“The End of Astronauts” – not a bad idea

NASA continues to forge ahead with its hyper-expensive Artemis program, to land people on the Moon once again. (And for what purpose?)

This, in spite of the fact that NASA’s own inspector general has issued several reports documenting how the program is overpriced and poorly managed.

NASA inspector general Paul Martin testified March 1 to the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics – at a hearing entitled “KEEPING OUR SIGHTS ON MARS PART 3: A STATUS UPDATE AND REVIEW OF NASA’S ARTEMIS INITIATIVE” – that “years-long oversight [by the IG’s office] has identified several interrelated challenges NASA must address to achieve its ambitious Artemis goals, including unsustainable costs, a lack of transparency into funding requirements, and risks associated with its modified program management and acquisition practices designed to reduce costs and accelerate the mission schedule.”

And yet, NASA continues to promote Artemis as a top priority, and Congress does little to rein in the program.

Martin continued, “We estimate NASA will spend $53 billion on the Artemis program between fiscal years (FY) 2021 and 2025.” Wow. And, again, for what purpose? For what public benefit?

More from Martin’s testimony: “Over the past 6 years, the Agency has increasingly relied on public-private partnerships and alternative acquisition approaches to further its deep space exploration and Artemis ambitions. While these non-traditional efforts have made significant progress in several areas including commercial crew and cargo transportation to the ISS, these projects face multiple technical, financial, and programmatic challenges. Specifically, NASA’s initial three Artemis missions face varying degrees of technical difficulties that will push launch schedules from months to years past their current goals…our detailed examination of Artemis program contracts found its costs unsustainable. Given our estimate of a $4.1 billion per-launch cost of the SLS/Orion system for at least the first four Artemis missions, NASA must accelerate its efforts to identify ways to make its Artemis-related programs more affordable.” The IG estimates that “NASA will spend $93 billion on the program from FY 2012 (when the Agency began Artemis-related work in earnest) through FY 2025. We derived this $93 billion figure from examining NASA’s obligations, appropriations, and budget projections across all Mission Directorates for programs and projects involved in the Artemis program.”

“In addition,” Martin continued, “the Agency has seen significant cost growth in the Mobile Launchers, spacesuits, and to a lesser degree the Gateway…. Second, the Artemis program lacks transparency. In particular, NASA does not have a comprehensive and accurate estimate that accounts for all Artemis program-related costs.”

Yup.

Two well known astronomers, Donald Goldsmith and Lord Martin Rees, have just published a book, The End of Astronauts, in which they argue – cogently, IMHO – that space exploration should continue with robots, not humans. I agree.

They write: “…the five decades since astronauts last touched the lunar surface testify to how geopolitics have warped the application of reason to these [human space flight] efforts. Once the United States won the race to the Moon” – a totally political race – “plans for further astronaut exploration foundered on the twin rocks of overwhelming expense and marginal returns.”

Yup.

Goldsmith asks, “What’s the rush?” Good question.

Both authors agree, “We do not need astronauts as space explorers.” I also agree. “Humans on Mars will not change everything” – as many advocates claim, and I strongly doubt. “Even if we united humanity to accomplish this task” – that is, establishing human settlements (colonies, in my vocabulary) – which is “increasingly unlikely in the foreseeable future…our problems on Earth will remain much as they are today….. Humans bring their problems with them no matter where they go.”

Astrobiology (and more) for the next 10 years

NASA is now soliciting public comments on its initial plans for returning samples of Mars to Earth – a big deal for the astrobiology community, as samples will be analyzed for evidence of past life on the Red Planet. I wonder whether anybody who’s not an advocate of Mars sample return (MSR) will be offering comments.

As I wrote in March, MSR has been a top priority for the planetary science community for decades, and unaffordable for decades as well. I think MSR is a solid scientific goal. But I’m concerned about the cost. NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science Thomas Zurbuchen has admitted that the cost of the NASA MSR campaign – with participation by the European Space Agency – is growing. By how much, he hasn’t said, as far as I know. The current cost estimate is – ??  It’s certainly more than $7 billion, the last number I heard reported. And I’m certain that the cost will continue to grow as the campaign proceeds.

Meanwhile, NASA apparently has cut funding for the NEO Surveyor mission – identified as a top priority for planetary defense in the National Academies’ current decadal survey of astrobiology and planetary science, 2023-2032 – to free up funds to cover rising costs of the MSR campaign and the Europa Clipper mission to Jupiter. As Marcia Smith recently reported at SpacePolicyOnline, “NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy said the decision to delay NEO Surveyor was based on priorities.”

My question is: whose priorities? 

The current decadal survey of astrobiology and planetary science, which identifies priorities for 2023-2032, addresses MSR: “If the cost of MSR increases substantially (≥20 percent) beyond the $5.3 billion level adopted in this report or goes above ~35 percent of the Planetary Science Division budget in any given year, NASA should work with the Administration and Congress to secure a budget augmentation to ensure the success of this strategic mission.”

I don’t know where the $5.3 billion number came from. I’m also not clear about whether NASA’s cost estimates for the MSR campaign include the $3 billion cost of the Mars 2020 mission, which is currently in operation.

The decadal survey report recommends the next priority for Mars exploration after MSR: “The [survey] committee strongly supports the continuation of [the Mars Exploration Program] and prioritizes Mars Life Explorer (MLE) as the next medium-class Mars mission. While ancient biosignatures are a focus of MSR, MLE will seek extant life and assess modern habitability through examination of low latitude ice. MLE will characterize organics, trace gases, and isotopes at a fidelity suitable for biosignature detection; and assess ice stability and the question of modern liquid water via chemical, thermophysical, and atmospheric measurements.”

Obviously, Mars Life Explorer would be a predominantly astrobiology mission.

According to a June 2021 mission concept study presented to the decadal survey team, the Mars Life Explorer mission concept was developed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL): “The development schedule for MLE is based on a Principal Investigator (PI) led, JPL managed, [New Frontiers]- class implementation with an industry partner for spacecraft development, assembly, integration, and test (AI&T) and supporting operations.” Launch would be in 2034-2035. “Baseline mission cost” is estimated at $1.1 billion, for a fiscal year 2025 New Frontiers selection, “including 50% reserve.” It’s not clear to me what costs are not included in the baseline mission cost – or what the difference is between baseline mission cost and mission-life-cycle cost – and what is or is not included in the latter. Not my area of expertise.

The cost of missions keeps going up. NASA’s Discovery program of mid-class planetary missions started out in 1990 with a mission cost cap of $150 million. It’s now $500 million. The last Discovery-class mission NASA launched, the Lucy asteroid-exploration spacecraft, cost $900 million. The decadal committee recommends raising the Discovery mission cost cap to $800 million.

NASA’s New Frontiers mission cost cap is now $1.05 billion. The decadal committee recommends raising the cap to $1.65 billion. According to The Planetary Society, the New Horizons mission to Pluto, the first mission to be funded by the New Frontiers program, cost $780.6 billion. Presumably this does number does not include the cost of extended mission operations in the Kuiper belt. The Juno mission to Jupiter, NASA’s second New Frontiers mission, cost $1.13 billion. NASA’s third New Frontiers mission, OSIRIS-REx to the asteroid Bennu, cost $1.16 billion. (I don’t know if any of these numbers are in current-year dollars, adjusted for inflation.) NASA’s next New Frontiers mission will be Dragonfly to Saturn’s moon Titan, planned for launch in 2028. Dragonfly was selected in a New Frontiers competition with a mission cost cap of $850 million in fiscal year 2015 dollars (that would be $1.03 billion in fiscal 2022 dollars), excluding the cost of launch and operations. Launch is proposed for 2027.

NASA announced in May 2021 that it would solicit proposals for the fifth round of New Frontiers missions no later than fall 2024, with selection proposed for 2027.

So-called NASA “flagship” missions are multi-billion-dollar projects, the latest to launch being the $3-billion Mars 2020 mission, including the Perseverance rover and the Ingenuity helicopter. The decadal committee recommended that NASA’s next flagship mission be a Uranus Orbiter and Probe, estimated to cost $4.2 billion, followed by an Enceladus Orbilander, estimated to cost $4.9 billion.

Here’s more from the decadal survey report: “The committee developed two representative programs for the 2023-2032 decade. The Level Program assumes currently projected funding for [NASA’s Planetary Science Division], including inflation at 2 percent/yr, while the Recommended Program can be achieved with ~17.5 percent higher decade funding.”

So. The “recommended program” calls for a “late decade start of Mars Life Explorer,” one selection from NASA’s New Frontiers 5 competition and two selections from the New Frontiers 6 competition, beginning the Uranus Orbiter and Probe mission in fiscal year 2024 and the Enceladus Orbilander in 2029.

 The “level program” would entail “no new start for Mars Life Explorer,” late or no selection from the New Frontiers 6 competition, beginning the Uranus mission in 2028, and “no new start for Enceladus Orbilander” in the 2023-2032 decade.

All of these cost estimates are, IMHO, fluid. So are proposed schedules for mission selections and launches.

I would not bet any money on what the next decade will, or will not, bring in astrobiology and planetary science.