smd guiding principles

AstrophysicsDivision

Astrophysics 2020: Large Space Missions beyond the Next Decade

Enabling Future Large Astrophysics Missions while Living within Our Means

Dr. Jon A. MorseDirector, Astrophysics Division

Science Mission DirectorateNASA Headquarters

November 14, 2007

14 November 2007 Astrophysics 2020 Conference 2

AstrophysicsDivision 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).



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



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


Budget Landscape



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$ B

illio

ns

Cross-AgencySupport + IG

Space Operations

Aeronautics

Exploration Systems

Science

Total NASA Budget($17.3 billion requested for FY08)

OSTP-OMB FY08 budget overview for SSB, March 2007



Astrophysics as a Fraction of NASA Budget

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

1959196119631965196719691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007

Fiscal Year

Astr

op

hysic

s %

of

NA

SA

Bu

dg

et


AstrophysicsDivision FY2008 SMD Budget by Division ($M)

Astrophysics


AstrophysicsDivision Great Observatory Peak Funding

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

197819801982198419861988199019921994

Year

Fra

cti

on

of

Tota

l M

issio

n C

ost

HubbleComptonChandraSpitzer

All missions shifted to 1978 start for comparison.



Great Observatory Intervals

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Develo

pm

en

t C

ost

Fra

cti

on

Hubble

Compton

Chandra

Spitzer

JWST



SMD Launches by Year and Development Cost (Phase A-D, $M)

New Horizons

STEREO

CALIPSO

CloudSatST-5

Hinode

Phoenix

Daw n

THEMISAIM

SDO

HST SM-4

GLAST

Glory

OCO

OSTMIBEX

Herschel

MSL

SOFIA

NPP

Kepler

WISE

Aquarius

Juno

LDCM

Mars Scout 2

RBSP

Discovery 11

JWST

GPM Core

SMEX-13

MMS

ES Decadal 1

Discovery 12

GPM Const

SMEX-12

NuSTAR

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 CY10 CY11 CY12 CY13 CY14

ST-7

CINDI, SET-1,M3 and Planck

TWINS-B

TWINS-Aand ST-6

Earth

Helio

Astro

PlanetaryExoMars

RBSP MoO

SMD Launches (Phase A-D, $M)


AstrophysicsDivision 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


AstrophysicsDivision 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.”


AstrophysicsDivision 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


AstrophysicsDivision 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


AstrophysicsDivision 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



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.


Back-up



FY2008 Federal Budget Context

President's 2008 Budget (2.94 $T)

Defense Discretionary

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

Other Mandatory

NASA

Non-Defense Discretionary

Interest


AstrophysicsDivision NASA Funding History

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Year

NA

SA

Bu

dg

et

(FY

20

00

$B

)

Average Budget

($B FY2000)



New Horizons

ST-5

STEREO

Cloudsat

CALIPSO

GOES-N

ST-6

TWINS-A

Hinode

THEMIS

AIM

Phoenix

Dawn

TWINS-B

GLAST

IBEX

SDO

OCO

Glory

HST SM-4

OSTM

GOES-O

GOES-P

CINDI

Chandrayan 1

Herschel

Planck

Kepler

NPP

MSL

WISE

ST-8

SOFIA

NOAA-N’

ST-7/LPF

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

NASA Mission on US ELV

DoD Mission with Substantial NASA Contribution

Foreign Mission with Substantial NASA Contribution

Joint NASA - International Partner Mission

Reimbursable for NOAA

NASA Science Mission Launches (CY06-CY14)

2011

NuSTAR

Juno

LDCM

Mars Scout

20132012

RBSP MoO

SMEX

Discovery

ExoMars

SMEX

GPM Core

JWST

As of 09-25-07

GPM Const

MMS

ES Decadal 1

Discovery

2014

= Successfully launched to date

* = Early science; targeting 2009

Aquarius



Astrophysics Mission Timelines

Jan-90 Dec-92 Dec-95 Dec-98 Dec-01 Dec-04 Dec-07 Dec-10 Dec-13 Dec-16 Dec-19

HSTRXTEFUSE

ChandraXMM-Newton

WMAPIntegralGALEXSpitzerGPBSwift

SuzakuGLAST

HerschelPlanck

HST-SM4KeplerST-7WISESOFIANuStarJWST

Tan: mission in operation, Orange: mission in development, Blue: mission in formulation

Denotes prime mission lifetime at launch



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


AstrophysicsDivision 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


AstrophysicsDivision 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

smd guiding principles

Documents