1. A simplistic view: science = data x analysis analysis =
scientists x time x level of effort data = raw data x calibration x
access To maximize science return from the investment in missions,
NASA should optimize each component of this pipeline to maximize
the total throughput. My experience tells me that the weak links in
this chain are: 1) time x level of effort = underfunding of R&A
programs leading to small grant sizes, inadequate time and
resources to accomplish science goals and inefficiencies caused by
the need to submit and review large numbers of small proposals to
do any significant science. 2) calibration x access = woefully
inadequate calibration and access to data that billions of dollars
were invested to acquire. The PDS should be an evolving state of
the art server that supplies the broad science community with
convenient access to the mission data, the best tools to calibrate,
understand and use it. It is far from that in its current state.
Although these are not sexy links that easily sell, in times of
limited budget, strengthening these weak links would efficiently
increase science throughput which should be the goal of NASA. If
ANY of these terms approach 0, the product, science, approaches 0.
Missions are needed to keep up the input flow of raw data. But the
other terms are equally important to the final product. 2. While
the 'glory' of new discoveries from old missions decreases with
time, in many areas of space science where variations are on the
timescale of the 11-year solar activity cycle, it is very valuable
to have a long-term, intra-calibrated set of observations. The
greatest rate of expenditure on a spaceflight mission (after
launch, that is) is up front, as data algorithms are developed,
problems are identified and worked around, intensive analysis of
prime-phase data occurs, etc. Thus, cutting off older spacecraft
while they are still returning data but after their peak spending
years are past is unlikely to save all that much money. This is
especially true if a satellite team, once their primary mission
period is over, has reduced operational costs by taking greater
risks (less ground-station coverage, less redundancy in other
areas, etc.). So is it worth the small savings of money to throw
away the continuity of the observations? This is especially true
when no 'follow-on' mission is aloft, since turning off an earlier
mission before a later one starts returning data prevents
intercalibration of the two missions' data sets during a period of
overlapping observations. 3. The mission funding priorities should
be based more on science and less on the size of the mission. A
flagship mission with absolutely compelling science might need to
be funded even if it cut into other programs. If the science is not
3 times better than 3 smaller missions, then the 3 smaller missions
should go. R&D should be stable, but not in some absolute
sense. 4. Targeted support of university-based research to help in
nuturing the next generation of space experimentalists and
ground-based observers. Change the mission paradigm so that
university-based space experimentalists, who can train the next
generation, can successfully compete for flight hardware projects.
Reinvigorate the suborbital program and create a smaller planetary
class of missions to enable student participation in
beginning-to-end flight projects. The latter could include small
orbiting telescopes, for example. Expand the graduate student
fellowship program to enable support of non-US citizens that make
up an ever increasing share of science and engineering graduate
students. Expansion of the graduate student fellowship program will
also remove some of the uncertainty of support throughout a
student's tenure from the 3-year grant cycle of his/her faculty
advisor. This is especially uncertain for students with soft-money
research faculty advisors. 5. I worry that easy things may have
already been done: it may take medium missions to break much new
ground. In an era of mounting deficits, advocating flagship
missions may be a mistake. Still, I favor technology development as
a priority: advanced propulsion is underfunded; some of our money
may be better spent on better technology. Without steady R&A
money, good people leave the field. Our community has done very
poorly in creating tenured positions in academia for our
scientists. Many of us are captive to the soft money R&A
programs. We need to convince our astronomy colleagues that our
science is worthy of creating positions at their schools. 6. NASA
and the community need to: *Maximize use of existing assets (the
current Mars swarm, Stardust, Deep Impact) to complement a slower
Discovery/Scout timeline. *Begin reconsideration of the New
Frontiers Decadal Survey based list of missions, in order to
refresh this list after the New Frontiers 3 selection. *Ensured
R&A stability (in both directions - large growth is just as
unsustainable as cut backs) *Recognize that key questions in the
outer solar system require a coherent flagship mission to answer.
*Must avoid, like the plague, getting ESDM systems in the path of
solar system exploration (i.e. the CLV as a flagship launcher). 7.
NASA science is superb, very high profile, especially in astronomy
and astrobiology. Robotic missions are excellent, great scientific
value for the investment. The ISS is useless, little more than
national preening. Shuttle missions are vastly overpriced in any
cost/benefit analysis. Almost no fundamentally significant
scientific advances have resulted from the multi-billions spent on
the ISS and shuttles. 8. Without a well funded science program
present and future NASA missions will provide little more than 'Gee
Whiz' gratification. NASA needs to work out if it is in the
entertainment business or truly about exploring and attempting to
understand what it discovers. Exploring and understanding together
constitute a meaningful human endeavor not possible without a
rigorous and well supported research program. Science Priorities in
my opinion should include 1. The search for life 9. Understanding
the Sun and its interaction with the Earth. 3. Understanding the
origins of the Universe including the formation of galaxies stars
and solar systems. Moreover, as part of this program, I would
endorse Carl Sagans proposition that we should install and maintain
observatories around each of the planets of the solar system. 9.
The rationale for my prioritizing is that it is possible to have
many smaller research programs and missions than flagship programs.
The sheer variety of science that can be accomplished with a wide
base of smaller missions provides opportunities for the wide range
of reserach scientists and many more opportunities for education,
public outreach and media coverage of the small projects. 10. I
realize that you have attempted to make the questions sort of black
and white to make it simple to express the results, the issue is
deeper than can be reflected in the questions and perhaps suggests
that you are looking for a certain answer. Is R&A in general
more important than flight missions - yes. Maybe not so much
because we need to keep doing the science to make the next mission
better, but to make sure that there is an excellent research
community when the next opportunity allows for a mission
(independent of size). Are all R&A programs more important than
flight missions - hell no. NASA, under the guidance (hah!) of Dan
Goldin sent the agency off on a tangent - Astrobiology - some
components of which are way beyond anything that could be derived
from the agency's organic act. NASA has no business doing genetic
analysis of microbes and looking at their metabolism. Under the
Goldin premise there are virtually no research areas that would be
beyond the scope of the agency. SMD should review the research
areas and think about which one are really relevant to NASA mission
implementation and guidance. The smaller missions
(Discovery/Scout/etc) are better than the flagship missions because
for any given budget there can be more, they can address more
questions, and they can involve more people. MER has been great,
but given the same amount of money and more focused (though less
technically spectacular) missions could have been accomplished that
significantly increased our fundamental understanding of Mars. Not
to belittle the findings, but MER did not discover that there were
salts, that there was water, etc., they merely confirmed it and
shed some important light on the issue. SMD and NASA need to get
off the idea that big is better just by definition. It may be that
several small focused missions would provide more critical insight
than the big ones. 11. Researchers in specific areas require
continuous funding in order to stay current and to stay in the
field. A danger lurks in rationalizing exciting and expensive
missions at the expense of their funding: forever losing them from
their field of study. Small missions are, in my opinion, equally
important, by supplying the opportunity to discover new science and
to keep the progression of knowledge proceding at a reasonable
pace. Large missions give NASA more publicity, but in the long run
I am not convinced that our knowledge base is any the better for
it. Science, especially NASA science, involves scientists and the
science missions. Both go hand-in-hand, and without both of them
intimately involved in the process of discovery much could be lost
forever. My personal preference for studies are our closer planetay
neighbors (Venus and Mars) so that we can better understand and
predict what may lie in store for us here on Earth. 12. I think the
small and medium class mission opportunties are equally important.
I would like to see $475M small and $800M medium class
opportunities. I would like to see these opportunities offered
every 3 years so that every 1.5 yrs either a small or medium class
mission is offered. Assuming this scheme were implemented, flagship
mission opportunties every 6 years, with an additional 3 year
hiatus of the Disc. and NF opportunties would be a logical way of
proceeding. However, we have been saying for years that R&A
should not be affected by exploration. Until we have a reliable
guarantee that this will not occur I don't think we can have an
open conversation about flagship missions in the context proposed
in question 4. 13. What space, earth and planetary science needs
the most is for NASA to step out of the way, to stop doing
everything internally, to be responsible only for manage missions,
and to compete everything about all classes of science missions.
Suggested changes include competing over 80% of the dollar value of
Flagship class missions, increasing the Mission of Opportunity
aspects of NF and Discovery to 25% of the program, and eliminating
the incestuous practice of having NASA and JPL personnel compete
for, evaluate proposals to, and manage science programs all in
tandem. 14. I believe that pursuing a large variety of research
projects will encourage more students to pursue careers in science
because of the breadth of perceived opportunities, but
concentrating on large flagship missions gives the appearance of
more limited opportunities. 15. Having multiple active missions at
any given time is important so that there is a constant visible
(especially photographically) scientific returns that is easy to
interpret for the public. I believe such an effort to keep the
public informed, and excited, about the new scientific frontier is
crucial in obtaining continuing support for the public funding, and
also in inspiring the next generation of scientists. Those missions
MUST be accompanied by adequately funded research and analyses
programs so that the returned data is actually studied and
analyzed. Unless the data returned from a mission is thoroughly
analyzed, there is no return to the multi-$100M investment. Thus,
in light of the new budgetary constraint, I believe having a good
balance of smaller missions (either Discovery or New Frontier) and
securing an adequate R&A funding is far more important than
saving a Flagship mission. It should be in the best interest of the
public and the scientists in terms of maximizing return for the
investment. 16. A few general comments on the research programs.
First, funding projects that can spin off into other areas, or that
develop techniques applicable to science in general is of greatest
benefit and should be the top priority for funding. For example I
saw a talk on a project where a new 3D microscope technique was
developed to study small fossils, there the funding was serving a
mission goal and developing an imaging technique that could be of
use to the scientific body at large. US Solar System exploration is
neat, but with the national debt climbing out of control and a baby
boomer social care time bomb on the horizon, funded projects need
to provide short term benefit to the scientific community at large
to justify their expense. To do this they need to push and develop
science that is as widely applicable as possible, they need to
support NASA's goals as well as the needs of the scientific
community. Secondly, projects that spark general intrest should
have some priority. If you need a doctorate in microbiology and
have done a post doc to understand a presentation, it is of little
value to anyone except a very small group of scientist, and if so
few people care, it should not be a research priority. Thirdly,
training young scientists is an important aspect of any project.
Principal investigators who have a proven track record of training,
mentoring, and helping students gain experience and diplomas should
have some priority. Lastly, I'd like to see more competitive prizes
or challanges available because they spark the interest and the
creativity of people in a cost effective and results-based mannor.
17. It is ironic that Solar System exploration is being cut at a
time when it is providing some of the best scientific data on very
diverse topics in the history of NASA. I strongly favor a fair
number of intermediate sized missions because they provide
important diversity in science return (compared to a single
flagship mission), while also having substantial analytical
capabilities (compared to discovery missions). Research and
development are absolutely critical to making the investment in
these missions productive. Unanalyzed data and untested hypotheses
are equivalent to no mission scientifically, even if the missions
are exciting for exploration sake. My highest priority is to fund
un-manned missions. Sending people into space is extremely
expensive for the scientific and engineering return. I strongly
disagree with the reallocation of funds towards developing manned
space vehicles. 18. Committments should be made to
programs/projects which focus on further developing the growing
Astrobiology community from college-level to post-doc to PI levels.
This will ensure both increasing capabilities, increasing
knowledge, and increasing advocacy for the science. It is my
opinion that congressional support for the VSE may well fade as
real costs, real technical requirements, real schedules become more
clear in 2008. Exploration science must be a major part of the
human exploration focus of the VSE or the public support will
disappear in this time of ongoing budget constraints. 19. The focus
must be on maintaining the research community with a robust R&A
program that funds data analysis from existing and past missions,
as well as ground-based astronomy, laboratory studies, and
theoretical investigations. This should be coupled to programs of
small and middle-sized missions (Discovery and New Frontiers) that
provide a stream of new data and results to the R&A programs,
and provide breakthrough discoveries that guide future research.
Once these core programs are in place, NASA can decide whether it
can additionally afford flagship missions. During the past decade
the Agency has been particularly inept at moving flagship missions
into development, and many millions of dollars have been wasted, as
has the efforts of the planetary science community in support of
flagship missions. Too often, flagship missions have been tied to
or held hostage by other politically motivated programs within
NASA. The short lives of these programs, some dictated by the whims
of the Administrator, have played havoc with planning of flagship
solar system missions. This cannot be allowed to continue. Lastly,
the Agency must restore a firm firewall between Science and other
parts of the Agency, and guarantee that Science grows at the same
rate as the Agency overall. NASA cannot continue to raid its
existing programs in the name of Exploration, nor can it spend all
of its money restoring the Shuttle to flight, however briefly that
may be. 20. The NASA science programs need a long term, balanced
and sustainable vision (such as provided by decadal surveys). Long
term, stable funding to fullfill the vision needs to be provided.
Given the long term nature of most missions and for the development
of scientists (students/postdocs), the vagarities of NASA's budget
are extremely costly to all (taxpayers AND scientists, young and
senior), in $, morale and workforce. 21. Basic research should be
the fundamental driving force for NASA and projects along the lines
of the Martian rovers should be pursued. I also believe larger
projects such as SOFIA, that have been funded to this point and
have so much time and research commited to it, should be continued.
22. Need to develop ground-based analogue capabilities in remote
locations (such as on the volcanic slopes of Hawaii) to support
astronaut training; testing/evaluation of robotic, telecom, and
other mission-critical elements; and development of hyperspectral
and other remote sensing equipment (for future moon/Mars missions).
23. Science always benefits by diversity - great discoveries are
seldomly planned. They also don't just happen- they result from
long term supported research by energetic people. NASA should
retain support for a reasonably broad program with adequate funding
to keep a healthy core of planetary science alive. In a better
world, NASA's future scientific activities would be guided by plans
provided by the scientific community rather than the whims of a
soon to be gone president. 24. Small and stable projects are very
important to keep a strong, healthy, and innovative scientific
community. Big projects (flagship) which come and go must bring a
lot of people on, train them up, and let them go. This does not let
people become experts, allow for long term planning, or give young
people an idea of where they can fit in science discouraging them.
25. It is most important to maintain an active core of research
scientists and students to pick up the piece once human spaceflight
crashes and burns once again. This can only be done by
concentrating on smaller-scale enterprises that maximize the number
of participants. Flagship missions, in such a climate, are a
luxury. 26. More frequent planetary missions better serve the
advance of science and the planetary community than large
(infrequent) flagship missions. R&A programs are crucial to
increase our understanding in support of future missions
(especially the DAP programs). 27. Cost cap flagship missions. Have
a stable, multi-year funding plan for each element of Solar System
exploration, and if there are overruns, solve the problem within
that element budget instead of raiding other programs. Aggressively
manage missions to live within budgets; cancel early if they cant
do the mission within the budget profile. 28. I'd like to see NASA
get out of the solar system exploration business altogether. Let
NSF handle it instead, contracting with NASA for engineering
support. The current schema leads to internecine warfare between
the manned and unmanned sides of NASA, always to the detriment of
the latter. Surely it's correct to have a science organization
(such as NSF) be responsible for doing science. 29. My answers to
items 3 and 4 may seem internally inconsistent, but given the
phrasing of the questions and binary answers, is the best way of
indicating that smaller, Discovery-class missions should have
priority over larger missions. But if a compelling, priority
science investigation cannot be addressed via the Discovery mission
line, then naturally priorities will have to be examinied in order
to achieve that science investigation. The planetary science
community must be VERY careful not to come across as even subtly
making any kind of 'us versus them', 'science versus human
spaceflight' arguments. Both are vitally important for a healthy
space program. We as a community must grow up and realize that
there are important things worth doing in space that have nothing
whatsoever to do with science, let alone planetary science. 30. US
Solar System should have two broad goals: maximizing our ability to
explore and maximizing our ability to attract the brightest young
people into science. Frequent, small cutting edge exploration
missions and a relatively constant funding profile for basic
analysis and theory provides the best opportunity for new science
lead by small groups of researchers. I feel very strongly that the
best young people are attracted to science by imaginative projects
led by small groups of people. Large flagship missions lack the
individuality and creativity that draw the best people to research.
31. Flagships should never affect Discovery or New Frontiers flight
rates. R&A DAP programs should be doubled-- NASA invests
billions in missions but the datasets are hardly scratched with
current funds. 32. I believe that the somewhat arbitrary
distinctions between mission classes should be less emphasized.
Instead, NASA should focus on obtaining the maximum amount of
science. Presumably, smaller missions with less cost would be the
best option. The Dawn mission is an interesting case study, despite
the cost overruns. JWST suffers from cost over-run to a much
greater degree. 33. Funding for R&A and unmanned probes should
be decoupled at the budgetary level from all manned space flight
funding. This is needed to protect the two budgets from cost
overruns in the other program. 34. Solar System Research
Questionnaire: My vision is that the four legs of Solar System
Exploration headed by NASA need to be equally strong and none of
them should be short. These are: (1) new missions involving
lander/rover/orbiter, (2) next-generation space instrumentation,
(3) laboratory simulations, and (4) theoretical modeling. The
missions that take us into the next generation Solar System
Sciences are the 'landers and rovers' on both inner and outer
planets and their moons. Priority should be given to these
missions. Flagship missions once every decade are too risky and too
infrequent in my opinion. I would have a mix of moderate and
flagship missions. More frequent moderate missions give us
opportunity to test the technology and science. Skip these moderate
missions once a while to accommodate flagship missions into the
program. Research and Analysis (the points 3 and 4 above) are very
important aspect of NASA Solar System Explorations, which seems to
get lesser priority in the recent years. The real dollar amount
spent for the R&A is still very small at present. We have a lot
of 'unexplained' at present. We need much stronger R&A to
support and get the best out of future Solar System Missions.
Murthy Gudipati 35. Keeping missions (operating or preparing for
launch) that aren't having major cost overruns/descopes healthy and
extending them if scientifically justified should be the highest
priority, then a stable/growing R & A program, then new
missions. 36. 1. I'm not convinced that the proposed cuts to
science research programs are necessarily a bad thing. The science
community can use this as a wake up call and clean out the dead
wood. Unfortunately this wont happen and folks will just have the
knee-jerk reaction that they must protect their piece of the pie.
2. I agree that prioritization is critical, but the planetary
science community can not get its act together. A perfect example
of this happened at LPSC with respect to the outer solar system
exploration. While the Cassini results are exciting (Titan and
Enceladus), calling for future missions to these bodies at this
time jeopardizes all future outer solar system exploration. The
science community has been lobbying hard for a Europa mission
(which has been cut again), but by now advocating Titan or
Enceladus the community is just telling policy makers that the
planetary science community can not make up its mind. If I were in
the position to make these decisions I would cut all of the funding
for outer planet exploration (except Cassini and New Horizons). 3.
Priorities should be to support missions that enable the vision for
exploration and level 0 requirements (i.e. moon, mars and beyond)
even if this means canceling or postponing other missions.
Embracing these objectives will result in unexpected scientific
discoveries and enable future exploration to other targets of
opportunity. 4. Science that does not support these objectives
should be cut (get over it or justify your existence). 37. Lunar
science should have to compete vs. other Discovery proposals,
rather than being dictated by exoploration program politics.
Astrobiology is an unfocused discipline. The funding would be
better managed under several different lines (terrestrial life in
extreme environments; planetary geochemistry & geophysics;
extrasolar planets; planetary system formation) than in the current
catch-all setup. The highest priority for Mars exploration should
be the construction of a global, ultra-high resolution image
database at 10 cm resolution. This would allow studies of
geological strata, and would be invaluable for selecting the
landing sites for future rover, sample return, and human
exploration missions. The New Frontiers program should explicitly
solicit proposals for direct imaging of extrasolar planets. 38. I
understand the need for prioritizing within the fucked-up system we
find ourselves having to survive. However, the REAL ISSUE is the
idiocy (and the idiots who promulgate it) residing at the top. Down
at the level of setting even the priorities addressed by the
survey, we're merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. 39.
SSE MUST maintain core capabilities in science and cartography to
develop an effective exploration program that is based on
knowledge. Continued emphasis on engineeering and data acquisition
without adequate information based on science and data analysis
would be foolhardy. It will be so easy to lose capability if NASA
continues to sacrifice science program funding, and it might take
too many years to recover. A stable and reliable funding base for
science and data analysis must be protected in the NASA budget.
Prioritization of new missions, regardless of size and possible
frequency, should be based on likely increase in knowledge and our
readiness to perform the mission. Readiness should be determined
based on thorough analyses of current data. Prioritization of the
targets of these missions must be determined by community input and
based on expected scientific return. A balanced program of
exploration by both humans and robots must be developed, with
emphasis on likely science and information return. Again, this must
be done, perhaps more often than every decade, by broad community
input. Advocates for any particular science target (e.g., Europa)
should be heard only in the context of the big-picture planetary
science questions to be answered. The need to support engineers in
any particular congressional district must not be the primary
motivation for directing NASA spending! 40. Maximize the amount of
science value for a given amount of funding. 41. The more complete
answer to the question of reduced R&A funds is that R&A
funding should never be completely cut for any given discipline
(reduced maybe). The trouble comes when areas (such as
astrobiology) are cut out completely. Proposals to develop
instrumentation (i.e. the PIDD) already do not provide enough
funding and lack in the flexibility they should provide
economically - without being cut. NASA AOs should focus on going to
the Moon and Mars (since that is where we are headed) - which means
support for the science we will be doing there (seems obvious
enough). This should include planetary geology/science,
astrobiology, data analysis, novel-medium to high TRL relevant
instrumentation (that can be developed early enough to be useful),
and human support (if that is the priority)- radiation shielding,
dust, water, etc. At this time, it seems as if these most relevant
programs have been cut the most. Flagship missions (such as those
focused on the Jovian system for example) are terrific and would
yield incredible engineering and scientific accomplishments. Given
enough time we can have these missions as well. For the time being,
focus and short term (i.e. 20 years) goals should be the
priorities. We all have to give up something - be adaptable to meet
the current goals that NASA/the president are setting. That is ok -
if we know that our efforts are not in vain and will make a
difference someday. It becomes troublesome when our efforts are
constantly underminded by lack of funding in the areas that should
matter on the missions that have been specified. 42. There needs to
be an overall REALISTIC plan that connects science with tehcnology
and funds - the devil is in the details. A good example of what not
to do is JIMO. The final report onn the web
(http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/38185) shows a
runout cost for JIMO of $21 B and is reminiscent of the original
Mars/Voyager program that baselined a Saturn V launch vehicle. A
review of planning documents including NASA's Outlook for Space
(1976) and earlier and subsequent documents points to lines of
investigation that remain unfulfilled larger due to propulsion and
launch vehicle issues. High priority targets have been - and remain
- Venus lower atmosphere/surface (sample return from Venus will be
more difficult than sample return from Mercury), Mars aeronomy,
Mars meteorological/seismological network, Mars sample return,
mainbelt asteroid/Trojan asteroid orbiter (likely doable with New
Frontiers class), Galilean satellite investigations (realistically
a Ganymede orbiter is likely - and Callisto even easier - a Europa
orbiter reamains doubtful for a variety of technical reasons and a
credible Europa lander is out of the question technically and
costwise), comet surface sample return, comet cryogenic sample
return, Titan orbiter with a rover similar to MSL (the aerobot will
be almost impossible to test and can be developed only at a huge
cost), a Saturn icy satellite mission with Enceladus as a focus
(possible trade against a Europa orbiter - but the jury is still
out), 'Cassini at Neptune' with an orbiter and a mobile Triton
lander, and an interstellar precursor mission ('Interstellar
Probe'); Uranus is problematic due to the satellite orbital plane
and more interest is typically focused on Neptune although it is a
more difficult target. Chiron may be reachable with an orbiter but
Pholus, Sedna, and other outer system objects certainly are not.
Anything needing a fission reactor will not happen, e.g. Saturn
Ring Observer. Radioisotope electric propulsion and chemical
ballistic propulsion remain viable for the outer solar system - but
ONLY as long as the SRG 2nd gen high-performance power source is
developed. It is revelaing to go back and look at the Core Program
proposed by SSES in 1983. All core missions have been accomplished
- but at a much slowed pace: 1. Venus Radar Mapper - flown as
Magellan 2. Mars Geoscience/Climatology Orbiter - flying now as MO,
MGS, and MRO 3. Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby - flown as
NEAR-Shoemaker and CONTOUR, Stardust, and Deep Impact 4. Titan
Probe/Radar Mapper - flown as Cassini Huygens At this juncture,
with technology and cost issues in the forefront, some
possibilities include: 1. Keep R&A funded with inflation
increase (seed corn) 2. Keep instrument develpoment + 2nd gen SRG
(plant the seed corn) 3. Merge Discovery with Neew Friontiers to a
$750M cap (more realistic and gets away from 'low-hanging fruit'
problem in Discovery; CSR and VISE will definitely go to 'Flagship'
- where they really are anyway. 4. Keep Mars Scout 5. Look for MSL
mods that will enable MSL to be adapted to Titan and Triton surface
operations Derive missions from SCIENCE: biotic and prebiotic
conditions, planetary formation, planetary evolution [N.B. Where
the Decadal Survey FAILED was in making the connection between the
Part I and Part II of that report - a community failing]. So what
can we do? Mercury is being covered by MESSENGER and BepiColombo; a
lander is problematic and a sample return not feasible Venus
mesoscale observations (below the clould deck) and surface
mineralogy and elemental and isotopic abundance - esp. for
chronology and the vanished water (if it was there) remain
priorities; VISE may be overly ambitious; a sample return is not
feasible. Mars: aeronomy mission (trace gases and atmospheric
escape); network weather stations and seismological stations; MSL
follow on to cache samples and then MSR to allow absolute
chronology Asteroids - complete Dawn; also Trojan asteroid orbiter
Jupiter - complete Juno; bypass Europa Saturn - Magellan + PVO at
Titan with an MSL-like lander; subprobe to Enceladus depending upon
Cassini extended mission findings Neptune - 'Cassini' at Neptune +
MSL-like rover on Triton Reassess - should take until ~2030. 43.
Frequent, small, missions combined with long-term stability in
R&A funding and, when (and if) funding allows, larger missions
IMHO provides the most bang for the buck. Unfortunately, this
approach also minimizes profits for aerospace companies and so will
likely have little support on the Hill. It is FAR PAST the time
when the field should have decided to bring the supply of PhDs in
line with their demand. But this idea will have *no* support from
the halls of academe.