Other - General

1.	It looks more and more like NASA is abandoning science for engineering...and the objective of being the first to measure something rather than being the first to understand it.
2.	In my opinion I believe that we must do everything possible in order to sustain a productive space program with core programs and activities and incentives to those within the academic and scientific sectors. We should also incorporate the non-profit, private and DoD funding to work together to ensure funding opportunities are not jeopardized and that we have a constant presence in space, both human and robotic. As I have learned from my Mentor, there are three phases of exploration: Observation, Reconnaissance and Human Exploration. When it comes to the Moon and Mars we are done with the Observation and Reconnaissance phases and we are now ready to embark on Human Exploration. No Program should be hindered due to funding. This is a paradigm that must end. In order to explore it will not take the resources or ingenuity of one nation but that of a global scale. Pulling all our resources together to explore and understand our surroundings will ensure that the Human Race does not go into atrophy as the space program becomes ever increasingly stagnant. We must move forward, not only for the advancement of technology and the implementation of the increased knowledge but that of adventure and the knowing that we gave everything we had to ensure that future generations will profit from our labors. By doing so, we honor past generations as well for leading us to a point in Human history where we no longer just look into the heavens but traverse them in search of the many truths that intrigue us and move us ever forward to New Frontiers. Cheers! Veronica Ann Zabala-Aliberto Arizona State University Department of Geological Sciences Planetary Geology Group
3.	We are on the verge of discovering extraterestrial life and therefore funding should be provided. Science and technology is what makes this nation a superpower.To decrease funding is ludicrous.
4.	NASA science is transitioning from a discovery-based model to a hypothesis-based model, similar to the science models of DOE and NSF. This represents a fundamental cultural change, but it is not yet being handled as such. For example, NASA will not disappear as a result of this change, but many are currently implying that it will. Leadership and transitional task forces are needed to optimize the opportunites this natural transition offers.
5.	The United States can afford both a rigorous robotic space science program and a manned program (in the form of CEV and LSAM). We are the wealthiest nation on the planet. Urge that Congress and the President make more funds available for both.
6.	Without science, the missions are worth nothing!
7.	Maximize the amount of science value for a given amount of funding.
8.	Getting new generation of scientists and engineers excited and prepared to take the lead should be a top priority.
9.	The avoidance of abrupt changes in priority while at the same time continuing to exploit changes in research directions based on new discoveries requires that in a `zero sum' budget environment that scientific rationale should dominate over political whimsy.
10.	When Faster-Cheaper-Better came along, the implication was that More should only be allowed if the cost did not go up. Instead the NASA way of business and the NASA Centers took the meaning to be that the same old way of business and the same old way of dreaming up missions was OK, and as for costs, the sky was the limit. It is not the size of the missions that needs limiting, it is the size of the price tag.
11.	why isn't DPS taking the lead in this?
12.	The U.S. is a wealthy nation despite our current problems. Its a disgrace that we cannot fund a robust and productive national space program and that we are forced to make painful and destructive decisions indicated by the need of this survey. It is shameful to force priorities on something as important as our space program. As long as the programming has merit, we should be funding these programs and not doing one over the other. Thanks.
13.	Whatever robotic program survives, it should be balanced and not limited to Mars or the Moon.
14.	People go into science to do science, not to squabble for money.
15.	NASA does a poor job of collaborating on international missions, due to artificially-imposed internal boundaries and the lack of gumption to work outside the box. The lack of funds is not our biggest problem, the way that NASA operates is our biggest problem.
16.	It is impotant to increase the frequncy of cost- effective missions. If a mission fails, it is not of as much consequence to the expense of other missions.
17.	The US has chosen the path to insolvency. Pragmatically, the best hopes for serious solar system exploration will involve multinational cooperation.
18.	NASA should be split into two organizations--one supporting manned space flight, and one supporting space science. Funding firewalls should exist between them.
19.	Science is the most important endeavour we have ever undertaken and we must keep at it to ensure the continued survival of our species
20.	Stick to the Roadmap. It's the community's concensus. When funding levels don't permit addressing top priority objectives, go to the next priority questions, but develop a plan for how to accomplish the top priority in reasonable time. Don't skip it.
21.	The program really needs a balance of mission sizes. We tried smaller, faster, cheaper and it didn't work. We DO need flagship missions like Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini along with a robust R&A program and a mix of smaller missions. Saying we'll give up flagships to save smaller programs is not the correct fix to our problem, unless the flagship missions of concern are manned missions to the Moon and Mars....
22.	NASA science programs should be focused (or refocused) such that they support and enable the primary objectives toward which NASA has been directed. Management of NASA science programs should be conducted such that the maximum number of scientists are engaged in seeking solutions to the problems being addressed without disenfranchising anyone by hiding their ideas and abilities in the depths of a large team controlled by politically active and favored individuals.
23.	The promise of the Discovery Program was to ensure frequent launches of small focussed missions to expand the breadth and depth of science achieved by solar system exploration missions. This promise has not been kept primarily due to budget constraints on the Discovery Program. Sacrificing Discovery missions will only extend the dead space between medium and flagship missions which historically require > 10 years from selection to flight given the budgetary pressures on NASA. It is equally shortsighted to signficantly reduce funding for R&A programs since this will clear the benches of scientists whose work drives the development and selection of small, medium and flagship missions. NASA needs a vigorous program that balances all these components and the current operating plan stands the priorities on their head by allowing the larger missions at greatest risk for delays and cost overruns to choke the small missions and the R&A activities.
24.	NASA must keep the entire scientific enterprise moving or one or more generations of people and knowledge will be lost forever. No student in his right mind will sign up with an organization that is fickle.
25.	In general, I believe all of these areas are improtant and more funds should be supplied since the current state us grosely under-funded.
26.	I think exploration should be a high priority with a great deal of promotion/coverage so that more citizens can become aware of what can and should happen out of this, and to gain the public's support.
27.	Once a mission is selected and on track, stable funding from NASA is an essential element of success. The current great uncertainty is damaging to long term science prospects.
28.	Such questions should not be asked annually. Multiyear funding commitments should be made to the all of the above projects with clearly defined goals. If R&A centers, Discovery/New Frontier opportunities, or Flagship project fail to achieve their goals, then their funding can change, up or down. Flagship projects should be broken into 3-5 year sub-projects.
29.	NASA is abandoning the university reseach community as it looks to protect its in house capability. Full open competition is the only way to ensure innovation and science driven programming
30.	New missions are important, but it is also important to keep funding the currently running missions as well. Many missions had to face really tough budget cuts last year making it more difficult to continue their work. With the missions that have collected science data for years, you have a solid science base. Collecting more data throughout the years will allow to build a valuable data-set showing the changes. This might be even more important then the initial data.
31.	Use the priorities set in the most recent Decadal Survey!
32.	We must have stable funding. A balance of R&A and flight programs must be assured. NASA should get out of the business of taking funds from one part of the agency (space science) to fund other parts (e.g. human flight).
33.	In the NASA Vision, the concept of one step at a time (learning as we go) is a wise one. Engineering goals should not overshadow science goals.
34.	NASA should take care not to underfund or remove funds from any mission. If a flagship mission ends up costing more than bugeted, then it should be delayed until the funding is availible. It should never take money away from current and in-progress missions. Also, the shuttle system has really been dead for at least 20 years now. Instead of wasting time and money on repairing the old shuttles, why is a new shuttle system not NASA's top priority?
35.	US should look for more collaborative opportunities with other nations. Despite the legislative obstacles this is a major cost saving approach.