Survey Comments

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.