Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix C: Center Leads and Analysis Group Comments
Pages 48-51

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 48...
... 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 48
From page 49...
... Great for search SBAG  Many of the "new" programs are based on very for life and habitability broad questions, while "old" programs were often MSFC Better mapped to decadal survey  technique based 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. ARC  Uncertainties about program boundaries, leads Low selection numbers are a red flag researchers to submit similar proposals to LEAG  The five major programs need to be separated into multiple programs (SSW, HW, and EW)
From page 50...
... consequence of the HQ decision to allocations within R&A programs across the apply equal selection rates of 20 percent to all new reorganization boundary programs JPL No specific comment LEAG No specific comment JSC  Lacking good communication of what is MAPSIT Unclear among community how and what types expected to be funded. Reorganization was not of maps should be done under PDART or other well advertised programs MSFC Reorganization is transparent, but the priority of MEPAG No specific comment each program and its various elements is not OPAG  Many SSW grants contribute significantly to habitability.
From page 51...
... OPAG No specific comment JSC  Priority appears to be SBAG No specific comment to diminish sample VEXAG No specific comment studies; perception is that contributions not valued 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, GSFC Technology support for flight and new software development is severely hindering our ability to programs is critical for NASA understand new data and apply it to future mission studies success, but stable and longMAPSIT Should proposals supporting current and future missions be given term infrastructure support not priority?


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.