Decadal Survey (planetary science)

Decadal Survey (planetary science)
Name	Decadal Survey (planetary science)
Country	United States
Discipline	Planetary science
Established	1960s
Publisher	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Contents

Decadal Survey (planetary science) The Decadal Survey in planetary science is a periodic prioritization exercise that guides National Aeronautics and Space Administration planning, influences United States Congress appropriations, and informs international partners such as the European Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. Produced by panels of experts under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the Survey synthesizes input from institutions including the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Applied Physics Laboratory, the Smithsonian Institution and universities such as California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Arizona. Major historical iterations have shaped flagship missions like Voyager program, Mars Science Laboratory, and New Frontiers program and have involved leaders associated with Carl Sagan, James Van Allen, and Jane Luu.

Overview

The Decadal Survey provides ranked recommendations for missions, technology development, and research priorities to agencies including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy while engaging stakeholders such as the European Southern Observatory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Committees draw membership from organizations like American Geophysical Union, American Astronomical Society, and the International Astronomical Union, and consult laboratories such as the Goddard Space Flight Center, Ames Research Center, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The resulting report influences program offices at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA Goddard, and program managers from projects including Cassini–Huygens, New Horizons, and Pioneer program.

Origins trace to advisory efforts in the 1960s that involved figures from National Academy of Sciences committees and participants from Caltech and MIT, evolving through landmark reports produced in 2003, 2011, and 2013 that influenced missions such as Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Cassini–Huygens, and Europa Clipper. The process has intersected with policy decisions by the United States Congress, budget deliberations in the Office of Management and Budget, and international agreements with agencies like Roscosmos and Indian Space Research Organisation. Key personnel associated with recent Surveys include leaders who have served at Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Carnegie Institution for Science, and Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Surveys are organized under the National Research Council framework with panels representing subdisciplines such as planetary geology, astrobiology, and instrumentation; panels include members drawn from California Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, and University of Colorado Boulder. Methodology employs community input via town halls, white papers submitted by institutions like Planetary Society, SETI Institute, and the Southwest Research Institute, and cost and technical assessments from teams connected to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman. Prioritization uses criteria aligned with strategic aims of NASA Science Mission Directorate and assessments by advisory bodies such as the Presidential Science Advisor and committees convened by the National Academies.

Survey recommendations have led to prioritized flagship missions including the Mars Sample Return campaign, the Europa Clipper mission, and priority platforms in the New Frontiers program such as New Horizons. Past Surveys endorsed projects that became Mars Exploration Rover, Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), Juno (spacecraft), and missions contributing to the Cassini–Huygens outcomes. Recommendations have also driven investments in laboratory facilities at institutions like Smithsonian Institution and observatories such as Arecibo Observatory and W. M. Keck Observatory, plus technology programs in collaboration with DARPA and industry partners like Ball Aerospace.

Survey outputs directly influence NASA budget requests to the United States Congress and shape bilateral cooperation with agencies including the European Space Agency, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities, and the Indian Space Research Organisation. Implementation of Survey priorities has affected staffing and research directions at universities such as Arizona State University, University of Michigan, and Stanford University, and has guided international science returns from missions involving teams at Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, CNES, and UK Space Agency. The Survey has also shaped technology roadmaps relevant to corporations including Honeywell and Airbus Defence and Space.

Critics drawn from institutions such as Planetary Society, university groups at Cornell University and University of Colorado, and members of the broader community have argued the process can favor large institutions like Caltech and JPL and agencies such as NASA over smaller science teams, leading to debates in venues including meetings of the American Geophysical Union and publications involving authors affiliated with Princeton University and University of Oxford. Controversies have arisen over cost growth on flagship missions like James Webb Space Telescope (affecting reallocation despite being an astrophysics mission) and schedule slippage on projects tied to earlier Surveys, prompting scrutiny from the Office of Inspector General (NASA) and testimony before United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Proposals for alternative prioritization frameworks have included suggestions from the National Science Foundation and think tanks such as RAND Corporation and Brookings Institution.