President's FY 2003 proposed NASA budget (in PDF format).

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Proposed Europa Orbiter cancelled due to cost growth.
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_020204.html

*grrr*

And the Pluto mission. It's up to Congress for either or both of these.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

From that site:

Many earmarks in NASA’s budget have little to do with the agency’s mission in scientific research, technology development, and exploration. For example, the Congress earmarked NASA’s current budget to fund corporate jets, college dormitories, libraries, and museums. Some especially damaging earmarks divert funds from critical NASA needs and reverse good cost management decisions at NASA. For example, after costs had doubled, NASA cancelled its Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission last year, but the Congress earmarked funds to put the mission back in NASA’s budget. However, the Congress only provided $30 million, while over $400 million more is needed to finish the mission.

John Kierein: Proposed Europa Orbiter cancelled due to cost growth.

That's a shame. I was looking forward see whether Europa may have life under it's liquid ocean of water.

__________________
~AstroMike

Maybe not such a shame. According to this four-part article by Bruce Moomaw (science writer for SpaceDaily.com), Europa Orbiter as originally envisioned is already obsolete. It was intended to answer one question -- does Europa have a liquid underground ocean? -- and that question has been pretty much settled when Galileo detected Europa's induced magnetic field. Apparently some planetary scientists have been already quietly pushing to delay the
orbiter a few years so that it could be more capable, or even to skip the orbiter entirely and to go straight with a lander. Neither option is possible until 2010 at the earliest, and both would benefit from nuclear-electric propulsion. So axing current Europa Orbiter may not be a bad deal. Especially if outer planets missions get selected on a competitive basis, the way Discovery missions are -- and Bush's plan calls for just that.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ilya on 2002-02-06 18:56 ]</font>

...

I've been thinking about whether the Pluto mission should really be a high priority. Wouldn't a mission to Neptune be more useful? Most likely, Triton is very similar to Pluto except that Triton had some resurfacing due to the tidal forces on it when it was captured by Neptune.

With a mission to Neptune, you'd also get to study a whole bunch of smaller rocks (like the Gallileo mission did at Jupiter) plus get a periodic closeup of Neptune that could help callibrate the earth and hubble based observations.

Just a thought...

Inflamatory Headline:
NASA budget cuts human flight, pushes nukes

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/0...get/index.html

Nuclear propulsion actually only a small part of the article. Headline intended to upset a lot of people though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-02-07 16:35 ]</font>