Put science back in NASA's driver's seat

TL;DR

Casey Dreier argues NASA must prioritize dedicated science missions over ride-along opportunities to drive breakthroughs.
White House proposes 46% science budget cut for 2026-2027, potentially terminating half of projects in development.
Without dedicated missions, U.S. space science risks relying on serendipity while China advances ambitiously.

The story at a glance

Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, criticizes NASA's shift from leading with dedicated science missions to hitchhiking on exploration spacecraft. He targets the White House Office of Management and Budget's proposed 46% cuts to science funding for a second year. This opinion piece urges Congress and NASA to restore science's central role, amid falling new mission starts and China's rising efforts. The NASA Act of 1958 mandates the agency's focus on fundamental science.

Key points

NASA science historically drove discoveries like alien oceans, accelerating universe, and Mars biosignatures via dedicated missions tailored to big questions.
New mission starts have hit the lowest rate since the late 1980s over the past three years.
Proposed 46% science cut for 2026-2027 would end half of all dedicated science projects in development.
Rise of "ride-along" science, like CLPS (now under exploration), prioritizes commercial lunar operations over science goals, using off-the-shelf or free instruments.
Dedicated missions follow National Academies' decadal surveys: big question leads to custom engineering; ride-alongs cannot replace this for complex targets like exoplanets or Uranus moons.
Ride-alongs supplement but do not substitute dedicated efforts, which require unique hardware for diverse environments like Mars drilling or cosmic telescopes.
China contrasts by doubling science mission mass in a decade, modeling U.S. decadal process for ambitious projects to asteroids, Mars, and outer solar system.

Details and context

Dedicated science missions start with prioritized questions from decadal surveys, shaping spacecraft design from the ground up. For example, probing Mars habitability requires rovers with rock-analysis tools, unlike generic ride-along instruments on lunar landers.

CLPS exemplifies the shift: NASA orders commercial deliveries for lunar bases, adding science payloads as secondary. This "destination agnostic" approach limits returns, as instruments cannot be optimized for specific science needs.

Congress shows bipartisan support for space science, and polls rank it as NASA's top priority. Yet OMB cuts ignore this, risking U.S. leadership established by the 1958 NASA Act.

China's leaders emphasize long-term planning and instrumentation for big questions, directly inspired by U.S. methods, while scaling up mission complexity.

Key quotes

"Science at NASA is becoming a hitchhiker. After decades in the driver’s seat... the agency now asks science to stand with its thumb out, waiting for rides on spacecraft designed for other purposes."

"Hitchhiking, after all, rarely takes you exactly where you need to go."

Why it matters

Dedicated NASA science underpins U.S. leadership in addressing humanity's biggest questions, from planetary habitability to cosmic origins. For scientists, policymakers, and space advocates, it means fewer breakthroughs and ceding ground to competitors like China if cuts proceed. Watch congressional budget actions and NASA mission announcements, as bipartisan support could reverse the trend but faces White House pressure.