| 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. |