Small and Medium Class Missions

1.	Question 1 is a bit hard to answer as there are many factors that affect the ranking, however this is how I see things in April, 2006. I put small missions first, because I think they will both drive the need for R&A and force larger missions to become more efficient. There is a danger of ranking R&A #1, as opposed to 2 (as I did) or lower, in that we'll then just be studying older and older data, and that could erode congressional and public support further. Clearly we need a balanced program and right now there is a danger of the scale getting tipped.
2.	Discovery missions rank at the bottom because they tend to be poorly conceived and of limited scientific value relative to cost, although not as bad as the manned spaceflight program. While Discovery provides flurries of activity ('sound and fury') for scientists, science/knowledge isn't helped much ('signifying nothing'). Better to have fewer but more professional missions that are well conceived & executed and return broadly significant data. SIMS, TPF, etc. Measurement, measurement, measurement, catalog, catalog, catalog.
3.	There is a trend in any large bureaucratic organization such as NASA to do less and less for more and more money over time. The small and medium competitively-selected missions have done a good deal to help fight this trend, and they need to continue to be supported.
4.	Great care should be exercised when considering skipping Discovery opportunities - there is a potential risk to losing core scientific and technical competencies in the intervening period, especially ones that have recently been built-up. Though there are good reasons to skip such an opportunity, it should be a very rare event, as we risk returning to low numbers of in-flight spacecraft and more limited venues of exploration.
5.	More frequent, low cost missions should be the highest priority. We need to diversify our science missions, rather than putting all our eggs in one huge (inefficient, money-wasting) basket. NASA needs to work out its space flight center organization. E.g., currently, Goddard is the most expense for the least product, any time it is involved in a mission.
6.	hard to choose between small and medium missions
7.	NASA center (e.g., JPL) led missions are inhibited by buracracy. Most missions today exceed their cost caps. When a large flagship class mission ($2-3B) goes over cost by ~20%, this alone would prevent a whole Discovery or Scout opportunity and puts enormous pressure on the R&A program. I advocate that smaller PI-led missions be given priority by our community because these missions tend to foster innovation.
8.	The answers to these questions should be viewed in the context of budget restrictions imposed to maintain the pace of human exploration missions. this implies that timely information from science missions is crucial. If something in the science program must be deferred, it should be the long term flagship missions that cannot yield data on an appropriate timescale to guide or help human exploration systems development. Additionally, it is my perception that those missions typically entail a higher ratio of system engineering and manufacturing to science personnel involvement - more strongly overlapping rather than complementing the human exploration program in their impact on the composition of the space exploration community. Over-all community balance and health will be better served by a focus on smaller missions and research adn analysis programs.
9.	I believe the large flagship missions should be of the lease priority as the most science per doller comes from the PI-led discovery missions. I would rather have 4-8 Discovery missions than 1 flagship mission for the same price. This also helps 'spread the wealth' among various institutions and also provides more of a focus to universities. The University programs will then provide a more experienced work force coming out of these institutions ready to immediately contribute to the space industry.
10.	many and small lead to better diversification
11.	The most successful, `bang-per-buck' NASA missions of the past decade have been those that have come from the smaller, less-expensive missions. Results from missions to cometary and asteroidal targets, as well as surveys of the planets and their associated satellite systems continue to catch the public's attention, and promote interest in science and engineering for people of all ages. Moreover, the results of these missions have expanded greatly our knowledge of the solar system and beyond, providing us with information for future exploration --- one of the key NASA missions. The fy2006 request as submitted is actually punitive to the past successes of NASA. And it is contrary to our need to encourage and stimulate the improvements to our educational, scientific, and technical infrastructure that are so greatly needed in our country.
12.	I believe that we should structure our missions so as to nurture the next generation of PIs. Goldin's approach always made good sense to me--frequent small missions with higher risk. On another point, your survey uses the word 'exploration' which has two meanings within today's NASA, one related to human presence, the other robotic. However you publish the results of your survey, please be careful to distiguish the two. My replies refer to robotic missions. Their goals should never be conflated with manned exploration so that, when Congress kills off the latter, it doesn't take part of the planetary program along with it.
13.	Large missions should not be completely eliminated, but my preference is for more frequent, smaller missions with shorter lead time and current cutting-edge technology so that a slightly higher risk of failure can be tolerated and potential payback be very large!
14.	Small- to medium-sized missions with selected foci should be funded by a solid budget provided every year. This constant funding will allow the long-term employment of highly qualified technical and scientific personnel. The missions should profit not only from skills, but also from experience. Aside support staff, the maintenance and optimization of research sites (buildings, airfields, etc) would be ensured. The more organized the funding is, the more effective the system can work towards incremental aims.
15.	Small missions are the lifeblood of NASA, period
16.	Smaller missions are critical for training the next generation of engineers and scientists.
17.	My answer to #3 is primarily directed towards New Frontiers missions, not Flagships.
18.	I believe the cap levels on Discovery and possibly Scout (maybe not for Scout) are too low. Therefore, I've ranked New Frontier as higher priority, because I think exciting science can be done at that level. I don't think R&A should be touched, but if push comes to shove, we still must have new missions to keep the field moving forward. I love Flagship missions, but I don't think they should be highest priority when the money is contracting. If proper budgetary support is restored, then I think they should still be pursued.
19.	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.
20.	The funding available for scout and discovery places too tight a constraint on the possible missions.
21.	In spite of my support for Discovery it is not clear to me that NASA's choices in every case have been the best missions for the science and the science community. Missions of fairly broad exploration to new places or regions, such as Messenger and Dawn (and the Pluto mission on the NF side) will rewrite far more solar system texts than a Deep Impact or a Stardust or a Genesis. My opinion anyway.