8
Readability and Clarity of Presentation
The draft Science Plan provides a description of the activities undertaken by the Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD’s) four science divisions. The first three chapters contain essential background information on top-level goals and motivations, partnerships with other federal agencies, legislative mandates, strategic planning, and management challenges. The scientific and programmatic meat of the plan is contained in the sections devoted to SMD’s four science divisions in Chapter 4. Each of the four sections begins with an explanation on the divisions’ strategy for addressing the key science questions relevant to addressing the strategic objective assigned to it in the NASA Strategic Plan. The four sections then continue with material on program implementation, current missions, missions in formulation and development, future missions, and technology development. Each divisional section ends with a text box discussing an interdisciplinary topic.
At face value, the draft Strategic Plan is organized in a logical manner. However, closer inspection reveals that it is a work in progress and still bears the hands of multiple authors. While the material in Chapters 1-3 is highly informative and well written, the material relating to the four science divisions contained in Chapter 4 is very uneven. The Earth Science section is the longest, at 16 pages. Whereas the Heliophysics, Planetary Science, and Astrophysics sections occupy 12, 9, and 8 pages, respectively. The operational/applications aspects of the Earth Science and Heliophysics divisions account for part of their length. Currently operating missions of the Astrophysics and Planetary Science divisions are described in only one page, but the same information occupies four pages in the Heliophysics section. Although an explicit length need not be allocated for each topic, more importantly, a consistent level of detail—i.e., one that is commensurate with the purpose of including the information in the first place—would be beneficial so that the reader can assimilate the information in context, and the utility and clarity of the document would be enhanced.
The draft Science plan contains no clear mapping between science goals (contained in Appendix A) and the missions that will address them (contained in Appendix B). Moreover, neither the science goals nor the mission descriptions are related to the priorities established by the appropriate decadal survey. It would be instructive if the draft Science Plan described how the operating, in-development, and future missions contribute to answering the key science questions contained in relevant decadal surveys. More importantly, there is no clear and consistent description of how current plans are, or are not, aligned with decadal survey recommendations and the causes and rationale behind this situation.
Another issue related to the missions is that they are referred to multiple times in many of the sections of Chapter 4. Missions appear first when the program is discussed, again when mission timing is discussed, and again within the tables. As a result, the draft Science Plan contains numerous redundancies, not to mention errors in grammar, style, and factual errors (see Appendix B for examples). An editing of the report, with attention to the elimination of non-value added duplication, and thorough fact checking would increase both the clarity and credibility of the plan and SMD in general.
Additional editorial issues become readily apparent at the interfaces between the various chapters and appendices. Terminology used in one part of the report conflicts with terminology used in other parts of the report. Multiple definitions of some technical terms appear in slightly different forms in different parts of the report. The spacecraft flown under the aegis of the Planetary Science Division’s Discovery
program, for example, are small by that division’s standards. But, Discovery missions are medium size compared with the spacecraft flown in the Heliophysics Division’s Explorer program. The result is mutual inconsistencies at the interfaces between the text and tables in the chapters and the tabular material.
The committee assumes, based on an examination of NASA 2010 Science Plan, that the published version of the 2014 Science Plan will be appropriately illustrated. The only illustrations available in the draft Science Plan are the graphical representations of the currently operating missions (Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 in the draft Science Plan). The strong initial impression presented by these graphics is of a vibrant spaceflight program with activities in all important scientific and operational domains. Closer inspection reveals that the spacecraft are color coded as to their operational status—i.e., in formulation, implementation, primary operations, or extended operations—and that the missions nearing the end of their lives far outnumber those in formulation or implementation. Graphics that more clearly communicate the actual status of the programs would be a boon to the reader.
The committee believes that a more straightforward presentation of the downsizing that is occurring in NASA’s scientific spacecraft constellations and the impact on mission timelines, accomplishment of objectives, including the reasons for this, is warranted. A model for such an articulation of the current situation can be found in the timeline that appears as Figure 1 in the 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan. The inclusion of missions sponsored by foreign space agencies would be a useful addition to such timelines.
In conclusion, there are numerous factual and other errors in the draft Science Plan as well as the absence of a consistent style or level of detail across the document. Moreover, the draft Science Plan does not contain a clear description of how the program, as now proposed, is consistent with or varies from past NASA plans and the recommendations from the various decadal surveys. Also, the associated long- and short-term impacts to the space science program caused by the substantial reduction in resources on planned implementation and the rationale for these changes is not clearly described.
Recommendation: A thorough review and editing of the draft Science Plan should be undertaken to ensure that it is more concise, factually accurate, self consistent, and relevant to the message that NASA intends to convey to potential readers and stakeholders.
Recommendation: A clear description and accounting of how the current plan varies from past plans, and the underlying reasons for any deviations should be provided.
