Post

These changes are causing quite a bit of stir in the space science community, and many of us have a *lot* of questions. However, the biggest issue with NASA's missions isn't a lack of industry involvement or length of review. It's that NASA lacks the money to fly missions regularly.

For example, the last time NASA's Planetary Science Division competed their larger mission class, New Frontiers, was 2017. (Dragonfly was the winner, selected in 2019.) The last Discovery competition was in 2019, with selections in 2021. And those missions won't now fly til the next decade.

So it's great to shorten competition timelines, bring more industry in, open the field to more entrants/PIs/science teams. But if there isn't money to run competitions more frequently... what's the point?

When the cadence of Decadal-guided missions is => 1 decade, the Decadal is of questionable utility. It, and the National Academies are already under attack. Too many people with too much power are intent on breaking things beyond fixing.

Decadals are more than just missions. They identify the important science goals. They justify R&A support and tech development for instruments and spacecraft. Get rid of a DS and see how quickly your program collapses entirely.

There is still tremendous utility to the field reaching a consensus on problems and priorities every ten years. That is how we know what to prioritize with limited resources. Those in authority may ignore those priorities, or fund too little. But we have a better shot if we can point to a consensus.