1. I disagree with the all or nothing wording of several questions
(agree/disagree). For example, in question 2, 'never' is a mighty
long time, or the use of 'all' in question 5 -- it depends on what
the Flagship mission is supposed to do. 2. I'd like to have a
sliding scale for response to questions 2-5. A lot depends on what
is cut by how much, for which mission, for example. 3.
Realistically, the above need to be evaluated on a case by case
basis. I am don't believe that one can formulate inflexible rules
as used in the survey questions. 4. This survey asks the right
questions. I hope that a large number of our colleagues complete
the survey in order to increase its value to NASA and Congress. 5.
I found these questions hard to answer, because they are cast in
black-and-white general terms, and don't reflect the subtler
nuances that really should be considered. A well-balanced program
of discovery, incorporating all four categories, is what people
should seek. There may be short-term fluctuations in each of these
programs, depending on changes in spending in others (the
initiation of a large mission, for example). This has to be decided
on the relative merits on a case-by-case basis. Stability of
funding, including for people's salaries, is important, but this
needs to be regarded in terms of maintaining a healthy
infrastructure supporting planetary (and other) exploration. It
should not be projected as a WPA program for scientists. While
priortization is needed, given the current budget climate and
limitations, perhaps a bigger concern is that the nation does not
sufficiently value the importance of exploration, and allocates
such a small portion of its expenditures toward it. 6. These are
very loaded questions, the kind I would expect from a political
pollster. Were these written by a scientist or a politician??? 7. I
didn't fill out the bingo card part of the form because I think it
is overly simplistic, will be misleading, and may be harmful. We
are being put in the position of the mother who has to decide which
of her children she will send to Auschwitz and which she will save.
I don't think we should agree to play this game because there is an
alternative. What is needed is a balanced program with elements in
all of the categories of work. The decadal review provided such a
balanced program in the context of a particular budget scenario. If
that scenario is changing substantially then I think the
conclusions of the previous decadal review are rendered invalid.
Redefining priorities on the fly is fraught with peril. The best
approach, if the reduced budget scenario is taken as a given, is to
undertake a new review. This is not feasible on a short timescale.
The best approach on the short timescale is to work through the
political system to restore the budget to the level anticipated by
the decadal review. This needs to be done across the board. Such an
activity is underway, and I understand it is having some success.
It needs to be supported as broadly and forcefully as possible. 8.
What a terribly designed survey. This is reminiscent of political
'poll' that asks questions like: 'Should honesty and integrity be
restored to Congress?' or 'Do you agree that we need to maintain a
strong military to protect our families from terrorists?' If even
one person responded 'agree' to question 5 I would be surprised;
therefore question 5 is a bogus question. So is ranking R&A and
missions in a 1-4 ranking. Big and small missions feed the R&A
system--all are needed! And so is a realistic assessment of the
future of planetary science, as was the Decadal Survey. Read
it--excellent answers are within. 9. The problem with this
questionnaire is that it is 'loaded' - not all options are given
10. I disagree with the basic premise of the poll and how the
introduction is worded. Prioritization, while important, is NOT
vital. What is vital is returning to the growth plan for space
science, which was part of the budget plan until this year and
which would be consistent with the President's competitiveness
initiative. We should NOT blame the crewed spacecraft. What's
eating our lunch is continuing to pour money into shuttle and ISS,
even as they are scheduled for phase-out. NASA SMD officials are,
of course, forced to adhere to Bush directives and thus are happy
to have us advising them that we prefer to give up our liver in
order to preserve our brain or our heart (or some other priority).
The focus of our efforts should be on the Congress, which is not
constrained to the Bush budget, but actually could create a bigger
pie. A healthy Planetary Program is one that preserves or enhances
R&A, maintains vigorous Discovery and New Frontiers missions,
and proceeds with important flagship missions. It is our
community's official policy, as reflected in the currently-ignored
decadal survey. Let's get past this focus on prioritization and
start devoting our energies to restoring a healthy program. 11. I
think it sad that there appears to be a 'either this or that
attitude.' I think the community needs a balance among the various
missions, research and analysis programs. Why set one approach
against another? Let's work together to lay out a strategic plan
that presents all approaches in a rational framework. 12. I'm not
sure that this question should be put to a vote. In the past, this
type of recommendation has come from an advisory committee. As you
are polling the community, it would be interesting to see how the
community feels about the existence of the advisory committees. And
what is the better way to set these priorities by community vote or
through an advisory committee? Thank you for conducting this
survey. Were you asked to do this or was this done on your own
initiative? 13. I can't believe this. Other than that the questions
are phrased very manipulatively, I wonder, is this the new way that
the scientific community is going to conduct discourse, with random
people doing 'surveys' and presenting the results to Congress, OMB,
and NASA? I would love to know who appointed Mark Sykes to become
the community's spokesperson using this clumsy tool! If you could
just take one second and see this from a politician's point of
view, this survey is essentially writing Congress the conditions of
our surrender, at a time when we are still in the midst of working
for the restoration of _full_ funding! As a scientist working
closely with my own reps on Capitol Hill, I am deeply embarrassed
that this is happening. Worse, you have made us all feel forced to
participate in this very narrowly written 'survey'. 14. Question 4
is worded in a way that I can't answer. If something has to be
'skipped' that really means we didn't lay out a realistic budget
plan in the first place. Instead of 'skipping' things, let's just
use more realistic budgets and schedules. Maybe Discovery mission
starts should be every 24 months, for instance, and New Frontiers
every 7 years? We need to strike a balance so that occasionally New
Frontiers and even Flagship missions do fly. There is important
science that can only be done by large missions. But the damage
done by cannibalizing R&A and small missions on an emergency
basis is too drastic to allow. If anything is to be 'stretched out'
to accommodate budget problems in a large mission, it should be the
interval before the next large mission. A lot could also be done by
limiting mission cost growth. NASA should be more ruthless in
killing programs found to have low-balled their cost estimates and
the scientific community needs to support those decisions, even
though we hate to see the loss of science that it causes. 15. I am
ambivalent on questions 3 and 4. It really depends on what is meant
by 'stretching out' and 'skipping' . If it would be a delay by 1
year (per five years), the stretching would be acceptable; if it
means skipping a mission alltogether, I disagree. 16. These
questions are a bit front loaded. Money needs to be spent on the
best ideas regardless of size. A vigorous R& D program is what
is really required. Technology is critical to more and better
missions. 17. I like the continuum approach, tightening belts
occasionally for larger efforts. But there are some targets in
planetary science (outer planets) that would be very difficult in a
Discovery dominated environment. And the continuum needs to be
managed to ensure quality science rather than security of
investigators. Overall, these questions were crafted with more
intelligence than I'm used to in such surveys. 18. It would be
interesting to know the statisics on 1 Number of researches ( grad
students and PhDs) supported per million dollars in each catergory
and 2 number of papers published per million dollars in each
category 19. It is hard for me to discuss this for as I am not
familiar with the terminology used in this survey. However, I am
one of the people hit by the Astrobiology cuts and I am not liking
it. Naturally. 20. Your survey is a little too black and
white...'never' is a dangerous phrase. I'd be inclined to agree
with 4 if it said R&A was reasonably affected rather than not
affected at all. I also might agree with 5 if the implication was
not the decimation of the other aspects of space science research
and missions. 21. None of these questions can be easily answered as
they all involve various shades of grey. There is no single
priority that can be set, since a vigorous and healthy program
requires a balance between all of the mission sizes/types and
between flight missions and R and A. Any one can be allowed to
displace others in a single year, as long as the overall program is
balanced in the long run and as long as the program is sufficiently
stable that we can plan for the out years and not do everything a
year at a time. Please contact me for further elaboration if
desired. Bruce Jakosky bruce.jakosky@lasp.colorado.edu 22. I don't
like this survey because it doesn't show the need to protect
investment. I.e., once a mission has been approved, its funds must
be protected so the research and analysis related to the mission
get done!! NASA has a tendency to 'borrow' funds friom big missions
to support new initiatives. Unfortunately, these 'loans' are
usually not paid back. 23. In item #2, the word 'never' is too
strong. R&A should be quasi-statically adjustable as the
science issues and strategies change, but big discontinuities that
follow political swings are very destructive to scientific progress
and community morale, and they drastically reduce R&A
cost-effectiveness. In item #3, again, the degree of sacrifice is
relevant to its advisability. In general, I think that the fiscal
competition between space science and space athletics (crewed
spaceflight) has been very destructive. Both are important, and so
they should be funded separately. 24. Though I have filled out this
survey, I must note that I find it very limited and limiting, and I
have some concern about how the results of this survey may be
used/interpreted. 25. Questions 3,4,5 require much more informatin
than provided here to evaluate the relative importance of specific
missions. Manned and unmanned programs should be much better
coordinated in the future as manned programs provide a means to
conduct science in key sites. 26. These questions are unfortunately
too broad and general, and do not allow for the fact that answers
would depend on individual circumstances. (e.g., for #4, the answer
obviously would depend on whether the additional expense of a
flagship mission was justified on the basis of outstanding
opportunity to accomplish science that would not be possible with
less expensive alternatives.) In general, I favor more small
robotic missions over emphasis on manned space flight, since I
believe it has the best chance to maximize science return per
dollar spent. While I do recognize the potential advantages of
human presence on a scientific planetary expedition, such as the
ability to make judgment calls on site, the expense of developing
such technological capability will seriously hamper all other
scientific research efforts in the intervening years. 27. It makes
sense to try to prioritize these science missions with regards to
each other. Trying to argue priorities between one type of mission
(solar system) and another (human exploration, aeronautics) is only
destructive to all NASA programs. 28. The options set forth in
ithis survey are limited; -- surely these are not the ONLY ways
solar system exploration can be done !!! Please allow for input of
alternative ideas in administration and organization of the science
enterprise. The current 'straitjacket system' is such that past
fundees get to control who are the future fundees. This provides
for a closed circle of influence. Those who have been sitting on
'boards' should be regularly exchanged for different persons who
have had no influence fo far. Get ideas and insights from
scientists who have not been funded in this closed loop for a
decade or so. OTHERWISE: The 'new breakthroughs' would only be
little wrinkles on the existing lines of thought. 29. The answers
to the questions above depend directly on the science in each
mission, and would change depending on the nature of each mission.
We should talk about the importance of science, not of missions.
30. Don't read too much into my repsonses ... this survey doesn't
allow for strength of agreement/disagreement (as the use of a
Likert scale would), and none of my responses are particularly
strong. 31. The survey does not address the question of what to do
with projects of all sizes that are already started. The survey
should ask whether we should continue things that are already
going, and defer things that are not. In my opinion, canceling
things that have already been started and are well along can have
catastrophic consequences, whether they are small, medium, or
large. It also does not address the question of whether flagship
missions support and justify R&A; clearly they do. It also does
not discuss the fact that flagship missions make public support for
NASA possible, in a way far beyond a large number of small
missions. My priorities apply to NEW projects. But we can't afford
to waste what we're already doing. In my view, we ought to allocate
comparable amounts of funds to the 4 listed categories, and do
missions at the rates that are allowed by those funding levels.
That means that the flight rate is inversely proportional to the
budget for each category. That does not mean we ought to cancel a
flagship mission just because the Agency is funding the CEV. This
whole subject is open because NASA has not had an advisory
structure for a long time. Now it has one. This survey may be input
for their consideration, but it surely can not replace the careful
advice of a well-informed panel. 32. My concern with this type of
survey is that people will only vote for their personal interests.
You should have a question identifying where the majority of the
respondents funding comes from. I will admit that I am funded by
R&A and I list it as the most important. R&A is the most
important because missions mean nothing if there is no money to
analyze or understand the results. 33. While I strongly agree with
your premise that sacrificing science programs in favor of flagship
missions is very bad policy, and want to support you in this
effort, I find the bias in the questions absurdly transparent, to
the point of being offensive. I fear this survey will hurt our
cause in the long run. Please reconsider the questions: formulate
them so that conscientious people on both sides of the issue can
answer sincerely. 34. " The question is not ``what are the highest
priorities''; it is ``what is the best balance''. " 35. Question 1
didn't allow all possible combinations of answers (up to 3 boxes
could only be ticket), so disregard my answers to that. This whole
Questionnaire isn't very useful, the questions are not addressing
the essence of the problem. For this to be of any use and impact I
propose doing it with the DPS together. 36. excellent survey. after
answering questions 2-5, i understood my priorities better, and
went back to switch my #1 and #2 choices so that R&A came first
over flagship missions. 37. This survey is extremely dangerous, and
is not to our benefit. The results, if disseminated to the
manager/politicos at HQ and in Congress, will enable them to do
wholesale cuts based on the community 'recommendations'. 'The
Science Community spoke, and told us to these particular cuts',
they'll claim. 'We're just doing what you scientrists told us to
do!'. And thus the blood of these cuts will be on our hands, not
theirs... Our philosphy should be to stay strong and present a
UNIFIED front, where all of these programs are equally important.
None should be cut. Congress needs to do the proper thing and
preserve or even expand our budget. Let them try to decide which
project is more important. When they utterly fail at that, and come
asking for recommendations, we should just tell them to fund them
all as the only right and proper thing to do. I can't believe we're
falling for this obvious trap! Once used, This Divide and Conquer
strategy presented here will be used again and again to eventually
evolve to getting just the top priority item, at most, in a few
years. The results of this survey (unless it shows that EVERYTHING
is equally important) should not be dissemnated to any decision
maker....You will rue the day! Two other observations: (1) Where is
the Mars Program? That's the one that obviously should be cut back,
if we're forced to make such decisions...(that decision, at least
to me, is an obvious one!). We spend an inordinate amount of $ on
only one single solar system body in this program... (2) New
Frontiers was developed to make use of an expanded budget, which
Colleen Hartman was apparently able to get us a few years ago.
Seems to me that if decisions have to be made, and the expansion
didn't become permanent, then this one should be cut back earlier
than others (fewer launches per decade,to fit whatever expanded
budget we did get). 38. This is a very biased set of questions.
They are clearly intended to get a large 'vote' for grants and
small missions. This is encouraging an 'entitlement' mentality,
rather than addressing what is best for science. 39. I feel this
survey is next to pointless. A great deal of time and money was
spent on the decadal survey and the Bush administration essentially
ignored that. Why do this again, when the same administration will
just ignore it again. 40. Whereas I believe in the inclusiveness
and innovation provided by competed missions, I am concerned that
the elimination of core, directed missions will gut the foundations
of technology, hardware, and infrastructure that these missions
crucially depend upon. The structure of this survey assumes only
competed missions or flagship missions, and does not allow for
smaller directed missions. 41. You don't even mention the Explorer
program. Why on Earth not? Explorer budgets don't put you on Mars,
but it is one of the most scientifically productive veins of
mission-based research at NASA, and it has been gutted as badly as
any program. The return of the Explorer program to its normal state
should be a top priority at NASA.