Planetary Science Decadal Survey

Planetary Science Decadal Survey
Name	Planetary Science Decadal Survey
Jurisdiction	United States
Parent agency	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Planetary Science Decadal Survey The Planetary Science Decadal Survey is a periodic assessment and priority-setting exercise conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to guide United States investments in planetary exploration, coordinating input from agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and the National Science Foundation. It synthesizes recommendations from panels of experts drawn from institutions including Caltech, MIT, Stanford University, University of Arizona, and Carnegie Institution for Science to propose mission concepts, technology development, and research priorities that influence programs at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ames Research Center, and the Goddard Space Flight Center. The survey process integrates stakeholder input from professional organizations like the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the European Space Agency as well as advice from advisory bodies such as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Overview

The survey sets decadal-scale priorities for solar system science spanning topics such as terrestrial planets, giant planets, icy moons, small bodies, and astrobiology, linking programmatic choices to scientific goals articulated by panels including representatives from Carnegie Institution for Science, Brown University, University of California, Berkeley, University of Colorado Boulder, and Cornell University. Its outputs—ranked mission recommendations, research priorities, and technology roadmaps—directly inform budget requests to United States Congress, shape mission portfolios at JPL, and coordinate collaborations with international partners such as European Space Agency, Roscosmos, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, Indian Space Research Organisation, and Canadian Space Agency. Panels consider constraints from legislation and policy bodies like the Office of Management and Budget and interact with advisory committees such as the NASA Advisory Council.

History and development

Origins trace to early community-led assessments in the 1970s, evolving through formal decadal exercises convened by the National Research Council and later the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, with landmark reports issued in the 1990s, 2003, 2011, and 2023 informing missions developed at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Applied Physics Laboratory, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. The process has involved notable chairs and contributors from institutions including California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Washington, and Southwest Research Institute, and has intersected with high-profile programs such as the Mars Exploration Program, the Cassini–Huygens mission, and the New Frontiers program. Historical tensions arose around budgetary decisions debated before congressional committees including the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Goals and prioritization process

Goals include advancing knowledge of planetary formation, evolution, habitability, and prebiotic chemistry, aligning community priorities from societies like the American Astronomical Society, the Planetary Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the International Astronomical Union with agency capabilities at NASA, ESA, JAXA, ISRO, and industrial partners such as Boeing and Blue Origin. The prioritization process uses community white papers, NRC-appointed panels, cost-and-schedule assessments by organizations like Ball Aerospace and Aerospace Corporation, and independent technical evaluation by entities such as RAND Corporation and the Space Studies Board. Recommendations are ranked through deliberations that reference missions proposed by teams at Southwest Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, University of Texas at Austin, and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and are presented to policy makers including the President of the United States and congressional appropriations subcommittees.

Major reports and recommended missions

Major decadal reports have endorsed flagship missions and competed tiers such as Flagship, New Frontiers, and Discovery; notable recommended missions and programs include concepts that led to Mars Science Laboratory, Mars 2020 (Perseverance), Europa Clipper, New Horizons, Dragonfly, and precursor studies for concepts like Enceladus Life Finder. Reports have shaped programs under Mars Exploration Program, the Outer Planets Assessment Group, and initiatives with the European Space Agency and Roscosmos for cooperative missions to Saturn, Jupiter, Titan, Europa, Enceladus, Venus, Mercury, and small bodies such as Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko and Asteroid Bennu. Technology recommendations prompted investments in instruments developed by laboratories at Caltech, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center, and companies like Maxar Technologies.

Implementation and impact

Implementation occurs through agency program offices at NASA Science Mission Directorate, with execution by centers including Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Johnson Space Center, and industrial partners such as Lockheed Martin Space and Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. The survey’s influence is evident in mission selection processes for the Discovery program, New Frontiers program, and flagship solicitations and in shaping international collaborations with ESA, JAXA, Roscosmos, and CSA. Impacts extend to workforce development at universities like Arizona State University, Purdue University, University of Michigan, and to instrumentation and data archives maintained by repositories such as the Planetary Data System.

Criticism and controversies

Critiques have addressed perceived biases toward large flagship missions over smaller investigator-led projects, cost growth exemplified by programs overseen at Jet Propulsion Laboratory and disputes over schedule slippages scrutinized by congressional hearings before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Controversies include debates about programmatic trade-offs involving partnerships with Roscosmos and ESA, questions raised by advocacy groups such as the Planetary Society, and tensions between academic priorities at institutions like Caltech and industrial imperatives at firms including Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Further criticism centers on representation and equity within panel selection processes involving organizations like the American Astronomical Society and the National Space Society.

Category:Planetary science