Space Studies Board Annual Report 2007 (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

86 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007 5.8 Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Assessing the Solar System Exploration Program Executive Summary The Committee on Assessing the Solar System Exploration Program has reviewed NASA’s progress to date on implementing the recommendations made in the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) 2003-2013 solar system exploration decadal survey, New Frontiers in the Solar System, and in its Mars architecture report, Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016. For each individual recommendation in these two reports the committee assessed NASA’s progress and assigned an academic-style grade, explained the rationale for the grade and trend, and offered recommendations for improvement. The committee generally sought to develop recommendations in cases where it determined that the grade, the trend, or both were worrisome and that achievement of the decadal survey recommendation would require some kind of corrective action on NASA’s part. This usually meant that the committee sought to offer a recommendation when the grade was a “C” or lower. However, the committee did offer recommendations in connection with some higher grades where it believed minor corrective action was possible and desirable. More importantly, the committee did not offer recommendations for some lower grades, particularly in the enabling technologies area (Chapter 6), because the committee determined that only the restoration of funding and the development of a strategic technology development program would solve these problems. The general meanings of the assigned grades are as follows: A Achieved or exceeded the goal established in the decadal survey. B Partially achieved the decadal goal, or made significant progress. C Some progress toward meeting the decadal goal, or achieved a supporting objective. D Little progress toward meeting the decadal goal. F Regressed or made no progress toward meeting the decadal goal. Withdrawn Goal or objective dropped. Incomplete Unable to make an assessment due to lack of data, inconclusive decision process, or other factors. In addition to a grade for progress to date, for each recommendation in the two NRC reports cited above, the committee assessed the direction of progress: Trend: È Improving. Trend: Í Getting worse. Trend: Ë No change. The committee’s results are organized into five categories: (1) science goals and objectives; (2) flight ­missions; (3) Mars; (4) research and analysis (R&A), planetary astronomy, and mission data analysis programs; and (5) ­enabling technologies. In making its assessments, the committee considered the recommendations of the two reports as essentially s ­ acrosanct and made virtually no allowances for circumstances that might have led to a less than satisfactory grade, although the committee does acknowledge that the decadal survey in particular was limited in its ability to a ­ dequately predict the cost and complexity of some missions (such as Venus in situ measurements and Comet sample return). The committee did consider, in remarking on the rationale for the grade and in recommending remedial measures, what these circumstances might have been. Because this is a “mid-term” assessment, NASA still has the NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from the prepublication version of Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 1-10; approved for release in 2007. National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Wash- ington, D.C., 2003. National Research Council, Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. 

Summaries of Major Reports 87 FIGURE ES.1  The Mars Science Laboratory entering Mars’ atmosphere in 2010. SOURCE: Jet Propulsion Laboratory. ability to significantly improve these grades before the next decadal survey is produced. However, the committee also notes that the situation could get considerably worse, and the current overall trend is alarming. Although this report mentions a number of proposed but not yet funded missions—some of which are currently under evaluation by NASA—the committee is not endorsing specific mission proposals, especially when those proposals are being made in the competitive evaluation process that NASA uses for its Discovery, Mars Scout, and New Frontiers programs. In the formal letter from NASA to the Space Studies Board requesting the study, NASA asked for recommenda- tions not only for NASA itself, but also for the next decadal survey starting in 2008 (and expected to last 2 years). The committee noted that during its study, NASA undertook four studies of possible flagship missions to Europa, Titan, the Jupiter system (focusing on Ganymede), and Saturn’s moon Enceladus. These kinds of studies are vital to the decadal survey process and help establish a baseline of mission options for future solar system exploration plans. The committee encourages NASA to conduct such future studies. The committee also encourages NASA to allow more time and to provide more resources for support of the mission concept and cost-estimation process for the next decadal survey. These surveys achieve their maximum utility when informed by credible cost-estimates for all potential missions, not just the flagship category. OVERALL SUMMARY FOR SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION Grade: B Trend: Í Halfway into the 2003-2013 decade covered by the decadal survey New Frontiers in the Solar System, NASA has made significant progress toward implementing the recommendations of the decadal survey and the Mars a ­ rchitecture report. The current planetary exploration program is highly productive, carrying out exciting missions and making fundamental discoveries. However, the committee awarded a downward trend arrow because the committee concluded that this progress is unlikely to continue at the present rate, and that on its current course NASA will not be able to fulfill the recom- 

88 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007 mendations of the decadal survey. The reasons for this are reduced investment in research, data analysis, technology development, and smaller mission programs, coupled with increasing mission costs, overruns on approved flight projects, and spiraling launch vehicle costs. The committee weighted these areas more than others and notes that these are all areas that are required for further progress to continue. The trends in these individual areas mean that future progress toward fulfilling the recommendations of the decadal survey is unlikely. NASA has also made in- sufficient investment in vital infrastructure such as the Deep Space Network. The committee also notes that NASA has failed to start the Europa mission that was the highest-priority mission recommended by the decadal survey. In addition, NASA has neglected work on the Mars Sample Return mission, particularly technology development. Although the agency indicates that this situation may change, the committee notes that only significant progress can erase skepticism about the prospects in this area. Yesterday’s investments have created a momentum that will carry the program for a few more years before the consequences of today’s reductions become apparent. The future of the nation’s solar system exploration program as laid out in the decadal survey for 2003-2013 is in jeopardy unless NASA makes an effort to improve the situation. SUMMARY OF KEY ELEMENTS A summary of the committee’s assessment of the Planetary Science Division program’s key programmatic elements from the decadal survey and Mars architecture follows. Science Questions Grade: B Trend: Ë In many respects, NASA has done a good job of meeting the science goals outlined in the decadal survey. The agency should be commended for this progress. However, there is one disturbing note in this area. Only in the Mars program has there been progress toward the recommendation addressing whether life exists (or did exist) beyond Earth. The Mars program has an integrated strategy for addressing this science goal. However, the funding reductions for astrobiology research and technology development have had serious and very adverse impacts on addressing this goal throughout the solar system exploration program. The science goals in the decadal survey, and NASA’s progress in addressing them to date, are summarized in Table ES.1. TABLE ES.1  Science Questions and Progress Crosscutting Themes and Key Questionsa Grade Trend The First Billion Years of Solar System History 1. What processes marked the initial stages of planet and satellite formation? B È 2. How long did it take the gas giant Jupiter to form, and how was the formation of the ice giants (Uranus and Neptune) C È different from that of Jupiter and its gas giant sibling, Saturn? 3. How did the impactor flux decay during the solar system’s youth, and in what way(s) did this decline influence the B Ë timing of life’s emergence on Earth? Volatiles and Organics: The Stuff of Life 4. What is the history of volatile compounds, especially water, across the solar system? A È 5. What is the nature of organic material in the solar system and how has this matter evolved? B È 6. What global mechanisms affect the evolution of volatiles on planetary bodies? B Ë The Origin and Evolution of Habitable Worlds 7. What planetary processes are responsible for generating and sustaining habitable worlds, and where are the habitable A Í zones in the solar system? 8. Does (or did) life exist beyond Earth? C Í 9. Why have the terrestrial planets differed so dramatically in their evolutions? A È 10. What hazards do solar system objects present to Earth’s biosphere? B È Processes: How Planetary Systems Work 11. How do the processes that shape the contemporary character of planetary bodies operate and interact? B Í 12. What does the solar system tell us about the development and evolution of extrasolar planetary systems, and vice versa? B Ë aReprinted from National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 30. 

Summaries of Major Reports 89 Flight Missions Grade: B Trend: Í There are some troubling indicators in the flight missions area. The launch rate for missions in all size catego- ries is lower than envisioned in the decadal survey. This is especially true in the Discovery program. This low-cost, community-driven flight program is key to maintaining the pipeline of data returned from the solar system and is essential to the training of new mission scientists and students, ongoing efforts vital for a thriving solar system exploration community. If NASA approves the start of a Europa flagship mission, and approves two new Discovery missions and a New Frontiers mission, the committee believes that this trend will reverse. However, the current lack of approval of a Europa flagship mission, plus the lack of new Discovery mission opportunities, has led the commit- tee to assess the trend for flight missions as downward at this time. The committee is also concerned about various pressures on future missions, including increasing launch costs and the lack of technologies required to accomplish the other missions recommended in the decadal survey. The committee recognizes that the primary reason—although by no means the only reason—that the launch rate in all mission categories is lower is the shortage of funding. Increasing the launch rate would require more money, which NASA is unlikely to receive. The agency will be forced to make hard choices in this area. The flight missions, including Mars missions, recommended in the decadal survey and NASA’s progress in implementing them to date are summarized in Table ES.2. Mars Grade: A Trend: Ë NASA’s Mars Exploration Program (MEP), which was redesigned in 2000, has been highly successful to date and appears on track through the end of the current decade. Both the Mars Science Laboratory (in 2009) and a 2011 Scout mission that will be selected soon meet the recommendations of the decadal survey. A key element of the success of this program is that it is not a series of isolated missions, but rather a highly integrated set of strategically designed missions, each building on the discoveries and technology of the previous missions and fitting into long- term goals to understand the planet, whether or not it ever had or does now have life, and how Mars fits into the origin and evolution of terrestrial planets. The strategic scientific thread thus far has been to “follow the water” on Mars: its history, amount, form, and location. A new thread is emerging to “follow the carbon,” “follow the organics,” or “find the life,” which can only be accomplished if astrobiology instruments and capabilities become available. The committee assesses the Mars Exploration Program for the period 2000-2010 as meriting an “A.” However, the recommendations of the decadal survey and other NRC Mars reviews focus on the period out to 2017 and occasionally beyond. For those years, the program has suffered from a lack of technological progress toward a sample return mission, lack of a commitment to a landed network mission, and indecision on the 2016 and 2018 launch opportunities. As this document was being prepared, NASA presented to the committee new tentative Mars plans that the agency designated the “Ideal Mars Next Decade Campaign.” This new mission queue, described in detail in C ­ hapter 4, appears to address most of the issues raised in the NRC reports cited, except for the landed network. The “Ideal Campaign” commits the Mars Exploration Program to a sample return mission “anchored in 2020” (with actual samples being returned some years later) and using the Astrobiology Field Laboratory as the prime sample collection mission. The committee is cautiously optimistic about this approach, while emphasizing that it should be subjected to rigorous community review once it has been further investigated. The committee believes that major changes in the Mars Exploration Program should not be made if they contradict what is recommended in the decadal survey; otherwise such changes would effectively render the entire decadal survey process irrelevant. Extensive community involvement is a major factor in the success of the Mars Exploration Program. The committee was also disappointed to learn that NASA was simultaneously suggesting that Mars missions after the 2011 Scout mission might be abandoned with only the promise of a Mars Sample Return in 2020, but no clear investment or programmatic path to make it happen. At least some Mars missions during this period would have to be selected via the New Frontiers competition, thereby jeopardizing the strategic planning approach that has served the Mars Exploration Program and science community so well. The committee notes that the flight rate was also affected by policy and management choices. For instance, the expenditure of significant amounts of money on the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission, which was canceled because of its high price tag, prevented the effective start of a flagship mission that would have met the recommendation of the decadal survey. 

90 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007 TABLE ES.2  Flight Missions and Implementation Flight Missions Recommendationa Status Grade Trend “Large” flagship Missions “Large” flagship missions overall One per decade None yet to date. D Ë Europa Explorer Start Europa mission Under extensive study, no new start to date “Medium” New Frontiers Missions “Medium” New Frontiers missions overall 3-4 per decade One launched, one in development, B Ë new AO imminent Kuiper Belt/Pluto Explorer Top priority New Horizons mission launched A Ë Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes Third priority JUNO orbiter selected w/o probes A Ë South Pole Aitken Basin Sample Return Second priority Option for next AO — — Comet Surface Sample Return Fifth priority Option for next AO — — Venus In Situ Explorer Fourth priority Option for next AO — — “Small” Discovery Missions “Small” Discovery missions overall One launch every No full mission selected in 5 years; D Ë Both full missions and missions of opportunity 18 months two missions of opportunity selected determined by competition Mars Exploration Program Mars Exploration Program overall A Ë Mars Science Laboratory 2009 Conduct Mars Science In development for 2009 B Ë Laboratory Mars Science and Telecom Orbiter 2013 Conduct Mars Science Planned for 2013, science still under A È Orbiter definition Mars Astrobiology Field Laboratory Option for 2016 Instrument development required A Ë Mars Mid-rovers Option for 2016 Option for 2016 A Ë Mars Long-lived Lander Network Option for 2016 Option for 2016 A Ë Mars Scouts One launch every Phoenix launch 2007, selection for 2011 A È 26 months imminent Mars Sample Return Start technology Progress spotty on enabling technology C Í development for Mars and no recent systematic mission Sample Return planning, but recent signs that this will change NOTE: AO, Announcement of Opportunity.   aRecommendations summarized from National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, and National Research Council, Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. Research and Analysis, Planetary Astronomy, Flight Mission Data Analysis Grade: C Trend: Í The committee is deeply concerned with both the grade and the trend in the area of research and analysis, planetary astronomy, and flight mission data. The grade is driven by falling investment in fundamental science and two failing grades in planetary astronomy. Research and analysis funding is essentially the “seed corn” that helps to define future missions and carry them out, and serious cutbacks in this area have harmed NASA’s ability to con- duct future solar system exploration. Most importantly, the committee has serious concerns about the current and projected funding levels for the research and analysis program in the Planetary Science Division, with particular concern for astrobiology, resulting in the assessment of a downward trend. The problems in planetary astronomy reflect NASA’s lack of participation in the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and its inattention to the decadal survey recommendation regarding the ability of the James Webb Space Telescope to track moving objects in the solar system. 

Summaries of Major Reports 91 Enabling Technologies Grade: D Trend: Í NASA’s investment portfolio in technology development at the beginning of the decadal period appeared a ­ dequate and well structured to meet the needs projected by the decadal survey. However, severe reductions in fund- ing since that time now pose a serious risk to enabling future flight missions. Of special concern is the lack of invest- ment in aerocapture, optical communications, spacecraft autonomy, advanced avionics, instrument miniaturization, in situ sample gathering, handling, and analysis, autonomous mobility, and ascent vehicles. In reviewing missions under consideration, or even in the active planning stages for the next 5 years and beyond, it is clear that without a considerable, sustained investment in technology development, much of the technical risk of those ­missions cannot be reduced to levels that would instill confidence about mission success. In addition, NASA is ­encouraged to proceed to implementation with its plan for upgrading and revamping the Deep Space Network and to work aggressively to deal with the impending crisis in launch vehicles brought on by the planned retirement of the Delta II rocket, the spiraling costs of launch services, and uncertainty about the future availability of appropriately sized launch vehicles for smaller missions. NASA has made progress in science and flight missions, but there is a clear threat to meeting the goals of the New Frontiers in the Solar System report and the Mars architecture report over the next 5 years. To repeat the committee’s primary finding: on its current course NASA will not be able to fulfill the recommendations of the New Frontiers in the Solar System decadal survey. The committee offers the following recommendations toward redressing these problems. RECOMMENDATIONS The committee considers its findings to be represented in the grades, trends, and explanations for each subject area. The committee developed recommendations for those subjects that it felt were in particular need of corrective action (or, in some instances, where corrective action could be applied relatively easily). Chapter 2, Science Recommendation: The next decadal survey should address the objectives and merits of a Neptune/Triton mission. Recommendation: NASA should return Astrobiology Science and Technology Instrument Development funding and Astrobiology Science and Technology for Exploring Planets funding back to at least their individual Planetary Instrument Definition and Development levels. However, this should not be accomplished to the detriment of the astrobiology research and analysis program, which has already suffered large cutbacks. Chapter 3, Flight Missions Recommendation: To ensure that flagship mission costs do not negatively impact missions in other cost classes, NASA should apply sufficient resources to obtain good cost estimates in the earliest phases and rigorously review mission costs before selection. Recommendation: NASA should continue studying possible flagship missions to both the inner and the outer planets as input to the next decadal study. Recommendation: NASA should select a Europa mission concept and secure a new start for the project before 2011. Recommendation: NASA should increase the rate of selection and launch of New Frontiers missions. Recommendation: The New Frontiers missions should follow a two-stage development process, starting with (1) an opportunity to submit a proposal for funding for 1 or 2 years to develop mission concepts. This earlier stage would provide for some endorsement of the best ideas so that they can attract industry and NASA center support. 

92 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007 Such support, in turn, would (2) allow more concepts to reach a level of maturity required for considering full-scale proposal development. Recommendation: NASA should select two of the three Discovery missions currently in phase-A studies (if two are sufficiently meritorious to be selectable) and should seek to achieve an 18-month period between selections for the rest of the decade. These steps can help to restore vitality to this important program. Recommendation: NASA should return to conducting Senior Reviews once every 2 years to improve efficiency. Chapter 4, Mars Recommendation: NASA should begin actively planning for Mars Sample Return, including precursor missions that identify and cache well-characterized samples of both geological and biological interest. Recommendation: NASA should begin consulting various groups such as MEPAG and the astrobiology/exobiology research community to assess the current state-of-the-art in laboratory analysis instruments, identify where further development would be beneficial for Mars sample analysis and biosignature detection, and verify that the needed instruments, laboratory facilities, and new researcher training will be made available as part of the sample-handling facility as soon as samples are returned. Recommendation: NASA should begin robust technology investment aimed at reducing the risk associated with the four major engineering challenges of a successful Mars Sample Return, that is, the definition, design, and development of: 1. A Mars sample receiving facility that can serve to certify the samples as safe for distribution; 2. A sample return vehicle that can provide a high probability of successful sample return to Earth consistent with the NASA Planetary Protection Officer’s and Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) guidelines; 3. Autonomous on-orbit rendezvous and docking capability at Mars for sample transfer and return; and 4. A Mars ascent vehicle that is capable of being transported to Mars, landing, and returning cached samples to Mars orbit. Recommendation: NASA should take all the scientific, programmatic, and technical information available and make a decision on a mission queue that includes the 2016 and 2018 Mars launch opportunities. Recommendation: NASA should seek community review to carefully scrutinize the new Mars architecture and its budget implications to ensure that the value of the sample returned is worth the cost to the Mars Exploration Program. Chapter 5, Research and Analysis Recommendation: NASA should restore an adequate funding level for astrobiology research, based on consultation with the scientific community, that will lead to the achievement of the goals of the New Frontiers in the Solar System decadal survey. NASA should provide a stable and sustainable funding environment that is adequate to ensure the vitality and continued scientific productivity of all its research and analysis programs. Recommendation: NASA should continue to work to more completely integrate astrobiology into all solar system science disciplines. Recommendation: NASA should improve the visibility of its Fellowships for Early Career Researchers program and advertise it as a postdoctoral program. NASA should also expand the participating research program areas to include origins of solar systems, as well as all appropriate space mission data analysis programs. Recommendation: NASA should establish formal contacts with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope project. 

Summaries of Major Reports 93 Recommendation: NASA should incorporate into the James Webb Space Telescope as quickly as possible the ca- pability to track moving solar system objects. Recommendation: NASA Announcements of Opportunity should require each space mission proposal to explicitly estimate and budget for archiving activities. Recommendation: NASA should consider encouraging principal investigators to offer archival data sets in their initial proposal, so that the review panels can assess their desirability. Chapter 6, Enabling Technologies Recommendation: NASA should develop a strategic plan for technology development and infusion independent of flight programs. In addition, NASA should restore funding to its New Millennium program. Recommendation: NASA should conduct a study of the trade-offs of the cost versus risk of developing a Ka-band array system to handle the required transmissions (uplink and downlink) and determine whether optical commu- nications are required for data delivery during the 2013-2023 time frame. Prior to the next decadal survey, NASA should present the results of such a study to the science community. Recommendation: NASA should make an assessment of which technologies will be required for Mars Sample Return and conduct an independent assessment of the analogous technology needs for the Moon, Venus, asteroids, and other targets. Recommendation: NASA should fund the Small Aperture Receive Array for the Deep Space Network and plan to replace the 70-meter antennas with arrays of small-diameter antennas by 2015.