RESULTS

This survey was conducted by the Planetary Science Institute andco-sponsored by

the UA Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, SETI Institute and the Space Science Institute.

View Cum. Resp.

View Resp. Rate

View Cum. Resp.

View Resp. Rate





The answers to this survey must be interpreted in the context ofthe whole (see ANALYSIS below). There were 1024 responses. After about 200, the distribution of responses stabilized within several percentage points, suggesting that the planetary community had been well sampled from early on in the survey.



Questions used in this survey were vetted by corporate, academic, and NASA planetary scientists, young scientists, senior scientists, and advocates of both research programs, small missions and large missions.



NOTE: This is a survey about priorities. The assumption of flat or decreasing budget was deliberately imposed to sharpen the focus of the questions. It recognizes (without acceptance) the efforts by the NASA Administrator to transfer science funds as needed to human space flight related programs. The proper rate of growth needed to sustain a healthy American solar system exploration program is not addressed by this survey.

1. Assume no growth or decreasing funding for solar system exploration in the future. Please rank the funding priority of the following as 1 (first priority) through 4 (fourth priority). [Note: Items were automatically randomly ordered for each person.] 1234

Research and Analysis Programs (e.g., Planetary Geology and Geophysics, Mars Data Analysis Program, Astrobiology programs, NASA Planetary Data System) 62%26%8%4%

Small, competitively-selected missions (e.g., Discovery opportunities every 18 months at $425M; Mars Scout opportunities every 4 years at $475M) 25%45%19%11

Medium, competitively-selected missions (i.e., New Frontier mission opportunities every 5 years at $700M) 9%22%55%14%

Large, Flagship missions (with opportunity every decade at multi-$B) 4%7%19%70%



2. Rationales for a vigorous R&A program include maximizing the knowledge gained from our science missions and increasing our understanding so that future missions can be optimized, regardless of their frequency. Thus, R&A funds should be stable and never reduced to fund mission lines.

Agree 90.8%Disagree 9.2%



3. Stretching out Discovery flight opportunities is acceptable when this allows for additional New Frontiers or Flagship missions.

Agree 58.3%Disagree 41.7%



4. A Flagship mission should be allowed if R&A is not affected, and it requires skipping only one or two Discovery opportunities and/or a New Frontier opportunity.

Agree 72.7%Disagree 27.3%



5. A Flagship mission is of such great benefit that it should be funded at the expense of all other R&A, Discovery, and New Frontier programs.

Agree 3.3%Disagree 96.7%



6. 444 comments were submitted and are grouped in broad categories:

The survey results supports the uniform testimony of planetary and other scientists before the House Science Committee in March, as well as other public statements and editorials by scientists stating that NASA Research and Analysis programs are foundational to the American space science effort overall. This is of particular importance in solar system exploration. Also, Discovery-class (small, competed) missions are considered to be highest priority among the planetary missions.



Research and Analysis programs are the top ranked funding priority, being ranked either 1st or second by 88% of more than 1000 respondents. 91% agreed that R&A funding should be stable and never used to fund mission lines. These programs are important because they return the most value gained from existing missions and are critical to developing the highest potential for new missions, regardless of frequency.



An important finding of the survey is that, assuming protection of Research and Analysis programs, the planetary community is willing to make some sacrifices in order to include Flagship (large) and New Frontier-class (medium) missions in the mix of solar system exploration programs. More than half (58%) were willing to spread out opportunities for Discovery-class missions if it allowed these larger missions. Almost three-quarters (73%) even agreed to skip one or two Discovery-class mission opportunities as well as a New Frontier-class mission opportunity if it allowed a Flagship mission to be flown.



Taking this survey as a whole, the planetary community has clearly identified what it considers to be the core solar system exploration programs that need to be maintained. At the same time, the community is willing to be considerably flexible in the scheduling of missions in order to preserve a mix of small, medium and large, more ambitious missions to extend our capabilities and knowledge.







JOINT PRESS RELEASE (LPL/PSI/SSI) April 25, 2006