The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not have a prohibition against NASA beginning new science flagship missions according to two OMB officials who spoke to the National Research Council (NRC) yesterday.

Paul Shawcross, Branch Chief for Science and Space, and Joydip (JD) Kundu, who handles NASA’s science budget, told a joint meeting of the NRC’s Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, that OMB had not make any blanket statement about future flagship missions.   NASA science officials had indicated that OMB would not approve new flagship missions until NASA completes two existing flagships — the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) now on its way to Mars and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) scheduled for launch in 2018 — that encountered significant overruns and schedule delays.

Kundu said that although the track record on Curiosity and JWST was “not great,” the FY2013 budget request was the result of ensuring that all the pieces of the NASA budget fit together in a flat budget scenario.   Shawcross added that the cost overruns did not help the situation because there is consequently less money available, “but we’re not against flagships.”

Historically, the term “flagship” has been applied to science missions that cost more than $1 billion, although there was discussion at yesterday’s meeting that the defining characteristics of a flagship mission are complexity and innovation, not cost.   Kundu said OMB does not draw a line at $1 billion, but looks at each mission individually.

The planetary science community is extremely distressed that the FY2013 budget request includes a 20 percent cut to planetary exploration.  NASA had to withdraw from two flagship Mars missions planned with the European Space Agency (ESA) in 2016 and 2018.   When asked whether that action hurts prospects for future international cooperation, Shawcross and Kundu pointed out that just about all of NASA’s science missions involve international cooperation.   If a different mission had been canceled, Kundu said, it also probably would have meant reneging on an international agreement.  He also stressed that the United States had not made a formal commitment to the 2016 and 2018 Mars missions.

Those two missions were part of a plan for a series of Mars probes over many years that ultimately would have resulted in returning a sample of Mars to Earth.  It would have been a “looming problem,”  Shawcross said, and the decision not to proceed was “not a bias against Mars.”   Tammy Dickinson of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) agreed, and said the decision “wasn’t made based on science, but on budget.”

Shawcross emphasized that the President’s overall FY2013 budget request was developed to avoid sequestration, which will go into effect on January 1, 2013 unless Congress finds $1 trillion in savings or changes the law.  He anticipates that Congress will not complete action on the FY2013 appropriations bills before the election, and a “flurry” of activity will result between then and January 1.   He said he could not predict how it will turn out.  If sequestration does occur, he said, it would mean a 7.8 percent cut to the part of the budget that includes NASA.

He also noted that the $17.7 billion request for NASA is well short of the $20 billion that was authorized for FY2013 in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.  That “creates trouble” when the administration is trying to follow the authorization act, he said, adding that the out-year projections in the budget are notional, but he would be “really surprised” if NASA’s budget increases in the next several years.

What keeps NASA’s Jim Green awake at night?  Thoughts of “the seven minutes of terror from the top of the [Mars] atmosphere to landing” at the Gale Crater on the surface of Mars coming up for the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) in August. 

Green is the director of NASA’s planetary science division in the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC.  He was responding to a question from Charlie Kennel, chair of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Space Studies Board (SSB) at today’s SSB meeting.   Curiosity is using a unique and, to say the least, technically challenging method of landing on Mars.  Called the “sky hook,” the YouTube video is enough to keep anyone awake until the sequence is successfully executed on August 5 PDT (August 6 EDT).

The “what keeps you awake at night” question was directed at all the SMD representatives on a panel at the SSB meeting.  SMD Deputy Associate Administrator (AA) Chuck Gay filled in for AA John Grunsfeld.   Along with Green, other panelists were earth science division director Mike Freilich, heliophysics division director Barbara Giles, astrophysics deputy director Mike Moore (filling in for Paul Hertz, newly named astrophysics division director), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project director Rick Howard, and Wilt Sanders, Explorer program scientist.

Howard said it is the infamous “unknown unknowns” that give him insomnia, but he assured the SSB that the rebaselined JWST program is sufficiently robust to handle anything that comes up.   He believes one key to the success of JWST is maintaining good communications not only within the program and NASA, but with stakeholders, especially on Capitol Hill.

Moore, who deals with the rest of the astrophysics portfolio, said his worry is how to implement the missions called for in the 2010 NRC Decadal Survey for astronomy and astrophysics with NASA’s existing budget, and how to work with the Europeans on achieving science objectives.  He also is worried about the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism (GEMS) small Explorer mission that he said has technical and cost challenges.  “We hope we can thread that needle,” he said, and “be honest and straightforward about cost.” 

Giles cited the challenge of keeping the heliophysics division’s five projects that are in development on schedule and cost.  “There is no flexibility in this budget,” she said, for any program to “extend beyond their commitment.” 

Launch vehicle cost increases and the unreliability of smaller launch vehicles like the Taurus XL booster that sent two earth science probes (OCO and GLORY) to a watery grave was a concern across all the SMD divisions.   Moore, however, defended the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), Atlas 5 and Delta 4, that just celebrated their 58th consecutive launch success earlier this week with the launch of a satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office.   Noting that he worked on the EELV program earlier in his career, Moore conceded they are expensive, but argued that the most expensive space missions are the ones that end up in the ocean.  Launch reliability, as demonstrated by the EELVs, is important despite the cost, in his view. 

Others on the panel were anxious for successors to the Delta 2 launch vehicle to become certified by NASA.   SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Antares are two examples.  Asked when the need for those vehicles will become “critical,” Giles and Green said that time is already upon them.  Program managers have to budget to the highest possible launch cost, which has a significant impact on resources available for the rest of the program when those costs are high as they are for the EELVs. 

The European Space Agency (ESA) successfully launched its third Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV-3) to the International Space Station (ISS) very early this morning.

The Ariane 5 launch from ESA’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana (South America), took place at 04:34 Greenwich Mean Time, or 00:34 Eastern Daylight Time.   Beautiful video of the launch as the Ariane 5 passes in and out of clouds is available on ESA’s website.

The ATV-3 spacecraft is named after Edorado Arnaldi, an Italian physicist who was one of the founding fathers of European space research.  It is carrying 20 tonnes of supplies to the iSS.  Docking is scheduled for March 28.

This is the third of five ATV flights currently planned by ESA to fulfill part of its financial obligations to the United States as one of the iSS partners.  Nine ATVs originally were planned.  The ATVs are not designed to survive reentry.  Once they detach from the ISS they burn up in the atmosphere.

The planetary science community got what it wanted today at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on NASA’s FY2013 budget request — strong opposition to proposed cuts to NASA’s planetary program.  The chairman and members of the Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, lambasted the Obama Administration’s proposed cuts especially to Mars exploration.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden valiantly tried to convince the subcommittee, which is the most influential entity in the House in determining how much money NASA gets and how it is spent, that NASA is not walking away from Mars exploration. His arguments only inflamed the debate, however.

In a heated exchange with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who represents the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that builds many of NASA’s planetary spacecraft, Bolden insisted that the Mars program is in good shape.  The Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) is enroute to the red planet and another mission, MAVEN, is scheduled for launch next year, he reminded the subcommittee.  They will join a rover and two orbiters already there.  Although NASA had to back away from plans to build two Mars probes with the European Space Agency (ESA) for launch in 2016 and 2018, NASA is now developing plans for a smaller Mars mission that could be launched in 2018 or 2020, he said.  Furthermore, he stressed, NASA never committed to the missions with ESA, only to discussions, and there are many other areas in which NASA and ESA continue to cooperate.  He also pushed back against the idea that overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope are the cause of the cuts to Mars exploration, a charge commonly made by the planetary science community.   He and other NASA officials have been insisting since the budget was released on February 13 there is no direct connection.

Schiff and Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) were having none of it.  Schiff assiduously attempted to get Bolden to say that the Mars cuts were imposed on NASA by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but Bolden insisted the decision was his.   He also admitted that he had not known that the 2016 and 2018 missions with ESA would not actually have returned a sample to Earth.   The 2018 mission only would have collected and stored (cached) samples, but could not return them to Earth — a hugely expensive proposition.   Bolden said that everyone apparently knew that but him.  He made the same admission at the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Science Committee meeting two weeks ago where he revealed that he had a long conversation with then OMB Director (now White House Chief of Staff) Jack Lew while under the misimpression that the 2016 and 2018 missions would return a sample, an effort that would indeed have significant budget implications. 

Bolden thus took full responsibility for the decision not to proceed with the 2016 and 2018 missions, but insisted that the U.S. Mars exploration program is strong and maintains U.S. leadership.  Schiff vehemently disagreed and proclaimed that he could not support a budget that in his view means America’s days of leadership in space science are limited and tells ESA it cannot depend on U.S. cooperation while at the same time China is “ascendant” on Mars exploration and we are “tantalizingly close to finding life.”

Culberson was just as adamant.   “I am quietly grieving for our country,” he said, blaming the Obama White House for a lack of interest in NASA and the space program.  Though acknowledging the difficult budget situation, he called the cut to planetary exploration “devastating” and in violation of the FY2012 appropriations act that said NASA had to implement the recommendations of the 2011 National Research Council Decadal Survey for planetary sciences.   Bolden firmly countered that NASA is following the law and implementing the Decadal Survey as best it can and the two of them simply would have to agree to disagree.  Culberson ended by saying that “we’ll restore the vision and excitement” of Mars exploration “despite efforts of this Administration to throw a wet blanket over it.”   Subcommittee ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) later chided Culberson for turning it into a partisan issue.   Asserting that he agrees completely with Schiff’s arguments in favor of restoring funds for Mars exploration, Fattah added that Culberson’s attack on the Administration was “not productive.”

JWST was another space science program that prompted many questions from subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA).   Wolf revealed that NASA is asking Congress to remove language that was included in last year’s appropriations bill that limits how much money can be spent on the program.   Last year, the House Appropriations Committee recommended that JWST be terminated because of its overruns.   That decision was reversed in negotiations with the Senate and Congress added money to JWST to ensure that the telescope is launched in 2018, but Congress capped development costs at $8 billion and life-cycle costs at $8.7 billion.   Wolf asked Bolden if the request to remove the cost cap language indicates that JWST will cost more than that.  Bolden seemed surprised by the question and said he could not remember the rationale for asking that the language be removed.  He assured Wolf that he intends to abide by the cap.   Wolf asked what lessons were learned from the JWST “debacle” and Bolden said there were many, mostly in terms of management changes.  

Wolf also made clear his own support for planetary exploration, following on a letter he sent to Bolden last week disapproving a NASA reprogramming request for Mars exploration because he believes the issue needs further debate.  The committee has not publicly released the letter, but Aviation Week & Space Technology published a story about it.

Wolf also expressed concern about the commercial crew program, continued opposition to space cooperation with China and concern that China is trying to hack into NASA’s computers, and misgivings over whether the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) is meeting its obligations to find users for the International Space Station.

The European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) governing body decided yesterday to proceed with the ExoMars mission even though NASA withdrew as a partner, the BBC reports.   Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, will replace NASA, but the cost of the mission consequently will grow and the source of the additional funds is not yet clear.

NASA’s plans to cooperate with ESA on ExoMars as the first in a series of Mars missions that ultimately would result in returning a sample of Mars to Earth were upset by President Obama’s FY2013 budget request for the agency.   NASA’s planetary exploration program would be cut by 21 percent if Congress approves the request.  The Mars program, in particular, would be hard hit.  Even if Congress were to add money for Mars exploration, it is not expected to finalize action on NASA’s FY2013 budget in time to change the outcome for NASA’s participation in ExoMars, which is scheduled for launch in 2016. 

A second NASA-ESA mission scheduled for 2018 would also be cancelled, although NASA Associate Administrator for Science, John Grunsfeld, has created a team to define a smaller Mars mission that could be launched that year instead of the larger mission planned with ESA.

NASA’s budget woes are not deterring ESA, however,   The ESA Council decided yesterday to proceed with ExoMars, although the BBC report made clear that many hurdles remain.  Among them is finding an additional “several hundred million euros” needed because of changes resulting from Russia replacing the United States.   The ExoMars mission is currently capped at 1 billion euros.   The extra money may be taken from other ESA science missions, the BBC says, and ESA member states also may be asked to provide additional funds.

Under the new plan, Russia will replace the United States for both the 2016 and 2018 missions.  ESA’s Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain reportedly made clear, however, that NASA is welcome back at any time.  His spokesman was quoted by the BBC as saying that “The door always remains open to Nasa. … They will always be welcome, so long as they bring support.  International cooperation doesn’t die just because Nasa said they didn’t have the money to do this now.”