 All right, are we live all right. Well, hello everyone. Thank you very much for joining us for today's community town hall with Nikki Fox associate administrator for NASA's science mission directorate and members of her leadership team. This is actually a follow up to a previous town hall that we held on March 23rd, which was focused on the fiscal year 2024 SMD budget. But we didn't have time to get through all of the questions that we received in that first session. So Nikki and her team are back today to take some additional Q&A. But if you missed that first town hall, we would encourage you to view the recording to hear the responses to the questions that were already addressed. And that's available at science.nasa.gov and a recording of today's session will be available on that site as well. So, in addition to Nikki, we have with us today either on the line or here in the room. Holly Dane, director of the resource management division. parent st. Germain director of the earth science division. Lori glaze director of the planetary science division. Jeff Gramling program director for Mars sample return. Brad Bailey assistant deputy associate administrator for exploration. Mark Clampin director of the astrophysics division. Peg loose acting director for the heliophysics division. Diane Mallorick acting director for the biological and physical sciences division. And John Gugosian director of the joint agency satellite division. So we do not have presentations here today we're just going to jump right into Q&A. We'll be answering the remaining questions that have been asked through the IO question tool. And we'll share that link in the chat if we haven't already for any additional questions you'd like to ask there. And with that we'll get started. We've already addressed a number of the top questions here in the last session related to sample return, the geospaced dynamics constellation Veritas and so on. So we'll start with our first unanswered question here. And actually there are a couple of these Nikki, if you want to go ahead and start us off that relate to prioritization within the SMD budget. In particular, you know balancing on schedule and on budget missions with those that may not be as well as the continued offering of announcements of opportunity and how you're balancing decadal priorities between different divisions. Okay, sure. So thanks to everyone for signing in again we are sorry that we didn't get to all the questions last time so I hope that we'll be able to answer them all this time. So starting off with the questions about the just the overall priorities in the budget and how we address those. Of course, we are guided by our decadals. So we take that all very seriously. So for your questions about my sample return that was indeed Laurie is nodding. It was indeed the highest priority in in the planetary decadal and so we are moving forward with that. We've had several questions about what we're doing to keep my sample return, the costs under control. I think we did answer that last time but I'll hit it again, which is we are going to convene. Well, we see, you know, we are putting all of the subsystems through very rigorous PDRs, starting actually this week, I think is the first one Jeff is nodding. Yes. So Jeff's out at the first, the first PDR this week, we will conclude all the subsystem PDRs and then prior to going to the mission PDR and confirmation we will insert a second independent review board. And that is going to be announced officially next week, but we are doing that to make sure that we are really looking at the mission and the complexity understanding the complexity because it is a very difficult mission. It is not a simple thing to do so making sure we understand the complexity and that we have allocated enough funding for it. Then after that we will take it to mission PDR and then on to confirmation. But with it, so how we how we are doing our priorities, each of the division directors is responsible for pretty much for setting their own priorities within their divisions and making sure that they are answering the decadal answering the community and also addressing the agency priorities. I'm going to pause and see if any of the division directors would like to add on to that. Nope. Okay. All right. Thank you, Nikki. Our next question. I believe this will be for Peg. And this is about the status of the heliophysics supporting research call for roses 23 and whether that will take place this year. Yes, thank you for that question. That call actually has been released now and the reason it was withdrawn briefly was we we are doing for the first time dual anonymous peer review for that call. And we had a slight adjustment to make in the way it was written so it didn't have anything to do with budget or anything it was just an administrative or technical adjustment that we were making so it's out there now. And it won't make any any difference to the selections or the percentage selections. I mean, it will be just it's just moved for that. It's moved to to dual anonymous and actually the way we're evaluating the dual anonymous. We wanted to make sure we were clear about it. And I'm actually just going to I'm sorry at least just I did want to give Laurie a chance to just comment on there at us since we had we did answer all the questions last time they stayed in there and a number of them were voted up even though you've already answered it. I think if you wanted to just hammer home the point. Yeah, thank you. So the very short short answer to a lot of the Veritas questions we know there's a lot of pain out in the community regarding Veritas. But it was the essentially the least bad of a bunch of really bad options. And I really encourage folks to go back and look at the original town hall where we I gave a pretty long and comprehensive set of answers there so thank you. All right, thank you. And actually our next question is going to be for Laurie again as well. This is about a flagship mission focused on Uranus science. And if you could just speak to the timeline for that, including potentially when a center would be tapped for me there. Turn on my mic. Thank you. Yes, so Uranus and of course Uranus was identified as the next big flagship for planetary science, which is very exciting at certainly a place where we need another flagship or need a flagship in the future. At this point, we don't yet have a solid timeline for for that mission concept. What we do know is that our near term budget does not support large expenditures in the in the very near term. And the implication is that the timeline would will move out beyond the preferred launch window that was identified in the Decadal survey. But note that that shifting that timeline is consistent with the decision rules that we have in the decadal survey that support delaying the flagship as the very first step to take in a budget constrained environment. At this point we are trying to identify and working on ways to identify ways to engage with the community to keep the momentum going behind the Uranus flagship mission. But we are not yet ready to identify a specific implementation center. Great. Thank you very much, Lori. So our next questions here on the list are, you know, Nikki's already spoken to a couple of these in terms of Decadal priorities and AOs. So next up actually is another one for Nikki about the 2023 year of open science for NASA and whether funding will increase for open source development. So, I mean, certainly there is funding there. I'm actually going to throw to Karen because open science is run from her division. So I'd like her to answer that please Karen. Yeah, thanks very much. We are very excited about the year about the 2023 being the the year of open science leading into it's the first of a five year effort in our transition to open science plan. And we do have planned $40 million over that five years to execute on all the elements of that transition to open science. So including training and and tools and that sort of thing. So, so yeah, we are we are funding that we think it's an important initiative. And of course, the reason that Nikki threw it over to me is because Earth is is has the responsibility for leading that effort on behalf of all of SMD. So it's not just an earth science activity. It's a it's an earth and space science activity. Thank you. Great. Thank you Karen. Our next question. Actually, I think do we just wanted to add on actually I know Holly is on but she did also point out that the FY 24 request shows an increase to open source science over FY 23. And so with there is a $30 million budget in there for FY 24. Apologies moving on to put that all right. All right, so then our next question up again this could be there for Nikki or for Lori here, which is about a budget constraints or cuts to previously approved mission extensions and how that's being handled within some of the other competing priorities. Yeah, and, and I think the way the questions worded it was probably a planetary question. So I'll take that one and just to say there's mentioned the senior review process which is really important for how we evaluate extended missions. But, you know, we take this the funding levels and we take seriously but we certainly make the decisions for the funding levels for extended missions or missions and extended operations are considered and as best we can against the priorities for our missions and development. That's the challenge there. Great. Thank you. Our next questions here there are a couple on the list coming up related to be PS so Diane if you don't mind. If you could address a couple questions here related to what you might expect from the decadal survey and whether the budget sort of accommodates for those future potential priorities. Whether a BPS will be focused on exclusively on low earth orbit or any lunar Artemis activities and how, you know, we can continue to maintain us leadership in this space. Okay. Thank you. So it's a lot. A lot of questions that kind of all combine up together. Our budget has historically been based on the utilization of ISS and so ISS is a very large program $3 billion. And so what we've been able to do is great science by just bringing the samples up and doing the analysis and the grants. It's been very productive for us. But as we shift away from strictly ISS and we're moving into the Artemis era, those are much more costly developments. Those are new developments that need to be made and our budget has stayed fairly static and so we are, you know, we're and we also have the change in the environment of ISS is going to be going away and our commercial Leo destinations are going to be coming up. And so that all requires new hardware. And again, the budget has been very historically very low because we've been the beneficiary of ISS is subsidies and leveraging. So, so yeah, so we we do have challenges ahead of us and so we have to prioritize. We are still doing some deep space. We had our Artemis one, we will have an Artemis two investigation so it all has to be balanced by how much we can get done on ISS but also preparing for the commercial Leo destinations and also doing Artemis. So it's it's it's a balancing act. We would love to do more at you know and but we are constrained by the current budget realities. So but I, you know, we're looking forward to the decadal we think it's going to come out with some great new science for us to do very likely not use the same capabilities on ISS that we already have so that also is going to require new new money to build new capabilities to do that great science that we really think is important for benefiting life on earth and helping our astronauts explore go deeper, stay longer. So, so we're we're working at and we're working that balancing act. Thank you. So, Elise, I'm going to note that somebody put a comment in the chat that says the budget cut question was not answered and we're not sure which budget cut question they want. So if they'd like to, I will invite you to put more in the chat. Okay. And our next question up here is potentially also unique to Nikki or to toss someone else here but this is a question about how missions and projects receiving NASA funding can support diversity equity and inclusion efforts, in a particular those related to the SMD bridge program. For example, they ask is there a way to pair NASA funded projects with bridge program. And I'm going to throw that to Michael new, since he is doing the SMD bridge program. Yeah, thank you. So. These short answers. Yes. The bridge program is essentially going to fund the creation of partnerships between under resource institutions and NASA center. There's no limit on what part of a NASA center could be involved. So missions can become part of the final, the final solicitation for that will be out probably in six ish months, maybe. I'll also point out that there's a solicitation on the street right now and Rose is called here to observe, which is from Lori's planetary science, which specifically partners the missions with individual under resource institutions. I believe to date it. The two pilot studies. One was at the other one Virginia state. I'm not certain that's correct. So, yes, missions can do a lot. We're also going to be eventually rolling out requirements in our AOs that will ask for inclusion plans for. So, how they're identifying with our inclusion, they may find in their teams. So, yeah, the short answer is, yes, missions can definitely partner with all kinds of institutions to some bridge programming members. All right. Thank you very much. And I see we do have some clarification in the chat as well about one of the previous questions related to budget cuts for missions that had previously been approved for extension. And there are also a couple of questions here additionally related to, you know, this question refers to competition between divisions for budget. You know, in particular references MSR if you'd like to address those. Okay, so why and when you so we are not familiar with any extended missions that were approved that have been cut in the room. So, so small reductions in funding, but not like that big budget cuts. So we're a little confused by that question. I might suggest that the person who asked the question emails, Laurie or myself directly with if you don't want to put more details in. So, okay. So the next you asked for the question about the division. Yeah, I really want to hit that one kind of hard. There is no hyper competition between the divisions. We all work really, really, really well together. It is a very collaborative nature here in SMD. There's definitely, I think that's a, that's a fully chosen phrase. I think that, you know, it's we try very, very hard to maintain a good balance between our divisions. And, you know, the, but the budget, the NASA budget is not unlimited. We do have, we do have a top line. NASA has a top line, SMD has a top line, and we have to balance the portfolio within that top line. And sometimes tough decisions have to have to happen. You know, so that's just unfortunately the way it goes. That's just unfortunately the way it goes. But I just really want to hit that there isn't, there really is not any competition, never mind hyper competition. There really isn't any competition between the divisions. It's extremely collaborative. Go ahead, Laurie. Thank you. I'm going to go back to the question about cuts again. And as Nikki said, we're not aware of anything that's been had really significant cuts related to extended missions. There have been as she noted in the Mars program cuts on the order of a million to $5 million on some of the extended missions, but that's observed again, balanced against the other needs within the portfolio. And yes, it's a challenge, but that's those are the only ones I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. All right, our next question here. Let's see. Is about whether there are plans to expand the deep space network to handle the increasing number of flying missions. So, Mark, is that one you'd like to take? Or Maniki, if you prefer. So there is, there is a big review going on of scan, which is the organization that runs the deep space network. So I would say kind of watch this space as we're working on the plans to move forward. Certainly understand that we do indeed have an awful lot of operating missions and a lot of stress on the DSN and that is a topic of much conversation here. Sandra Kaufman, did you want to comment? Thank you, Nikki. So we are working with the scan to understand what the future is going to look like. There is a lot of demand on DSN, of course. And they have plans to not only upgrade infrastructure, but also try to meet our demands. So we are just still in the early stages of understanding their plans and also as given them all of the requirements for the future. Meanwhile, we continue working with them and that's all I can, I have for now. Yeah, and thanks to Paul Hertz pointed out that, you know, they do have a path, what they're calling the path to green in scan and they are working on that. So just kind of stay tuned. And we'll have more information on that. Thanks. They have the legs to another in other plans that they are trying to implement. Thank you very much. Our next question. We can direct to Jeff, who is on the line here. And this is, let's see, given the most recent planetary decadal survey. This is a question about whether that took into account concerns related to our sample return and, you know, how NASA can ensure that the community supports MSR costs. So thank you for the question. I'm afraid I'm going to need some help. So maybe if somebody can put some additional information in the chat, I'm not sure I understand the question about the prevention of documentation of MSR related concerns and the decadal. And in terms of making sure the entire community supports. I think I started talking about this last time a little bit. We obviously began this campaign to bring back scientifically returned samples with the launch of perseverance and that tremendous progress. It's been made to collect the diversity of compelling samples and, you know, the mission has has reduced a great amount of risk by putting down a cash on the surface of Mars. It's available in the event that anything happens to perseverance. But the mission to bring back the samples that we're collecting, you know, is the highest priority of the decadal survey. There have been a lot of questions about the cost. We're in formulation now we're doing the work to climb the knowledge curve and we're building our schedules and our costs and doing our planning for the implementation phase. We hope to get to agency confirmation this fall. We're making progress just in the last couple of weeks we we've done a test of spinning test fire of the second stage of the MAV and as Nikki mentioned, we're here at Marshall this week doing the preliminary design review review for the Marjesson vehicle. So I think we're we're doing all the right things to understand our cost and to control them once we get into implementation as as Nikki mentioned, among the things that we've been doing differently. And I think for those of you that have been paying attention to SMD missions over the years you all appreciate that we we started with an independent review board and pre formulation. I think that's unprecedented. I don't think we've done that before to make sure that we're heading off in the right direction and to get advice from the community. We continue to do independent review in terms of cost of schedule assessments. We did that for KDPB last last summer. And of course, as Nikki mentioned, we're launching off on a second independent review board before confirmation. Once we get past confirmation, we'll continue to do independent review. It really comes down to to managing our performance through looking implementing the large mission studies recommendations with respect to to cost, you know, insight including earn value management and making sure we're managing our contracts and we'll continue to use independent review. So, we've got a we're using the best mechanisms of the whole agency here. We have almost every center involved. We're using their expertise. Not only that we're leveraging industry and we're leveraging our international partners to make this mission happen. So, I think that's all I have for today unless there are more questions. Thank you. I appreciate it. Lori, did you want to follow up? I just wanted to add our compliment. Some of the things that that Jeff said, all of which is really important about how we are going forward with understanding and managing the cost. But in we talk about community support for Mars sample return. You know, our decadal survey process is the process by which we identify the community priorities for the entire planetary science community. And that decadal survey listed Mars sample return as again the highest priority to complete with then within the current decade. They did provide guide rails related to the cost of the mission. So it's not to negatively impact the rest of the portfolio and we're very sensitive to those in particular. They provided a guideline that said to not allow Mars sample return to exceed 35% of the overall planetary science budget that to date has not happened. And the additional funding that has been requested has been over and above the rest of the planetary science division budget. So certainly we absolutely are going to work as you heard Jeff who's managing this to try and manage the costs and make sure that we are our manage it to the best of our ability, but we are also still following the guidelines and recommendations of the survey. Thank you, Lori. And then this next question if we can direct this one to Brad Bailey. This is asking about SMD's plan to implement the endurance a lunar mission on the scope and schedule described in the decadal survey. Thanks for the question. As many of you know, the endurance a proposed mission in propose the mission identified in the decade. The long duration rover is a long duration rover that will traverse through thousands of kilometers through the South Pole can basin collecting up to 100 kilograms of rocks and ultimately delivering that delivering them to the South Pole for return to earth through crude Artemis missions. I think it's super exciting as as you all know the several the last decadals have identified South Pole Aiken and the science embedded with their there in as as top priorities for lunar science. So endurance a is is definitely critical and we are we are definitely planning to implement endurance a as recommended by the decadal survey. The next process is to complete a few studies as well as as well as stand up a science definition team to refine those science objectives and requirements as outlined in the decadal. And then that will ultimately be followed by a pre formulation a set of pre formulation studies leading into the actual start of the project somewhere around the middle of the decadal horizon and fi 27 or 28. Very much Brad. Our next question here. Maybe Nikki if you want to start off or then if Karen would like to jump in. This is about the urgency of climate change and how spending on missions like Mars is balanced with spending on earth. Yeah thanks for the question. It's a great question because we're really happy to see in the FY 24 budget that the earth science request is an unprecedented two point five billion dollars. And so that allows them to implement all of their decadal survey recommendations and so I know Karen's going to come come in behind but I think it's just a great we don't have to choose between earth and space science we don't have to do that we're really hitting both. And so I you know I think that's that's a really great position to be in and I'm sure Karen would love to tell you about all the amazing things she's doing with that in that science portfolio. Thanks so much Nikki yeah we are we're very excited about the the PB request for fiscal year 24 it would allow us to move out on all of the the designated observables that means the your system observatory missions at the target levels that were identified in the decadal survey. And at the same time move forward on Landsat next, which also has to be developed in the same timeline so are the President's budget request covers all of those, as well as letting us move forward with the first, the first earthy system explorers call. So, so we are thrilled with the request and and and looking forward to moving forward on all of these great missions. Thank you Karen. Gonna jump in and answer there's a question about the relative size of MSR versus other divisions entire budget and I'm happy to take that one. You know, yes, it's very easy to to draw the line and say one one mission is bigger than another divisions budget. The mass sample return mission is extremely complex mission and it requires a lot of different moving pieces, a lot of technology, a lot of mission design, and it is therefore a more a more costly mission. That does not mean that the other divisions are not doing great science and are not doing great missions. It was an incredibly hard decision to pause GDC. I think we did talk about that last time. It is an incredibly difficult decision. It was a very difficult decision for for Laurie to delay their attest. We don't make these decisions lightly. They are very hard. It takes a lot to actually be able to do that. But sometimes you do have to make these make these cuts in order to achieve all of the great science that we have. I will flag that as everybody knows the heliophysics right now they have a decadal survey in in in process and so I would ask that the community turn their attention to the decadal and make sure that your inputs are getting into the decadal the best one we've ever had in heliophysics and in with that comes a great deal of success for a mission for a mission director. So vision division sorry so you know please please direct your energy and your focus to the decadal and and give the recommendations that the heliophysics division can implement and and really grow the community for everybody. Thanks. So I can certainly address that so as the briefing charts that we showed last time stated for astrophysics we have a very modest. Wage that gets started on some of the activities towards making habitable worlds observatory a reality that includes a group called start which we will be sending out their colleague letter for. And they will start doing science trades and applying those to the architecture. We will also re vector some of our technology programs so that we're focusing on the prioritized technologies that we will need for the habitable worlds observatory. And of course the we expected the wedge will open up later. Thank you mark and actually this next question is for you as well. This is about the x-ray and infrared probes that were recommended by the astrophysics decadal survey and whether there is a chance or potential opportunity for both to be funded in the future. So in this astrophysics presidential budget request we are funded for one astrophysics probe this decade. And that is consistent with the recommendations of the decadal survey. And so we will prioritize the selection based on scientific excellence. I will note that we do expect to select several of these two missions for a phase a down select study. And again those will also be selected on the basis of scientific excellence. Great thank you very much mark. Sorry Elise I'm going to jump in because I'm being a pest because I'm reading the chat as well which is always dangerous. No the Veritas delay was due to other reasons I was actually using it to demonstrate how difficult decisions can be to be made by a division director. Thanks Elise. Thank you Nikki. And this next question is about CubeSats and how we'll continue to support them given that they are higher risk but also provide valuable science. Well let me see okay understanding the potential cut to CubeSats how we continue to support these high risk highly valuable missions. We will continue to support them as we've done before they are part a lot of them are part of our roses programs a lot of them are tech demos a lot of them in there. And then we also see CubeSats in some of our major missions in heliophysics we have CubeSats in our mid exes. So we will continue to support them if there are cuts in any one divisions program for CubeSats it's to balance balance on you know the other priorities but I see Karen on and I'm pretty sure that she wants to brag on a mission that she has ready to go. Yeah, I would just say I would just echo what Nikki said that that I would I view CubeSats as a normal part of our portfolio now for all the reasons that Nikki mentioned. And of course we're looking forward to the tropics launch. Very, very shortly in time for a hurricane season this year and that's that's a CubeSat mission it's a venture class mission. That's a constellation of CubeSats that will give us rapid refresh looks at tropical cyclones as they evolve so. So yeah I view CubeSats as alive and well on the portfolio thanks. Go tropics go tempo as well Karen Mark. And I'll just note in astrophysics that we continue to select CubeSats for our roses program and will be competing more this year. And in addition the number of previous selections within the roses program are going to be flying over the next couple of years so we're looking forward to really active couple of years with CubeSat missions. And some of those missions I just add will be making key contributions to our time domain and multi messenger astronomy program. Great. Thank you, Mark. Our next question here I believe is for Lori. This is asking about the 2024 budget for New Horizons and why that was cut when senior review did not recommend shortening the three year extension. The first thing I'd like to say about this question first thank you for the question but I believe that the questioner is referring to the 2025 budget. There is budget in 2024 for New Horizons. Then I'd like to point out that the senior review process is in place to assess the missions, the science return on the missions and provide information to us and as a headquarters to make decisions based on. So the senior review doesn't actually make the decisions those are made at headquarters based on the information that the senior review provides. What's in the senior review and we did have the New Horizons proposal it was a multidisciplinary proposal it included science objectives for planetary science objectives for astrophysics and objectives for heliophysics. And what can be seen in the senior review which is posted online publicly for anyone to see. It states that and I'm probably I don't have the direct quote in front of me so you can look up the exact quote is but it basically says that the probability of additional science return for planetary science with New Horizons spacecraft is quickly diminishing. And that there's very very little additional planetary science that we can gain from the spacecraft. However, it did the same senior review is evaluated by heliophysics and astrophysics, and they did identify significant heliophysics science that could be done from this unique location in the solar system. And so based on the reviews that were in the senior the information the senior reviews planetary science made the decision to extend New Horizons through fiscal year 2024 and we're providing that budget for for the project. And as you may have seen there is a request for information that's on the street now looking for additional science concepts we've already got good feedback that there we know that there's good heliophysics science that can be done with the spacecraft. But it's not limited to just heliophysics the RFI is soliciting. Science from from astro from helio from planetary the RFI is actually been released by the heliophysics division and so I'd like to at least offer peg loose an opportunity if she wants to add anything further regarding the RFI. I just want to say we're very much looking forward to the responses to the RFI and as with voyager, which toward the end of its life was able to do very important heliophysics science. We believe that New Horizons offers an opportunity for continuing to do measurements for heliophysics that are in an area that are very difficult and take a long time to get to and we are excited about the opportunity of of doing science with in heliophysics with that mission. Thank you both very much. Our next question we understand from the chat that there was a question initially on the list that we do want to make sure to address. This question is whether NASA will allocate funds to support measuring and mitigating the impact of astronomy on climate change. We will toss this one to Paul Hertz we have here senior advisor in SMD. The discussion in the astrophysics decadal survey about the climate impact of astronomy is a discussion about ground based observatories. We are aware the National Science Foundation is addressing that recommendations in the decadal survey, but it's not a NASA recommendation. Thank you Paul. Our next question back on the list here is one mark you kind of briefly spoke to this. I'm not sure whether there's anything you'd like to add here. And then it's been noted that there will be some impacts to the astrophysics implementation of decadal recommendations due to the Mars sample return budget. But also that you've noted that there's a modest wedge for technology currently so if you could speak to that. So, as I understand it, the question was addressing the discrepancy in the charts between a statement about delaying implementation. Versus the notion of a modest wedge. So as I said a few minutes ago, you know, we are starting off a number of activities. But because, you know, the charts, as the chart said, you know, there are trade offs to be made due to budget constraints, we are not moving out as quickly as we would like. That's what we were trying to say there. And I should also add, you know, that our first and foremost priority remains the current program at record, which is the Roman space telescope. Thank you very much, Mark. And our next question I think is one that we will direct to Michael new for dual anonymous reviewing. Can you speak to how this will work for both technology development programs and proposals that are a continuation of previous work. Good question. Something we've been concerned about for a bit. So we wanted to get some experience under our belts with doing dual anonymous peer review for programs that aren't technology and development, for example. We're at that point and going on for at least 3 years. What we've done is we recognize that the quick check that we do now on whether the posers are qualified to carry out the work is probably not in depth enough and evaluation. Or things like technology and instrument development where the track record and the capabilities of both the individuals and their institutions to deliver hardware. It needs to be considered. We've recently revised the policy that describes how we do dual anonymous peer review. And in that revision, we've included something we now call experience and resources evaluation, which will again we'll just like in the previous implementation. It will be. Done after we've already talked about the scientific merit of the proposal, but now the panel will be given more information and we'll be able to discuss in more depth and encourage to discuss in more depth. Whether or not the team can actually form. And deliver the hardware. With regard to continuing studies, that's a little bit of a tricky question because. Unlike some agencies, whenever somebody who had a grant submits a new proposal. NASA considers that a new proposal. We do expect people to talk to us about what they've done in the past. Their successes or failures. However, that is sort of built into the experience and resources. The valuation step validation step. When we provide that information to the reviewers after they've discussed the merit of a new proposal. If you want more information about any of this, please. Feel free to email me. Or anybody else. Thanks. Thank you very much, Michael. Our next question here says that with an emphasis on earth system observatory, is there a plan to increase cost caps, give a potential de scoping of some of the instruments. So Karen, she'd like to speak to that. Yeah, thanks. So just referring back to the previous question. The, as I said, the, the President's budget request does fully support the decadal missions, the ESO at the targets identified in the decadal survey. The, the work that's going on in particular with AOS right now is to actually right size the content to that target, which, which is sort of a normal part of the mission formulation process. The, the, the pre phase a and the phase a work is to, to make sure content technical risk programmatic risk that all of that is aligned to the available budget. So that's the process that's going on now. It's not, I wouldn't characterize it as a de scope. It's really an alignment. And again, to those targets that the decadal outlined. Thanks. Thank you, Karen. And then our next question is for Diane. Will SMD request funding to respond to the decadal report for BPS. Yeah, so we're anxiously awaiting that. Unfortunately, I think it's going to come a little too late for our PPV 25 cycle this year. But it is something that we'll be looking at. And as I've mentioned before, I'm confident that the decadal is going to come recommend some great new science that is going to need new capabilities. So, yes, we will be definitely bringing forward, you know, what we think we need to accomplish that science. Thank you, Diane. And then our next question will be for Mark. This is about the great observatories and habitable worlds observatory in particular, and what strategic partnerships or investments will help maintain schedule and manage cost. So, let me start with investments. The decadal survey and also the initial discussion that I had at this year's double AS the winter meeting, but really focused on the need to do technology, direct to technology investment to bring the key technologies for the science that we want to do. To the TRL five levels so that we can then start formulating the mission based on a sound knowledge of how the technologies that we will use in this system work together. So, basically, early investment in technology to get them to a point where we can design a system based on a system level understanding of technologies as far as strategic partnerships. You know, we are already working very closely with our program offices and we are also talking to industry and have actually been running a program over the last five years. Working on segmented mirror telescope development with an emphasis on stability and other aspects related to what will be needed for the habitable worlds observatory. So, we will continue and expand the investment and sorry the partnerships that we have with our industrial community and make sure that they're heavily involved in the next stage of this program. Thank you, Mark. This next one, maybe Nikki you would like to address this. It's about the fact that Mars sample return is funded from SMD and the question is why is it not also funded from HEO. If it is critical and preparing for human missions to Mars. So, that's a great question. So it is an SMD mission because it is a science mission. It is all about the science of bringing those, you know, bringing the samples back and allowing just, you know, decades and decades worth of research to be done on those samples. And so it is first and foremost a science mission. It is true that it could be used for some small risk, some risk reduction shouldn't say small, some risk reduction for future human missions, but the ESD MD as they now are is focused totally on prepping and doing the work for the human missions. We are focused on doing the science missions. And so we are working very closely. It's a very it's a really good partnership science for exploration exploration for science. But MSR is a first and foremost a science mission. Thanks. Thank you, Nikki. And now we have a couple of questions here in the queue that I think will be for Peg. There's a question about why HEO funds orbital debris research why that falls under the HEO umbrella. And then also whether the companion small sat mission called dynamic for GDC, whether that will be paused or how the funding will work from here on out. So, starting with the orbital debris question, I'm, which I'm happy to be able to talk about this as an exciting new area that we're getting involved in in heliophysics. So Helio study of the near earth environment includes not only the traditional fields and waves and plasma particles, but also anything that impacts the space working environment. And that is the environment in which NASA and other satellites need to operate and that includes orbital debris in near or excuse me, near a space. This is increasingly complex area, especially we are we don't have a good ability to characterize small objects less than three centimeters. And those can't be observed on the ground. So it's a it's a challenging effort that requires in orbit study that that heliophysics is accustomed to doing in the ionosphere, thermosphere, mesosphere. The interactions between space plasma and objects flying through it are are not understood. And again, it's a natural fit and a compliment to the standard face space physics that that heliophysics does. So that is why we have been asked to make use of this natural environment to study the plasma interactions or that are not accessible in the laboratory. We intend to be able to advance measurement capabilities, advance understanding of the environment. And there will, while there will be societal benefits associated with this, there will also be new science discoveries, we expect. And then the question regarding, sorry about the frog, just regarding dynamic. So, in the FY 23 appropriations, we received direction we heliophysics to begin formulation of the dynamic mission. And we received funds for a phase a study. So those funds do support the AO process and the phase studies we have released a draft AO and expect to release the final AO this year with proposals do later this year. The overall, it is true that dynamic. It has been vision to rely on GDC measurements and so the uncertainty with GDC will affect our longer term plans with for dynamic, but we do intend to go forward with the phase a study. It would actually allow if fact that we're sort of revisiting GDC with a pause will not affect the alignment of those missions in our view as long as we end up being able to go forward with both. Thank you, Peg. And next up we're approaching time here so we probably only have time for maybe one more question. So Jeff, this one is for you. As mentioned in the Mars sample return documents. This is a question. Will the high altitude map test plan go ahead. Yes, so happy to take this question. So this is is one that we've been putting a lot of thought into for quite a while actually and if such a test happened, I believe it'd be in the December of 25 timeframe. The test we're talking about is a high altitude test using a sounding rocket to get data on the performance of the upper stage of the math. And this is not a cheap test that's on the order of, you know, 50 million or so. And we've been spending a lot of time thinking about the value of this test and in relationship to the cost and this goes to the questions that we've been getting about cost control. So we are still polishing up the studying the pros and cons and getting our independent review boards to weigh in on this. And we need to make a decision before our system level PDR that's coming up this summer. But again, if we do such a test, it would likely be in the December of 25 timeframe on a wallops. Thank you very much, Jeff. And as mentioned, we are approaching the end of the hour here. So, Nikki, before we wrap up, is there anything else you'd like to close out with? I appreciate everyone's time today. I think we did get through most of the questions. Any that are not done will answer them online. Just since, since there's one minute left, I'd like to have share some happy, happy stuff. So Kristen, give us a one minute update on science engagement and partnerships. Put your mic on. Thank you so much. We're so excited to share the news that this budget fully supports the award winning science activation program. This got the news in that this program that connects learners with our science in all 50 states hit over 50 million interactions last year. This was up from 20 million the year before. And it was really thanks to the web first images engagement effort. So that was the biggest bump up, but this program, it has the same rigors as science. So we have publications, we have citations. The national academies is reviewing this, this program next year. And it's just one of those that we all are so proud of. And what, you know, specifically, some of these are about our community college network in 25 states astronomy picture of the day, which hits over 1.2 million people a day. And also our neurodiverse learner network, which has 20 high school interns on the spectrum that work with NASA data. So, you know, Nikki, I just want to thank you for, you know, giving us a shout out on this and really thank to Peg and Paul. You've been with us since 2016. And just one last side note. It was Mark Clampon's first week. He shows up at double AS and he spent two hours with our team and it just meant the world. And so what you're seeing with this award winning program is the cohesion of this entire leadership team in action. Thank you, Nikki. You all welcome. Thank you so much for everything you do, Kristen. And the last word goes to the tempo lunch. Go on Karen. Great. Well, I would have been in the room with you all today, but I'm down at Kennedy Space Center eagerly awaiting the launch of tempo. It'll happen at 1230 later on tonight. And tempo will be will give us the first ever hourly view of air pollutants in across North America. So this is an extraordinary mission. It's being launched by SpaceX as part of the Intelsat constellation and it's a host of payload. Go tempo. Thank you. Go tempo indeed. Thank you. Thank you everybody for joining us. Elise last words from you. Thank you very much. The recording of today's discussion will be available at science.nasa.gov along with part one. So thank you all very much for your time.