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.