Exploring the Relationship Between Science Funding and Science Productivity on Extended Missions

Introduction: The goal of this summer internship research project was to explore the relationship between the level of funding for science team research and science productivity for planetary spaceflight missions. The productivity and funding for the prime and extended missions were compared when possible. Determining the actual rather than anecdotal relationship between the level of science team funding and their productivity will help determine the adequacy of science team funding. Additionally, determining whether productivity increases or decreases over time (within missions, or within the years between different missions) provides insights into ongoing trends.

This project was conducted using data from 11 extended missions within the Planetary Science Division. The main goals of this project were to 1) quantify the level of productivity of the science team during the extended portion of each mission, 2) compare the level of productivity between different types of missions, and 3) compare the level of productivity between the prime missions and extended missions.

Methodology: The central metric enters around the “publication rate” of each mission. This rate is normalized in a variety of ways, including the number of publications per year, per Co-I, and per instruments. For the most part, this data was attainable through mission websites, team rosters, and data collected from previous projects. The publication data for this project utilized the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System, and it consisted of a search for any papers from the extended mission that had a co-investigator as an author. The time period for these searches also included an additional two years after the end of the extended mission to account for additional time it typically takes to finish data analysis and publish papers. Data from prime missions was collected from a previous project that measured similar metrics for the same missions.

When comparing the different types of missions, three factors were used: mission size, dates of the prime and extended missions, and the type of the mission (rover, flyby, orbiter, or lander). To determine mission size, missions were compared by the number of Co-I’s on the mission, the number of instruments in the payload, and the mission class.

Findings: On average, prime mission publication rates were generally higher than those of extended missions. Out of the nine missions used for this comparison, six had a higher prime mission publication rate and three had a higher extended mission publication rate. This distinction was interesting to observe, but it should be noted that the methodology for determing the number of published papers differed for the prime missions and the extended missions Discovery missions were found to be the most scientifically productive.

Additionally, more recent extended missions tend to possess greater productivity. When comparing missions of different types, it was found that orbiters were much more productive than other types of missions.

Future Work: There are a number of opportunities to extend and improve on this project in the future. Even though the metrics used were the same, the prime mission data could be recollected from the same sources as the extended mission data (Astrophysics Data System) to insure greater consistency. The impact level of the publications could also be accounted for, and financial data could be used to compare teams with different levels of funding. Additionally, more missions could be examined to increase the sample size of these comparisons, especially the comparison of different mission types which had an incredibly small sample size for some categories.