NASA is pulling funding from the independent scientific groups that have advised the agency on planetary exploration for decades, a decision that has left researchers scrambling to understand the rationale.
In a letter posted January 16, Louise Prockter, NASA's Planetary Science Division director, announced that the "Analysis and Assessment Groups" will lose funding toward the end of April 2026. The letter cited "several recent changes in the NASA landscape," including executive orders and a "highly constrained" budget.
What makes this particularly puzzling is what these groups actually do.
What's being lost
The assessment groups aren't bureaucratic overhead. They're working scientists - planetary geologists, astrobiologists, mission specialists - who provide independent community feedback to NASA on research priorities.
They've been instrumental in missions we all know: New Horizons to Pluto, the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers on Mars, upcoming missions to Europa and Titan.
Jack Kiraly from The Planetary Society told Scientific American this is "such a strange decision with no clear rationale." He emphasizes that "consulting outside experts is critical for the success of the agency."
He's right to be puzzled. In science, peer review and external input aren't luxuries - they're how you avoid costly mistakes.
The cost-benefit doesn't add up
Here's what strikes me as particularly odd: these groups operate on shoestring budgets. We're not talking about massive savings here. What you're losing is - the kind of expertise that prevents missions from overlooking critical science questions or engineering challenges.
