This was followed, on Sept. 29, by an announcement by Doug Stetson (manager of JPL's Solar System Exploration Office) that the earliest that NASA might now launch a Pluto mission would be "2009 or 2010". But as Jupiter would not be available for a gravity-assist flyby to catapult the little probe out to Pluto, an alternative means of propelling it rapidly into the outer Solar System would have to be used - such as "solar-electric propulsion or solar sails" - with a planned arrival at Pluto "no later than 2020".

However, the planetary science community was infuriated by the first decision, and unmollified by the second. Pluto Express -- unlike most space science missions -- will suffer an actual and serious scientific data loss if its arrival at Pluto is significantly delayed, since Pluto is currently moving away from the Sun on its elliptical orbit and its thin atmosphere (one of the main subjects of the mission) will soon begin freezing out onto its surface.

As Stetson himself said, we don't clearly understand how fast that will occur -- and it's quite possible that the atmosphere may freeze out as early as 2015.

Moreover, the simple fact is that a Pluto mission which has to depend on advanced deep-space propulsion techniques rather than a Jupiter gravity assist will not only likely take longer than the 8-year flight planned for Pluto Express, but will be considerably more expensive.

For these reasons, the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society (the nation's major body of planetary scientists) took the unusual step on Sept. 21 of issuing an official statement criticizing NASA for cancelling the mission, and urging that "NASA and the US Congress find a way to fund this important mission, but not at the expense of other equally important planetary missions or its basic research and analysis programs... If this mission is delayed beyond the 2004 launch, the opportunity to study the tenuous Pluto atmosphere may be lost for centuries."

Nevertheless, NASA is sticking to its guns thus far; public affairs officer Don Savage stated on Oct. 16 that "things have not changed". However, something unusual is happening, according to the Los Angeles Times (in an Oct. 15 story reprinted in the Washington Post): The decision "is stirring up something of a public revolt.

In just two weeks the Planetary Society, a Pasadena-based group of space exploration enthusiasts, has received 10,000 letters protesting the suspension of the mission. And a Pennsylvania teenager is collecting signatures via PlutoMission.com to petition NASA to change its decision.

"A lot of Americans have a lot of faith in the space program. It really lets people down when they cancel a mission," said Ted Nichols II, a 17-year-old high school senior and amateur astronomer from near Harrisburg, Pa., who created the PlutoMission.com Website.

"Nichols and Louis Friedman [executive director of the Planetary Society] are surprised at the potent public response to Pluto. It may be because the distant planet has 'the mystery of the edge," surmises Friedman. Doug Stetson... thinks it may be because most people dislike unfinished business. "There's a real desire to complete the first wave of exploration," he said."

The public discontent might be greater, however, if more was known about the rather strange process by which the cancellation decision was reached.

According to TerraDaily sources in the planetary science community, "The decision to cancel Pluto Kuiper Express rather than the Europa Orbiter was not discussed with any of the science advisory boards that NASA supposedly consults", and "planetary scientists who objected to the cancellation were allegedly threatened with loss of future NASA funding."

Other scientists are willing to comment publicly. Dr. Alan Stern of the Southwest Research Institute -- arguably the leading scientific expert on Pluto -- said "No one I know in the scientific community has confidence in the 2009 plan. It's scientifically riskier, and the addition of solar-electric propulsion is a new cost driver that will make the mission more, not less expensive."

So why was the decision taken? - Part Two and Links

Related Links
Search TerraDaily
Subscribe To TerraDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only