May 18, 2006

Dr. Michael Meyer

Lead Scientist for Mars

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

Dear Michael,

**Introduction**

On behalf of the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG)
Executive Committee I hereby summarize key results from the MEPAG
meeting held in Monrovia, California, from April 19-20, 2006.

According to our attendance records, 220 people attended the meeting,
including scientists and representatives from 7 of NASA's 10 field
centers and NASA Headquarters, 44 attendees from the academic sector, 20
from industry, 15 foreign nationals (from 8 different countries), and a
scattering of others from non-profit research institutes, government
agencies, and private research organizations. The good attendance is an
indication of an engaged Mars community with a strong interest in
keeping abreast of developments. It is clear that the Mars community
wishes to provide direct and positive input into new plans for
exploration of the Red Planet, especially given the limits imposed by
the tightly constrained budgets over the next decade. The relatively
high attendance may have also been partly associated with the close
juxtaposition with the MSL PSG Meeting, a feature that we should keep in
mind for future MEPAG Meetings.

The goals of the April 2006 MEPAG meeting were for the community to
listen to and provide comments on:

-   Updates from NASA and JPL Managers on the current status of the NASA
    Mars Exploration Program and associated flight projects.

-   The draft Mars Exploration Program Plan for the next decade

-   Updates from our foreign colleagues on research and Mars programs,
    particularly the European Space Agency's ExoMars surface mission

-   The Mars Science Orbiter Science Analysis Group Report

-   The Special Regions Science Analysis Group Report

-   Presentations from instrument development program managers and
    members of the community focused on lessons-learned from the "Life
    Cycle of a Flight Instrument" forum that dominated the agenda on the
    second day of the meeting

This remainder of this letter is a brief summary of the primary issues
and discussions that took place during the two day meeting.

The next MEPAG Meeting is planned for January 10-11, 2007 and will take
place in the Washington, D.C, area.

**The Mars Exploration Program Plan**

A major topic of discussion focused on the impacts of the decreased Mars
Exploration Program budgets now and in the future. Key results of the
discussions follow:

-   The community was relieved to hear that the currently implemented
    missions (MGS, Odyssey, MER, and MRO) and the missions in
    development (Phoenix and MSL) will continue operations and
    development, as appropriate.

-   A great deal of concern was expressed about the inability, with the
    currently projected budget profiles, to fund instrument and
    technology development programs that would prepare us for new
    missions, including the Mars Science Orbiter and the possible
    Astrobiology Field Laboratory or mid-range rovers. These concerns
    also extend to plans for network science and sample return missions.
    The lack of a planned call for proposals for FY2007 for MIDP is a
    particular concern.

-   The community expressed concern that network science and sample
    return missions are no longer even shown in the draft plan presented
    during the MEPAG Meeting. We hope that NASA vigorously pursues joint
    ventures with our foreign partners to make these missions happen as
    soon as possible.

-   Concern was expressed about cuts in Mars-related research and
    analysis programs. The current planned cuts and the flat budget
    projections will not allow us to capitalize on investments made
    during the past few years in orbital and surface-based missions and
    associated measurements. The planned budgets will not allow us to
    keep up the current rapid pace of discovery about the history of
    Mars, including the history of water and implications for
    habitability and life, topics of great interest to many members of
    the public.

-   Concern was also expressed that the flat budgets will make it
    difficult to train and supply talented young scientists and
    engineers who will be the future leaders needed to implement the
    NASA Vision for human expeditions to Mars.

-   A recommendation was made to form a Science Analysis Group to
    consider: a. Comparison of the quality and nature of measurements
    that would be made on returned samples as opposed to in-situ
    measurements, b. Developing a sample acquisition and caching
    strategy, and c. Selecting candidate landing sites for a sample
    return mission. During its session just after the end of the MEPAG
    Meeting the Executive Committee decided to table these
    recommendations until the final program plan is unveiled this summer
    and possible joint activities with foreign partners are better
    understood.

A related area of discussion focused on the extent to which the Mars
community is effectively communicating concerns about the reduced scope
of the Mars exploration program to NASA, the President, and to members
of Congress. There was a sense among attendees that the voices being
heard are few and without a unified theme. MEPAG is not chartered to
advocate particular programs or budgets. It is chartered to provide
analyses that will help the Mars Exploration Program managers make
informed decisions about program directions and approaches. MEPAG can
certainly conduct analyses that show the effects of budget decreases.
The MEPAG Executive Committee thus took an action item to work with the
Program Managers to develop factual information that summarizes the
impacts of the current and projected budgets on the nature and pace of
missions, the extent to which exciting discoveries will continue to be
made, and the future work force who would implement NASA's Vision for
Mars exploration.

**Mars Science Orbiter Science Analysis Group Report**

Barney Farmer and Daniel Winterhalter presented the MSO SAG report. They
argued for an MRO-class mission which will focus on coordinated
measurements of atmospheric escape rates and trace gases. The report was
well received with the following comment:

-   The recommended investigations do not include capabilities for
    landing site selection measurements or other important orbital
    measurements such as radar imaging of the shallow subsurface.
    Additional assets will be needed in orbit during the next decade to
    support site characterization and certification for landed missions
    and the pursuit of other important scientific investigations. Scouts
    will be fundamentally important for implementation of important
    orbital investigations not covered under the topics within the SAG
    Report.

**Special Regions Science Analysis Group Report**

The consensus was that the SAG produced an excellent report with a
quantitative approach for defining special regions based on expected
temperatures and water activities. The community agreed with the
conclusions, with some input in oral and written forms that will be used
by the SAG in revising the report.

**Life Cycle of a Flight Instrument Discussion**

The MEPAG Meeting included a full day to hear from instrument
development program managers, investigators who have been involved in
instrument development efforts, investigators who have been involved in
flying instruments, a representative from the Planetary Data System, and
a scientist who has used data from PDS archives. Key discussion points
follow:

-   There are multiple programs for instrument development. HQ is taking
    some welcome steps to streamline to better prepare for instrument
    development efforts in an era with reduced funding.

-   The importance of the deep involvement of the principal investigator
    and his or her science team, end to end, from conception to
    archiving and analyses of data, was stressed repeatedly. This deep
    involvement maximizes the probability that a well-calibrated
    instrument will fly, and that valid and useful data products will be
    produced and delivered to the PDS for use by the community.

-   The importance of peer review was stressed, including reviews of
    calibration plans and results. Blind tests to determine the extent
    to which instrument capabilities meet expectations were also
    stressed.

-   The need for sustained funding for development of processing
    software and reprocessing of data to standard products (as the
    understanding of the instrument increases and calibrations change)
    should not be underestimated.

-   The PDS depends in large part on derived data products from
    instrument teams. Thus the teams need to work with relevant PDS
    personnel early in the mission, planning the nature and content of
    standard products, validating actual products, and ensuring that the
    products made are of maximum use to the community.

-   Primary PDS customers (the science community) cover a wide range
    from expert users who need raw data, algorithms, and software and
    will do their own derived product generation, to investigators who
    need highly derived products for their research. The PDS should
    strive to meet these diverse user needs by ensuring that a minimum
    number of formats is used, algorithms and software are supplied to
    process data, and highly derived products are obtained from
    instrument teams or otherwise generated (e.g., through DAP's).

-   Adopting standard cartographic and GIS approaches across our entire
    enterprise would maximize the portability and utility of derived
    products.

-   Six valuable "lessons learned" presentations were given by Brad
    Joliff, David Blake, Ed Guinness, Phil Christensen, Doug Ming, and
    Jeff Johnson. For the benefit of the members of the Mars community
    who were not able to attend the meeting, and most importantly, for
    young scientists who are in the early phases of the instrument life
    cycle, these six presentations will be posted on the MEPAG web site
    for future reference.

**MEPAG Goals Document**

Over the past six months or so, the MEPAG Goals Committee completed the
2006 revision of the MEPAG Goals Document, under the leadership of John
Grant, Chair of the Goals Committee. These changes have been validated
via an open community comment period, and the new version has been
accepted by the MEPAG Chair. Because the changes are no extensive in
nature, and they had already been vetted by the community, this topic
was not scheduled for further discussion at the MEPAG meeting. The new
version is posted on the MEPAG web site at
[http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEPAG%20Goals_2-10-2006.pdf](http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEPAG Goals_2-10-2006.pdf).
The document will undergo a major revision once results from the MRO
Mission are in hand.

Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can provide any further details
on any of the issues discussed here.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Arvidson

Chair, MEPAG

cc: Doug McCuistion, NASA HQ

Fuk Li, JPL

John McNamee, JPL

Daniel McCleese, JPL

David Beaty, JPL

Noel Hinners, University of Colorado

Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado

John Grant, Smithsonian Institution

G. Jeffrey Taylor, University of Hawaii, LEAG Chair

Sushil Atreya, Univeristy of Michigan, VEXAG Chair

Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado, OPAG Chair

Debbie Calderon, JPL

MEPAG e-mail distribution list

  ---------------------- ------ ------------------------------------- -------------
  **Agenda for MEPAG                                                  
  meeting of April                                                    
  19-20, 2006**                                                       

  Start                  Time   Agenda Item                            

  ***[Wednesday, April                                                 
  19,                                                                 
  2006]{.underline}***                                                

  7:30                   0:30   Coffee                                 

  8:00                   0:15   Meeting Purpose, Scope, Expected      Ray Arvidson
                                Results                               

  8:15                   0:30   Mars Program Director\'s Comments     D. McCuistion

  8:45                   0:30   Mars Exploration Program Update       Fuk Li

  9:15                   0:15   Mars Exploration Program Science      Mike Meyer
                                Update                                

  9:30                   0:45   Presentation/Discussion of Next       D. McCuistion
                                Decade Program Plan                   

  10:15                  0:15   Break                                  

  10:30                  0:30   General discussion: Program-level      
                                issues                                

  *[Future mission                                                     
  planning                                                            
  topics]{.underline}*                                                

  11:00                  0:15   PHX: status of landing site           Peter Smith
                                discussions                           

  11:15                  0:15   MSL: Landing site selection process   Golombek,
                                                                      Grant

  11:30                  0:15   ExoMars: Updated plans after          Jorge Vago
                                ministerial conference                

  11:45                  0:15   Support for Landing Site Selection    Gerhard
                                and Characterization by the High      Neukum
                                Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC)       

  12:00                  1:15   Lunch                                  

  13:15                  1:30   Findings of the MSTO SAG              Farmer et al.

  14:45                  0:15   Break                                  

  15:00                  2:00   Findings of the Special Regions SAG   Beaty et al.

  **17:00**                     Adjourn                                

                                                                       

  ***[Thursday, April                                                  
  20,                                                                 
  2006]{.underline}***                                                

  7:30                   0:30   Coffee                                 

  8:00                   0:10   Call to order, overnight issues       Ray Arvidson

  8:10                   0:15   Status Report on the Canadian Analog  Alain
                                Research Network                      Berinstain

  *[Instrument Life                                                    
  Cycle]{.underline}*                                                 

  8:25                   0:20   Synopsis of the instrument lifecycle  Ray Arvidson

  8:45                   0:40   Overview of NASA\'s current           Dave Lavery
                                instrument development programs       

  9:25                   0:25   Highlights of recent results from     Samad Hayati
                                MIDP                                  

  9:50                   0:15   Highlights of recent results from     Dave Lavery
                                ASTID, ASTEP                          

  10:05                  0:15   Break                                  

  10:20                  0:15   Instrument development: Incubation    Brad Joliff
                                period                                

  10:35                  0:15   Instrument development: Overcoming    Dave Blake
                                the obstacles                         

  10:50                  0:15   Instrument case history: mature       Phil
                                                                      Christensen

  10:35                  0:15   Instrument case history: calibrations Doug Ming

  11:05                  0:15   Archiving data products               Ed Guinness

  11:20                  0:15   Making use of data products           Jeff Johnson

  11:35                  0:25   Instrument lifecycle\--general        Ray Arvidson
                                discussion                            

  12:00                  1:15   Lunch                                  

  13:15                  2:00   Break-out sessions: What are the       
                                lessons learned and issues to address 
                                relating to the instrument life       
                                cycle?                                

  15:15                  0:45   Break-out reports, discussion         Group Leads

  16:00                  0:45   MEPAG Forward Planning                Ray Arvidson

  **16:45**                     **ADJOURN**                           
  ---------------------- ------ ------------------------------------- -------------