Adam Schiff, a Democractic representative from California’s 29th District, serves on the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on commerce, justice, science and related agencies.
After the NASA rover Curiosity made its flawless landing on the Red Planet last weekend, scientists cheered and raised their hands in delirious triumph. It was a spontaneous reaction of the sort we have witnessed dozens of times at Olympic venues, and appropriately so — America had won the science gold, again.
The complexity of the rover’s landing was a quantum technological leap beyond anything NASA has attempted in planetary exploration. After traveling 354 million miles, the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity had to slow in just minutes from about 12,000 mph. It arrived at the thin Martian atmosphere with parachutes deployed, rockets firing and skycrane unwinding. Then it settled down at the foot of a mountain. Plenty could have gone wrong. It is hardly exaggeration to say that the future of the Mars program was riding on Curiosity’s one-ton payload.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, the Mars program — the crown jewel of NASA’s incredibly successful and popular planetary science program — is trying to fend off devastating attacks on its budget.
Building on generations of other orbiters and landers, Curiosity is designed to unlock the secrets of Mars’s geologic past and search for the building blocks of life. Its two-year mission was to be followed in short order by an orbiter and another trip to the Mars surface to gather promising soil and rock samples. Subsequent missions were to bring those samples back to Earth.
Initially, the first two of these missions — scheduled for 2016 and 2018 — were to be undertaken in conjunction with the European Space Agency. But NASA canceled these missions this year, and the United States has backed out of its partnership with the Europeans. Adding to the misery, President Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget proposed cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the Mars Exploration Program. Simply put, the crown jewel of the U.S. planetary science program is hanging by a budgetary thread.
One might imagine that these cuts are the result of a dramatically smaller NASA budget, perhaps as part of necessary deficit reduction. But the NASA budget, to the president’s credit in these tough economic times, remains essentially flat. These cuts are directed specifically and disproportionately at planetary science and Mars in particular.
Why, exactly, is a mystery. It is certainly not a reflection of the performance of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, whose brilliant scientists have brought us a rapid succession of technological and scientific miracles including the rover Sojourner in 1997, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers in 2004, and now Curiosity. It is probably nothing more than this: Big, powerful industrial stakeholders clamored for NASA’s dollars and won out over a nerdy group of planetary scientists. NASA cut the Mars program because officials felt they could, expecting that Mars would disappear quietly into the night.
NASA was wrong. The pushback has been furious, and not just from the scientists who rate the Mars program as the nation’s top scientific endeavor. Every 10 years the National Academy of Sciences engages the scientific community to guide NASA’s priorities in a variety of areas. The most recent decadal survey found a Mars sample-return mission the No. 1 priority of those involved in planetary science, which makes the administration’s attempts to cut the Mars budget even more inexplicable.