The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.
—Albert Einstein
Notwithstanding any future National Research Council (NRC) detailed assessments of the implementation of any of the decadal surveys—either through a mid-decade assessment of the whole program or a review of the implementation of one particular recommendation of a decadal—the draft Science Plan is generally responsive to the NRC decadal surveys and midterm assessments published between 2007 and 2013. Specific areas where responsiveness was a concern are called out in the discipline-specific sections that appear in Chapter 2 of this report. A number of the challenges NASA faces are broadly discussed in the draft Science Plan, but the details surrounding the manner in which these challenges impact the Science Mission Directorate’s (SMD’s) prioritization of what will be done at the tactical level is not clearly described. A more explicit and transparent description is needed within the plan of the reprioritization process SMD would implement in response to the challenges ahead. This addition would likely decrease the risk that reprioritization decisions would result in unintended negative impacts to the science program.
While issues of interdisciplinary collaboration and scientific balance are discussed in the draft Science Plan, the committee felt (see Chapters 2 and 3) that the latter topic deserved a more thorough treatment pertaining to scientific balance both within and across disciplines. Failure to achieve the appropriate balance can result in the loss of both capability and capacity in specific scientific areas. Moreover, once scientific capacity is lost, it may be difficult or impractical to recreate in an acceptable period of time and within a practical expenditure of resources. One cannot just turn the spigot off and then on again and expect results from the scientific community overnight.
The committee is concerned that the implementation of specific projects described in the draft Science Plan, although superficially responsive to recommendations contained in one or more decadal surveys, is being stretched out too far. A potential consequence of this inefficient implementation is the loss of an entire generation of scientists and engineers with technical ability in the affected disciplines and the substantial erosion of national capabilities and leadership in these areas. The committee’s conversations with NASA personnel demonstrated that they are aware of this issue. However, the draft Science Plan does not communicate this fact effectively. In addition, the draft Science Plan does not offer a description of how NASA plans to address this challenge, nor does it indicate what diminution of short-and long-term capacity and capability the agency is prepared to accept. The committee concludes that a clear description of what constitutes scientific balance, why it is important, and especially the potential impact on NASA programs and national capabilities if balance is not achieved would provide the readers of this report the context from which to make better informed decisions regarding management and prioritization of these space science activities on an SMD-wide and discipline-by-discipline basis.
There are numerous opportunities for intra-governmental and international collaboration in all areas of space science, as discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, and the decadal surveys describe the value of such activities and recommend many to be pursued. The draft Science Plan, however, does not provide a consistent discussion of such collaborations and their value to the program.
The current lack of a clearly understood and functionally coherent education and public outreach program at NASA is an area of concern for the committee. These two areas, while related, are not
identical (see Chapter 5) and need to be approached in a thoughtful manner that serves the goals that they are intended to achieve. The proposal in the administration’s FY2014 budget request to consolidate educational responsibilities outside NASA may offer fiscal advantages, but it is unclear how to do this while achieving the desired impact, that is, demonstrating that specific educational activities have measurable outcomes.
SMD’s draft Science Plan would benefit from clearly articulated goals for the educational program and specific metrics to verify that they are achieved. NASA still needs to decide how it will coordinate with the Department of Education and other agencies in education and public outreach, but it is essential that the parties directly involved with the science effort remain directly involved in certain aspects of the current program if it is to retain the current impact on students’ interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics-related educational pursuits. With regard to public outreach, the committee is concerned that the scientific disciplines not be isolated from participation in the formulation and execution of public outreach activities, since these activities provide a unique opportunity to give investigators an unfiltered, timely mechanism to communicate directly with the public.
The draft Science Plan identifies how SMD will interact with the Space Technology Mission Directorate, but there a clear need for a strategic plan for technology development within SMD that is tied to the overall Science Plan (see Chapter 6). In addition, it is important to recognize that technology development can be a very effective way to foster interdisciplinary activities—for example, in areas such as detectors or entry, descent and landing—but it is not clear from the draft Science Plan that such opportunities are being effectively pursued.
Discussions with NASA personnel allowed the committee to understand how the draft Science Plan is used in the formulation of SMD and NASA Strategic Plan (see Chapter 7). The committee would not have been able to understand this based on the draft Science Plan as currently written. This is a major concern because the inability of the draft Science Plan to clearly communicate its message as a stand-alone document diminishes its overall effectiveness. A plan that does not clearly and directly communicate its goals, schedules, and priorities, along with the threats and obstacles to success, and methods for mitigation of these threats and obstacles, is at risk of failure owing to an inability to muster the coordinated intra- and extra-mural support necessary to achieve its goals. This lack of clear communication, coupled with the present challenges to execution stemming from uncertain and reduced levels of funding, technical challenges, and changing direction from the Administration, makes it extremely remote that the Science Plan, as currently formulated, will be realized.
The draft Science Plan is uneven with respect to the level of detail and clarity across disciplines as well as in its use of examples and graphics that clearly communicate the salient points (see Chapter 8). There were also obvious factual errors and inconsistencies whose presence undercuts the credibility of the plan. It appeared as if the document had been written by committee, but without the benefit of a cohesive editing effort to ensure that the important points were made in a clear, concise, consistent, and compelling manner and that the facts were appropriately checked. The utility of the draft Science Plan would be greatly increased if more care was taken to remedy these shortcomings.
SMD finds itself faced with a number of challenges in the near and more distant future. One of the most fundamental challenges is the uncertain and apparently decreasing level of available funding for space science in real terms, because this has dramatic and real impacts to plans and execution. This fiscal reality makes it more important than ever for SMD to have a clearly articulated and consistently applied method for prioritizing why and how its scarce fiscal resources will be apportioned with respect to the science program in general and on a more granular level among component scientific disciplines. What can, as well as what cannot, be accomplished needs to be clearly and candidly stated. The rationale behind this apportionment needs to be transparently communicated, both internally and externally, so that the impacts of both a tactical and strategic nature are properly understood and taken into account to guide action. Failure to do so could result in the loss of both the capacity and capability in a number of scientific disciplines and technological areas that may take a generation or more to reconstitute once eliminated. Decisions that will cause a failure to achieve previously declared goals, or a loss of national capability and capacity, ought to be a deliberate and clearly communicated choice.