NASA’s Associate Administrator for Science, John Grunsfeld, announced today that he is creating a Mars Program Planning Group to chart a path forward for robotic Mars exploration with the goal of defining an affordable mission that could be launched in 2018.  Steve Squyres, chair of the recent National Research Council (NRC) Decadal Survey for planetary science, however, indicated that such a mission would conform with the Survey’s recommendations only if it is directly linked to returning a sample of Mars to Earth.

Grunsfeld told a meeting of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) this morning that NASA remains committed to Mars exploration.  His comment comes in the wake of NASA’s withdrawal from a cooperative program with the European Space Agency (ESA) for Mars missions in 2016 and 2018 that were deemed unaffordable by the Obama Administration.

A physicist and former NASA astronaut, Grunsfeld wryly noted that every astronaut class since 1990 has been told they will be the ones to travel to Mars. While expressing his disappointment with the decision to cut spending on robotic planetary exploration, he pointed to the country’s difficult economic situation as forcing tough choices on priorities. Those decisions have been made, he said.

Still, he strongly believes it is important to keep Mars exploration vibrant to retain critical workforce skills as well as public and political interest in exploring the planet both with robots and humans.   The ultimate goal, he says, is having astrobiologists and geologists on the surface of Mars.  The Obama Administration’s goal as expressed in the President’s National Space Policy is to send humans to orbit Mars in the 2030’s, but not to land there until some indefinite time thereafter.   President Obama said in a major speech about the future of the U.S. human spaceflight program on April 15, 2010 that he anticipates humans landing on Mars within his lifetime, but was not more specific.

Grunsfeld was NASA’s Chief Scientist from 2003-2004 before returning to his astronaut duties and flying on a shuttle mission in 2009 to repair the Hubble Space Telescope (his fifth shuttle mission and third as a Hubble repairman).  He later left NASA and joined the Space Telescope Science Institute, which operates Hubble and will operate the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).  He returned to NASA headquarters at the beginning of this year to head the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), which is struggling to cope with cost overruns on JWST that some space scientists blame for the cuts to the planetary science budget.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden announced on February 13, 2012, the day the FY2013 budget request was released, that he was establishing a team within NASA to develop an “integrated approach” to Mars exploration that responds to NASA’s goals both for science and human exploration.  Grunsfeld is heading that team.  The other members are Bill Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations; Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist; and Mason Peck, NASA Chief Technologist.

What Grunsfeld announced today was another team that will be headed by Orlando Figueroa, a veteran leader of NASA’s robotic Mars missions, who retired in 2010.  Figueroa is tasked to provide a “framework” by the end of March and a final report by late summer on how to “recapture” an opportunity to send a probe to Mars in 2018 or, if necessary, 2020.   Earth and Mars are correctly aligned every 26 months to allow probes to be sent there.   Some of those opportunities are better than others and Grunsfeld describes 2018 as a “sweet spot” in planetary alignments, but 2020 would be acceptable.  It is being promoted primarily as a 2018 mission, however.

One key is how much such a mission would cost.  NASA categorizes planetary science missions as Discovery-class, New Frontiers-class, or flagship.   Discovery-class missions cost about $500 million; New Frontiers-class are about $1 billion; and flagship missions are those more expensive than the others.   The 2016 and 2018 missions planned with ESA were flagship-class missions and Grunsfeld and other NASA officials have firmly made clear that there is no room in the NASA budget for new flagship missions.  The Mars Program Planning Team headed by Figueroa is supposed to come up with creative and innovative ideas for a Mars mission in 2018 that is affordable within NASA’s currently anticipated budget.  It will include representatives of the Office of the Chief Technologist and the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD).   Grunsfeld indicated that he hopes those parts of NASA will bring additional money to the table to accomplish a 2018 Mars mission.

Grunsfeld’s determination to find a way to launch a Mars probe in 2018 is not sitting well with others in the planetary exploration community who view it as inconsistent with the recommendations of the NRC’s planetary science Decadal Survey.  

Steve Squyres, best known as the top scientist for the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, chaired the Decadal Survey and spoke to MEPAG this morning after Grunsfeld.  Sqyures also chairs the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).   He was not optimistic about other parts of NASA, especially HEOMD, providing additional funding for a Mars mission since they have their own budget challenges.   More importantly, he implied that inserting a 2018 Mars mission into the planetary exploration queue does not conform with the Decadal Survey recommendations unless it is connected with the ultimate goal of returning samples to Earth.

The Decadal Survey represents a consensus of the planetary science community on the top scientific questions in planetary exploration overall, not just Mars, and identifies missions to answer them.  It also establishes “decision rules” to guide NASA if budgets are less than envisioned when the Survey was conducted.  It began in 2009 when the budget situation was comparatively robust.  By the time the report was released in early 2011, the situation had changed for the worse and deteriorated thereafter. 

Under the decision rules, if budgets are tight, NASA is “to go after flagships first,” Squyres said, and that is what NASA did, terminating its role in the 2016 and 2018 missions with ESA.  Those missions were the first in a series leading to returning a sample of Mars to Earth.   The Decadal Survey identified Mars sample return as its top priority in the flagship class and set out a number of missions over many years — a “campaign” — to accomplish it.  Early missions would select and set aside (“cache”) samples to be collected and returned to Earth by subsequent missions.   It was this mulit-spacecraft, multi-decade commitment that worried the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and failed to win support.

The Decadal Survey said that that if the Mars sample return campaign did not proceed, NASA should turn to the second priority flagship mission, the Jupiter Europa Orbiter.  The solar system is full of fascinating objects to explore and Squyres stressed that the Decadal Survey was for all of planetary exploration, not just Mars.   He also reminded the audience that the overarching consensus of the community was to protect the smaller missions in the Discovery and New Frontiers programs, along with Research and Analysis (R&A) and technology development.  They have priority over flagship missions if budget constraints are severe, he said, which is the situation NASA finds itself in today.  

His bottom line is that under the Decadal Survey’s decision rules, new missions to Mars “that lead directly to sample return” — a phrase he repeatedly stressed —  have very high priority.  If a proposed Mars mission does not lead directly to sample return, it should be openly competed in the Discovery program.   A Mars mission already is one of three proposals in contention for the Discovery 12 selection this summer.  Thus, although Squyres did not explicitly say so, the implication is that unless the new 2018 Mars mission Grunsfeld is seeking “leads directly to sample return,” it would not be consistent with the Decadal Survey.

NRC Decadal Surveys are often referred to as “bibles” because they are faithfully followed by NASA and Congress since they represent a hard-won consensus of the relevant science community.  The NRC produces Decadal Surveys every ten years (a decade) for each of NASA’s science disciplines — astrophysics, heliophysics (the study of the Sun and the solar-terrestrial relationship), earth science, and planetary exploration.

Mars is the Roman god of war, an apt connection as budget battles heat up with the release of NASA’s FY2013 request.   Lines are being drawn in the space science community generally and among planetary scientists specifically as everyone fights for scarer resources.   Future plans for Mars probes are at the center of the debate.   All eyes are on Congress to see if it will save the planetary exploration budget and, if it does, what will be sacrificed in this zero-sum budget environment.

NASA’s total budget would decline by only a small amount if Congress appropriates the President’s request, but a $300 million cut to NASA’s $1.5 billion planetary science budget is sparking controversy.  The complaints come both from those who believe that budget suffered because of overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and those who feel that NASA is trying to salvage some sort of robotic Mars exploration program at the expense of exploring other places in the solar system.

The cut from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion means that NASA will not be able to fulfill its pledge to participate with the European Space Agency (ESA) in a series of missions that ultimately would return a sample of Mars to Earth.   NASA informed ESA that it could not participate in missions planned for 2016 and 2018 that were to kick off that effort.  The decision resulted in a storm of controversy in the planetary science community that blamed overruns on JWST for the reduced funding for planetary science.   JWST is part of NASA’s astrophysics program.  Planetary science and astrophysics are two of the four disciplines within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD).   The other two are earth science and heliophysics (studies of the Sun and the solar-terrestrial environment).  The budget request for all of astrophysics — including JWST, which is bookkept separately — would increase substantially, and earth science and heliophysics would increase slightly.  Only planetary science would decrease in FY2013.

NASA officials have been careful not to make any connection publicly between JWST overruns and cuts to the planetary science budget.   They insist that several planetary science missions have completed their development phases or soon will.  Thus, a reduction should not be surprising, they say.  That argument has not assuaged those who draw the battle line between JWST and planetary science.

But a new front opened on Thursday during a teleconference meeting of the NASA Advisory Council’s (NAC’s) Planetary Science Subcommittee.   Divisions within the planetary science community became apparent there, and may continue on Monday and Tuesday at a meeting of NASA’s Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) near Dulles Airport outside Washington, DC.

At Thursday’s meeting, advocates of exploring the outer planets — those that lie beyond Mars and the asteroid belt — were particularly vocal in arguing that the recent National Research Council’s Decadal Survey for planetary science gave them the next priority if the Mars sample return missions did not proceed.   Instead, they complained, NASA is continuing to talk about Mars missions, albeit smaller than those that were planned with ESA.    On February 13, the day the budget request was released, for example, SMD Associate Administrator John Grunsfeld spoke about options for sending smaller probes to Mars in 2016 and 2018 despite cancellation of the plans with ESA for the large “flagship” (most expensive) missions.   Grunsfeld also restated what NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said earlier in the day that the agency is developing an “integrated strategy” for Mars exploration that responds to the needs of both science and human exploration goals at NASA.

Jim Green, director of SMD’s planetary science division, confirmed at Thursday’s meeting that a Mars sample return mission will not be pursued in this decade.  He also repeated what he has said at previous meetings of this subcommittee that the planetary science community needs to make its case that the return on investment for planetary exploration is worth the cost.  NASA’s budget includes a four-year projection that shows planetary science will continue on a downward trajectory through FY2015 to $1.1 billion and then receive very slight increases the next two years.  By FY2017 the budget ekes its way back to the $1.2 billion it would get in FY2013. 

NRC Decadal Surveys are performed for each of the space and earth science disciplines every 10 years (a decade) and prioritize what science questions are most important and identify missions to answer them.  The Decadal Surveys are often referred to as “bibles” because NASA and Congress usually follow their recommendations faithfully since they represent a consensus of the relevant science community.    The planetary science Decadal Survey stated that the Mars sample return missions had top priority for flagship missions and if they did not proceed, then NASA should go to the next on the list — a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa called the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO).   Europa has an icy crust that scientists believe covers a liquid ocean of water.   In the “follow the water” quest for extraterrestrial life, it is a very high priority target for outer planet exploration. 

Green was challenged at Thursday’s meeting to explain why NASA is talking about smaller Mars missions instead of focusing on a Europa mission as the Decadal Survey recommended.   He insisted that NASA is following the Decadal Survey recommendations because the 2016 Mars mission it is considering already had been proposed as a candidate for a small Discovery-class mission, and the agency is not trying to add a medium-class New Frontiers mission for Mars.  

The Decadal Survey stipulated that if JEO was to proceed, its costs would have to be sharply reduced.  Robert Pappalardo of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a NASA-funded federal research and development center operated by the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, CA, is heading a study to do just that.   He stated at Thursday’s meeting that his group has come up with “multiple fly-by missions that will come in at the cost target” and demanded to know why NASA is “abandoning the Decadal Survey recommendation.”

Green replied that looking at the budget through FY2017, there is “no room for a flagship level activity,” but Pappalardo countered that the mission his study committee has developed is “sub-flagship now.”  Two other studies also are underway for outer planet flagship missions and Green replied that until all three go through an independent cost review, NASA cannot make any announcement about what might be the next flagship mission.

Others at the meeting pointed out that when NASA’s Cassini mission, currently studying Saturn, completes operations in 2018, it will be the end of the outer planets flagship program.  One called the FY2013 budget request a “going out of business” scenario for outer planets exploration.  Green did not disagree.

The United States is the only country to launch probes to the outer planets, although ESA built the Huygens probe that landed on Saturn’s moon Titan as part of NASA’s Cassini program.   ESA is considering a mission to Jupiter and its moons called JUICE.  It is one of three proposals vying for selection as ESA’s next major space science program. A decision is expected this spring.  Green said that if JUICE is selected by ESA, NASA might be able to participate in a small way.  Green complimented ESA for reacting “with vision and not with anger” to NASA backing out of the Mars 2016 and 2018 missions and its willingness to continue considering cooperation with NASA.

JPL, which builds many of NASA’s planetary exploration spacecraft, and planetary exploration in general are popular in Congress.   Several of the scientists at Thursday’s meeting spoke confidently that Congress will restore funding for planetary science. The debate may well have a different dimension on Capitol Hill.  At a February 17 hearing on the President’s FY2013 budget request for research and development, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, asked why NASA was singled out for “unequal treatment.”  He said the request proposes increases for all the agencies within the committee’s jurisdiction except NASA.  He and ranking member Eddie Bernie Johnson (D-TX) both complained about the cuts to the Mars budget.

Getting Congress to increase NASA funding above the President’s request will be challenging to say the least in the current budget environment.  For FY2012, Congress cut NASA’s request from $18.72 billion to $17.77 billion (after a $30 million across-the-board rescission).   However, Congress might make other choices on how to allocate the funds it provides to NASA.  The question then is what NASA programs might suffer in order to restore funding for planetary exploration.  Few expect the FY2013 budget to be finalized before the November elections meaning that NASA and other agencies will have to operate on a Continuing Resolution (CR) for some number of months.   CRs usually fund programs at their previous year’s level, so in this particular case, that could be good news for the planetary science community — if only for a few months.

Green pointed out at Thursday’s meeting that even if Congress added money for planetary science in FY2013, that does not mean a new program could be initiated because there is no guarantee increased funding would be provided in future years.   He also noted that if Congress increases funding for planetary science, it might direct NASA on how to spend it rather than giving the agency flexibility to make those decisions. 

Cutting federal spending may be on the top of Washington’s priority list, but not if it impacts NASA’s Mars and human exploration programs or NOAA’s weather satellites if House science committee members have their way. 

At a House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing on Friday, Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) sharply criticized the President’s FY2013 budget request for research and development (R&D) for singling NASA out for “unequal treatment.”  Ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) joined him in complaining about cuts to the robotic Mars exploration program while other members rued the level of funding for NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). 

The topic of the hearing was the FY2013 budget request for R&D.  John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), was the only witness.  He defended the request which, he said, increases non-defense R&D by five percent over the FY2012 level despite austere budget times. 

Committee Chairman Hall, however, criticized that request because it proposes increases for all the agencies within the committee’s jurisdiction except NASA.   He is particularly concerned about the proposed reductions in NASA’s robotic Mars exploration program and inadequate funding for the Space Launch System (SLS), the new “heavy lift” rocket that NASA is building at congressional direction in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act to take astronauts out into the solar system.

Hall stressed that in that Act, Congress directed that the SLS and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle be available to serve as a backup to commercial crew to transport astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).  Under NASA’s proposed schedule, however, SLS/Orion system will not be ready for its first crewed flight until 2021, a year after ISS operations are currently scheduled to be discontinued.  Holdren deflected a question from Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about whether the SLS program would remain on its current schedule by saying he “had a cloudy crystal ball” when trying to predict the progress of complex technological projects.  He did, however, assure the congressman that he did not know of any plans to delay it. 

Hall asked Holdren about the decision to use Space Act Agreements for developing commercial crew capabilities and the fact that they do not allow NASA to require companies to meet safety standards.  Holdren demurred, saying that he did not know the details, but said that as far as he knows NASA retains responsibility for the safety of its astronauts and ”if there is a problem in the agreements that would jeopardize that, I am sure we will fix it.” 

Hall also inquired how Holdren could say that the budget represents an “integrated strategy” for Mars exploration “that ensures the next steps for the robotic Mars exploration program,” since there is no next mission to Mars in the budget.  Holdren countered that even though the NASA budget cannot support two planned Mars missions with Europe in 2016 and 2018, “we retain the most vigorous and forward leaning program … in the world” with a rover (Opportunity) already on the surface of Mars and another one (Curioisty) on its way,  two spacecraft (Mars Odyssey and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) already in orbit and another scheduled for launch next year (MAVEN), “and additional missions going forward.”  He insisted that “We are in no way retreating from our commitment to have a vigorous program of Mars exploration including laying the groundwork for human exploration.”  

Ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) joined Hall in criticizing cuts to the Mars planetary science program.   She said that the decision could create the perception that the United States is an unreliable partner at a time when international cooperation is more important than ever. Not everyone on the committee agreed with that sentiment, however. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) later said that she considered the NASA request to be “prudent” and suggested that the Europeans may not be able to afford their Mars plans either considering the economic circumstances in Europe. 

In general, Holdren defended the request for NASA, asserting it “honors the priorities” of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, including support for development of SLS and Orion, operations of the ISS through at least 2020, commercial crew, launching the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2018, “an integrated strategy” for the robotic Mars exploration program that supports both science and human exploration goals, a balanced set of Earth and space science missions, a “dynamic” space technology program, and a “strong aeronautics research effort.” 

NOAA’s satellite programs also were debated during the hearing.  Johnson praised the proposed increase for NOAA’s new geostationary weather satellite program, GOES-R, but expressed concern about “the small cut” to NOAA’s new polar-orbiting system, the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS).  She referred to JPSS as a “long-troubled” effort, although it was initiated only in FY2011.  However, it is NOAA’s successor to a long-troubled program — the tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental   Satellite System (NPOESS) – that was terminated by the Obama Administration in the FY2011 budget after 16 years of delays and overruns.  JPSS, however, did not receive its requested funding level in FY2011 or FY2012, and NOAA is warning that there likely will be a gap in data several years from now when existing satellites cease functioning, but the first JPSS is not yet operational. 

Holdren said NOAA’s weather satellites are “crucial” and blamed the potential gap on the previous Administration and Congress itself.   Holdren said “we’ve been threatened for some time with a gap we inherited,” perhaps suggesting that the Bush Administration should have cancelled NPOESS instead of leaving it for President Obama.  “We’re doing everything possible to … minimize that gap even if we don’t now have the capability to avoid it all together,” he asserted.  He pointed to the less-than-requested funding JPSS received for the previous two years and said in the FY2013 budget they are “trying to make up for it.”  In fact, he blamed the need to fund weather satellites for why the NOAA R&D budget overall would decline in FY2013.  “Nobody wanted to reduce … the R&D portfolio’’ at NOAA, “but we absolutely have to minimize the gap,” he said. 

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) complained about cuts to NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS), but Holdren insisted that the most important thing for the NWS is getting basic data about what the atmosphere is doing.  If money cannot be found to pay for the satellites that provide that data, he said, then “all the money in the world poured into the Weather Service won’t make up for the deficit.” 

The hearing was broadly on the R&D budget request and one of the other topics that arose was interaction with China.   Two committee members — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Chip Cravaack (R-MN) — grilled Holdren on why the United States would want to share any technology with China as Rohrabacher said Vice President Joe Biden suggested earlier in the week during a visit by China’s Vice President Xi Jinping.   Holdren insisted that the Administration does not want to share any technologies with China that are harmful to U.S. interests, but there are some where it is in our own best interest to share.  He cited nuclear reactor safety, avoiding theft of nuclear materials from nuclear facilities, influenza, and reducing emissions of pollutants as examples. 

• Hearing Charter 
• Opening Statement by Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX)
• Opening Statement by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
• Prepared Statement by Dr. John Holdren 
• Webcast