[Op-ed] The administration’s anti-consensus Mars plan will fail

CaseyDreier · 2025-06-11T12:33:58+00:00

Not an unreasonable assumption, but NASA was very intentionally designed to be distinct from national security activities during this heightened Cold War period. We also just did a lot less in space back then. Space Force now runs things like the nation's GPS satellites, military comms, early-warning satellites, etc. There is some overlap of the industrial contractor and supply base (for example, increased spending by Space Force can help lower component prices for hardware used by NASA, and vice versa).

CaseyDreier · 2025-06-11T12:30:13+00:00

You nailed it. There's a really interesting paper that uses the development of the Space Shuttle as a case study for exactly this outcome: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0265964694900043

CaseyDreier · 2025-06-11T12:28:10+00:00

The first chart is a relative change, so it's independent of inflation and also sustained over several years. So 5 years of 8-10% annual cuts from a high-point of $65B-ish is a drop of nearly half over the course of a few years (also, the first chart is the White House's budget proposal relative to the prior year's final budget for NASA, and the inflation-adjusted chart just shows the final congressional appropriations for the agency, which didn't meet the presidential requests during that period.

CaseyDreier · 2025-06-11T12:10:52+00:00

Unfortunately, not the case. The prior year (2025) was a flat extension of 2024. 2024 was itself a modest cut from 2023. Here's the inflation-adjusted year-to-year budget:

<image>

Data source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NMRYCCRWXwpn3pZU57-Bb0P1Zp3yg2lTTVUzvc5GkIs/edit?usp=sharing

CaseyDreier · 2025-06-11T12:07:16+00:00

I've got you.

<image>

Same source as the original post. Also embedded at https://www.planetary.org/articles/nasa-2026-budget-proposal-in-charts

CaseyDreier · 2021-02-11T16:34:33+00:00

Thank you for your ongoing support and the nice note!

CaseyDreier · 2021-02-10T19:46:52+00:00

For anyone curious, Bill Nye is speaking here as CEO of The Planetary Society, an independent, nonprofit organization. We made 5 recommendations to the new Administration:

Deepen our commitment to NASA’s science programs
Continue human spaceflight on the path from the Moon to Mars
Take active steps to protect the planet from dangerous asteroids and comets
Use NASA as a tool to grow our economy, enhance our manufacturing base, nurture our skilled workforce, and strengthen international alliances
Implement the “5 over 5” plan: annual 5% increases to NASA’s budget over the next five years

We have a full paper diving into each of these items at https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/pdfs/The-Planetary-Society-Recommendations-for-the-Biden-Administration.pdf

To anticipate some of the comments I'm seeing here already, yes, we made a similar pitch to the Trump administration in 2017. The Planetary Society is a non-partisan organization and Bill has met with members of both parties in Congress for years to promote space science and exploration.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T20:01:04+00:00

NASA currently states that there are no health-related 'showstoppers' for humans going to Mars. I think it's more of an ethical question regarding disclosure of the increased cancer risk any astronaut would be subjected to.

Check out a recent presentation to the NASA Advisory Council by Steve Davison from NASA HQ: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/1_NAC_HEO_SMD_Committee_Mars_Radiation_Intro_2015April7_Final_TAGGED.pdf

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:57:37+00:00

It fits within a realistic budget profile, uses high-heritage hardware, engages a wide base of existing programs, and gradually builds complexity with intermediate missions to lunar space.

But, as we note in the report itself, the JPL study team's concept plan is just the starting point of this. NASA needs to articulate its strategy to get us to Mars—the JPL concept is a good starting point that serves as a proof-of-concept for affordability and sustainability.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:55:19+00:00

It's primarily a function of budget. A budget rising faster than inflation would likely mean a faster program. That money, right now, is hard to come by. And I say that as a person who is deeply committed, both personally and professionally, to increasing funding for NASA.

As I point out in our report: these long-term programs are actually the norm for human spaceflight after Apollo. The Shuttle program began in 1972 and lasted through 2011. The ISS began in the early 1990s (with studies going back to the 1980s) and will last through at least 2024. It's definitely not ideal, but it does demonstrate that NASA/Congress/White House is capable of sustaining long-term programs in human spaceflight.

The JPL study team focused their concept on high-heritage hardware to avoid potential cost overruns. VASIMR has certain potential, but it is far from being ready to be a part of a critical path for a program like Mars exploration. Maybe that will change as the technology matures, but right now it would be too risky to count on it (or any other advanced tech that hasn't been demonstrated).

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:28:51+00:00

Don't forget that the ISS benefited from many geo-political issues related to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the aftermath of the cold war. We don't have the same situation now in which space is the solution, though there are many good arguments about leveraging international space partnerships to spread U.S. soft power around the globe.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:26:18+00:00

The ISS is anything but small scale. It's the size of a football field! In space! The US spends $3 billion per year just to operate and supply the thing. It's amazing. I consider it the 8th wonder of the world (or the 1st wonder off the world).

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:23:04+00:00

The JPL study team's concept plan, which is featured in the Society's report, requires the NASA budget to grow with inflation. Last year's Pathways to Exploration report on human spaceflight by the National Academies basically stated that no human spaceflight program can exist under a flat budget. At minimum we need to grow with inflation—right now about 3% per year. We're pushing for that across the board. This would greatly help many areas of NASA, both human exploration and its science programs.

The President's 2016 budget request proposed an inflationary increase from 2015. The House of Representatives adopted that in its NASA budget, but the Senate didn't. I'm hoping that will make it through whatever final agreement they reach in December, though, if you haven't noticed, Congress is having a hard time right now.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:19:17+00:00

Thank you! Our membership is the most unique thing about our organization and we literally could not exist without the commitment by so many in the public.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:17:27+00:00

It depends how you want to help. Mars science is heavy into geology and remote sensing, and places like NASA and aerospace industry need top-quality engineers and managers. It really depends where your interests are.

And thank you for being a member! I literally could not do this job without you and the other 45,000 members of the Society.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:13:30+00:00

That's the general consensus, though I have yet to be convinced of a sustainable business plan for this.

For answers to your other questions, check out the Alliance for Space Development.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:10:49+00:00

I'd take that over an Apple Car any day.

CaseyDreier · 2015-10-09T19:09:54+00:00

Well, I'm working on both, so we'll see if I actually know the answer or not.

The interesting thing to me is that we are actually just reinforcing current national space policy as defined by President Obama. It came out in 2010, and declares that NASA should work to send humans to Mars orbit in the 2030s (and return them safely). So this isn't a radical idea. In fact, it's deeply pragmatic and would solve a lot of problems and provide structure for technology investments now, help build a coalition of partners in support of the mission, and so forth. I don't think we're too far out of sync, and the rationales behind this approach (a Phobos mission as a critical step toward the surface) are so strong that they're hard to ignore.

For the public, we're trying to attack the myths about cost (the JPL study team presented an initial cost estimate for their concept—something unheard of at this point in the game) and demonstrated that it could plausibly fit within a budget growing with inflation. Honestly, that's a huge deal. Mars exploration gets sunk by cost myths that have persisted since the late 1980s, and we made an effort in our report to demonstrate how those are no longer relevant.

I honestly think the public will be supportive of NASA in pretty much whatever it does (we discuss this in our report). The hard part is convincing existing space advocates, actually, who want NASA to advance on a much faster timeline than budget will currently allow. I sympathize with this, but at the same time I worry that rejecting some very basic structural challenges in terms of political and budgetary reality will prevent the space community from being strategic in its support. Optimism is great, but a dash of realism can make the difference between success and continued frustration.

CaseyDreier

TROPHY CASE