Administration’s Outlook on NASA Space Science Request for FY 1994

At a meeting last week of the Space Science Working Group, Dr. Lennard Fisk, Chief Scientist for NASA, Jack Fellows, of the Office of Management and Budget, and Dr. George Withbroe, Director of NASA’s Space Physics Division, discussed the FY 1994 NASA budget request and its implications on space science.

Fisk, soon to leave NASA for a position at the University of Michigan, remarked that the FY 1994 request poses both opportunities and hurdles. Early last year, NASA realized there was a “lack of realism” about the budgetary implications of the agency’s space science programs, resulting in a restructuring of AXAF, Cassini, and EOS. The space science budget was reduced to a more manageable size, as were other areas of the agency’s budget. Fisk warned that except for the 6.5% requested increase in the agency’s FY 1994 budget, there will be little or no real growth in NASA’s budget through FY 1998.

Saying there was both good news and bad news, Fisk noted that NASA’s fiscal year 1994 budget request allows continuation of existing programs in physics, astronomy, planetary, life sciences, and microgravity research. However, there is little or no money for new starts. The level of this funding is not assured, since over-all space science money is indirectly linked to the space station. If the redesign of the station results in an estimated cost of $9 billion, instead of the hoped-for $7 billion version, NASA will have to cut other programs. Referring to the third option, Fisk concluded, “I don’t know how you do a $5 billion station.” Fisk spoke of the redesign effort as containing “a lot of wishful thinking,” due to the 90-day turn-around required. Making these calculations more difficult was NASA’s decision including funding for new technology initiatives in the same line item as the space station. The agency will pay for these major initiatives with left-over money from the FY 1994 allocation to the station. As Fisk repeatedly stated, both of these numbers are “T-B-D": to-be-determined after the release of the redesign committee’s recommendations in early June.

Fisk expressed real concern about the magnitude of the proposed $800,000 increase in the $415 million budget for the Physics and Astronomy Program’s Mission Operations and Data Analysis. He characterized this as a $50 million problem that could result in “serious damage” to physics and astronomy research. Proposed funding for Research and Analysis was also hard hit. Fisk identified life sciences research as being the most vulnerable because of its dependence on the space station program.

Fisk said that the EOS budget request was in good shape. Citing previous congressional reductions in EOS funding, he warned that further cuts would result in the curtailment of scientific objectives. We have, he said, “run out of tricks” to maximize program efficiencies and reduce its costs.

In looking ahead to NASA’s future, Fisk sees greater use of smaller missions, and far more attention to the technology implications of NASA’s programs, saying that we “can no longer say trust us to do good science, and the technology will follow.”

Jack Fellows is Branch Chief of the Science and Space Programs Branch at the Office of Management and Budget, and plays a major role in setting NASA’s budget. Fellows echoed Fisk’s remarks that the larger the space station’s budget is, the less money there will be for other programs. He highlighted the importance of the 602(b) allocation to the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittees, saying that there was a $1 billion “disconnect” between the programs the subcommittees had to fund and the apparent amount of money which will be available.

There is, Fellows remarked, about ten times the amount of science and technology programs that could be funded than there is money available. In discussing the space station, Fellows said the administration did not want the redesign effort to disrupt industry or international cooperative agreements. He concluded his presentation with what he called a two-part message to the universities, asking for their help in designing and building a space station that will make sense scientifically, and for assistance in crafting a technology policy.

Of major importance to the university research community is the Physics and Astronomy Program’s budget for Mission Operations and Data Analysis. Dr. George Withbroe is Director of the Space Physics Division. Withbroe said that the space physics budget request is about 15% less than what was hoped for, continuing that this will mean “significant science loss.”

Withbroe noted that there will probably never again be so many spacecraft aloft, and spoke of the challenge of using them to the maximum. NASA is trying to eliminate program inefficiencies, but Withbroe warned that NASA may be approaching the point that some science programs will be cut, or spacecraft “turned off.” The last new start in the program was in 1988, and a new one is not expected until 1995.

This extreme pressure on the Missions Operations and Data Analysis budget will be felt most by younger scientists, Withbroe said, who are heavily dependent on NASA’s support. He compared the impacts of this proposed budget on the space physics community to the dislocations now being experienced by defense industries.