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.