This is the draft of the NEXT issue of JSR. WARNING: Information on this page is up to date but not well checked, and may include wild rumours and downright nonsense. For the CURRENT issue of JSR, click here
Jonathan's Space Report
No. 520 draft 2004 Feb 10, Somerville, MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progress No. 248 (M-48) cargo ship was undocked from Zvezda at
0835:56 on Jan 28 and deorbited at 1311 UTC over the Pacific, completing
the ISS 12P mission. The new cargo ship, Progress No. 260 (Progress
M1-11) was launched on Jan 29 at 1158:08 on ISS mission 13P and docked
with the Zvezda module on the Space Station at 1313:11 UTC on Jan 31.
The new Progress carries cargo including experiments for the
ESA/Netherlands DELTA mission and two new Orlan spacesuits, serials M-25
and M-26. It also carries a replacement flexhose for the Destiny lab
window (culprit in last month's air leak) and equipment to be installed
on Zvezda to support docking by the new European ATV cargo ship Jules
Verne.
Opportunity began roving on Mars at 0950 UTC on Jan 31. Parachute and
heat shield separation time for Opportunity was of course 0452-0453 UTC
on Jan 25, not 0504 UTC as I said in JSR 519. Opportunity has now peeped
over the crater rim and seen its parachute and backshell lying on the
Meridiani plains beyond. Spirit's file system was reformatted on Feb 4
and it has now resumed its exploration of the Gusev region.
SES Americom's AMC-10 satellite was launched on Feb 5 by a Lockheed
Martin/ILS Atlas IIAS from Cape Canaveral. The satellite is a Lockheed
Martin A2100 with a launch mass of 2315 kg and 907 kg dry (Thanks to David
Legangneux for the mass data). After launch at 2346 UTC, Centaur AC-165
reached a 185 x 185 km orbit at 2355 UTC. The second Centaur burn at
0009 UTC on Feb 6 put the satellite in geostationary transfer orbit.
AMC-10 will replace Satcom C-4.
Editorial: Cutting Space Science?
----------------------------------
Disclosure alert: I am not employed by any of the threatened programs
discussed below, but I would like to be someday. Therefore, the
following diatribe is highly biased. But since I haven't seen it
mentioned elsewhere that these cuts are happening, I think it worth
alerting people to the news.
Although the President's 2005 budget request to Congress includes an
overall small increase for NASA to pay for new human space exploration,
some aspects of space science and astronomy are under the axe.
The detailed status of the NASA space science budget remains unclear,
but the overall picture is not encouraging, with immediate cuts to some
programs and a forecast of a long term continuing (inflation-adjusted)
decrease to pay for the new human exploration intiative.
The overall extrasolar astronomy budget (Origins and SEU themes) has
remained stable this year, but there have been major reallocations with no
consultation with the science peer-review community: money is taken away
from the Constellation-X mission highly rated by the National Academy of
Sciences, and from the Explorer program previously extolled as a
flagship example of a federal program (recent Explorer missions included
WMAP, which determined the age of the Universe). Past administrations
have relied on input from the scientific community to set NASA's
priorities within scientific disciplines, so this is a radical change.
Although some programs such as the JWST infrared telescope and the
search for extrasolar planets have managed to argue that they are part
of `exploration' and for now survive unscathed or even boosted (until
the real costs of the CEV program require further cuts) some of the
most scientifically successful parts of NASA, including the Explorer
program and the Structure/Evolution of the Universe theme (SEU) appear
to be facing a bleak long-term future. MIDEX and SMEX missions are to be
delayed and cut back, the Beyond Einstein probes
are to be indefinitely delayed and the Constellation X mission
will be postponed for an unknown amount of time. Please remember to
translate `postponed' as `job losses' when the start of a new program
no longer coincides with the end of an old one; it's not that we astronomers are
in such a hurry to get the new data (although we are indeed eager), but
that specialized expertise can quickly be lost if key personnel have
to find other employment. The measly annual 100 million
dollars or so involved doesn't make a big difference to the exploration
initiative, but hurts high energy astronomy in a big way. And the longer
term question is whether these cuts reflect an underlying decision at
NASA to no longer support certain kinds of science because they are
perceived as having less to do with `exploration'. One colleague
commented that the idea that the Explorers don't do exploration was
'positively Orwellian'. In my opinion, the Explorers and Beyond Einstein
are just as strongly (or as weakly) connected to the new `exploration'
mission as SIM and JWST; basic astrophysics helps us understand the
evolution of galaxies and the context in which planets form. This sudden
reshuffling of priorities within NASA astronomy is more politics, not a
genuine response to a new mission. I've already discussed the rationale
for the Hubble servicing mission cancellation decision, which is still
controversial.
I fear that a single-minded focus on the new exploration initiative
would risk breaking up some of the world's best space science teams and
call into question the US's leading role in basic research into the
nature of the Universe. While the Station program was over budget and
slipping, and the Mars probes were failing, missions like the Explorers
and Chandra were a bright spot for NASA. Now our hard work and success
are to be rewarded with significant cutbacks. Let me say it clearly: I
support the idea of an enhanced human exploration program, but I
strongly oppose paying for it at the cost of losing the successors to
Chandra and WMAP. Not just because I hope to work on those projects
someday - I believe there is strong public support for basic research,
there are clear technological and educational benefits to understanding
the extreme physics these missions study, and the US national interest
would be best served by protecting the relatively small amount of money
in the successful and productive program to study the deep universe,
even at the cost of slight stretchout of the ambitious exploration program.
At the very least, the space community should be aware that these cuts
are being made rather than passing over them in silence.
Let's see what Congress decides to do with the President's budget request.
For now, I hope to return JSR to its usual editorial-free style.
Table of Recent Launches
-----------------------
Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission INTL.
DES.
Jan 11 0413 Estrela do Sul Zenit-3SL Odyssey Comms 01A
Jan 29 1158 Progress M1-11 Soyuz-U Baykonur Cargo 02A
Feb 5 2346 AMC-10 Atlas IIAS Canaveral SLC36A Comms 03A
.-------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Jonathan McDowell | phone : (617) 495-7176 |
| Somerville MA 02143 | inter : jcm@host.planet4589.org |
| USA | jcm@cfa.harvard.edu |
| |
| JSR: http://www.planet4589.org/jsr.html |
| Back issues: http://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/back |
| Subscribe/unsub: mail majordomo@host.planet4589.org, (un)subscribe jsr |
'-------------------------------------------------------------------------'