A Different Focus on NASA Science Mission Success (a first cut) Mark V. Sykes Planetary Science Institute

Knowledge is the return the taxpayer receives from their investment in NASA science missions

How is knowledge obtained? (going backwards) Analysis of data and publication/distribution of results Archiving of data and its general accessibility Mission operational success/successful transmission of data to Earth Successful launch Spacecraft/instrument construction and integration Mission design and successful proposal Creation of the science context within which mission ideas arise, their value assessed, and (ultimately) the data interpreted.

How is knowledge obtained? (going backwards) Data Analysis Programs PDS Engineering/Science operations planning Research and Data Analysis Programs. You can build a nice car, but it won’t go far without gas.

Mission Program Weaknesses Inadequate/declining funding for Data Analysis Programs Inadequate funding for PDS Low priority for data product definition/archive planning/Science Team science Inadequate/declining funding for Research and Data Analysis Programs. Just build it and launch it, then Data happens Science happens

Discovery 2006 AO Data products do not have to be defined except generally (e.g., surface maps in different filters, mineralogical maps) and with quality quantified (e.g., resolution, coverage, pointing accuracy). No pipeline requirements except to deliver to PDS within 6 months of collection (unless you have a really really good reason). No format discussion needed. I’m going to put an engine in this spacecraft and it’s going to work real good - trust me.

Data Happens Formats may not be defined until after launch and can be designed to accommodate in-house software without regard to non-mission scientists (or even all the scientists on a mission!) Resources for product generation (and science) may be diminished because of reallocations to cover engineering problems Data product pipelines may not be put in place until after launch and documentation (e.g., SIS’s) only required in draft form beforehand. Configuration control and review of pipelines not required. PDS has little leverage beyond delaying a DAP

Science Happens Press conferences Team papers (though they should not have to rely on DAPs) Community access through PDS (in whatever format - don’t forget that IDL license), assuming you can find it. If you archive it, they will come

A Metric for Knowledge Return Relative to what we knew before? If zero, then a little new knowledge is a big thing. (but then did we need the big expensive spacecraft to return that one piece of new information?) Relative to what was anticipated on the basis of data planned to be returned? (like the basis for which the mission was funded?)

How do we improve things? (and make PDS a good guy at the same time?) Require data product formats to be defined in the proposal. Require sample data products with the proposal. Require complete Science Data Management Plan and SIS’s/CMPs by end of Phase A. Require PDS-reviewed pipelines through RDR products. Pipelines must be reviewed and under configuration control with regression testing in place by end of Phase B (Phase A?).

Benefits Require data product formats to be defined in the proposal. Require sample data products with the proposal. Proposers will want to show that they will be generating products in formats that have the broadest use in the communities that will be analyzing the data. Allows for format evolution with community practice.

Benefits Require complete Science Data Management Plan and SIS’s by end of Phase A. Require PDS-reviewed pipelines through RDR products. Pipelines must be reviewed and under configuration control with regression testing in place by end of Phase B (Phase A?). Products will go directly to ingestion in PDS, saving time and mission resources overall Capability for generating quality products is in place and assured as is procedures for making pipeline modifications if needed. No late mission anguish… PDS is a resource instead of a barrier.