>> I know that breaks are one of the fun part of these conferences but we are on a pretty tight schedule this morning at least because we have to conclude by 11:45 so you can listen to Jim Green's talk at lunch time. So I hope that the folks that are outside getting their coffee will come back in soon. I think we are going to get under way. We have a very exciting panel coming up of four excellent papers that are going to be given. It's a two hour panel discussion. There is no break in this panel discussion either, I regret. So if you need tyo get up feel free to do so. My main job here today is to keep the trains running on time so that we are in fact out of here by 1145 and each of our presenters has had an equal amount of time to give their presentations.
For those of you who don't know me I'm Marsha Smith. I'm a veteran space policy analyst here in Washington and these days I have a website called spacepolicyonline.com. It builds upon my very long experience at the congressional research service although I've been in alot of other places as well while I've been in Washington. I have actually been a space policy analyst for 40 of the 50 years that we're celebrating here today so it's been quite a long time. But as I said, my job is to keep the trains running on time and what we all agreed to is that each speaker will speak for 20 mintutes and then there will be a five minute question and answer period for that speaker. And that should give us fifteen minutes at the end for a broad question and answer discussion. And I'm not sure where everybody is going, but..
Maybe they are going to have them march in here in unison I'm not quite sure. In any case, I am going to change the order of the presentations a little bit. Dwayne Day will be first and then Jason and then Roger and then John Andretti. so there is a little switch there in the middle because it made the flow of the papers better. just to remind you again to silence your cell phones and we, of course, encourage questions in between each of the speakers and then at the end. As a courtesy, keep your questions very concise and directed at a speaker. I will start off with Dwayne day. There are longer biographies for the speakers on the website and in the program. Dwayne gave the most concise biog graph fee I have ever seen that says he is, in facts a senior program officer at the national academy of sciences right now.
He is a very well known space historian. I would like to invite Dwayne now to come up and give his presentation. After they have spoken for 20 minutes, I will come up to the podium to make sure they conclude. >> Thank you. I'm reminded that this is a pretty small community, the field that we are in and I was reminded of it even more when I looked at the agenda a few weeks ago and I looked at my panel. Marsha Smith used to be my boss and now she serves as a study Director. Also on this panel and Andre and I used to work for John who was on the panel as well as Jason who used to work with me at the state board and now Jason now works with my girlfriend at NASA …
Indiscernible … it is a really small community and
I notice on the agenda there are a number of speakers who work on various national academies over the years in particular a few of the ones that are up here. When I was putting together this presentation, I was doing a whole bunch of covers on the national academes … 95 plus studies that the academies have done on planetary … the exact number is somewhat IFFY. It works out to almost two studies a year that we have done for NASA. I put four of them up here.
The two of them left were ones that I was directly involved with and I think you can actually trace some direct … you can directly trace some recent space policy decisions to the work that we did for the national academy of sciences. The one second to the left there, opening new frontiers in space, we helped develop a list of possible missions … planetary science missions that could be conducted and one that is currently under mission resulted from the work we did on that study. The study on the left, greeting national solar system exploration program was an assessment of the survey and that study I think deserves a fair amount of the blame for the cuts that the mars program got a few years ago. That was not our intention. We provided a report card of what NASA is doing in space in planetary exploration. We gave the mars program an A plus, they were doing a great job and that was used by the associate administrator as an excuse to cut the program. They figured an A plus was a enough.
The two studies on the right are the 2001 and the most recent decade survey and I actually brought copies of the popular version and I have a copy of the much heavier report itself if anybody wants it. I'm not carrying them back with me. I will gladly hand them out and the surveys are ultimately the most important documents, important studies that the academies do right now with space science.
If you have been paying attention to what has been going on in the planetary science field very closely this year you may have noticed extra ordinary aspects of it. There was earlier this year rather starting draft legislation that came out of Congress which cited the language out of the survey and told NASA you will do this. We have a disfunctionnal political system so that Congress is not actual turning any of their budgets … indiscernible … but had that continued and go on, you would have seen I think an interesting example of something that is … it turns out it has existed for quite a long time. Where the national academy of sciences produces a report and then Congress tells the administration, tells the executive branch that they should be following the guidance that is established in that report.
This rep goes back a … relationship goes back a very long way. It was established before NASA. It was established a few months before NASA. You can go back even earlier to this very famous picture here and that picture was … that photograph was actually taken in the national academy of sciences building. You go in that building and you can find the corner of the main ate yum of where that photograph was taken. I think it was on a stand back there about how after the … indiscernible … how the scientists they held a press conference and it was 3:00AM in Washington, D.C.
And it was cold and Ryan knee and they were in … rainy and they expected 3 in the morning there would not be anybody there and they showed up and the room was packed with reporters. It was a very big deal. I think it is an interesting fact that this was a military rocket that launched the spacecraft and it was an American achievement and they could have held the press conference at the Pentagon. They could have held it at the White House. They held it in the national academy of science building. There are a lot of reasons for that. There is a lot of symbolism for that. It makes the point, I think, that when the science … when the American space program looks for scientific legit mass see, ultimately they come to the national academy of science to gain that legit mass tee.
It was established in it's summer of 1958. There was an early struggle between NASA and the academies between who would be responsible for establishing the goals within the state science. They came to a rather awkward compromise that NASA would be in charge because it is the executive … part of the executive branch but that the goals would be recommended by national academy of sciences report. Soon after the academy of the space science board was established, they stood up a bunch of different committees and one of the committees was right up there at the top. Gee yes chemistry of space and moon and planet. That committee existed for a little over a decade. It was one of eventually 8 that were established and over the years has been …
existed until a few years ago when … indiscernible … plant survey and has now been super seeded by what we call … . >> … captioners transitioning … what you once again urged enter the planetary committee. These were the standing committees that are just the issue of when the Tory issues for NASA.
As I said, over the years we have had over 90% of our studies that have been performed usually at NASA requests occasionally a congressional or OMB direction. I will focus on a couple of key events in the history of the program, the history of this relationship. the first one, in 1962 there was an Academy report that among many other things it address the broad range of space science issues among many other issues it is recommended that NASA needed scientist/astronauts. It is a rather amazing chapter in the report because of the enthusiasm that comes across. You can see that these scientists were very much caught up in the excitement of the early space program. >> It is one of the few places where I have seen an Academy report that uses exclamation marks at some points. They thought this was a great idea and one of the things that struck me about this is that I was familiar with the skepticism within the scientific community. If you know about James Van Allen comments about human space flight, about Jerome Weidner's skepticism of the Apollo program, it is rather amazing to see … to report so enthusiastically and embrace the idea, and humans performing that.
>> I think that what you see from this is that it is kind of a middle position. This is a case where the Academy in some ways just used the skepticism that we saw in the broader scientific community, and legitimized it somehow. That report came out and I think NASA, reluctantly accepted the recommendation that was there. I see everyone looking skeptically where it is coming from, it is not my phone. What NASA agreed to do was to ask the Academy to recommend scientist to become astronauts.
So the Academy held a review panel, they recommended 16 candidates. Most of them did get accepted into the astronaut program. >> the key focus of this effort was of course to put a geologist on the moon. NASA accepted the geologist into the program and then put them as well as the other scientists less astronaut's at the back of the list. Unfortunately, as Apollo got scaled back that person actually, here since Smith fell off the list. Even though a sign to a Apollo 18, then there was Apollo 18 got canceled, then there was some backroom pressure applied to NASA and ultimately got him reassigned to Apollo 17 and he flew to the moon.
>> It is a great case of the interaction between the scientific man at he and NASA to put science into the program. It ultimately did not have as great of an affect on Apollo as it did elsewhere but there was a number of scientists last asked not set flew on the shuttle and it really opened up that program. >> I want to jump ahead to about a decade later to the early 1970s on the grand tour recommendation. A lot of you know what the grand two or was. The grand tour, there was a planetary alignment that happens every 100 and 79 years, I forget the exact amount, you can send out a spacecraft and hit a whole bunch of the planets as you fly pass them and it was a very rare opportunity.
>> There was a big push for this mission. Yet, in the early 1970s the science Board did an assessment where they produced a study where they assess space science across the discipline. They look strongly at planetary science and what they came to the conclusion that the grand tour mission was not a top priority. There was a lot of news on this, they were concerned about the reliability of the spacecraft, they are concerned about the cost of the mission. But ultimately they did not recommend it as their top prior the. >> According to a contemporary account that is nature magazine at the time, this was a rather surprising recommendation coming from the Academy. Yet, when the NASA budget came out a few months later, the grand tour mission was at the top of the list, they wanted it funded. They were ignoring the recommendations. What ultimately happened was that even though the budget process went forward, ran to her was approved, it then got …
It died a Little League of that summer. There was a lot of reasons for that. >> If you go back and look at the Congressional legislation at the time, the Congress specifically cited the lack of support from the assess see in killing that mission. It got killed, the Nixon administration took the can and they killed the mission. There is a very good paper about the grand tour mission and why it fell apart. It appeared in 1997, in far more detail than I could ever assemble on this. But that paper by David Gruber Scott, he actually cited the lack of support for this nation and the scientific community for the Main reason a, killed. >> As in the Voyager mission, they were many ways more efficient than the grand to her and they were not supposed to do the full grand tour. That experience at the time opted Jim Raynes predecessor, the person in charge of the planetary program in the early 1970s to develop a kind of model to what leads ultimately to successful science missions, getting successfully approved. You said they have to pass through for Gates.
The first was approval from the scientific community, second, approval from NASA management and then Congress and OMB had to approve these missions. The key was eating scientific approval and of course that had to come through the assess see. >> That leads me to a number of conclusions about this long history of … this relationship between the two. Which I think ultimately has been very beneficial these past 50 years. I think one of the benefits of this relationship that would legitimize the planetary science program is actually, Congress takes up more seriously because you have a bunch of eggheads producing a report with the national academies global on the cover. >> I think it has increase the efficiency of the program. There are fewer programs that get approved that ultimately fail to produce decent science.
I think because they're going to a lot more scrutiny, organize scrutiny )-right-paren the beginning. It has helped assist in the legitimization of planetary science as a discipline. Rather than a subset of geology or astrophysics. There are planetary science departments in various universities around the country and you may not have seen it if you did not have … National Academy of Sciences permit or on that. >> I think it has increases stability over a long period of time.
Right now, in the science program. You can trace back recommendations that are being made through decades of SSB reports, you can find advocacy for things like Mars return in a report that came out in 1970s. You can find planetary protection protocols that were developed in 1963. The SSB really has contributed to the fact that these things get revisited again and again until ultimately someone flies the mission. >> I think it has created a single place for advice and court nation of scientific coordinator and. For instance, how else would you get the astronomers to talk to the planetary science people about science around other stars and what would you look for when they are looking at that data. the SSB ultimately is a good place to do that, probably the only place that can bring those communities together effectively. >> It also has created an honest broker. the SSB is not a NASA center, it is not representing a geographic location, it is representing a bunch of different constituencies. Finally, I think it lessens the ties between the scientific communities in the agency. NASA does not have a lot of scientists working directly for them.
It has them spread all over the country. The national Academy of science, the national Academy, I use those terms interchangeably, is a way to connect them all. Ultimately I think it all contributes to a better scientific rover and. >> with that, I think I see my time is down to 30 seconds. So … … Applause … >> Now we have about 4.5 minutes for questions. Any questions, please come to the microphone and identify yourself. Be considerate of others and make your questions concise. Thank you. >> Yes, Rolph McNutt from physics laboratory. One of the things that has happened just recently, the most recent survey, of course of the budget issues that is always involved in these missions.
There was analysis done of the cost that would be involved for carrying out the program. This is something new that the Academy has gotten into looking at trying not only to look at the science but also look at the economics behind all of this. At least this is something that did not come up in the past several decades. I was wondering if you could make … now that they are in, we have had all of these recent economic issues, I was wondering if you could comment if it looks like a good thing, a bad thing, something in the future? Or what? >> I think it will be in the future regardless of if it is good or bad. Clearly Congress and the administrative want it to happen, it is now on legislation. Saying that if you do a decade, we have to improve the independent cost estimation.
In a couple of weeks out in Irvine California there is going to be a lesson learned symposium workshop on the different surveys, so that will be discussed, a lot. What you have seen, there has always been a constant tension in SSB study over a long period of time of the science is being way up here looking at lofty issues versus getting down into the administrative nitty-gritty and management issues. The scientists would prefer to say, here is the questions that we want to answer, go out and do that and we are not going to get involved in the day-to-day decision-making on that. That worked for a very long time and unfortunately now because of cost overruns and because of change in emphasis within the scientific community there has been a real push to actually get them involved more in those kinds of issues. I don't want to go into whether it is a good or bad idea, I think it is good to implement.
But it is very tough. It is in some ways not fair to the scientist asked them to do and two those levels of detail. At a very early conceptual stage. >> John, one more. To what extent does the international scientific community participate and two what extent does the poor in space program pay attention to your report? >> They participate quite a bit when it comes to the survey. We actually had many foreign representatives sitting on the committee. As two the degree of how they pay attention, they definitely do because I have to. a survey can come out and record their own program. They had a intense reaction to our recommendation on Mars sample return conference does. There was a direct impact on them. So, they are involved on both sides. >> Really good questions. >> Good question, I don't know about the answer, that is up to doing.
The question is, a lot of us have noticed here in the last year in particular, a trend towards dismissing that cable surveys of being in a value. This is true in the planetary area, I won't name names but books in this room know what I'm talking about. My question is, is this a trend? Does is put into a pattern you have seen in the past? >> I have looked for trends, the astronomy decade-old survey has has been around for a long time. Planet Tori has not been around as long. I would be wary of drawing too many conclusions. I think give them in other 10 or 20 years and then we can decide whether or not it is a trend. But we only have two surveys and astronomy's done to date. Something like that. I would not say it is a trend can't yet. But I am being overly cautious. >> Thank you very much. … Applause … I would just ask everyone to check their pockets and purses to make sure all of your a lot Tronic devices are on by rate and not on ring.
There was a lovely time we were listening to, but distracting for the speaker. Our next speaker is Jason Callahan. He has to master's degree
in as you know from the wins introduction he works for the Waynesboro friend at NASA. Jason? >> Good morning. So, I will be speaking today on funding planetary science. Planetary science in the United States is a public act activity in the federal government provides all of the required funding. Why does the government fund exploration to the solar system and how does it decide how much money to give to this exploration.
These questions are fundamentally important to the scientist, engineers, and it is, accountants and students and others who make up the planetary science community. Clearly this is an uncertain time but is it unprecedented? The United States has suffered several recessions since the formation of NASA and the scientific community has worked with uncertainties in the past. Your mains to be seen if the political pressures or the economic downturn or the size of the governments that will relate to the planetary science community.
It may be informative to look back at the history of planetary history through NASA with a fiscal lesson. And understand the role as a national priority. >> the first thing to recognize when looking at the U.S. economy as it relates to federal spending is that in the last three decades there is little correlation between the gross domestic product and spending. That is in times of recession federal spending goes up and in times of expansion federal spending goes up. …Laughter… this demonstrates another disturbing trend beginning in the late 1970s government and expenditures in red out paid the receipts and purple consistently in the federal debt in blue grew at a rate matching and often and outpacing the rate of the increase in DDT. the result of the spending that is an increase in cost to the federal government you're in each year just to pay the interest on the debt without breaking down the principal. >> The cost of the interest on U.S. federal debt in 2010 was $414 billion which is roughly 23 times the NASA budget that year. This is not to suggest that the United States should be spending more money on exploring the solar system, but it does demonstrate and increasing debt has a risk of burden on unlimited resources as this graph collate demonstrates.
NASA has not experienced a budget like this before. One of the national priorities is a level of funding, one of the fundamental functions of government is the allocation of resources and alley every resource that is not money but still cost money. Therefore examining the fluctuation of funding levels to demonstrate national priorities. Planetary science up in the federal government as necessary to understanding the role that planetary exploration plays in the government. the federal government is broken into two categories, the federal budget is broken into two categories. Mandatory spending involves Social Security, to care, Kate, other programs that do not require a … appropriation bill …Indiscernible… even NASA. the largest expenditure in discretionary budget by far is for defense, so it is common to see budget numbers broken down into defense and nondefense categories. >> Here we see NASA's budget line in the concept of discretionary budget.
NASA has average between two and 2.5% of discretionary budget and 6.5% of non- discretionary budget since the 1960s. Since the end of the Apollo it has averaged 5% of non- discretionary spending. What we see here is the comparison from the department of defense which is an orange. >> If you look closely at the bottom of the graph, you'll see the budget lines for NASA, Department of Energy, national Institute of health, national science. Along with the Department of Defense these organizations received the highest allocations for science and research. >> I think this slide is self- explanatory. …Laughter… this graph looks at the organization with the largest resource budgets. I should stress here that nondefense only means that these budget lines are outside of the Department of Defense and not that they are completely removed from any military application. There is a fair amount of discourse are between trees are choose an civilian world but that is outside the scope of this presentation. What we see on this graph is good representation of the prior to use of …
In the 1960s we see the focus on more lighting represented I NASA's budget in red. In 1970s a focus most towards energy and we see this reflected in the green line or at representing the Department of Energy. In the 1980s and for the next 20 years, we see a shift towards health and medical in the NIH budget. Following the spike in each of these budget lines, the general trend seems to lot of bit, give or take a few billion dollars. >> What this demonstrates is that the part of the renewed interest in space is a national … NASA is unlikely to see an increase in its budget are a far more likely will continue to compete for resources that current level. Word is planetary science but in all this? NASA has average 1.2% of the federal budget but this effort is geared by efforts during the 60s. Than the recent decade the average is below 1%. Space- time is as a whole, and blue here average less than 20% of NASA's budget over the last 50 years while the planetary science and green average about 6.5% per these averages are all a bit less if we discount the 1960s.
>> Planetary science was the dominant wars in these space science budget in the 1970s, prior to that space science efforts were attached to the humoral … human flight, the planetary community met with increasing, position. Between 2003 in 2006 however, planetary science enjoyed a tight rope funding level. When we look at the history of funding for the exploration of the solar system this graph naturally divides itself in the decade with peaks in three of those decades in a flat … to be sure they are not distinct of planetary exploration aligned with the decades. >> This help or applies a very complex narrative. A very brief discussion of a few of the events in each decade, to help demonstrate how the interaction between NASA and the rest of the planetary science community and government stakeholders work to establish a federal allocation resource for exploration. If U.S. civil space program … Soviet space efforts, why did the United States engage in planter he science or a LAN space program? Why does this engagement continue? To answer that question dates back to the postwar period.
It involves community researches, radar and radio research, I … meteorology. Sciences in these communities were dancing around the idea that a required an effort of their most questions could only be attained by going outside of the atmosphere. A few scientific leaders in the space related fields met in 1950 two figure out the best path forward. Geophysical year … polar year … the IGI took place from July 1957 to December of 1958. The purpose was to bring researchers together from grace builds and nationalities to … some of the research was not space related.
That could benefit from instruments on sounding rockets and satellites. Many of the questions are addressed during the SGI required resources to provide data. by consolidating the efforts and re- unifying efforts, the scientific communities are able to petition support from the government including military resources not normally associated with science which led to projects to projects like t-tango are in … by the end of 1957th space race was on.
The United States tried to determine how bad to compete. >> Their consulting with many of the scientists that represented the United States. One prominent group of researchers that made up the panel, the IRS IP delivered a proposal to Congress entitled the national commission to explore outer space. This would allow scientists to conduct basic research similar to the research experience by the RG why with a permanent and sustainable aces. When Congress pays the national air and not expect act for NASA, two the language in the document back you'd a proposal by the researchers.
Placing scientific exploration at the fore front of … in 1961 the Soviet Cosmo Mac … President Kennedy determine sending an astronaut to the moon before the Russians were given the opportunity. To demonstrate the superiority over the so it … the Soviets in space. This decision had significant ramifications of the direction of the space administration in the planetary science aspirations. This became a national prior to and narrowly every aspect of NASA was to support the lunar program. Masses only … with the exception of the mariner and pioneer programs. This came as a disappointment for many in the space science community considering NASA after the mariner program had begun to plan for it in the 1960s for explorers to replace … it would be considerably larger and more capable platforms around larger science platforms. Due to several technical factors Congress cut funding and NASA reallocated the remaining funds …Indiscernible… much of the design work for the Voyager program would appear in the Viking mission to Mars. The main Voyager, would be an entirely new project for them. Funding for them when Mission Peak in 1967 a few years before the success of the Apollo 11 lunar landing and it declined to the early 1970s.
For many in the space community, however …Indiscernible… the astronauts completed their mission and … captioner is transition Mac. >> … Potentially allowing spacecraft to follow their new system projector he would take it passed all four planets the other planets would align themselves similarly for another hundred and 76 years. As I had 10 years to plan a mission or from the opportunity were those two centuries. The initial mission plan became known as the plan tour … the budget began to creep towards $1 billion causing … Inaudible … science community in Congress . A vehicle horns the scientific community cannot agree on what other planets and should take precedence in the space science discussed earlier adopted … which adopted rocket and satellite … did not fully support the mission. The Nixon administration never … Inaudible … space program overlarge scientific mission in Congress was unwilling to back the program but didn't have the support of the own Lance community. >> … It beat out a mentor for funding based on where initial estimated cost NASA management proposed to cancel funds for the other planets is about proponents of the grantor found an online Kauai the office management and budget.
Are conducting this was a unique opportunity to be restore funding to a scaled-back effort, yes excepted replanning mission to include two spacecraft. The proposed cost of the new mission now called Voyager was one third of the amount of cost for the grantor which allow NASA to accomplish both deep mission in 1975 Viking Mission to Mars in the same decade. >> We now come to the loss Tecate … lost decade, the planet looks like a big zero followed by a period. >> Between 1974 1977 planetary science budget dropped by 60% having lunch biking and more during the planetary science expected reduction but by 77 as NASA began to plan for the next mission, …. The new mission called Jupiter orbit would have to compete for treating portion eroded by cost overruns and the shuttle program. Strong support for another program slated to begin in 78 and a telescope called … Inaudible … … command and the challenging budget and environment.
Recognizing the difficulty of two major science programs in the senior NASA management made sure they had the backing of the night … unit … unified … but not so the other side out the in order to gain support for suspected projects. Following the Challenger energy … tragedy in 1986, the intent of the increase to be temporary but they decided to use the adjusted budget at the baseline to support new direction for NASA. The budget administrator wanted to push NASA to operate … Inaudible … new technologies and concepts in order to reduce the extreme cost spaceflight. >> 1992 President Bush chain … chose … Inaudible … in changing the culture from the top that.
The new administrative schools was to develop organization and willing to abandon what he saw was outdated methods and thinking or Mac within planetary science … Inaudible … help to discover … Inaudible … and let via principal investigator and within that community. >> Favorite character is better faster and cheaper I president canton project would reduce it and launch within three years and NASA would cancel any discovery … Maris …. >> Both missions were developed under the faster better rubric that after launch the Mars climate orbiter made it to Mars but as it entered NASA lost all communication with the spacecraft and six weeks later … Inaudible … into one permanently silent during its landing cycle .
A loss of two Mars missions within a six-week span not sit well with the public or lawmakers. They determine cell human errors were likely to blame for the loss of the spacecraft but it report addressed management issues that led to the air. Or found the faster better cheaper did not adequately address assessed risk and checks and the emphasis on meeting costs and schedules this project … pressures on … Inaudible … and a lot of oversight meant mistakes slip through. In the push to change the … Inaudible … seem to push too far. >> The final decade of the 20th century US planetary science community became more … no more unified but they were able to fire agreement in communicating priorities to government stakeholders, NASA, White House and … Inaudible …. Theseniorr NASA launched … Inaudible … in the new Verizon spacecraft lifted off or Pluto. >> … NASA started to work on the first flexion to Marson spiking the Mars science …
They provided punisher itself underwent unprecedented resources and the will of the decade at that level began to decline in the face of two worst economic crisis unknown in the United States before World War II. >> Purdie shifted and planetary science community faced with challenge demonstrated lawmakers that sober system exploration is Williamson the big national investment despite competition for resources from other sectors of government. >> I began researching this project with hypothesis in the space and community specifically often did an adequate job of communicating the stakeholders and this was one reason for the instability and funding seen so often in the efforts to explore the solar system but I found the community doesn't impressive job of communicating their priorities on the whole the lessons of the past were well learned and most of the mistakes made today are brand-new.
Place AC for improvement for stakeholders in the public is defining planetary exploitation priority and Jim Green, the planetary science division director says the community NASA included needs to raise the importance of the utility of planetary science activity and I agree. It's not just activities, but this is a utility dissemination and include the action of the planetary science community with other scientific community is, members of industry both here and other countries that provide great benefit to the nation. For planetary science committee should redouble its efforts to provide takeovers with this perspective and in addition to the incredible science produced by the community's effort. After all given the world in which we find ourselves defining all the reasons that expirations… and this national priority can only help cost. >> … Can only help the cause. >> Thank very much.
>> … Thank you very much. >> We have five minutes to ask questions. >> … Indiscernible – heavy accent … I am wondering how concurrent are planetary science and physics program because usually … Indiscernible – heavy accent … between two communities. How resolved such controversial issues such as the recommendation or other instruments are involved? >> Scientific priority for both committees … communities are recommended by the space studies Board in separate technical service but the actual is done through NASA and recommendations of the Council. And the science Mission directorate and there are divisions within the science Mission directorate of course. >> For example public, … coupler … Inaudible … >> Someone asked me today about Voyager and very soon our … Inaudible … . It is difficult to say, where I tend to draw the line is when you are to get up close and personal the planet … Inaudible … rubric at the moment be actual planet program is not able to get us quite there.
I hope that will change the future though I do not suspect to see a lot of that. At that point I think you already see a mixing of expertise across cutting of field and I think it will continue. >> Michael Newfield. At Richard Branson suggest one more which follows up directly with the other speakers question, your very interesting to see the budget graph space as program with astrophysics and feel it so that in biological science, where the trade- offs are in priorities in those decades and how that played out.
I also noted on your graph lunch many of them were Delia physics but that's obviously a problematic distinction. >> The definition of particularly in the early missions what constitutes a Healey of the … Delia physics … Inaudible … is left up to the interpreter . I mean graphs but did not have time to bring them it is very interesting and less complex in the early years when astrophysics and planetary exploration for somewhat similar. You saw a lot of overlap between this budget which were difficult to extract from each other in the early years. In later years it becomes more complex as you have more players but you are absolutely right it is a fascinating story. >> Thank you very much..