Already available at the nasa website (https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html). Two specific items appear particularly interesting, and both are related to a new budget line named "Advanced Exploration Systems" which is about $1bn a year starting in FY19: 1) support to public-private partnerships with the purpose of developing small and medium-sized (500-1000kg) robotic lunar landers, towards a first flight opportunity of the small ones in FY2019 (!) and the medium ones in FY2022, and 2) the launch in FY2022 of a power and propulsion stage on a commercial launch vehicle instead of SLS...edit: forgot another interesting element - a "potential Mars Sample Return mission incorporating commercial partnerships"?!
Quote from: Xentry on 02/12/2018 04:12 pmAlready available at the nasa website (https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html). Two specific items appear particularly interesting, and both are related to a new budget line named "Advanced Exploration Systems" which is about $1bn a year starting in FY19: 1) support to public-private partnerships with the purpose of developing small and medium-sized (500-1000kg) robotic lunar landers, towards a first flight opportunity of the small ones in FY2019 (!) and the medium ones in FY2022, and 2) the launch in FY2022 of a power and propulsion stage on a commercial launch vehicle instead of SLS...edit: forgot another interesting element - a "potential Mars Sample Return mission incorporating commercial partnerships"?!Advanced Exploration Systems itself is not a new start - the NextSTEP program is within AES, as well as Lunar CATALYST
“When I was first briefed on ‘highlights’ of President Trump’s budget request, I was incredulous at its treatment of our federal science agencies. To propose slashing EPA’s budget and DOE’s EERE, eliminating NASA’s education programs and several Earth science instruments and missions, and cutting NOAA’s oceans and atmospheric programs, just to name a few of the damaging proposals in this document, shows that this Administration has no appreciation for the role that these agencies play in driving the economy, keeping our nation competitive, and protecting the environment and public health. The only good thing about this budget is that it’s so extreme, I have no doubt that it will be summarily rejected by both sides of the aisle.”
Cancelling WFirst would be a shame. Hope that Congress doesn't go along with that.
Quote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 10:41 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/12/2018 07:26 pmCancelling WFirst would be a shame. Hope that Congress doesn't go along with that.Don't agree. WFIRST was an out of control program that was on a path to become son of JWST budget and schedule-wise... and producing even less cutting edge science in the process.Back to the drawing board for the next decadal review. Maybe this time, the product designed will more closely reflect the original scientific intent, timeline, and budget of the review.Full disclosure: I am an astronomer/astrophysicist.I am surprised you didn’t suggest it be turned into a commercial program with of course Space X winning the contract.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/12/2018 07:26 pmCancelling WFirst would be a shame. Hope that Congress doesn't go along with that.Don't agree. WFIRST was an out of control program that was on a path to become son of JWST budget and schedule-wise... and producing even less cutting edge science in the process.Back to the drawing board for the next decadal review. Maybe this time, the product designed will more closely reflect the original scientific intent, timeline, and budget of the review.Full disclosure: I am an astronomer/astrophysicist.
Quote from: Star One on 02/12/2018 11:11 pmQuote from: AncientU on 02/12/2018 10:41 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/12/2018 07:26 pmCancelling WFirst would be a shame. Hope that Congress doesn't go along with that.Don't agree. WFIRST was an out of control program that was on a path to become son of JWST budget and schedule-wise... and producing even less cutting edge science in the process.Back to the drawing board for the next decadal review. Maybe this time, the product designed will more closely reflect the original scientific intent, timeline, and budget of the review.Full disclosure: I am an astronomer/astrophysicist.I am surprised you didn’t suggest it be turned into a commercial program with of course Space X winning the contract.No, but I do like the idea of a significant reduction of NASA's 'footprint.'
Meanwhile, NASA's overhead costs have risen so high, and its plodding pace of development for new spaceflight hardware takes so long, that there is no funding left over to actually put new vehicles into use for human missions to the Moon, or to Mars—and no sense of urgency to do so, either. Warring fiefdoms weigh heavily on progress. Often, key spaceflight centers in Texas, Alabama, Florida, and California, along with their elected officials, squabble over funding and control, echoing the dynamic that dates to 1965 and Wernher von Braun's concerns for more work for Marshall Space Flight Center.
Eric Berger's sixth installment describes the rich NASA history as background for where we are today:QuoteMeanwhile, NASA's overhead costs have risen so high, and its plodding pace of development for new spaceflight hardware takes so long, that there is no funding left over to actually put new vehicles into use for human missions to the Moon, or to Mars—and no sense of urgency to do so, either. Warring fiefdoms weigh heavily on progress. Often, key spaceflight centers in Texas, Alabama, Florida, and California, along with their elected officials, squabble over funding and control, echoing the dynamic that dates to 1965 and Wernher von Braun's concerns for more work for Marshall Space Flight Center.https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/the-greatest-leap-part-6-after-apollo-nasa-still-searching-for-an-encore/We can continue to do the same things, over and over for the next decades... but must abandon all hope that this will produce different results (unless we are completely insane). This budget battle will again be 'a squabble over funding and control' and the incumbents have all the political cards.Only a restructured NASA with a renewed purpose (and smaller 'footprint') will be able to lead or even participate in a human exploration effort. My bets are on it happening largely without them -- as a taxpayer, I'd prefer to see NASA slimmed down to fighting weight and again in the ring, but that's too great of a fantasy.
...The only fantasy is that NASA is too big. In fact NASA is tiny in the grand scheme of things and takes a tiny share of the federal budget. It has also time and again been recognised as one of the most efficient agencies.