Mars Planning and Political Discord

As planning got under way, a heated debate erupted between the Obama White House and Congress. It was over the human spaceflight program but affected everything else at NASA, including Mars policy. In February 2010, Obama an­nounced his proposed budget for NASA for the new fiscal year. It provided additional funds but did not start the agency on the $3 billion increment for which the Augustine panel had called. Instead, it terminated Constellation and announced a new program to nurture a commercial industry to ferry crew to the International Space Station, given the looming retirement of the Space Shuttle. It did not give a destination for human spaceflight. Its emphasis was made on a new technology development initiative. There had been no preparation of Congress for the drastic change in policy. NASA, including its Administrator, had largely been left out of the White House decision process.

Congress reacted strongly, immediately, and negatively to the policy. Led by representatives of states with human spaceflight facilities, Congress rejected the Obama plan. In April, Obama sought to assuage Congress by calling for a trip to an asteroid in 2025 and to Mars in the mid-2030s. The Orion space capsule, cancelled along with the rest of Constellation, would be reprieved in the form of a crew-rescue vehicle. A decision on the heavy-lift rocket would be made before the end of his term, President Obama said. The president did not succeed in blunting the rancor. In this environment, little attention was given to robotic Mars policy.

In July 2010, NASA published a report on its current strategic plan for SMD. With respect to MEP, NASA declared that it would seek to launch “successive missions to Mars (roughly every 26 months) to evolve a scientifically integrated architecture of orbiters, landers, and rovers.” It said that the existing program organized around projects to “follow the water” was achieving its objectives and announced NASA’s new goal: “seeking signs of life.” NASA made it clear that it aimed ultimately at “collection and return of samples from Mars.” It said it planned to achieve this goal with ESA. NASA proclaimed that the transition from the agency’s present to its longer-term future would be led by “the next quantum leap in Mars exploration: the Mars Science Laboratory.”31

SMD knew precisely what it wanted to do. But NASA as a whole did not, caught as it was between the president and Congress. In October, Congress and the president agreed on a compromise. Part of Constellation came back with new names. Ares I was killed in favor of a commercial industry to be created to service ISS. Rather than waiting, NASA would move ahead as quickly as pos­sible on the Ares V heavy-lift rocket (now called Space Launch System [SLS]). The Orion space capsule would be developed, now named Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). The asteroid and Mars destinations stayed. Bush’s Moon des­tination was gone.

This compromise did not end the debate, as struggles over funding continued for many months afterward. Also, in November, elections put the Republicans in charge of the House and narrowed the Democrats’ majority in the Senate. It was obvious that getting decisions made on NASA policy and budget generally would be extremely difficult.

In early February 2011, President Obama announced his budget for FY 2012. For NASA, there was a freeze—$18.7 billion, the same budget it received in 2010. For the current fiscal year (FY 2011), NASA awaited action by Congress. The power struggle between the Democratic-controlled White House and di­vided Congress had resulted in no budget from the Hill. NASA operated under a continuing resolution that held its budget static at the previous year’s spend­ing. The political and fiscal conflict hindered implementation of existing mis­sions and planning for the future.

The White House projection in the budget for NASA and especially the planetary program was ominous. It showed spending on planetary science increasing by $180 million the next year, to $1.54 billion, and then declining steadily to $1.25 billion by 2016.