NASA, too, is looking at all aspects of its business following the attacks. Coincidentally, significant changes at the agency were already in the works before Sept. 10, SPACE.com and Space News have learned.
Decisions about possible cutbacks to the Mars exploration program and other cost savings may come as early as October and almost surely by the end of the year.
And NASA is near to making a major policy announcement regarding the commercialization of space, just one of many ideas targeted toward reducing costs. Also, some existing programs or planned missions are likely to be cut or trimmed regardless of whether the current national crisis saps additional funds from the space agency's budget.
"Everything is on the table," said Bob Jacobs, a NASA headquarters spokesman. "Everything is being looked at."
Meanwhile, many in the space science community are optimistic that NASA's budget will not suffer beyond the expected 5 percent cut. But others are not so confident.
"Any major new initiatives that get approved in the foreseeable future will have to be low-cost missions in light of recent events," said Howard McCurdy, an American University public policy specialist who has written four books on NASA.
While the full effect of a potential war against terrorism cannot yet be known, there is historical precedent for Washington clamping down on NASA in times of economic need, McCurdy said in a telephone interview.
The classic example, McCurdy said, was in 1969 when President Nixon inherited a failing economy that was burdened by the costs of the Vietnam War. At the time, space enthusiasts of the Apollo era had visions of a permanent human base on the Moon. Nixon dashed those hopes and slashed NASA's budget in half.
One positive result of the subsequent lean years was the space shuttle program, McCurdy said, which was billed as way of reducing the cost of spaceflight. That hope, however, failed to pan out entirely.
McCurdy pointed to the over-budget International Space Station as a likely target for cost cuts that could be mandated by Congress or the President.
Cuts already mandated
Before the hijackings and attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the U.S. economy was hurting, possibly approaching a recession.
The White House had directed NASA and all other U.S. federal agencies, with the exception of the Defense Department, to cut their 2003 budget requests by 5 percent. The mandate was issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a memo Sept. 10, one day before terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
Government officials said this week that the budget-cutting order remains in effect for now.
Even before the Sept. 10 White House order, NASA Headquarters had conducted a series of meetings to explore cost-cutting measures that could be plugged into the 2002 and 2003 budgets, said Jacobs, the NASA headquarters spokesman.
One of those meetings was a two-day session in early September. NASA Chief Dan Goldin and representatives of all the NASA centers attended.
The discussions have gone well beyond mere dollar issues, Jacobs said. NASA is looking for ways to privatize some functions and promote commercialization of space. A major announcement of space commerce policy is near, he said. It will involve farming out significant aspects of missions to private enterprises, a step that goes well beyond current commercial efforts supported by NASA.
Safety issues have also been under broad review.
But Jacobs stressed that all of these talks were ongoing before the terrorist attacks. He would not discuss any specifics of how talks have changed since then, but he said that NASA is looking into how the terrorist events might affect the agency.
"Obviously, whenever there's an event of that magnitude, all federal agencies are going to be taking a look at the way we do business."
Meanwhile, cost-cutting discussions based on what may now be outmoded political assumptions continue.
"There continue to be budget discussions with center directors and officials at NASA Headquarters looking at options for cost savings in various areas," said Edward Campion, a spokesman at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.
The discussions so far have not involved contractor-level NASA funded projects, such as spacecraft operated by non-NASA centers, as far as can be determined.
Science might be spared
The fate of billions of dollars of university and private research depends on the roughly $15 billion NASA budget and data gathered by NASA missions. Scientists concerned about the fate of these funds can also be pragmatic.
"There were concerns about the economy before Sept. 11. Now you have all sorts of very, very large, unanticipated expenses," said a senior member of space science community who works on a NASA-funded mission. "It would be foolish to assume that there would be a guarantee that there wouldn't be an impact on the space science budget."
But the source, who did not wish to be named, said there are no firm signs yet pointing to any additional cuts. And with NASA's current budget in place, any potential trimming would likely be felt in 2002 and beyond and would depend on the general health of the economy, the source said.
"NASA's budget is not isolated and it shouldn't be," the source said. "Scientists need to realize that while space science is important, there are bigger issues facing all of us in terms of the fabric of the nation and world societies."
Good case for science
NASA has long argued that a dollar spent by NASA is worth more to the economy than a dollar spent on many other products or services. The agency's spending ripples through the economy to high-tech contractors and universities and generates spin-off technologies used in the health field, communications and American homes.
And NASA has spent the last decade streamlining operations and increasing the amount of science it generates per dollar.
"There's been a pretty good case put together for the overall space science program that has already involved some hard decision making," the source said. "The people within NASA that would need to justify space science program are certainly positioned to make a good case."
Stamatios (Tom) Krimigis, head of the space department at Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, which has managed some NASA-funded missions, said it is premature to judge what Congress will do with future budgets, as well. But he said the 2002 fiscal budget for NASA, currently wending its way through Washington, would signal the mood and intent for the 2003 budget, which has yet to be fully drafted.
"Congress has always been mindful and protective of space science and I suspect they will continue to do so," Krimigis said in a telephone interview. There is strategic reasoning behind his optimism.
"NASA is a mainstay of our technological presence in the world," Krimigis said. "To backtrack on that would be playing into the hands of our adversaries, those who attacked our country. Much of what NASA does is synergistic with Department of Defense efforts."
Mars matters
Space agency staffers are looking at various options regarding NASA's future Mars plans, said Dolores Beasley, NASA Headquarters spokeswoman. "But no decisions have been made," she said.
Beasley said none of the options are expected to result in layoffs at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. JPL is NASA's lead facility in formulating Mars exploration plans and currently has missions planned for every 26 months well into the current decade.
Decisions from NASA are expected in next few weeks, within the October to November time frame, Beasley said. "It's very premature" to jump to many conclusions at this stage, she said.
Overall, budget impacts on Mars exploration, along with a wide assortment of other NASA projects, can't be outlined at the moment.
"I can't tell you what that might look like. There's a lot of things on the table," Beasley said.
Mars Exploration Program scientist James Garvin says planners are working on "various budget issues which would have various impacts on our Mars Program."
Mars is on the minds of many space engineers with one probe, Mars Odyssey, set to enter orbit around the Red Planet late next month. That craft would add to compelling science -- showing possible evidence of liquid water at Mars -- returned in the past three years by another orbiter, Mars Global Surveyor.
"I can assure you that the science strategy of our Mars Program will be preserved as a guiding principle," Garvin told SPACE.com. "We are all working very diligently to respond to budget pressures, while also ensuring the safety of our Mars Global Surveyor and soon to be orbiting Mars Odyssey."
Orlando Figueroa, head of NASAs Mars planning, said at this time of year budget issues always surface. NASA is working with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget to orchestrate the agencys overall Mars exploration plans.
One added problem facing the agency is solving a shortfall of funds to track, operate, and gather data from a growing number of NASA spacecraft. Furthermore, what budgetary impact, if any, NASA may feel due to the Federal Governments response to the recent terrorist attack, is not known at this time.
These budgetary woes are forcing scrutiny of NASAs entire menu of Mars exploration orbiters, landers and rovers.
"Ive been looking at multiple options on how we deal with this, which includes moving things back and forth. We have four or five options that we are exploring. No decisions have been made," Figueroa told SPACE.com.
As NASAs "Mars Czar," Figueroa said the financial picture will start getting clearer between October and the end of November, perhaps a little later, but before the end of the calendar year.
Twin rovers need extra money
Of immediate concern is putting extra monies into JPLs twin Mars rover program. The dual rovers are to be launched in 2003. A recent critical design review and an independent assessment by outside groups of the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission was recently completed.
"Everyone thinks they are making outstanding technical progress. But as we knew from the very beginning, they are very challenged, schedule-wise. It looks like to maintain that schedule we may need a little bit more money," Figueroa said.
An assumption that was made at the beginning of the program that each rover could fit within the Mars Pathfinder entry shell, "proved to be totally incorrect," Figueroa said. "Those folks have had to almost reinvent a quite complex mission in a period of a year," he said.
The idea of borrowing from the knowledge, expertise, and technology base gleaned from the successful Mars Pathfinder mission in 1997, "did not happen," he said.
The extra money needed is within two to three percent, perhaps, of the funds already allocated for the Mars 2003 mission. "We need the money most to maintain the schedule through the assembly, test, and launch operations," Figueroa said.
Rumors persist that some JPL officials believe a best course of action is to drop one rover.
"I think were standing behind the two rovers at this stage. We are not at a stage of thinking about dropping a rover," Figueroa said.
Solid roster of science
NASA remains committed to a solid roster of science exploration at Mars.
"Obviously, mission success is first. Secondly, is preserving the science strategy that weve worked hard over the last year to build. Third, is balancing the resources, recognizing that we have significant international partnership in this effort, both intellectual and them spending their own monies. Last, but not least, we have great interest in broadening the Mars exploration community, both in industry and academia. We want to build a very strong foundation for a continued robotic presence at Mars," Figueroa said.
Funding impacts tend to reflect more on outer year missions, the Mars Czar said. A high priority is preserving scientific strategy for understanding the red planet. Also, keeping the two rover mission on track is important, as is the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) in 2005.
"MRO is an incredibly important mission setting the stage for where we go on Mars. We dont want to go to Mars just to land anywhere. MRO provides us the information to go to places that have the highest scientific potential," Figueroa said. Follow-on lander missions would go to specific targets, hauling the most capable payloads possible, thus allowing NASA to conduct first-class science on Mars, he said.
advertisement
