Lawmakers grilled NASA chief Charles Bolden today (March 21), saying the deep cuts to NASA's planetary science program in the agency's 2013 budget request will "cannibalize" future Mars exploration and threaten America's leadership in space.

Bolden testified before members of the U.S. House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee that approves NASA's annual budget in a hearing this morning in Washington, D.C. Throughout the nearly three-hour-long hearing, Bolden fielded tough questions from Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike.

One particularly contentious topic was how cuts to NASA's planetary science division could jeopardize future robotic missions to Mars and other intriguing destinations in the solar system.

President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2013 budget for NASA slashes funds for the planetary science program by $309 million — a more than 20 percent reduction of the money appropriated in the previous year. The proposed budget for planetary science includes a $130 million cutback in the agency's Mars exploration program.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said the cuts to planetary science were disproportionate and devastating, and he called the current proposal a "disaster for leadership in space." [NASA's 10 Greatest Science Missions]

"It'll cannibalize the successful Mars program," Schiff said. "I don't think you can come here and tout MSL [Mars Science Laboratory]. This community is about the future. To rely on MSL is to rely on our past. To say this is proof of our ongoing commitment to Mars just falls desperately short to me. I think that is a tragic place to be."

Schiff's district includes NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., which manages the Mars Science Laboratory mission. The MSL team members are currently gearing up to land a Mini Cooper-size rover, called Curiosity, on the surface of the Red Planet in early August.

Still, Schiff expressed concern that the 2013 budget proposal takes away from NASA's rich history of robotic missions to Mars, and also ignores science priorities outlined in the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey, which represents a consensus of the broad scientific community's goals for planetary science over the next 10 years.

The decadal survey prioritized planetary science objectives and identified particular missions that were deemed deserving of NASA's investment. At the forefront is a series of missions to Mars in partnership with the European Space Agency to collect rock samples and return them to Earth. Second on the decadal survey's wish list was a mission to Jupiter's icy moon Europa.

The increasingly cash-strapped fiscal environment forced NASA to bow out of the European Space Agency-led ExoMars mission, which aims to launch an orbiter and rover to Mars in 2016 and 2018, respectively.

Schiff viewed NASA's withdrawal from the sample return mission as an indication that the agency has decided to walk away from the decadal survey's objectives. But Bolden assured the panel that NASA is still committed to fulfilling the goals of the decadal survey, and that a sample return mission to Mars is still a top priority.

"There are more ways to do that than participating in ExoMars," Bolden said. "We are not giving up an ambitious Mars program. We have not given up on Europa. We have got to figure out how we prioritize our science budget so we can accomplish as many goals as possible. We cannot do it all." [12 Space Missions to Watch in 2012]

6 Comments

1. 1. Mr. Pedantic 08:02 PM 3/21/12

   Just curious, why didn't NASA take this opportunity to criticize the government for the cut? Why are they acting like it was their idea?
   
   
   WAS it their idea...?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. dbtinc 09:02 AM 3/22/12

   Here's a news flash - the country is tanking and much as I endorse the pursuit of space, well, there's no money. Mars or cancer research? Not a very difficult choice. And please, don't tell me about the benefits of this knowledge on enhancing our competitiveness.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. racer79 12:45 PM 3/22/12

   I'm sorry that you feel that there must be a choice between cancer research and the exploration of space/Mars. The reality of the situation is that there is no less money in existence today than there was +15 years ago, in fact there is more which means that it is worth less. The government has simply made more agencies/departments and has grown the ones it already had making budgets become more thinly stretched. NASA's planetary science budget is more likely to affect the EPA's budget than it is any one single science research grant.
   Anyway, NASA should put its' planetary science budget on a temporary hold of sorts (in which the planetary science budget would temporarily consist of the scientists salaries, and any currently active missions not including ones in R&D stage, the budget would later be restored to its' full amount) and spend that money on figuring out a more efficient way of getting up to orbit/space. I mean seriously, NASA is supposed to be composed of some of the greatest scientific minds alive today, but for some reason we are still using horribly expensive and horribly inefficient rockets. We developed that technique of getting to orbit/space around half a century ago, and granted, it is tried and true, but give me half a billion dollars and even I could probably get a rocket into orbit (albeit probably alot less safely and accurately). IMHO I would think that NASA would be able to come up with a novel, efficient, and cost effective means of getting people into orbit/space over a 50 year time span.
   Bottom line is, there isn't really a choice between cancer research and NASA's budget.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. geojellyroll 02:22 PM 3/22/12

   
   
   Nasa can't come up with anything 'novel and efficient'...it hasn't for 40 years. A single shuttle flight averaged 1.6 BILLION dollars. American manned space flight is dead for the forseeable future (thank god). Billions were squandered to make it 'safe' rather than billions spent on actual science.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. bucketofsquid 10:09 AM 3/27/12

   With the vast expansion of Homeland Security and the surge in retired population combined with the decimated economy, it is clear that the money has to stretch farther than ever before. Exploring Mars means nothing if we don't eventually transition to exploiting Mars in some form. It has been decades since we explored the moon and yet there is no exploitation happening. Axe the Mars mission to save on the budget.
   
   When we are no longer running deficit budgets we can restore the goals and funding for Mars.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Quinn the Eskimo 05:13 PM 4/1/12

   Lawmakers: You can't have so much money!
   
   Lawmakers: Why you cuttin' programs.
   
   See a trend here? Lawmakers.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this