C
Center Leads and Analysis Group Comments
As part of its data-gathering process, the committee solicited perspectives from representatives of the various planetary science analysis/assessment groups and the NASA center leads for planetary science. The analysis/assessment groups (AGs) comprise members of the planetary-science community whose research is broadly aligned with specific solar system bodies and/or research themes. The AGs meet several times each year and provide input to the NASA Advisory Council through the Planetary Science Subcommittee. The center leads were asked for input because the NASA centers host research and mission activities that are quite distinct from those generally found in the academic research community. Moreover, civil servant scientists at NASA centers frequently work under different constraints than their counterparts in academia. Representatives of the AGs and several NASA centers gave presentations to the committee on the concerns expressed by their colleagues concerning the research and analysis (R&A) reorganization and current structure. The committee heard community perspectives from representatives of the following organizations:
-
Analysis/Assessment Groups:
- CAPTEM: Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials
- LEAG: Lunar Exploration Analysis Group
- MAPSIT: Mapping and Planetary Spatial Infrastructure Team
- MEPAG: Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group
- OPAG: Outer Planets Assessment Group
- SBAG: Small Bodies Assessment Group
- VEXAG: Venus Exploration Analysis Group
-
NASA Center Leads for Planetary Science:
- ARC: Ames Research Center, California
- GSFC: Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland
- JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
- JSC: Johnson Space Center, Texas
- MSFC: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama
The representatives of the AGs and NASA science centers were provided with the charge to the committee and asked to provide their communities’ perspectives on the questions in the charge. The committee also encouraged the representatives to provide input on other aspects of the current program and the R&A reorganization that they felt were pertinent to the charge of the committee. The committee notes that some of the issues raised by representatives of the AGs and the NASA centers (and reported below) in response to the committee’s request could be described as anecdotal. Other responses relate to long-standing issues having been brought to the fore by, but unrelated to, the reorganization of the R&A program. As such, a detailed examination of them is far beyond the limited scope of the current study. The committee appreciates all these community perspectives as inputs in their deliberations, but notes that all findings and recommendations resulted directly from committee discussions.
Based on the presentations made by the representatives of the AGs and the NASA science centers and their subsequent discussions with the committee, their responses were formatted as seven tables (Tables C.1 to C.7). The perspectives from the representatives of the AGs and the science centers are to be found in the left and right columns, respectively.
TABLE C.1 Are PSD R&A Program Elements Linked to NASA PSD Goals and Objectives?
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | Yes in principle, no in practice | ARC | Better aligned with NASA science goals and the decadal survey |
| LEAG | Mostly yes | ||
| MAPSIT | No specific comment | GSFC | Better aligned with NASA goals enabling better program balance and resource direction |
| MEPAG | Appear to be linked but it is all very broad. Not appropriately divided among program elements | ||
| JPL | No specific comment | ||
| OPAG | Yes, however a one-to-one matching doesn’t work. Most grants contribute to multiple top-level themes | JSC | Maps well to the stated science goals and resources allocated accordingly. Great for search for life and habitability |
| SBAG | Many of the “new” programs are based on very broad questions, while “old” programs were often technique based | ||
| MSFC | Better mapped to decadal survey | ||
| VEXAG | Yes, but current elements are broad | ||
TABLE C.2 Community Perspectives on the Current R&A Program Structure
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | Structured well in principle, but not in practice. Low selection numbers are a red flag | ARC | Uncertainties about program boundaries, leads researchers to submit similar proposals to multiple programs (SSW, HW, and EW) |
| LEAG | The five major programs need to be separated into subprograms. MatISSE and PICASSO programs are welcomed | ||
| GSFC | Anticipate positive effects associated with interdisciplinary programs, specifically HW and XRP | ||
| MAPSIT | PDART is a strong addition but oversubscribed and underfunded. Planetary Geology and Geophysics is a big loss | ||
| JPL | SSW too large, cumbersome, ill-understood catch-all | ||
| MEPAG | Reasonable job of making sure there was a home for every relevant proposal | JSC | Reevaluate scope of SSW. Fewer programs, fewer opportunities to propose, timing is more critical, greater likelihood for a gap year |
| OPAG | Structured well in terms of ocean worlds technology development, not for fundamental research (declined 32.5 percent) | ||
| MSFC | SSW is too big, greater likelihood for gap year in funding in some programs | ||
| SBAG | No specific comment | ||
| VEXAG | The current R&A structure is process based. R&A program overall lacks specific structure to develop target-oriented knowledge base | ||
TABLE C.3 Perspectives on the Effectiveness of Review Panels in the Current R&A Structure
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | Systematic cross-calibration may be difficult between subpanels in broad programs like EW or SSW | ARC | Ensure that interdisciplinary proposals are reviewed by interdisciplinary scientists, not by multiple specialists |
| LEAG | Some programs (e.g., SSW) encompass such a broad range of topics that it becomes impossible to find qualified, non-conflicted reviewers to adequately assess proposals | GSFC | No specific comment |
| JPL | Reviewers with adequate breadth of knowledge required to evaluate SSW proposals are rare and conflict of interest policies restrict pool of reviewers | ||
| MAPSIT | No specific comment | ||
| MEPAG | The current structure creates large elements creating a challenging environment to identify qualified, unconflicted review panels | JSC | SSW is too large of a catch-all, makes it challenging to assemble a properly qualified panel for proposal review |
| OPAG | Going to be even more difficult to find unconflicted people for the review panel | MSFC | Reviewer pool is more limited since the scope of program element is increased, greater potential for conflict of interest |
| SBAG | Large programs may create issues finding knowledgeable reviewers | ||
| VEXAG | Programmatic imbalance—main issues are reviewer burden (clear) and viability of multiple submittals (need stats). Proposal vetting and timing is incomprehensible | ||
TABLE C.4 Effectiveness of PSD Communication and Transparency of Current Processes
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | Common perception in the community that the decline in selected proposals is a direct (but perhaps unintended) consequence of the HQ decision to apply equal selection rates of 20 percent to all new programs | ARC | Reorganization has been transparent |
| GSFC | Lacking clear published data on funding allocations within R&A programs across the reorganization boundary | ||
| JPL | No specific comment | ||
| LEAG | No specific comment | JSC | Lacking good communication of what is expected to be funded. Reorganization was not well advertised |
| MAPSIT | Unclear among community how and what types of maps should be done under PDART or other programs | ||
| MSFC | Reorganization is transparent, but the priority of each program and its various elements is not | ||
| MEPAG | No specific comment | ||
| OPAG | Many SSW grants contribute significantly to habitability. If just grants in Habitable Worlds contribute to the Habitability theme, they are under-reporting by at least 2X. There is more habitability research done in SSW (80 grants) than in Habitability (14 grants) | ||
| SBAG | As stated in the PSS report, restructuring of R&A program should be required to pass a formal senior review prior to implementation. SBAG finds that the submission of a draft ROSES 2014 document to the PSS does not constitute sufficient review and assessment | ||
| VEXAG | Perceptions that restructuring was essentially a money-saving exercise without regard to community burden | ||
TABLE C.5 Selection Rates for Funding of Proposals in the Current R&A Program
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | PSD should prioritize its critical needs and not necessarily be tied to equal selection rates for the various defined programs | ARC | Decreasing selection rates, researchers need to write too many proposals to secure salary support |
| LEAG | No specific comment | GSFC | Selection rates declined to 1/5 |
| MAPSIT | No specific comment | JPL | Low selection rates specifically in cosmochemistry and geochemistry |
| MEPAG | No specific comment | ||
| OPAG | 14 percent reduction in number of new OPAG-centric R&A grants and 32.5 percent reduction of fundamental research grants | JSC | Selection rates declined to 1/5 |
| MSFC | No specific comment | ||
| SBAG | Low selection rates weaken astromaterial research, which motivates and enables new missions and may drive knowledgeable, experienced U.S. scientists out of the field | ||
| VEXAG | Low success rates induced negative feedback and decrease workforce efficiency | ||
TABLE C.6 Level of R&A Support of Field-Based and Analog Investigations
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | No specific comment | ARC | No specific comment |
| LEAG | Decrease in funding PSTAR does not appear to translate to what gets funded | GSFC | No specific comment |
| JPL | Negative impacts felt in programs that require significant infrastructure and support personnel (i.e., laboratory cosmochemistry) | ||
| MAPSIT | No specific comment | ||
| MEPAG | The R&A programs need to support field research and general research on impact crater materials, to elucidate fundamental processes relevant to Mars | ||
| OPAG | No specific comment | JSC | Priority appears to be to diminish sample studies; perception is that contributions not valued |
| SBAG | No specific comment | ||
| VEXAG | No specific comment | ||
| MSFC | No specific comment | ||
TABLE C.7 Do the Current PSD R&A Program Elements Adequately Support Existing and Enable Future Missions?
| Analysis Group | NASA Center | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| CAPTEM | No specific comment | ARC | No specific comment |
| LEAG | The current lack of focus on theoretical modeling, laboratory work, and new software development is severely hindering our ability to understand new data and apply it to future mission studies | GSFC | Technology support for flight programs is critical for NASA success, but stable and long-term infrastructure support not integrated well in the programs |
| MAPSIT | Should proposals supporting current and future missions be given priority? | ||
| MEPAG | Loss of MFRP seriously diminishes the ability to perform investigations crucial to framing questions for future missions | JPL | No specific comment |
| JSC | No specific comment | ||
| OPAG | No spacecraft data from Outer Planets between end of Cassini Saturn orbiter and Juno Jupiter orbiter and arrival of Europa Clipper multiflyby mission (approx. 10-year gap) | MSFC | No specific comment |
| SBAG | No specific comment | ||
| VEXAG | No specific comment | ||
