the memories and assumptions of most Americans, the Apollo program was not particularly popular with the public in the 1960s.   He traced the factors that led to the Apollo program’s approval by President John F. Kennedy and Congress — essentially Cold War politics — and concluded that Apollo was “unique to its time and won’t be repeated in our lifetimes.”  He believes that exploration can be sustained only when it leads to something of value.  In the Apollo program “we didn’t find anything of value.  We sustain exploration only when we do.”  He showed data from the 2010 General Social Survey of where the public preferred to make cuts in federal spending.  Space exploration was second on the list, just behind defense.   He pointed out that it is one of only three on the list of 18 types of federal spending where more than 50 percent of Democrats and more than 50 percent of Republicans want to cut (the other two are foreign aid and welfare). 

McCurdy argued that “robots are winning the space race” because they are more cost effective than sending humans into space.   That will remain true, he said, until investments are made in new propulsion technologies, such as nuclear propulsion, to reduce the cost of launching people.  Politicians are not interested in making those investments, he contends.   Hertzfeld agreed that “no cost-benefit analysis will justify human spaceflight.”  He argued that because human spaceflight programs are expensive and long term, three things are needed:  technical knowledge, a fiscal surplus or at least not a large deficit, and an external political motivating factor.  “And all three have to converge at the same time,” he added, but one cannot predict when that might happen.

The NRC committee is co-chaired by Lunine and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry.   With few exceptions, they were the only members who asked questions during what turned out to be a quiet day that seemed at odds with the roiling controversy over the future of the human spaceflight program that has enveloped the space community for the past three years.

The committee’s next meeting is January 8, 2013 in Stanford, CA, but it is closed to the public.