VERITAS and EnVision

[vjkane]

The  Planetary Science Advisory Committee has issued it's latest findings https://science.nasa.gov/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Dec%202022%20PAC%20Findings_Final.pdf (advise to NASA) which includes the following on VERITAS:

2) VERITAS delay decision Finding: The PAC recognizes that VERITAS will provide important new science results about Venus that are complementary to other recently selected Venus missions. The decision to delay VERITAS’s launch has been met with significant disappointment in the planetary science community and raised concerns and fears regarding the potential need for additional mitigation measures impacting VERITAS and other NASA efforts in the future. The PAC also notes the negative impact of standing down a selected mission due to external issues on potential PIs and on scientists’ participation in future missions. However, the PAC recognizes that the circumstances surrounding the Psyche delay had created great stress on JPL personnel and on the PSD budget that must be mitigated in some way. We thank PSD and the IRB chair for the detailed presentation of the broader issues that led to the decision to stand down VERITAS.

Recommendation: Both the PAC and the AGs strongly support launch of VERITAS on its new schedule, or sooner, should the situation allow. We request that the process for restarting VERITAS and the metrics that will be used to support this decision be clearly defined and communicated to the community as soon as possible. Finally, we strongly support the importance of competitive selections in the Discovery program. As a result, the PAC recommends that the launch of VERITAS should be prioritized over a possible new Discovery mission selection. In the event that the budget is a limitation in future years, Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey guidelines for dealing with budget shortfalls should be
followed.

As I understand this, this is the official advisory committee to NASA for the planetary exploration program. My understanding is that NASA's managers will take this recommendation seriously.

[vjkane]

The Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences has issued it's latest findings

This is the Planetary Science Advisory Committee (PAC), which is part of the NASA Advisory Council.

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/nac/science-advisory-committees/pac

That is not the same as the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Sciences (CAPS), which is a subset of the Space Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

I stand corrected and have modified the original post.

[deadman1204]

Does anyone know why NASA choose VERITAS for the delay over DAVINCI? I'm not trying to imply one is better than the other, simply curious why VERITAS was the one chosen.

[briantipton]

Does anyone know why NASA choose VERITAS for the delay over DAVINCI? I'm not trying to imply one is better than the other, simply curious why VERITAS was the one chosen.

The reason for the delay was concerns about the workload at JPL. VERITAS is a JPL managed mission, DAVINCI is led by GFSC. This decision came out in response to the post-mortem on the Psyche delay which identified JPL being over-subscribed with programs as one of the causes.

[Star One]

The Future of Venus exploration:

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1641078389963366401

In a presentation at Space Science Week, Sue Smrekar says the earliest VERITAS can now launch is late 2029, which she argues is preferable over 2031 to deconflict with DAVINCI and EnVision and lower overall cost. Need "modest" bridge funding in FY23 and 24 to do so.

[Don2]

I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.

What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.

Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.

If they are short of funds I think they should look at delaying new starts. CLPS in particular has committed to six missions but has so far delivered nothing at all. I don't think any new CLPS landers should be funded until they deliver some successes. They can also delay future Discovery, Simplex and New Frontiers competitions.

The recent discovery of an active volcanic vent on Venus shows the potential for discoveries in new data. If one surface change can be identified in data taken one year apart, there should be several dozen in data taken 35 years apart. Mars is a wonderful planet to study, but it doesn't have active volcanic processes.

[Blackstar]

I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.

What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.

Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.

Listen to the second half of this discussion:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242

I think they do a pretty good job of explaining it:

-NASA's planetary program is short of funds
-JPL has a heavy workload, and that was identified as a problem by the Psyche review board
-VERITAS is a JPL program, making it a target
-JPL already has its hands full with other programs, particularly Mars sample return

VERITAS therefore fell at the center of all those intersecting circles, making it the obvious thing to get rid of. However, NASA didn't want to outright cancel it. It is possible that some money could be put back into VERITAS to shore it up, the $1.5 million was a last-minute thing because this issue came up so late in the budget cycle.

I think a couple of things that made it easier to justify this decision is that NASA already has another Venus mission underway, and Europe already has another Venus orbiter with radar underway. So the people at the very top, who don't know the difference between one Venus mission or another could be okay with cutting one of them, figuring that Venus would not be completely ignored.

Given the circumstances, this appears to be a pretty obvious choice. Not ideal, but obvious.

[Athelstane]

I'm really surprised at how much they have cut VERITAS back, to a mere $1.5 million per year with no additional money even in future years. It does seem as if they may be considering cancellation.

What is also surprising is that they are funding the radar for Envision, which will get $33 million in FY2024 and $199 million in total through FY2028. The European mission will launch later but it is being funded ahead of VERITAS. That seems strange.

Maybe they don't have the people to do both. Maybe they think there is too much overlap in capability. Maybe they are really concerned about keeping commitments to Europe, which they haven't always done in the past. Perhaps VERITAS is running into cost problems.

Listen to the second half of this discussion:

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/242

I think they do a pretty good job of explaining it:

-NASA's planetary program is short of funds
-JPL has a heavy workload, and that was identified as a problem by the Psyche review board
-VERITAS is a JPL program, making it a target
-JPL already has its hands full with other programs, particularly Mars sample return

VERITAS therefore fell at the center of all those intersecting circles, making it the obvious thing to get rid of. However, NASA didn't want to outright cancel it. It is possible that some money could be put back into VERITAS to shore it up, the $1.5 million was a last-minute thing because this issue came up so late in the budget cycle.

I think a couple of things that made it easier to justify this decision is that NASA already has another Venus mission underway, and Europe already has another Venus orbiter with radar underway. So the people at the very top, who don't know the difference between one Venus mission or another could be okay with cutting one of them, figuring that Venus would not be completely ignored.

Given the circumstances, this appears to be a pretty obvious choice. Not ideal, but obvious.

I think it stands emphasizing that Casey Dreier is arguing that this was fundamentally a political decision, the workforce management issues at JPL really being a fig leaf. (Most of the actual fabrication work would be done at Lockheed, after all.) Dreier contends that with the squeeze being imposed by MSR's funding wedge, something had to go to give the science mission directorate some fiscal breathing room. And of all the other missions on the plate, VERITAS was the least protected politically. It was not far along; it was at JPL, not Goddard (where DaVinci+ is being run, and like all Goddard missions, sure to be protected by the Maryland congressional delegation), and it was one of two new Venus missions, making a redundancy argument easier to sustain.

It's ugly, but I think Dreier's logic makes sense. Alas.

[Blackstar]

I think it stands emphasizing that Casey Dreier is arguing that this was fundamentally a political decision, the workforce management issues at JPL really being a fig leaf. (Most of the actual fabrication work would be done at Lockheed, after all.) Dreier

Almost by definition, budget decisions are political, right?

Also, go look at the Psyche review board's comments about JPL management and workforce.

[redliox]

Considering the insufficient personnel between VERITAS and Psyche, as if funding issues weren't enough in past, is it safe to say there's a limited number of researchers/scientists/engineers across America?  I was curious if this is a specific JPL problem or part of a wider American issue (one which I'd blame the education system for).  It also kinda inspires me to reinvest in my education if a shortage of available hand and minds limiting our space program.

[edzieba]

More a lack of the very specific sort of scientists and engineers needed for the sorts of missions JPL work on. It's a niche within a niche, and not a lucrative one (i.e. there are financial pressures to leave, but not to join). It relies on there being enough potential staff with the passion needed, those staff being in a position to join (e.g. not in a recession where a job that pays enough to support your family is a priority), and having enough excess funding to hire those staff for the years needed to take a passionate but green staffmember and train them up for what is needed to really be productive. It's a very difficult role to 'hire into'.
From the review board's report, lack of funding to hire and retain new staff meant existing staff were stretched thinner and thinner as attrition occurred, and the death-of-a-thousand-cuts combined with a culture of pushing through adversity rather than escalating issues meant that was not treated as an problem until things came to a head with Psyche. A good question would be why JPL specifically were hit harder than, say, Goddard or JHUAPL, or if they just stumbled first and the problem is more endemic. Either way, there isn't a talent pool to draw from in the short term without hiring away from other labs.

[Blackstar]

Considering the insufficient personnel between VERITAS and Psyche, as if funding issues weren't enough in past, is it safe to say there's a limited number of researchers/scientists/engineers across America? 

It is both general (everywhere) and localized (a bigger problem at some organizations than others). NASA is having problems at other centers too, not just JPL. There are many reasons, including competition with commercial companies that are more attractive to early career engineers and technicians than NASA, and have also poached some important people.

[Don2]

I think the cost increase on NEO Surveyor may also have had an impact. NASA  was trying to delay it, and there was some political pushback, and now they are going ahead at a higher than expected price of 1.2 to 1.6 Billion $. Something else had to give and it looks like it was VERITAS.

If they are running into trouble with the easy stuff like Psyche and NEO Surveyor, you have to wonder how bad things are going to be on the really hard missions like MSR and Dragonfly. The budget is barely keeping up with inflation. However, the inflation index is for a "typical" basket of goods and services and might not reflect the price increases hitting any particular mission. And having bidding wars over limited resources is a really good way to run up prices.

There is another space synthetic aperture radar mission which has cost and schedule overruns and that is the $1billion+ NISAR mission. That is also based at JPL. The overrun there is probably taking people who would otherwise work on VERITAS.

Pushing VERITAS all the way out to 2031 pushes it out of the way of MSR and creates room for the expected MSR cost overrun. I think the next 18 months will be difficult, with more bad news on costs and schedules being announced. I really hope they can bring VERITAS forward to 2029, but I don't think that having Congress write that date into legislation is a good idea. NASA managers need to the freedom to do their job.

[Blackstar]

I think the cost increase on NEO Surveyor may also have had an impact. NASA  was trying to delay it, and there was some political pushback, and now they are going ahead at a higher than expected price of 1.2 to 1.6 Billion $. Something else had to give and it looks like it was VERITAS.

Last summer I talked to somebody very knowledgeable about NEO Surveyor who explained the budget stuff. It's convoluted. I don't understand it and it was just weird--a short delay in the program resulted in a big increase in costs. Something weird was going on at HQ with funding that program and we may never really know what it was.

[redliox]

Although the VERITAS news isn't delightful, the fact we still have 3 Venusian missions and 2, presumably, still on track I count my blessings.  For EnVision and DaVinci, what do their (launch) schedules look like alongside the delayed/tentative launch for VERITAS?

[Don2]

Although the VERITAS news isn't delightful, the fact we still have 3 Venusian missions and 2, presumably, still on track I count my blessings.  For EnVision and DaVinci, what do their (launch) schedules look like alongside the delayed/tentative launch for VERITAS?

For DAVINCI, KDP-C is in August 2025, launch is November 2029, with probe descent about 2 years later. Life cycle cost is estimated at 1.2-1.6 billion$, similar to NEO Surveyor.

NEO Surveyor has passed KDP-C, and life cycle cost is now $1.622 billion.

Psyche has a life cycle cost of $1.108 billion, including the delay. I'm puzzled as to why the cost of future Discovery class missions has gone up so much. I don't think that can all be inflation.

Envision is planned to launch in November 2031. ESA mission cost is $671 million, but that leaves out a bunch of items. For instance NASA is budgeting over $217 million to build the radar for Envision. I don't think that is included in ESA's mission cost.

[vjkane]

Envision is planned to launch in November 2031. ESA mission cost is $671 million, but that leaves out a bunch of items. For instance NASA is budgeting over $217 million to build the radar for Envision. I don't think that is included in ESA's mission cost.

The ESA number doesn't include instruments, which are funded by the contributing space agencies. I also don't think the ESA budget includes the during mission data analysis, which I believe is also funded by the individual space agencies. These can be a substantial hunk of money.

As for rising Discovery costs, there's a number of years between the Psyche and DaVinci launches, and at at least recently inflation has been running high (and may be even higher in aerospace where there's more demand for design and testing skill than people and perhaps facilities).

[Don2]

The ESA number doesn't include instruments, which are funded by the contributing space agencies. I also don't think the ESA budget includes the during mission data analysis, which I believe is also funded by the individual space agencies. These can be a substantial hunk of money.

As for rising Discovery costs, there's a number of years between the Psyche and DaVinci launches, and at at least recently inflation has been running high (and may be even higher in aerospace where there's more demand for design and testing skill than people and perhaps facilities).

From 2019 to 2024, costs rose by 20% according to the NASA new starts index. In 2024$, the Lucy mission would cost $1.12bn. Costs for the most recent missions seem to be spiking. I think the new starts index is greatly underestimating the actual rise in mission construction costs right now.

The most likely reason that EnVision seems to be so cheap is that the Europeans are not as good at cost estimation as NASA and their current number is a big underestimate. When I look at their mission I see a more powerful radar that collects more data than VERITAS. I see all the instruments that VERITAS has plus some extra things like a radar sounder. Unless the Europeans are much more efficient at building spacecraft than the US then EnVision has got to cost substantially more than VERITAS.

[Blackstar]

https://www.leonarddavid.com/russias-venus-exploration-plans-evolve/

"Russia is pressing forward on creation of a new Venus exploration spacecraft – Venera-D.
A “draft design” for Venera-D is scheduled to begin in January 2024.
Champion spacecraft design leaders, Russia’s NPO Lavochkin Scientific and Production Association, have blueprinted the Venera-D space complex.
Based on Lavochkin results, work schedules, technical specifications and the contracting of co-executing organizations for Venera-D have been formed, as has a Council of Chief Designers."



They have been studying this mission for 20 years. I don't think we can believe anything they claim about it.