# Presentation: 176369

## Planetary Science DivisionUpdate Presentation to thePlanetary Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council

- James L. Green
- Acting, Director PSD
- (on detail from GSFC)
- September 25, 2006

## J.L. Green - Introduction

- Education: BA, MS, Phd - Unv. of Iowa
- Science background:
- Magnetospheric Physicist
- Over 100 peer reviewed science papers, ~50 technical reports, ~50 newsletters articles
- Co-Investigator & Deputy Project Scientist on IMAGE
- Creator of Space Physics Analysis Network-SPAN
- Science Management experience:
- Head, National Space Science Data Center ‘85-’92
- Chief, Space Science Data Operations Off. ‘92-’05
- Chief, Science Proposal Support Off. ‘05-’06
- Connection with planetary science
- R&A: VDAP, JDAP, PIDDP, HCIPE, & EPO supplement

## Outline

- Importance of the PSS to the Planetary Science Division
- Current status of the Division
- PSS Recommendations to the NAC
- Current PSD Issues

## Importance of the PSS

- I value the PSS as the top community input
- PSS provides recommendations to the NAC
- PSD receives copies of all your recommendations
- No other advisory group will be created for Divisional use
- I will be at every PSS meeting and you have my full attention
- I will hear the context of all the discussions and the recommendations and will have my notes too!
- The PSS really matters to me!

## Division Status

## Administrative Changes

- Current civil servant positions to be filled:
- Director Planetary Science (closed Sept. 24th)
- Deputy Director Planetary Science (closed Sept. 24th)
- Discovery Program Executive (to be advertised)
- A Discovery Program Scientist for Phase A (to be advertised)
- Other staff changes and positions filled:
- Carl Pilcher, appointed Director of NASA Astrobiology Institute; John Rummel replaces Carl as Senior Scientist for Astrobiology
- Detailees:
- Catherine Conely/AMES now the new Planetary Protection Officer
- Stan Wojnar/GSFC (Dep.Director) - onboard Oct. 2
- Jonathan Rall/GSFC (instrumentation analysis) - onboard Oct. 2
- Lia LaPania (detailed from Astrophysics-half time) - starting Nov. 1
- Lindley Johnson moving to ESMD with NEOO program;
- Lindley being detailed back to Planetary Division for ~ 6 mos.
- A new Civil Servant hire replacement approved (see above)

## Current Mission Status

- Mars: MRO, MGS, MER-1, MER-2, Mars Odyssey, Aspera-Mars Exp
- New Launches: MSL and Phoenix
- Discovery: Messenger, Deep Impact, Stardust, Genesis
- New Launches: Moon Mineralogy Mapper-Chandrayan, Dawn
- New Frontiers: New Horizons
- New Launches: Juno
- Flagship: Cassini/Huygens at Saturn
- International: Mars Express, Venus Express, Rosetta, Hayabusa
- Studies: Determine the feasibility of Titan and Enceladus missions    < $1B FY06 cost cap
- Two science teams from OPAG
- Report to also define technology needs but not include development in estimate
- Expect results from JPL in March 2007

## _x0010_Planetary Mission Event Schedule

- Planetary Division launches (green)
- Planetary mission events (red)

## Planetary Science Division Roadmap

- Roadmap has been issued & posted at a number of locations
- http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/mission_planning.html

## Findings and Recommendations

## PSS Recommendations to the NAC

- Status of Restoration of cuts to R&A and Astrobiology
- Mission related:
- Put sufficient resources into concept and Phase A studies
- Avoid programmatic delays of missions.
- Reduce management overhead on all programs
- Revisit cost caps of competed missions (Discovery, New Frontiers)
- Reverse the increases in cost of launch vehicles
- Endorse the NRC report "An Assessment of Balance in NASA's Science Programs"
- Begin planning for the scientific analysis of data from LRO and missions by international partners
- Covered by other speakers today

## Status of cuts to R&A and Astrobiology

- The President’s FY07 Budget includes reductions in R&A (15%) and Astrobiology (50%)
- Within the approved budget constraints we will work toward maintaining a viable R&A program
- Pay attention to the “program budget for new awards” stated in ROSES’07 call and any new relevant amendments for cost change information
- We are now adding two new R&A opportunities above the existing R&A program
- Data Analysis Program for New Horizons encounter with Jupiter (encounter is Feb. 28, 2007)
- Lunar Science Research (details TBD)
- Lunar Sortie Science R&A (Clarification App.E4): “NASA intends to issue further solicitations for ... science investigations” - issued today!

## Lunar Science NRA

- Request PSS provide suggestions on potential science research focused areas for this NRA
- Based on Lunar data in the PDS
- Relationship with other Lunar research with existing Planetary Science Division NRAs
- Building up science core for supporting follow-on NRAs utilizing ESMD Lunar mission data

- • PDS overview of Lunar data
- • PDS to archive other Lunar
-   data that may be available

## Mission Recommendations

- Put sufficient resources into concept and Phase A studies
- Discovery (Mar 5) - Phase A increased to 7 months & $1.2 M
- Scout (June 15) - Phase A increased to 9 months & $2 M
- Avoid programmatic delays of missions
- Juno delay to 2011 unavoidable due to budget constraints
- Reduce management overhead on all programs
- Staffing up at NASA Hq will provide needed program oversight
- Revisit cost caps of competed missions and reverse the increases in cost of launch vehicles
- Current discussions are whether or not to include the cost of the launch vehicles in the AO
- Cost increases due to launch vehicles should not be counted against a missions cost cap

## Discovery & Scout Selections

- Green: I am not involved in any aspect of these selections since I am a GSFC detailee
- Discovery:
- More than 15 full missions with more than 5 MOOs
- Selection(s) expected Mid to late October
- Scout:
- More than 20 full missions with several MOOs
- In the peer review process
- Selection(s) expected this calendar year

## Balance Issue: PSD (FY07) $1,191M (available balance to spend)

**Notes:**
FY 2007 Planetary Science budget, broken down by major program. Corp G&A is NOT included.

## Current PSD Issue:

**Should we consider adding a newly proposed foreign-provided instrument to the Juno mission which is in Phase B?**

## The Juno mission was proposed to AO-OSS-03 in March 2004, the Juno proposal was one of 2 selected for a Phase A concept study in July 2004.
The Concept Study Report was received in March 2005, and the mission was selected to enter Phase B in June 2005 with a launch in 2009
Budget exigencies reduced near-years funding in the New Frontiers line causing the launch date to slip
NASA Hq management, at that time, allowed the PI to work all options to lower costs so that the program could fit with cost cap and revised budget profile.
New launch date is now 2011
Launch slips caused an extended Phase B to occur

- The Concept Study Report was received in March 2005, and the mission was selected to enter Phase B in June 2005 with a launch in 2009
- Budget exigencies reduced near-years funding in the New Frontiers line causing the launch date to slip
- NASA Hq management, at that time, allowed the PI to work all options to lower costs so that the program could fit with cost cap and revised budget profile.
- New launch date is now 2011
- Launch slips caused an extended Phase B to occur

**	**

**BACKGROUND**

## The mission PI, during the extended Phase B, has been approached by a foreign space group to provide several (non-science) subsystems to offset potential costs to the mission AND offered to add an instrument to the payload

The PI and his team have asked NASA to add this instrument to the Juno mission - since their analysis indicates it can be accommodated (mass, power, etc.)

NASA has never added a foreign instrument at this stage in the development cycle of a competitively selected flight mission, but there appear to be no legal issues associated with it.

- The PI and his team have asked NASA to add this instrument to the Juno mission - since their analysis indicates it can be accommodated (mass, power, etc.)
- NASA has never added a foreign instrument at this stage in the development cycle of a competitively selected flight mission, but there appear to be no legal issues associated with it.

**BACKGROUND (2)**

## There is concern that accepting this instrument, however meritorious the science obtained from the instrument might be, would ultimately be seen by both US and  Foreign scientists as a “backdoor” method for adding instruments after the initial rigorous evaluation provided by the AO selection process, and that this could ultimately both damage our efforts to maintain cost caps, and, in addition, simply be seen as unfair by many in the US space science community. 

SMD/PSD will not add this instrument without PSS advice, in addition to a thorough technical review, and an examination of the addition for science merit, judge against the original AO criteria.

- SMD/PSD will not add this instrument without PSS advice, in addition to a thorough technical review, and an examination of the addition for science merit, judge against the original AO criteria.

**ISSUES**

## Backup

## Planetary Science R&A