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 

NASA may be ending its plans to launch two Mars spacecraft with the European Space Agency (ESA) in 2016 and 2018, but smaller Mars missions are not out of the question according to John Grunsfeld, the new head of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD).  He and Jim Green, director of SMD’s planetary science division, tried to paint a less than bleak picture of the future of NASA’s Mars exploration program during a budget briefing on Monday.   At the same time, Green reaffirmed NASA’s need for the Department of Energy (DOE) to restart production of plutonium-238 (Pu-238), which is needed to power some NASA solar system exploration spacecraft.

The FY2013 budget request for NASA cuts the planetary science budget from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion.  Consequently, NASA has informed ESA that it will not be able to participate in two robotic Mars missions in 2016 and 2018 the two agencies were planning to execute cooperatively.   The 2016 mission is called ExoMars.  The planetary science community has reacted with dire warnings about the consequences of foregoing those missions as well as postponing plans for other planetary programs such as exploration of the outer planets (Jupiter and beyond) and their moons.   The Planetary Society said the cuts “strike at the heart of one of NASA’s most productive and successful programs over the past decade.”

NASA’s total budget request of $17.711 billion is slightly less than the agency received for FY2012 — $17.770 billion after being adjusted for a $30 million rescission included in the agency’s FY2012 appropriations bill.  SMD’s budget would decline from $5.074 billion to $4.911 billion.  Earth science, heliophysics and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would get increases, while planetary science and the non-JWST portions of the astrophysics program would decrease.   (See our FY2013 NASA budget request fact sheet for details.)

Grunsfeld stressed that a NASA Mars mission, Curiosity, is currently enroute to Mars with landing expected in August, and another Mars probe, MAVEN, is scheduled for launch in 2013.   He did not rule out smaller U.S. missions in 2016 and 2018, but not the “flagship” class missions that ESA and NASA were discussing.   The ESA-NASA missions were first steps in a series of mission intended to culminate in returning a sample of Mars to Earth.   Grunsfeld said that he “hoped” a sample return mission still could be accomplished within 20 years.  As NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden explained at his budget briefing earlier in the day, he has charged Grunsfeld, NASA’s Chief Scientist, NASA’s Chief Technologist, and NASA’s Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations to develop an integrated strategy for Mars exploration that would support both human and robotic exploration.

Even though NASA’s planetary aspirations are being scaled back, Green said that the agency still needs DOE to restart production of Pu-238, an artificially produced isotope.   Three reports from the National Research Council (NRC) since 2009 have characterized the need for “Pu-238 restart” as critical.   DOE owns the facilities where Pu-238 can be created, but they were closed years ago.  Subsequently, DOE purchased Pu-238 from Russia, but Russia canceled its contract with DOE in 2009.   Historically, DOE produced the Pu-238 and provided it to NASA.  In its FY2010 budget request, the Obama Administration asked for $30 million in DOE’s budget to restart production, but Congress said no because it felt NASA should fund it.  In FY2011, the Administration split the costs equally between the two agencies with the idea that NASA would transfer its money to DOE.  The NASA funding was approved, but not DOE’s.   The situation was repeated for FY2012.   

This year, the Administration is not trying to win support for DOE funding for Pu-238 production.  The only requested funding is in NASA’s budget — $10 million.   Green said NASA transferred the money it received to DOE and it is being used for studies on how much Pu-238 could be delivered and when using DOE’s existing facilities. 

Pu-238 is needed for spacecraft that cannot rely on solar energy to produce electricity to power instruments and systems because they travel too far from the Sun or will be in darkness on lunar or planetary surfaces for long periods of time.   NASA has used Radioisotope Power Sources (RPS’s) for decades for these types of spacecraft.   When it determined its requirements in 2009, many such probes were planned.

The clear message from the NASA budget briefings on Monday is that no new flagship missions — the most expensive — are being planned for the indefinite future.   A number of lunar surface probes that were to support the Constellation program also disappeared when that program was cancelled.   The question then is how much Pu-238 is needed.   Green said that several of the contenders for selection in the smaller Discovery and mid-size New Frontiers classes would need Pu-238, so the agency still considers Pu-238 restart to be crucial.  

Critics of the cutbacks to planetary exploration blame cost overruns on JWST.   NASA officials refused to make that connection, however, insisting that the smaller budget should be expected since development of Curiosity and two other planetary spacecraft — LADEE and MAVEN — has ended or soon will.   

The JWST overrun, however, has impacted funding for other astrophysics missions.   Chief among them is the Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope (WFIRST), which was the top large space mission recommended by the 2010 NRC decadal survey for astronomy and astrophysics.  Grunsfeld confirmed there is no money in the FY2013 budget to begin development of WFIRST, whose purpose is three-fold:  to search for planets in solar systems elsewhere in the universe (exoplanets), conduct an all-sky infrared survey, and try to unravel the secrets of dark energy.  Instead, NASA is hoping for a small role in ESA’s dark energy mission, Euclid.

The teleconference ended before questions could be asked about plans for Earth science or heliophysics.    Both budgets would increase in FY2013, although the OCO-2 mission could be delayed for as many as two years.  The original Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was lost when its Taurus XL launch vehicle failed.   NASA quickly began to build a replacement anticipating a relatively fast relaunch, but another Taurus XL failed dooming another NASA earth science satellite (GLORY).   The OCO-2 spacecraft should be completed in FY2013, but  NASA is continuing to assess its options for launching it and states that the launch could slip to 2015.    

Officially, details about a President’s budget request are not supposed to be released by agencies prior to the White House giving the OK.  Except for the Department of Defense and perhaps some high level messages the White House wants to preview, that usually means waiting until the complete budget request for the entire federal government is released.  That event is scheduled for Monday, but information about what the request proposes for NASA has been leaking out.   Aviation Week reveals today that the total NASA request will be $17.711 billion.

Frank Morring writes today that the request is “only an $89 million cut,” but ends NASA’s plans to participate in a robotic Mars mission with the European Space Agency (ESA).  The impact of the FY2013 budget request on NASA-ESA Mars cooperation was publicized by the Washington Post yesterday, but that article did not include the total request for NASA.

While $17.711 billion is a small cut from what the agency received from Congress in FY2012, it is a substantial cut from the funding level that the Obama Administration projected for NASA last year.   NASA’s FY2012 appropriated level is $17.800 billion, so by comparison the cut is indeed modest.   In last year’s budget request, however, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projected that NASA would get $18.030 billion in FY2013.  The White House allowed NASA to use higher projected spending levels in its own budget materials, keeping the agency level at $18.7 billion through FY2016.  So a $17.711 billion request can be interpreted as a small cut of $89 million from its current level, or a huge cut of $1 billion from NASA’s own projections a year ago at this time.

Agencies like NASA that conduct multi-year research and development projects benefit from having an idea of what to expect in the future so they can effectively plan their programs.  While any future year projection is just that, a projection not a promise, when it varies significantly from reality, the planning process becomes inefficient.

Aviation Week published additional details about the FY2013 budget request, which it says includes $830 million for commercial crew, $1.8 billion for the Space Launch System, $1 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, $3 billion for the International Space Station, $699 million for space technology development, and $500 million for aeronautics.  The total amount for science is not mentioned, only the $300 million cut to the planetary science program (from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion according to yesterday’s story in the Post).

The administration’s budget request is the first step in a lengthy process to determine how much the government can spend in FY2013.  The new fiscal year starts on October 1, but few expect Congress to complete action on budgets before then.  Meeting that October 1 deadline is a difficult task every year and especially challenging in an election year. 

Editor’s Note:  It is interesting to observe that some members of the media are getting access to the NASA budget material on a non-embargoed basis prior to Monday’s release.  NASA had scheduled a meeting this afternoon where media representatives could learn about the budget if they agreed to an embargo where nothing could be published before Monday.   That embargoed briefing was canceled about two hours before it was scheduled to occur.  One cannot help but wonder who is leaking the information to favored publications without restrictions.  The obvious intent of the Washington Post story yesterday was to rally support for the Mars exploration program.  Today’s story in Aviation Week does not seem to have a bias, but does portray the cuts to NASA overall as being far less dramatic and may assuage some concerns.

It’ll be a cold weekend — in Washington, at least.   If you plan to curl up in front of the fireplace and read a good book, forget the novels!  Here are two reports and a book we recently posted to our “Top Picks” and “Other Reports of Interest” lists (on our left menu).

• James Clay Moltz, Asia’s Space Race: National Motivations, Regional Rivalries and International Risks. Columbia University Press, 2011.
• UN-SPIDER Report on Space-Based Information for Crowdsource Mapping, based on two meetings organized by UN-SPIDER (United Nations Platform for Space-Based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response), the Secure World Foundation and the Government of Austria, December 2011

• Lyn Wigbels, Using Earth Observation Data to Improve Health in the United States:  Accomplishments and Future Challenges.  Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2011.

Rumors ahead of the release of the FY2013 budget request paint a gloomy picture for NASA’s planetary science program.   The Washington Post reports today that the budget request will drop from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion for FY2013 with additional cuts in later years.

NASA planetary science division director Jim Green has hinted as recent meetings of the NASA Advisory Council’s (NAC’s) planetary science subcommittee that such cuts were more than likely.  Without getting into specifics — which is officially prohibited prior to the President releasing the budget request — Green alerted the planetary science community that it had to make its case as to why planetary science is important to the nation.

The story in the Washington Post this morning suggests that the community got the message.  It quotes Jim Bell, a member of that subcommittee and President of The Planetary Society, calling the proposed cuts “devastating ” to U.S. robotic Mars exploration plans.  Scott Hubbard, a member of the parent NAC Science Committee and who was NASA’s first Mars program director and later Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center, went further:  “It’s a scientific tragedy and a national embarrassment.” 

Such cuts would impact not only the U.S. program, but Europe’s.   In 2009, NASA and the European Space Agency signed what was thought to be a revolutionary international cooperation agreement where the two agencies essentially merged their Mars exploration programs.   Instead of cooperating on a mission-by-mission basis, now the programs themselves would be merged to get the most payoff from investments on both sides of the Atlantic.   

Early indications last fall that the budget outlook was dimming led NASA to pull back from committing to the next two merged missions — in 2016 and 2018 — that themselves were just the first in a string of missions with the ultimate goal of returning samples from Mars.   ESA’s science director Alvaro Gimenez told the BBC earlier this week that it had been told NASA participation in the missions had become “very unlikely.”   ESA is also talking to Russia about cooperating on those missions.  Russia’s Mars probe, Phobos-Grunt, was lost last fall because of computer design and programming errors. 

The Washington Post quotes Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), a member of the House appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, as condemning the proposed cut and asserting it will not be approved by Congress.    Those comments, however, illustrate the painful choices that will have to be made not only in FY2013 but for the rest of the decade to reduce the deficit, especially if the reduction must be accomplished only through spending cuts, as the Republicans insist, and not with revenue increases.    At the moment, influential Senators and the Obama Administration apparently have agreed that the top science priority for NASA is completing the over-budget James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), not planetary exploration.   The planetary program is just one of five divisions within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.  JWST was separated from the rest of NASA’s astrophysics division last year to improve management of the program, so planetary science must compete for resources with JWST, the rest of astrophysics, heliophysics, and earth science.   The planetary program itself must choose priorities among Mars and the rest of the solar system.  

Choosing science priorities is only the first step.   Prioritizing NASA’s science programs versus human exploration and aeronautics is another level of decision-making, then NASA versus other agencies in the same appropriations bill (including the Department of Commerce and its weather satellite activities, the Department of Justice, and the National Science Foundation), and then all of those against the rest of domestic discretionary spending.

The FY2013 budget request will be released on Monday.   NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden will participate in a press conference at NASA Headquarters at 2:00 pm that day, which will be webcast on NASA TV.