Agencies Responsible for Undertaking Space Science Research
The main funding agencies for basic research in space science are NASA
and the NSF. The office from which
most of the NASA funding comes for basic research is the Space Mission Directorate
that pursues four themes: astrophysics, the solar system, the Earth-Sun system connection, and Earth science.
This office is managed by an associate administrator (AA) for space missions, presently
E. Weiler on an interim basis. Under the AA are four directors who manage the four themes.
NASA releases Announcements of Opportunity
solicitations for mission proposals and for analyzing data. The solicitation for data analysis is called Research Opportunities Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES). The National Science
Foundation does not usually
issue AOs but they often have specific dates for evaluation of the proposals. What we
would call space physics is funded in the Geosciences Directorate under
Atmospheric Science Programs. This area,
whose code is ATM, funds Aeronomy, Magnetospheric Physics and Solar Terrestrial research. These areas have programs named CEDAR, GEM, and SHINE that have annual meetings.
Advisory Process
NASA and the NSF obtain advice on the conduct of their programs from external committees run by the National
Research Council, an arm of the National Academy, from internal committees and from their own employees. The
NRC is paid by NASA and the NSF for their advice so that advice is given generally only in areas in
which the agency is seeking advice.
The NSF gets advice on solar terrestrial programs from the Committee on Solar
Terrestrial Research (CSTR). NASA receives its advice
through the Space Studies Board
and its associated committees. The two committees that most influence planetary and space physics
are the Committee for Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX)
and the Committee for Solar and Space Physics.
The National Science Foundation has one high level internal advisory board: the
National Science Board. NASA now has only one top level, internal advisory committee, the NASA Advisory Council (NAC), that has three science sub-committees.
NASA has abolished its earlier extensive internal science advisory structure and established a very top-down flow of science planning.
There are no known web links to the NAC or its sub-committees.
The NASA Planning Process
The NRC committees provide general guidance on the scientific objectives for the space
program and what types of missions and instrumentation would be needed to achieve these objectives. NASA
maintains a strategic plan that indicates which of these many options will be carried out in the
immediate future. The individual disciplines within NASA periodically develop Roadmaps that give guidance
as to the details of the planned program and the technology developments needed to achieve these goals.
Examples of these are the SEC roadmap and the
SSE roadmap. If a mission is small enough to be led by a PI in
an industry-NASA center-university partnership, the remaining planning generally takes place during the preparation
of the proposal. For larger missions the earliest stage of planning takes place in a mission
science design team (SDT).
Mission Categories
Participation in NASA's flight program generally occurs by responding with a proposal to a published Announcement of
Opportunity. What one needs to do to respond to an AO generally depends on the size of the program. In the Astrophysical and
Sun-Earth-Connection disciplines the Explorer program has two announcements with different maximum size. The small Explorer (SMEX) program has a range of
small launchers available and a $150M cap on the spacecraft plus launch. Example missions are SAMPEX and FAST. In this program
a successful proposer might have an industry-center-university partnership each of which took care of part of the effort. The most
ambitious of the Explorer programs is the mid-sized Explorers (MidEX) that are now the largest Explorer spacecraft allowed but
still significantly reduced over some earlier Explorer missions. These missions are capped at about $250M for the entire mission. In
the Sun-Earth Connections theme, there are Solar Terrestrial Observers that are capped at about $800M for
the entire mission.
An example of such a mission is the STEREO mission.
The Solar System Exploration program has four series of missions: Discovery, the Mars program, the Mars Scout program and
New Frontiers. The Mars program is much more science
oriented and open to competition, but, except for the Scout program, the mission sequence and measurement objectives are all decided internally. The Mars program does have a very open process for science input through the Mars Exploration Program Advisory Group (MEPAG) that is open to all attendees who wish to participate. The Discovery
program is open to all individuals and planetary topics. It and the Scout program are capped at
$450M for the total mission. The Scout program is new and equivalent of a Discovery program
for Mars.
The New Frontiers program with a cap of about $750M is designed to enable more major planetary missions such as a Venus lander, Pluto flyby, or a moon-sample return.
Recently, NASA's Mars objectives have been stretched out and greater attention is being paid other planet exploration.
The European Space Agency (ESA) has a similar program except that its largest missions are called Cosmic Vision missions and are
more akin in cost and complexity to NASA's earlier major missions. ESA's most recent major planetary mission was a launch to the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (the Rosetta mission). This will be followed by a mission to Mercury (Bepi Columbo). ESA also has a
series of smaller scientific missions such as the Mars and Venus Express missions and
each member state of ESA may also undertake its own mission independent of ESA. Often European countries collaborate with
the U.S. in space missions with one side providing some of the payload for the other's spacecraft.
Japan has a program that is smaller than that of ESA with some individual initiatives and some joint programs such as the Geotail contribution to the ISTP program, a Venus Climate Orbiter, and the Mercury tail orbiter
contribution to Bepi Columbo.
The Selection Process
Before getting into the details of the selection process we should first examine the context, physical, financial and philosophical, in
which these selections are made. First, physically NASA consists of Headquarters staff centered in Washington, DC and seven major
centers and a number of minor centers. In some sense the centers compete with each other for programs while Headquarters tries to
minimize this competition by defining particular roles for each. Headquarters administers the planning and selection process but
assigns the oversight and financial management to particular centers. The Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland,
handles Earth Science, Astrophysics and Space Physics. The National Space Science Data Center is also at Goddard. The Marshall
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, handles launch vehicles and shuttle science. The Ames Research Center just north of
San Jose, California, handles astrobiology, aeronautics, some small missions and some aircraft programs. The Johnson Space Center in Houston,
Texas, handles the manned program and mission operations. It also has historically shepherded the lunar program although the Lunar
Prospector Discovery mission was run out of Ames. Glenn Research Center in Cleveland handles aeronautics and advanced propulsion and the
Kennedy Space Center handles launch operations.
NASA has attempted in recent years to shift its focus to smaller missions. In the past there was competition within and between
disciplines for new start opportunities. The biggest most ambitious program usually won because it was better than the competition,
because the number of new missions that congress would allow NASA to start was limited and because large programs tended to
require an increase in NASA's budget. The selection of a set of large, infrequent missions had a number of bad effects. It is hard
to manage large programs. Big projects are complex and risky. Cost is non-linearly related to size. In addition, the infrequent
launches associated with large programs meant that space science slowed down. Furthermore, there was great pressure to use
the space shuttle both for launch of spacecraft and for flying on board investigations. Now the shuttle is almost
completely devoted to assembly of the space station.
Most recently under the mantra, "faster, better, cheaper", NASA attempted less ambitious projects with greater emphasis
on small missions such as the SMEX missions, SAMPEX and FAST, the Discovery missions, such as NEAR and Lunar Prospector,
using smaller launch vehicles, and emphasizing new technology. Nevertheless, because of the long timescales
for large missions
some large missions remain such as Cassini and the Advanced X-ray Astronomy Facility now renamed Chandra.
Moreover there will always be a need for some very large missions such as the Next Generation Space Telescope (Webb Telescope).
NASA must plan well in advance to obtain funding for its programs. If it wishes to begin a program in fiscal year N that begins
on October 1 of the calendar year N-1, it must start preparing its budget request in the Spring of the year N-2. This request is sent to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) in the fall of year N-2. In December OMB tells NASA what it is willing to put into the President's
budget. NASA then is allowed to make a reclama that provides arguments why items not included in the OMB budget should be put
back in the budget. In February of the year N-1, the president submits to congress the budget to which NASA and OMB have agreed.
First, the House and Senate prepare and debate an authorization bill that authorizes NASA's budget. A joint House-Senate committee
then resolves any differences. Next the House and Senate (often in parallel with the authorization process) prepare and debate
appropriation bills. These bills give NASA the money and are therefore more critical to NASA than the authorization bill.
The President then signs the bills, usually in the fall of year N-1 in time for the beginning of fiscal year N. Since the NASA budget is
decided along with other agencies, there are often hard budget choices to be made
between non-science and science programs.
The selection process for research grants is quite standardized. There is an announcement of opportunity to propose posted
on the world wide web. Those wishing to propose are requested to write a letter of intent that allows those managing the selection
process to pick a set of reviewers for the proposals. When the proposal is submitted it is usually mailed to a set of reviewers who
assign it a grade and comment on the proposal. A panel then adds its own thoughts to those of the outside reviewers and often ranks
the proposals according to perhaps subjective but hopefully uniform criteria. NASA then uses these rankings as a guide to who
should receive funding.
In a large program, especially if it has new elements, a draft AO is often posted a couple of months prior to the start of the final
AO to allow comments from the community. Once the comments from the community have been considered, the AO is revised and released.
Again letters of intent to propose are requested and the submittal deadline is usually about 90 days from the release of the AO.
For a major selection such as a Discovery or Explorer mission the selection process may require up to six months. Typically
a proposal for a PI-led mission will go to both a science panel and a technical, management, cost and outreach panel (TMCO).
Each panel rates the proposed mission in its area of expertise and looks for major weaknesses, minor weaknesses, major strengths
and minor strengths. Based on these reviews NASA then selects one or more for continued study. In the case of the Discovery
program, several missions are studied competitively and one of these is selected for development. In the Explorer series backup
candidates are studied but a prime mission is selected for development and this development proceeds unless a major problem is
discovered in the development phase.
The development cycle of any mission is divided into phases A through E. Phase A is the study that proves the feasibility of a
mission. This study may be undertaken as part of the selection process as in the final competition of the Discovery program.
Prephase-A studies also occur that are undertaken to decide what concepts are worthy of the investment of a Phase A study.
These studies are akin to the proposals written for the Explorer and Discovery series but occur for every program. After phase
A NASA confirms that it is going ahead with the investigation if the Phase A study indicates feasibility. Phase B develops detailed
plans including the ordering of long lead items but does not build hardware. At the end of Phase B is a preliminary design review.
Phase C covers the building of the hardware and includes a critical design review that attempts to uncover any and all difficulties
and ensure they have been addressed. During Phase C engineering units, flight units and any necessary spares are built. In Phase
D, these are tested, integrated on the spacecraft and after a preship review to ensure everything has been completely tested, the
spacecraft and its payload are shipped to the launch facility and sent into space. Phase E begins 30 days after launch and covers
the operations of the mission and data analysis. Often during this phase guest investigators are added to the program.