1 / 25

SMD Guiding Principles

Astrophysics 2020: Large Space Missions beyond the Next Decade Enabling Future Large Astrophysics Missions while Living within Our Means Dr. Jon A. Morse Director, Astrophysics Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Headquarters November 14, 2007. SMD Guiding Principles.

kaz
Download Presentation

SMD Guiding Principles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Astrophysics 2020: Large Space Missions beyond the Next DecadeEnabling Future Large Astrophysics Missions while Living within Our MeansDr. Jon A. MorseDirector, Astrophysics DivisionScience Mission DirectorateNASA HeadquartersNovember 14, 2007

  2. SMD Guiding Principles • To advance the priorities of all four decadal surveys. • To get more from our budgets through better management and investments in R&A. • To help the Vision for Space Exploration succeed (e.g., fostering a lunar science community). Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  3. Mission Timescale Conundrum • Advocacy challenge: staying focused for t ≥ 20 years • Decadal Survey process builds community consensus • Long-term technology investments are always needed • Political & Budgetary stability are most difficult (~10 Congresses and multiple Administrations) • Difficult to know when to start putting in significant money given hesitancy to commit Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  4. Cost Estimation Conundrum • All advocates (scientists, NASA, industry, interested politicians) have strong bias towards under-estimating costs precisely because it’s hard to get missions started • New large missions may leverage previous technologies, but are essentially highly customized one-offs • Extrapolating technology development and mission costs is very difficult during early planning stages • Complexities of Launch Vehicle industry • LV full costs often underestimated at mission inception • Long-term capability and availability NOT driven by NASA or science • Agency budget policy changes • Budget missions at 70% confidence level with more realistic cost reserves (and trust parametric projections more) • Cost control on missions sustains the flight queue Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  5. Budget Landscape

  6. Total NASA Budget($17.3 billion requested for FY08) OSTP-OMB FY08 budget overview for SSB, March 2007 Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  7. Astrophysics as a Fraction of NASA Budget Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  8. FY2008 SMD Budget by Division ($M) Astrophysics Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  9. Great Observatory Peak Funding All missions shifted to 1978 start for comparison. Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  10. Great Observatory Intervals Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  11. SMD Launches (Phase A-D, $M) Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  12. Portfolio Diversity • A variety of mission sizes is required to satisfy conflicting [programmatically] community desires: training (small-medium), frequent launches (small-medium), cutting edge science (medium-large), facility-class observatories (large) • Astrophysics, a largely photon-starved endeavor, biases future missions strongly towards large implementations Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  13. Community Recommendations • Numerous recent community reports call for re-establishing balance among small, medium, and large missions in the Astrophysics program: • Astronomy & Astrophysics Advisory Committee 2007 Annual Report: “The balance between small, medium and large programs in the NASA Astrophysics Division has been undermined. The AAAC recommends that the funding "wedge" in FY09/10 be used to add some funding for R&A and small missions, to rebalance the program.” • NRC 2007 NASA Astrophysics Program Assessment report: Recommendation #1: “NASA should optimize the projected scientific return from its Astrophysics Program by ensuring a diversified portfolio of large and small missions that reflect the scientific priorities of the decadal review and by investing in the work required to bring science missions to their full potential: e.g., technology development, data analysis, data archiving, and theory.” Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  14. Looking Forward Near- and Mid-term (~5-10 year) Fiscal Landscape • Assumptions • Approximately flat Astrophysics Division Budget • Currently planned facilities operate at least as long as planned for (but most will likely last longer) • Complete current missions in development • Basic Research & Analysis (R&A) funding will go up, or at worst remain the same • Mission funding profile shapes will resemble those in the past Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  15. What Can We Afford Near-term? • Fixed costs for the next 5 years are $M (FY08)/yr • R&A, Mission Data Analysis, Theory: >130 • Small Mission operations (e.g., GALEX, Swift, etc.): ~ 90 • Medium Mission operations (e.g., Kepler, GLAST, etc.): ~130 • Great Observatory operations: ~150 • JWST development: ~300 • Total>800 • Funding available for other things (medium-class missions, Explorers, …) by the end of the 5 year period ~300 • Balanced portfolio: • Reinvigorate R&A, suborbital; Missions of Opportunity • Medium class missions with cost envelope ~$600-700M at ~$150-200M/year peak requirement • E.g., JDEM, exoplanets, US share of LISA, additional Probe-class missions • Next >$1B mission after JWST Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  16. Strategic Mission Planning For Large Astrophysics Missions beyond 2020 (“Exploration Observatories”): • Could follow the example of Great Observatories in mission planning and timescales • Science rationale: “killer ap(s)” plus broad scientific impact • Should significantly improve upon performance of Great Observatories/JWST • Sustainable technology roadmaps • Identify the sequence of investments • The previous Decadal Survey did this well, but the mission costs were so poorly estimated that resources for technology development have become highly constrained Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  17. Timing Intervals • Historically, Great Observatories (CGRO was not really the same scale) are done in a one-at-a-time mode given other division constraints • With time, the photon limited nature of astrophysics will mean that great observatories get harder to make, meaning longer development times [assuming similar funding for the division] • Implication is that we can afford 1 to 1.5 great observatories per decade along with ~2-4 medium and ~3-5 smaller missions. Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  18. Back-up

  19. FY2008 Federal Budget Context Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  20. Average Budget NASA Funding History ($B FY2000) Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  21. NASA Science Mission Launches (CY06-CY14) Joint NASA - International Partner Mission NASA Mission on US ELV As of 09-25-07 DoD Mission with Substantial NASA Contribution Foreign Mission with Substantial NASA Contribution Reimbursable for NOAA • = Successfully launched to date * = Early science; targeting 2009 GLAST IBEX SDO OCO Glory HST SM-4 OSTM GOES-O GOES-P CINDI Chandrayan 1 Herschel Planck • New Horizons •  ST-5 •  STEREO •  Cloudsat •  CALIPSO •  GOES-N •  ST-6 •  TWINS-A •  Hinode Kepler NPP MSL WISE ST-8 SOFIA NOAA-N’ ST-7/LPF • THEMIS • AIM • Phoenix • Dawn • TWINS-B ExoMars SMEX GPM Core JWST NuSTAR Juno LDCM Mars Scout GPM Const MMS ES Decadal 1 Discovery RBSP MoO SMEX Discovery Aquarius 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  22. Denotes prime mission lifetime at launch Astrophysics Mission Timelines Tan: mission in operation, Orange: mission in development, Blue: mission in formulation Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  23. Inhomogeneous Advocacy • Difficult for agency planning and budgeting when conflicting priorities are received (cf., 2000 decadal survey and subsequent Q2C report) • Suggestion: • provide mechanism for orderly assessment of decadal priorities mid-stream (i.e., after, say 5 years) so agencies can respond to science demands or budget changes • Knowledge of mechanism may reduce “freelancing” • Involve agency people in Decadal survey more than current model, or devise two step process with Science first, followed by Tech+budget process Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  24. Strategic Mission Concepts • The Decadal Survey Cost Problems: • All strategic missions in the 2001 Decadal Survey were severely undercosted • Suggested improvements from Decadal Survey Workshop, including more rigorous cost estimation • Goals of Strategic Mission Concept Studies • Develop inputs (not “guidance”) to Decadal Survey by supporting technical work on community investigations and mission concepts • Foster partnerships between govt, industry and academia, and build consensus • Provide suite of concepts with consistent cost estimation methods that indicate how cost scales with size and complexity Astrophysics 2020 Conference

  25. Strategic Mission Concepts Concepts to utilize Exploration infrastructure: • LVs (Ares 1, Ares 5), human or robotic servicing capabilities • Infrastructure • Platform • Long operational timescales • Why is ~$600M used as the medium-class mission scale? • Balanced portfolio in budget planning out to 2020 and beyond • Take significant science and technology steps towards more ambitious missions and goals that current Explorer or Discovery programs cannot accommodate Astrophysics 2020 Conference

More Related