1. Multidisciplinary programs that combine astrophysics, geology
and biology are fundamental to our understanding of our world and
that of other planets and should be strongly supported. 2. Emerging
field of astrobiology are building a strong student component that
is vital to the future interests of NASA space science. The
timeline for all mission scales should be shortened. A streamlining
of NASA bureaucracy should be done combined with a cap on overheads
that institutions can charge to NASA grants/funds. This will
liberate more direct funds to researchers. Solar system road maps
should include a strong parallel component of solar and
heliospheric physics experiments. 3. More long-term funding should
be allocated and preserved for increased aeronautics research and
development, including wind tunnel & flight test research. 4.
Educational outreach programs that help to inspire our next
generation are also extremely important. The future of US Solar
System exploration will lie in the hands of our students of today.
It seems especially important to inspire our students at a young
age (K-12)to generate a continual and powerful workforce for the
future. 5. !IMPORTANT!: Solar System Exploration ->
Astrobiology. 6. NASA should not compromise its strong Earth
Science program to have a Mars mission. While the space program
does provide tangible benefits to the nation, the Earth Science
programs provide direct, immediate and real benefits to the nation.
NASA stands alone in providing a global prospective for earth
system studies of weather, climate and the biogeo sciences assisted
by revolutionary satellite measurements. Such work is critical to
the nation and should not be compromised. Current funding for such
programs has been in decline and further cuts should not be
tolerated. 7. The Moon, being our closest and most accessable
planetary body needs more attention paid to it. If we are to
successfully reach out to other planets and understand them better,
it makes practical sense to test our instruments/investigative
approaches on this satellite. As well, there needs to be more focus
on the science and engineering of sustaining life off of this
planet; be it in orbiting space stations or lunar/planetary base
stations. 8. The educational opportunities that arise because of
NASA funded programs have the ability inspire students in a way
that no other program can. By including students, teachers and
public audiences in NASA programs, we ensure that today's children
are tomorrow's explorers. 9. We need a mission to Enceledus in the
next decade. We should already have an R&A program for the
Moon--what are we waiting for? Flagship mission costs should be
better controlled. LRO has gone from $400M to $700M to $1.2B, yet
there is no R&A dedicated to the Moon? 10. The drivign force
for any mission has to be fundamantally astrobiology relevence,
rather than other way around. The only rational we can afford, at
times of monetary cutbacks, is defining a fundamental scietific
basis that is stronger than 'because it is out there'. I believe
that such a case can be made for astrobiology, since this provides
a unique framework that is poised to provide not just the basic
scienc that uniquely NASA. Additionally the scientific platform of
astrobiology also (not unintentionally) provides basic informaitonm
that is relevent to everything needed for human sustanence on
earth: from energy to climate. 11. Life Detection 12. 1. Space
weather is an interesting area of focus--basic research with
perhaps practical application. 2. A balanced approach to new
missions (small, medium, and large) is critical to the well-being
of an organization. 3. Manned mission to Mars is NOT a reasonable
Flagship mission at this time or in the reasonable future. 13.
Priorities: Heliosphere and Interstellar medium, Sun, Planets 14.
The inclusion of Exobiology within Astrobiology should be
re-thought. E.g.,there is no rationale for leaving Cosmochemistry
and Origins PI oriented programs separate from Astrobiology when
their objectives fall within her broad spectrum of objectives.
Exobiology should follow those programs in the organization. As is,
Exobiology has become a broad-aimed mini-Astrobiology, expensive,
and an easy target of cuts. 15. The greatest public benefits from
NASA science lie in the study of the Earth and its near-space
environment. Funding priorities and the selection of core programs
should reflect this reality. 16. I believe that Discovery
opportunities should only be stretched out by one or two in
question 3. Although not within Solar System Exploration, SOFIA
will significantly advance the knowledge base at least at a level
of a Discovery mission at a cost of ~60 Million per year of
operations. 17. experiment (missions) should be first priority,
resonably balanced between small. medium and large scale missions
18. We need to maintain space weather monitors (like ACE, or SOHO,
or global auroral imagers, or NPOESS) either within NASA or NOAA.
The two agencies should coordinate this and work with Congress and
the President to ensure proper funding for these monitoring
activities. 19. This survey effectively ignores contributions from
ground-based astronomy, which is a serious omission. NASA is
cutting funding to the IRTF and eliminated funding for the radar at
Arecibo a few years ago. Is it a coincidence that the Arecibo radar
is now less reliable? 20. Europa! 21. We should not minimize
support for and mission which focus on atmospheric studies.
Atmospheric studies as well as studies of geology and geoscieces
and astrobiolgy are all important for Solar System exploration
goals. 22. Our focus should be on advancing the fundamental
understanding we have of the formation of the solar system and its
dynamical evolution. 23. Missions to asteroids, especially
near-Earth asteroids, and to the outer satellites (Titan,
Enceladus, Europa) should take precedence over missions to the Moon
and Mars. 24. near earth asteroids formation and evolution of the
solar system 25. Communicating NASA science content to students and
the general public should be a high priority within all programs.
This generates understanding, support and future scientists for
NASA. 26. Missions should include those to terrestrial planets and
those to outer solar system to retain capability in designing
disparate types of missions 27. Higher priority: establish a
program for doing missions in the $10M-$100M pricerange. 28.
Advanced propulsion studies should not be forgotten. At any funding
level, propulsion is the decisive factor that ultimately sets the
scale of space activities. 29. Astrobiology on extrasolar planets
30. searching for traces of life on Mars should not overshadow the
goal to understand the origin of the solar system. In my view, the
next important steps should be the exploration of the Jovian
satellite system, foremost Europa. 31. Solar-Terrestrial plasma
research should be strengthened. 32. I'm not certain where an
extended mission for Cassini falls in this, but I would put that at
top priority. As long as the probe is working well it is worth
significant money to continue utilizing the investment that has
already gone into getting the probe there. 33. Stable support for
programs that excite and attract young students and researchers.
34. NASA's AB Program needs to define a practical protocol to
detect life (extinct or extant ). This is must be based on a
practical definition of life as to elaborate a standard set of
measurements that will be required to say with certain probability
that life was detected. For example, if certain gases and organics
are found in combination with liquid water in a hypothetical
hydrotermal system on Mars, then life was detected with 99%
probability. 35. Investigation of Uranus during equinox passage.
Earth-orbiting and ground-based campaign - this is a unique body.
Cost is not terribly high. 36. I support restoring cuts to the
following specific missions/programs to at least 80% of the level
they were at in FY2005 Astrobiology SOFIA