Another somewhat contentious issue discussed throughout the workshop was the balance between science objectives and mission priorities in crafting a decadal survey recommended program. There were some panelists and audience members who felt that the NRC should focus the decadal surveys’ attentions exclusively on scientific priorities and give NASA the leeway to determine how to accomplish those goals, thus making the overall recommended program more resilient to any changes or adversity. According to Kennel, however, following this discussion, he did not hear anyone say that this method of conducting the decadal surveys is inappropriate. “How,” he asked the audience, “can we do the surveys if we don’t have prototype reference missions to assess?” He said that he chose that language carefully because from the three decadal surveys with the CATE process as we know it today, the use of proper phrasing to describe the recommended missions in the surveys matters a great deal for how those mission concepts are perceived and interpreted. Furthermore, the community learned that the purpose of the CATE process was to convince itself that the community is making feasible and actionable recommendations to NASA. In the future, the decadal surveys should take care to clearly explain what the CATE process is and is not. Also, because the CATE estimates are so probabilistic, he suggested that including a description of the uncertainty in cost would better illustrate the fact that the CATE numbers are notional at best, thus conveying cost and risk at the same time.
There also seemed to be, in his opinion, significant support among participants that the decadal survey process cannot do without the CATE process, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement, or that some parts of the process can be done away with. Kennel highlighted the challenges that the different decadal surveys ran into when implementing the CATE process—for instance, occurring late in the process and often forcing decisions before the committees felt ready to make them. Nevertheless, he believes that come the next round of decadal surveys, the NRC will know how to manage the CATE better, including aligning the timing of the CATE process with the larger decision-making element of the decadal survey committee process. Ultimately, future decadal survey committees will have to be careful not to overemphasize the cost of their programs, while also finding a “sweet spot” in the balance of recommendations to convince stakeholders that the community is not being irresponsible.
The workshop also tackled the issue of large-scale missions—or, as the moderator of the high-profile mission panel, John Klineberg, called them, “all-in” missions, which are riskier than small or medium-class missions like the Explorer program. Kennel said that it appears that these missions perhaps demand a far greater risk management commitment than their less risky counterparts, and future decadal surveys could be encouraged to explicitly assign a risk acceptance level to the survey recommendations. This would allow the community to tell NASA what the risk parameters are for the various scientific objectives and measurements recommended in the surveys, or, as Kennel said, “We’re willing to accept the consequences of not getting these measurements, but we’re not willing to risk that over here.” Kennel also emphasized that the risk or profile of a mission (e.g., “high profile”) does not necessarily denote the actual size of a mission.
Finally, after 2 days of discussion, Kennel proclaimed that the bottom line he got from the workshop was this: “Nobody said we shouldn’t have another decadal survey.”
There is another important outcome that simply cannot be captured in any summary report or other document, he observed, but the consequences of which may be far more reaching than any of the others. That is that the participants assembled at the workshop are leaders of different stripes, disciplines, and functions, but leaders nevertheless in the decision-making process for the Earth and space sciences. This community has gone through a turbulent, even potentially disruptive few years—as David Southwood’s presentation from the international panel session would suggest—but the community has assembled to figure out how to move forward. This coming together to discuss how the strategic planning process might be improved is, perhaps, the most important outcome of this workshop.
To this end, Kennel said that he hoped that the discussion that occurred at the workshop does not “walk gently into the night.” So much has been said, and so many issues and opinions surfaced that he believes a document weightier than a workshop summary report is required to adequately capture and advise how to improve this most important process. In his opinion, such a report would take what was said at the workshop and put it into a more formal and deliberative NRC report than can then be used to help guide future decadal surveys.