NASA's Planetary Science Division is undergoing a significant shift, leading to the discontinuation of financial backing for several key advisory groups. This move, part of a larger restructuring of the agency's advisory framework, means that eight organizations known as assessment or analysis groups (AGs) will see their funding cease by the end of April.
In a candid letter dated January 16th, Louise Prockter, the director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division (PSD), communicated this decision to the leaders of these influential groups. She explained that "several recent changes in the NASA landscape" have rendered the current support and operational model unworkable. These changes include executive orders, the dissolution of other advisory committees, and a notably "highly constrained" budget for planetary science.
While NASA explored various avenues to continue supporting these valuable groups, Prockter stated, "Unfortunately, despite the recognized value of the AGs, PSD can no longer formally support the AGs."
What exactly are these AGs and why are they important? These groups are the unsung heroes of planetary science, dedicating their expertise to specific areas, from our own Moon to the distant reaches of the outer solar system. They typically convene at least once a year to deliberate on current and future missions, research endeavors, and other critical topics, offering vital input directly to NASA. Many AGs also undertake in-depth studies at the agency's behest.
For instance, the Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG) plays a crucial role in fostering the connection between the small bodies and planetary defense science and technology communities. As they state on their website, they are instrumental in "identifying, collecting, and representing the priorities of these communities" and serve as a vital conduit between these experts and NASA. The SBAG, for example, held a meeting just last week.
But here's where it gets potentially controversial: Prockter clarified at a January 20th meeting that NASA is not outright abolishing these AGs. Instead, she emphasized, "We are simply not able to support them for a number of reasons." This suggests that while official NASA funding is ending, the groups themselves may persist.
And this is the part most people miss: Prockter revealed that several AGs have already expressed their intention to continue operating on a self-organized basis. While their structure might evolve, and they might even adopt new names, their commitment to advancing planetary science remains. NASA might even offer "small support" in the future, such as helping to cover travel expenses for students attending AG meetings.
This decision isn't entirely out of the blue. It follows a period of uncertainty that began shortly after the start of the second Trump administration, when NASA instructed the AGs to pause their work to ensure compliance with presidential directives. This led to the cancellation or postponement of several meetings. Although activities were later permitted to resume, many in the planetary science community had anticipated a reduction or complete cessation of support.
This move is part of a broader trend across federal agencies to streamline their advisory structures. The AGs previously fed into the Planetary Science Advisory Committee, which, along with similar committees in astrophysics, Earth science, and heliophysics, was abolished by NASA last year. The agency has indicated plans to establish a single, multidisciplinary science advisory committee, but details regarding its membership and meeting schedule are still pending.
Even NASA's primary advisory body, the NASA Advisory Council, has been inactive since the current administration began, with its subcommittees also on hold. This has raised concerns among some, like Lester Lyles, chairman of the NASA Advisory Council, who expressed worry about these prolonged pauses, especially given the significant turnover in the federal workforce, including a substantial number of NASA civil servants opting for early resignation programs. Lyles believes that advisory groups, with the right leadership and individuals, could play an even more critical role during such times of transition.
It's worth noting that some advisory committees continue to function, such as the congressionally mandated Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and the International Space Station Advisory Committee. Furthermore, other federal agencies are undertaking similar organizational changes. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently disbanded its Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), which had been a source of advice on commercial launch issues since 1984, and has yet to announce plans for its reconstitution.
What are your thoughts on NASA's decision to end financial support for these planetary science groups? Do you believe self-organized groups can effectively fill the void? Share your agreement or disagreement in the comments below!
