Talk:NASA large strategic science missions

Outdated article

 * February 2012: "NASA Flagship Planetary Missions on Hold Indefinitely" NASA Flagship Planetary Missions on Hold Indefinitely
 * "NASA shelves ambitious — and expensive — flagship missions"...there are no plans to develop more planetary flagships beyond the $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory (MSL). BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really a program
Flagship missions aren't really a "program", just a set of individual and (usually) unrelated missions. There no program office within NASA, and they are selected, approved and funded independently of each other. There's no expectation the next one will happen on any particular schedule and no equivalent to a Discovery 15 or a New Frontiers 5. The term is more used as a catch-all category for very large missions which are initiated by NASA management directive rather a call for proposals and a competitive selection. I don't think the structure of this article reflects that.

Also, each of NASA's science divisions has their own flagships. For example, Heliophysics consideres the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission to be their current flagship. The list of examples is all from the planetary science division, with the exception of Chandra, which is astrophysics. That's a little inconsistent.

Fcrary (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to overhaul this article. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have extensively updated the introduction and mission list (and moved the page) to clarify that the Flagship Program doesn't exist and that flagships exist outside the planetary science directorate. My primary source was the NAP's Powering Science: NASA's Large Strategic Science Missions (2017).--NilsTycho (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted several missions that are not of the "Large" Flagship Program; several small Earth and Sun satellites, and JUICE, which is not even NASA's, but a European mission. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can put in some of the heliophysics large strategic missions (MMS, Solar Probe Plu, etc.) I'm not sure how to handle Earth sciences. I think their strategic missions tend to constellations rather than single spacecraft. Also, do we want the list ordered by date or science division? Fcrary (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think ordered by science division would be most appropriate. I am aware the list is incomplete. Thank, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, User:BatteryIncluded removed the following missions: Ulysses, Compton, Terra, Aqua, Aura, SDO, Sofia, MMS, Parker, PACE. I believe all these are flagships, and all should be restored. For example, BatteryIncluded removed Parker with the comment "no it is not". However, the NAP report I cited says, "Two large strategic heliophysics missions now in development are the Parker Solar Probe and the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Solar Orbiter, which includes NASA participation." The other missions are also described or suggested as flagships by this report. BatteryIncluded also added "Astrobiology" as a primary science division to several missions, but Astrobiology is not an SMD division. BatteryIncluded also says they removed JUICE, but JUICE was never on the list, so I am unclear on this point. --NilsTycho (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The exact list is ambiguous, since NASA has never officially used the term "flagship" mission, and that's what a large strategic mission amounts to. Before Discovery and New Frontiers, every NASA mission was either an Explorer or a strategic mission. But not necessarily a large one. Even today, there are small strategic missions. Strategic just means NASA headquarters decided to fly a mission with those specific science objectives, as opposed to selecting among many proposals which can do anything to achieve some higher level NASA science goals.


 * Most of the missions User:BatteryIncluded removed are in a grey area where we could debate whether or not they are "large" or "small" strategic missions. Ulysses, for example, was a large mission but it was primarily an ESA mission, not a NASA one. NASA made a strategic decision to be involved by providing the RTG, some instruments, and a few other things. So NASA's involvement wasn't "large". The same is true of Solar Orbiter and JUICE.


 * Some of the deleted missions are what I'd call "large" strategic ones, such as MMS, Parker Solar Probe and probably Van Allen. But NASA doesn't officially hang a "large" or "small" label on missions, so it's a but of a judgement call. Personally, I'm really unsure of things like the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program. While international, the NASA involvement was both quite large and strategic. But it was actually a set of significantly different missions and spacecraft designed to operate simultaneously. Wind or Polar by themselves wouldn't really be a "large" mission, in my opinion.


 * As far as "Astrobiology" is concerned, no. It's not a NASA science division. If that's how we're classifying large strategic missions, astrobiology has no more place there than geology or magnetospheric physics. Since the article says NASA usually only flies one per division per decade, that's probably how we should do it. But if we do split the list up by science divisions, then an extra column with the primary focus of the mission (astrobiology, geology, etc.) might not be a bad idea.


 * Fcrary (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Generally agreed. While these things are judgment calls, I think we should defer to the judgment of the National Academies or other authorities when possible. "Although the terminology can seem confusing to outsiders, within the science disciplines most members of the community understand what the largest missions are in terms of cost, and understand what constitute large, medium-size, and small missions within their respective divisions, although they may struggle with the definition of “strategic.” Within astrophysics and planetary science, the large strategic missions are usually in excess of $1 billion. Within Earth science and heliophysics, the large strategic missions are usually in excess of $500 million. Within planetary science, “medium-size” missions cost approximately $1 billion, whereas “small” missions cost approximately $500 million. This is in contrast to Earth science and heliophysics, where “small” missions are generally defined as less than $250 million." (Source.) --NilsTycho (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * We are rebuilding that section below in this page. ICESat, Aqua, Aura, Terra and Parker were added back with references. I found no references of Compton, Sofia airplane, being a Flagship. PACE was canceled by Trump. The "astrobiology" thing, was my a mistake because I thought the column was about the science scope, not the science division. I just deleted that. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For Compton: "NASA’s Great Observatories program established in the 1980s was centered on the development of several large strategic missions: the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), the Spitzer Observatory, and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory." (Source.) For SOFIA: I think I was using, "Currently, NASA’s Astrophysics Science Division operates two large strategic missions, both in extended mission operation: the HST and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, as well as the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airborne observatory." (Source.) But having reread that sentence, I'm no longer sure what it suggests about SOFIA, so I'm happy to have it removed. For PACE: PACE is not cancelled. Trump zeroed it out of his proposed FY 2019 budget, but it remains to be seen if the final budget will include it. Trump zeroed it out of FY 2018 too, and Congress added it back in the enacted budget. --NilsTycho (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Within astrophysics and planetary science, the large strategic missions are usually in excess of $1 billion. Within Earth science and heliophysics, the large strategic missions are usually in excess of $500 million. Within planetary science, “medium-size” missions cost approximately $1 billion, whereas “small” missions cost approximately $500 million. This is in contrast to Earth science and heliophysics, where “small” missions are generally defined as less than $250 million."
 * This explanation above is wonderful. Can you get a reference for that? We should include it. I have been following the developments (discoveries) of space missions for a few decades and I was under the impression all Flagship were $1B and above. Other people may have the same misconception. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The reference was given: https://www.nap.edu/read/24857/chapter/3#10. --NilsTycho (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Flagship by Science Division
Lets use this space to gather the past and future Flagship missions per Science Division: astrophysics, Earth science, heliophysics and planetary science divisions.


 * Planetary Science Division:
 * Cassini
 * Galileo
 * Viking 1, 2
 * Voyager 1, 2
 * Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity
 * Mars 2020 rover
 * Europa Clipper
 * Europa Lander (proposed)


 * Astrophysics Division:
 * Chandra X-Ray Obeservatory
 * Hubble Space Telescope
 * James Webb Space Telescope
 * Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)
 * Competing for selection:  Habitable Exoplanet Imaging Mission (HABEx), the Large Ultraviolet/Optical/Infrared Surveyor (LUVOIR), the Lynx X-ray Surveyor, and Origins Space Telescope.
 * Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory
 * Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope?? Non-NASA refs:, ,


 * Heliophysics Division:
 * Ulysses (Joint ESA-NASA)
 * Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission
 * Solar Dynamics Observatory - Flagship at Living With a Star program
 * Val Allen Probes
 * Parker Solar Probe (future)
 * Solar Orbiter (Joint ESA-NASA)


 * Earth Science Division:
 * JPSS (Joint Polar Satellite System)
 * PACE
 * ICESat
 * Aqua
 * Aura
 * Terra

Here is a table draft for your review: -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This looks great! --NilsTycho (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * By the way, NilsTycho, thank you for correcting the scope and the meaning of Flagship missions.  You have been a great catalyst to correct and update this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Columns in table - eg Mission Start
Table is very useful - but "Mission Start" is presumably launch date. The development and build will have started much earlier. Is there a decision point that indicates intention-to-build that we could also include - maybe around PDR ? I'm hoping we can include another column. - Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Joint missions?
Proposed: Erring on the side of inclusivity, we should include joint flagships, such as Ulysses and Solar Orbiter, and mark them as such. --NilsTycho (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If a true joint mission, yes. If it is just an instrument for another agency (Announcement of Opportunity), I don't think we should equate them to full missions; in addition, including minor contributions would inflate and dilute the list of actual NASA Flagship missions (Large Strategic Science Missions) as intended in this Wikipedia article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to me like a reasonable distinction. --NilsTycho (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Lets list these borderline missions and assess their inclusion in the article:
 * Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope - Non-NASA refs calling it "Flagship:, ,
 * FWIW, NAS says "Spitzer is a medium-size mission, whereas NuSTAR, Fermi, Kepler, and Swift are smaller."


 * Ulysses - NASA provided RTG and launch vehicle.
 * Solar Orbiter - Named by National Academy report as a joint flagship, but appears to be an M-class ("medium") ESA mission. Probably not worthy of inclusion after all.
 * Spitzer Space Telescope - A Great Observatory with an original budget that would have qualified it as a large mission. Downscoped to a (largish) medium mission. I think it should be at least mentioned in the article, as it is now.
 * Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - A strategic directed mission that's not quite large enough to be "large" and started life under the HEOMD instead of the SMD. I don't think it qualifies.


 * We shouldn't get too exact about the budgets. New Frontiers missions can be a little bit over that $1 billion value, and I don't think any planetary flagship has been under $2 billion. Just because Spitzer's budget ended up under $1 billion doesn't clearly disqualify it as "large." And, if we really wanted to be exact about the cost numbers, we ought to be adjusting for inflation. I'm fairly sure Voyager wasn't over $1 billion in FY77 dollars, but with four decades of inflation, it would be in FY18 dollars. Fcrary (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should make another table listing missions that could have been Flagship/Large. Either NASA calls then Flagship/Large or not. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting another table, and we should certainly go by any official statement from NASA. But there are a fair number of borderline missions (in terms of cost) which NASA never really said, "This is a flagship" or "This is not a flagship." It isn't clear how we should classify borderline cases when we don't have a official statement from NASA. Especially when we have no idea what those $1 billion and $500 million figures mean (in terms of inflation and which FY.) Fcrary (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * With regards to Spitzer specifically not being large, I am just directly quoting the NAS. "NASA’s Great Observatories program established in the 1980s was centered on the development of several large strategic missions: the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO), the Spitzer Observatory, and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory. (Spitzer’s original development cost was over $2 billion, but because of redesign, it was reduced to approximately $720 million, making it a medium-size strategic mission.)" I'm more than happy to consider contradictory sources. --NilsTycho (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Outer Planet Flagship Mission to Large strategic science missions. This page offers little information, much of which is already available on the target page and elsewhere, or is out of date. The capitalized title seems to refer to a specific mission concept, but there is no such mission concept, and when there is, it will have a specific name, such as Uranus orbiter and probe. I see very little use for this page, and efforts at compiling and updating information on this topic should be directed elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

To be more clear, this page was originally created to discuss the joint mission concept that became the Europa Jupiter System Mission and the Titan Saturn System Mission, both of which have been set aside and have their own pages (essentially, the content on this page was split once the concept was developed into actual mission proposals, without this page going away). Now, the lead seems to make the page about something more general, which is incorrect. I still think the merge is appropriate, and the history of these missions should be included on the target page, given the discussion concerning joint missions above. Moreover, the EJSM has been superceded by the Europa Clipper and Europa Lander, and the TSSM is likely to evolve into a more Enceladus-focused mission, given the approval of Dragonfly to study Titan. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Article name now seems too general - propose to add NASA
Article name "Large strategic science missions" now seems too general. Maybe it started as a NASA specific "Flagship program" or "Flagship mission" but now it seems worldwide and should include ESA and China unless we augment the name with " of NASA" or " (NASA)" or prefix it with "NASA's ". - My choice would be adding " of NASA". Any objections to that ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"Large" here means costly ? and "strategic" means HQ-directed (rather than NAS selected?) ? - Is this article about NASA strategy or NASA use of budgets - eg should we discuss how project choices affect each other ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It was originally titled Flagship missions, but "Large strategic missions" is the technical term NASA uses and a National Academies study on the subject emphasized this, so the title was changed. I agree that adding "NASA's" to the title would make sense. "Large" refers to the budget and scope of the mission, although it doesn't have a clear definition. It just means larger than the missions which are part of a series or program, like Explorer, Discovery or New Frontiers missions. In terms of selection, NAS (National Academy of Sciences) doesn't select any missions; they just write reports which recommend things. Nor does headquarters direct missions, in the sense of directly managing them. The distinction is that, for a program like Discovery, a teams of scientists can propose just about anything which addresses scientific questions identified in things like a Decadal Survey report. That could be a mission to Venus or to an asteroid or to the Moon. If selected, the team is responsible for developing, managing and operating the mission. For a "directed" mission, headquarters selects the target and the science goals and assigns development, management and operations to a NASA center. This is discussed in the last paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of the "History" section. But the wording and phrasing isn't as clear as it could be. Fcrary (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose adding NASA to the title (though this version could be made a redirect). The current title is the official name for the program, it is not some descriptive title that we made up at WP and should be kept per WP:COMMONNAME. Given this, it does not need to be disambiguated by adding "NASA" and we don't do this for Discovery program or New Frontiers program either. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's true. NASA doesn't have a formal program for large strategic missions, at least not in the sense of the Discover, New Frontiers or Explorer programs. There is a Solar System Exploration Program office, but their web page doesn't use the exact phrase "Large strategic science mission" anywhere. They talk about "large, strategic missions of national importance", but that's used as a description, not a title. And the Solar System Exploration Program is only responsible for planetary missions. Large strategic missions from other divisions are under different offices; the Parker Solar Probe is under the Heliophysics Science Division's Living with a Star program and JWST is its own line item and run directly out of headquarters. A recent SMD study on the subject was just called the "Large Mission Study" and its report described them as "the largest and most ambitious strategic missions are often denoted as "flagships" or “large strategic missions"." (quotes in the original) That makes it sound like NASA uses "large strategic mission" as a colloquial phrase on the same level as "flagship". Also the NAS report on the subject was titled Powering Science: NASA's Large Strategic Science Missions (emphasis added) As far as I can tell, there is no official program and therefore on official title. Fcrary (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)