editorial Exploration frst The proposed NASA budget promotes space exploration over science, and planetary science over astrophysics. This decision has the potential to cause strife between scientists, who have to work together to fnd a solution.

he history of space exploration is Before sounding the alarm, we should of other disciplines, such as planetary or dotted with symbols — Sputnik, ask ourselves if it is really necessary to Earth science. Without the faith of the Tthe Blue Marble, the Apollo Moon pay much attention to what NASA does community in a shared organized project landings — which in turn affect space these days. After all, there are several space with a clear roadmap, there is a risk of policy. We might just have witnessed an agencies with healthy space programs, with fragmentation of efforts and thus less unintentional pairing last February, with new nations like China and India joining efficiency and less progress, and the possibly the combination of two events in short the traditional actors like ESA or JAXA of more infighting between the various fields succession: a private entrepreneur sending (Japan). The affirmative answer rests on of astronomy. a car into space followed, less than one sheer numbers: US$19.6 billion, far above Secondly, the opposition between week later, by the presentation of President the second in the list (ESA; $6.27 billion) astrophysics and human exploration has Trump’s proposed NASA budget for fiscal and almost equal to the sum of the first the potential to spill over into the respective year 2019 (FY2019). That budget encourages seven space agencies after it. Most NASA scientific communities. This tension is commercial companies to develop low- projects and instruments produce plenty not just exclusive to the US. The freshly Earth-orbit initiatives at the expense of of collaborations and papers all around the published Canadian budget for science maintaining the International Space Station world, so any major shift at NASA will be is an example in the opposite direction: and kills the next big space telescope, felt globally. science, and particularly basic science WFIRST (Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Among the various proposed measures, research, received a big boost, but the space Telescope). The narrative of NASA giving the cancellation of WFIRST is the one community expressed its disappointment up its role as a leader in science and relying that attracted the most attention, mostly due to the lack of global strategy and on the private sector for space exploration is because it was unexpected. WFIRST has ambition. In the case of the US, the shift in basically writing itself. had its share of problems — exemplified scope has been translated into a substantial But how close does this scenario by an independent review published in difference in money between the two fields. correspond to reality? And is it a real October 2017 asking for a 'downscoping' This imbalance is clearly seen by comparing landmark moment or just a bump in of the telescope — but cancellation had the last Obama proposed budget (FY2017) the road? NASA’s history is rife with never been on the table. Most interesting to the present one. In FY2017, planetary cancellations, course corrections and false is the reason given for this decision: not science was projected at ~$1.5 billion and steps. Many people remember (not so the simple elimination of an over-budgeted astrophysics (including JWST funding, fondly) the “faster, better, cheaper” mantra project, but a redistribution of resources to which was a distinct entry at the time and of the 1990s and early 2000s (also because human exploration from other entries, like has now — tellingly — been combined) at it actually meant just “cheaper”), but NASA Earth science and, precisely, WFIRST. The $1.35 billion. In FY2019, planetary science recovered brilliantly and we can argue that cancellation is the practical translation of the is given a whopping $2.2 billion, with its leading position was never under threat. symbolism expressed above: dark matter and astrophysics decreasing to $1.18 billion. The FY2019 budget, however, reflects the exoplanets (the focus of WFIRST science) Could the competition for resources political desire to reassess NASA’s mission, traded in exchange for a push in exploration. engender attrition, with a generally satisfied which can be roughly summarized as a shift In a sense, this is a remarkable exercise in planetary side worried about losing its from ‘pure’ science to human exploration awareness on NASA’s part, as it implicitly advantage and an increasingly frustrated with a strong and ‘institutionalized’ role for admits that the current Moon and Mars astrophysical side left with the feeling that the private sector. ambitions, indicated by Trump’s Space Policy they are losing exciting science in exchange Nor is the budget a mere tweaking Directive 1, are untenable at the current level for a bunch of rocks from Mars? of numbers. Many sections have been of funding, and Apollo-sized budgets (5% of Ultimately, the answer should come from restructured, merged or renamed: 'Space the federal budget) are not to be expected in basic principles. As researchers, planetary Operations' is now focused only on low- the future. However, the proposed solution scientists and astrophysicists have the Earth-orbit developments together with opens a series of cans of worms that could progress of humankind and the advancement commercial partners. In another example of have been avoided. of our knowledge of the Universe as their symbolism, for the first time science is listed The first can concerns the Decadal ultimate goals. Both space exploration and below the exploration entries, whereas it used Survey. WFIRST was the top priority of the astronomical science are needed to reach to be first. As for education, it gets exactly 2010 Decadal Survey for astronomy, and these goals. It is difficult to stick to principles $0. Hopefully, the reality will probably be many people already have remarked that, when jobs, funding and the fate of whole very different after the changes that Congress if the priorities set by what is considered teams can be on the line, but it should be our will impose (in the case of FY2018, both the roadmap of US astronomy can be duty to always demand a fair distribution of astrophysics and planetary science fared overturned by short-term politics, it would resources, otherwise we could both fall when better in the final bill, just approved as we strongly weaken the whole decadal process. the political winds change again. ❐ go to press), but the political will behind the Fortunately, the finalized FY2018 bill budget could survive and its implications explicitly supports the decadal process. But may have significant global effects in the if left unchecked in FY2019, this shift could Published online: 5 April 2018 medium- and possibly long-term. even have an impact on the decadal surveys https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0451-y

Nature Astronomy | VOL 2 | APRIL 2018 | 263 | www.nature.com/natureastronomy 263 © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved. © 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.