NASA Budget - Life Sciences

I just read over the detailed NASA budget, and after picking myself up off the floor, life sciences research has reappeared in the budget narrative after 5 long years of being called "non-exploration research." The words "basic research" also appeared in the same paragraph. The narrative appears in the International Space Station section under Space Operations. There is increased funding BUT I am unsure how the research opportunity funding will be allocated. I am sure this will be the subject of our discussions in the next few months. Here is the excerpt

"Having completed assembly, all of U.S. and International Partner elements and established six- person crew capability, the ISS Program focus will turn to utilization beginning in FY 2011. Current basic research on ISS has been augmented by providing funding within ISS for science and engineering research, including some funding to cover additional transportation costs for non-NASA users. Plans will be finalized to establish an independent organization with responsibility to further develop national uses of the ISS through partnerships with other U.S. government agencies, private firms and non-profit institutions. Research opportunities will then be expanded to conduct research in life sciences, material sciences, biotechnologies, condensed matter physics and thermal sciences (fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, heat transfer and combustion). FY 2011 budget provides $2.5 billion in additional funding over five years to extend ISS, likely through 2020 or beyond, to enable full utilization of ISS, and to initiate activities to increase ISS functionality and maximize operations. The budget also includes a $250 million increase over five years for science and engineering research, intended to augment current basic research on ISS and supports some transportation of these experiments. "

Upcoming ASGSB Board Meeting

The next face to face meeting of the ASGSB board is scheduled for March 23rd-March 24th, 2010 in Washington, D.C. If you have any issues or concerns you would like to be brought up to the board, please let me know.

Cancellation of Constellation - Good or Bad?

I am still sorting through the ramifications of the President's FY11 for our space biology community. I guess we don't care how we get into space, other than we have the necessary resources and capabilities to do so. Our science is not destination specific, but we do care what the destination is so we can do the research and engineering to enable exploration, especially in the area of life support. We want to reveal the understanding of gravity-dependent biological/chemical/physical (all intertwined) mechanisms using the environment of space. We want to develop closed loop life support systems. Do we need the moon to do this? I don't know, but we do need continual access to the space environment. As for the bigger picture for manned space flight, I look back to an exceprt of CAIB report (p.210).

"All members of the Board agree that Americaʼs future space efforts must include human presence in Earth orbit, and eventually beyond, as outlined in the current NASA vision. Recognizing the absence of an agreed national mandate cited above, the current NASA strategic plan stresses an approach of investing in “transformational technologies” that will enable the development of capabilities to serve as “stepping stones” for whatever path the nation may decide it wants to pursue in space. While the Board has not reviewed this plan in depth, this approach seems prudent. Absent any long-term statement of what the country wants to accomplish in space, it is difficult to state with any specificity the requirements that should guide major public investments in new capabilities. The Board does believe that NASA and the nation should give more attention to developing a new “concept of operations” for future activities – defining the range of activities the country intends to carry out in space – that could provide more specificity than currently exists. Such a concept does not necessarily require full agreement on a future vision, but it should help identify the capabilities required and prevent the debate from focusing solely on the design of the next vehicle."

I italicized the above words, in that lacking in specificity is where the problem may lie in the future for this nation's manned space flight activity. I don’t see any specificity in the Obama plan and I am beginning to think Obama’s plan has problems for manned space flight as a whole. Hopefully the details are there - maybe in the seven contracts announced, and I am just missing the details..

FY11 President's Submit - what does it mean for Space Biology?

The President's FY11 NASA overview budget can be found at

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf.

The budget is vague with regards to our participation in the space program, but there are some encouraging aspects:

• $1.2 billion for transformative research in exploration technology that will involve NASA, private industry, and academia, sparking spin-off technologies and potentially entire new industries
• Increase annually the percentage of NASA higher education program student participants employed by NASA, aerospace contractors, universities, and other educational institutions.
• $183 million to extend operations of the ISS past its previously planned retirement date of 2016. NASA will deploy new research facilities to conduct scientific research and test technologies in space. New capabilities could include a centrifuge to support research into human physiology, inflatable space habitats, and a program to continuously upgrade Space Station capabilities.

Our FY11 messaging will show how intrinsic we are to achieving these priorities. I will post more detailed budget information as I receive more facts. Now is a good time to talk to commercial space providers too, and not just NASA.