NASA's smaller programs could be at risk

September 5, 2011 By Mark K. Matthews

The cost of NASA's two flagship programs - a new space telescope and its next rocket - is poised to devour much of the agency's shrinking budget in coming years, putting at risk everything from efforts to develop futuristic spacecraft to returning rocks from Mars, scientists and congressional insiders warn.

At a time when budgets are being slashed government-wide, price estimates for the and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's new rocket and crew capsule either have increased by billions of dollars or are at risk to do so, according to internal NASA documents and external evaluations.

The Webb telescope, a high-tech successor to the , once was expected to cost $3.5 billion and launch this year. Now, the estimate is $8.7 billion, with a 2018 launch date. And NASA's proposed Space and Orion capsule - capable of taking humans to the moon and beyond - could run the agency at least $32 billion over the next decade, a figure that auditors caution is likely optimistic.

The trend has alarmed astronomers and others, who are concerned that less-visible projects - such as robotic Mars missions and various space probes - will be sacrificed.

"So, we have one giant money sponge (JWST) already sucking up dollars with yet another money sponge (SLS) on the drawing board. Since the money simply is not there to do either project to begin with, trying to do both of them together will devour funds from smaller NASA programs," wrote Keith Cowing in a recent post on his influential blog NASA Watch.

Heightening concern is the new focus in Congress on spending cuts, leading many to think that NASA's 2010 budget of $18.7 billion won't be repeated. The White House already has asked agencies to submit 2013 budget requests that are 10 percent below their 2011 levels - essentially a $1.85 billion cut to NASA.

"That would be huge," said Richard Anthes, co-chair of a National Academies panel that sought to prioritize Earth space science missions. He said he worried that the number of Earth science missions would decrease from roughly 20 ongoing now to about five in 2020, because dying satellites - that measure everything from winds, clouds and atmospheric pollution to ocean temperatures, currents and salinity - won't be replaced, or their successors will carry fewer instruments.

"We've gone from guarded optimism ... to a lot of pessimism," Anthes said.

NASA spends about one-fifth of its current budget - about $4 billion - on manned spaceflight; another $2 billion to $3 billion on the International Space Station; about $5 billion on science, such as lunar and Martian probes; and the remainder on aeronautics, technology research, education and overhead.

Earlier this year, Webb was expected to cost about $375 million annually - but then the price was bumped from $6.5 billion to $8.7 billion. Investigators last year found that NASA had managed the project poorly and had significantly low-balled the cost of launching a telescope with a 21-foot mirror to a position about 1 million miles from Earth.

The overruns have drained NASA's science budget and contributed to the cancellation of two joint missions with the European Space Agency: one that would have studied supermassive black holes, and another that would have looked at a mysterious cosmic force known as gravitational waves.

"James Webb is the next-generation and will be marvelous if it ever gets built - but that's the question," said Dan Britt, a professor at the University of Central Florida and incoming chair of planetary sciences at the American Astronomical Society.

Britt, like many scientists, does not doubt the potential of a telescope designed to find the first galaxies in the universe. But he and others are concerned that Webb's cannibalization of NASA's science budget will kill any chance of bold new projects, such as a mission to return soil samples from Mars.

Also at risk, Britt said, are smaller grants of $200,000 or less that help university scientists and students conduct research into topics such as meteorites. "That's a drop in the bucket for Webb that really hammers those who train the next generation of scientists and the ability of U.S. scientists to compete in the world," he said.

For its part, NASA officials said no decision has been made on how Webb's latest overruns would affect other programs. Spokesman Dwayne Brown said those changes would be reflected in NASA's 2013 budget request, due for release in early 2012.

Less clear is the budgetary impact of NASA's next manned spacecraft program.

Last year, Congress and the White House agreed to cancel the troubled 5-year-old Constellation moon program (which cost about $13 billion) and instead build a new rocket and crew capsule that would reuse pieces of both the space shuttle and Constellation programs.

Congress, led by U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, has pressed President Barack Obama to devote a significant share of NASA's budget toward the effort - a move so far resisted by the administration, which has yet to release an official design for the rocket.

The administration wants to spend more money on programs like technology research, including innovations such as orbiting fuel depots and a solar sail that could be used for deep-space exploration.

Internal NASA documents show the program will be expensive no matter which side wins.

Under the White House plan, NASA would spend $32.5 billion on a rocket that would launch just two missions over the next decade - an unmanned flight in 2017 and a manned mission to loop around the moon in 2021.

The Senate plan would cost more - about $45.6 billion over the next 10 years - but fly more often: an unmanned mission in 2017, a manned mission in 2018 and one a year thereafter. It also includes plans for a far larger "heavy-lift" rocket that would be one of the most powerful ever built.

Both plans, however, assume increased NASA budgets and that the project will stay on time and on budget - something that independent auditors at Booz Allen Hamilton asked to review the spacecraft program said was problematic.

Without divulging cost figures, the analysts found the program assumes "large, unsubstantiated, future cost efficiencies leading to the impression that they are optimistic" and that reserves to cover any future problems were "insufficient."

In response, administration officials said they would take more time to review the program and its potential costs.

Explore further: NASA's new space telescope costs shoot the moon (Update)


Related Stories

NASA boosts Webb telescope cost to $8.7 billion

August 25, 2011

NASA has boosted its cost estimate of a major telescope project to 8.7 billion dollars, even as lawmakers have threatened to slash the space agency's budget, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Funding threatens US return to moon by 2020

June 18, 2009

US ambitions of returning to the moon by 2020 and then heading to Mars risk being grounded because of "unrealistic" funds allocated to NASA, said Senator Bill Nelson, a former space shuttle astronaut.

US lawmakers vote to kill Hubble successor

July 7, 2011

In a fresh blow to NASA's post-shuttle aspirations, key US lawmakers voted Thursday to kill off funding for the successor to the vastly successful space-gazing Hubble telescope.

NASA proposes $17.6 billion budget

February 5, 2008

U.S. space officials proposed spending $17.6 billion next year with a focus on the International Space Station and space shuttle programs.

NASA: Good night moon, hello new rocket technology

February 1, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

Recommended for you

Dawn mission extended at Ceres

October 20, 2017

NASA has authorized a second extension of the Dawn mission at Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. During this extension, the spacecraft will descend to lower altitudes than ever before ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.3 / 5 (4) Sep 05, 2011
Just about every NaSA program has massive cost over-runs. This may be the result of contractors underbidding and zero incentives for the agency to be financially efficient, along w/, of course, congressional pork going to their districts. Funding should be based on NaSA fiscal responsibility, as is done in the private sector. If the project cannot be completed on time and w/in budget then, when the money runs out, the project gets dropped.
We simply do not have sufficient "other peoples money" for any, ANY gov't agency to squander OUR, and our childrens and hard earned money.
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 05, 2011
"If the project cannot be completed on time and w/in budget then, when the money runs out, the project gets dropped." - Tard of Tards

A prescription for perpetual failure.

What NASA does is unique, the engineering problems are unique. The solutions are often on the cutting edge of technology and material science.

Delays and cost overruns are therefore inevitable.

The proper course of action of course is to stop micromanaging the department. Set a budget and let NASA worry about how to spend it.

3.5 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2011
The Orion spacecraft is a welfare program for fat aerospace companies. Reusing 1960s technology won't provide any spinoffs for the US economy.
Robotic exploration and investing in better rocket technologies (Fusion drive, metallic hydrogen fuel) provide better return on investment.
3 / 5 (2) Sep 05, 2011
He said he worried that the number of Earth science missions would decrease from roughly 20 ongoing now to about five in 2020

OK, if a reduction in budget of 10% reduces the scientific output by 75% they definitely have a management problem (i.e.: way too much of it)
not rated yet Sep 06, 2011
This infighting has GOT TO STOP. There is no real reason we should be fighting amongst ourselves between one science program over another. The US government currently spends less of it's budget on NASA than it ever has since the program began operations in '58, '59. The fact that politicians want to cut more from NASA is egregious! The cost of NASA to run for one year is less than it costs to occupy Afghanistan for one month! At that cost, instead of paying for ten (and counting) years of war, we could have paid for NASA operations for another 120 years. NASA does not need to be cut, it is severely underfunded, the politicians would have you believe otherwise. Even the SLS pricetag is inflated, as if the program was designed to be cut from the start. There is an article written by former NASA head Micheal D. Griffin called "Let the games begin" which calls out the Orlando Sentinel's factually misguiding remarks. We need to build rockets, not missiles.
not rated yet Sep 06, 2011
The cost of NASA to run for one year is less than it costs to occupy Afghanistan for one month!

But how are al the Cheneys and Bushes going to make money? NASA isn't very useful for transferring taxpayer money into the pockets of individuals with no-bid contracts (which is what the military-industrial complex effectively is). Wars are so much more profitable to those in charge.

Oh. You thought the government was supposed to look out for the best interests of the *people*? How quaint.
not rated yet Sep 06, 2011
"We need to build rockets, not missiles." - SleepTech

But without missiles, how will we protect ourselves from Terrorists and the Martians?

Our Peace Keeper Missiles have kept their invasion forces at bay for the last billion years. Only a fool would ignore that history.

We need more missiles and more tax cuts for the wealthy, and less immigration and stinky foreigners.

I say for every Mexican we deport, build one more nuclear peace keeper to keep em and the other aliens out.

Then we can move forward to building the long needed space shield to block the moon beams that our causing the fluoridation of our water and the poisoning of our precious God given bodily fluids.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.