In a small conference room at the Houston Woodlands Marriott in March, a couple dozen young scientists held an emergency meeting to discuss an alarming development. Thousands of other delegates at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference scampered through the adjacent hallways, past faux rock speakers piping birdsong into the complex, rushing to sessions on "isotopic constraints on early solar system chronology" and "planetary hydrology".

Paul Hayne, a postdoctoral scholar at Caltech, called the meeting to order, and explained the situation. The President had recently released his budget proposal for NASA, and it wasn’t pretty, especially for the early career scientists in the room. The space agency’s overall FY2013 budget would decrease slightly – hardly unexpected given the nation’s financial challenges – but the proposed budget for Planetary Science was $309 million lighter, a hugely disproportionate cut of 21%. The Mars Science Laboratory had just launched, the thinking went, and Planetary Science would be able to absorb the cut better than other programs.

To Hayne, there had been “some hints from the administration that planetary science might be less of a priority,” but the actual numbers came as a shock. His earlier expectations were based on the findings of the most recent decadal survey report, which represented the consensus view of 1700 scientists tasked with charting the next 10 years of research. Decadal surveys aren’t binding, but they are conducted at the government’s request, and their recommendations are generally followed, in spirit if not in every detail.

The 2011 report suggested one flagship mission – first choice: Mars sample return, second choice: Europa lander – and a continuation of the consistent smaller missions that have maintained NASA’s unmatched institutional know-how for interplanetary missions. “The released budget was worse than the worst case scenario,” says Hayne. “Not only can we not do either of the flagship missions, but we can’t even maintain the pace of the smaller scale missions. There is no way to follow the recommendations of the decadal survey with this budget.”

The scrapped flagship mission didn’t just mean lower-profile work for fledgling planetary scientists, it meant they would be deprived of a key rite of passage. “Flagship programs are the lifeblood of the entire planetary program,” says Hayne. “They feed the careers of an entire generation,” much as the Viking Landers allowed the current leaders of Mars exploration to cut their teeth in the 1970s.

Scientists are a notoriously dis-engaged bunch, often more eager to make a case for their latest journal article than to justify millions of dollars in public funding, but the scale of the proposed cuts was unprecedented. So with his livelihood very possibly at stake, Hayne had to do something. “The budget cut certainly made me more active in the science policy side of things,” he says, “and I think that’s true for everyone.” After the back room meeting in Houston, the newly inspired activists collected hundreds of signatures from other conference-goers for a petition calling for the restoration of planetary science funding.

The next logical step was the creation of a Facebook group, and Young Scientists for Planetary Exploration was born. Within a week, the group had over 300 members; within two weeks, more than 500. With engaged scientists positioned around the country, subsequent letter writing campaigns to members of Congress reached lawmakers across party lines.

Hayne and several other scientists met with Senator Diane Feinstein’s people in mid-April and spoke with Rep. Adam Schiff (who counts the Jet Propulsion Laboratory as a part of his constituency) last Friday. Both offices pledged to support the cause, though the Senator’s office admitted that the James Webb Space Telescope has had more vocal, more consistent champions over the last several years, which likely helped its standing in the budget.

The Planetary Science community’s common struggle also seems to have brought various camps closer together according to Hayne. In years past, scientists often closed ranks around specific targets – with the Mars community often gaining the upper hand over the Europa community, for example – but this crisis “has been more of a unifying thing.”

Of course, all is not yet lost: the President’s Planetary Science cut was just the opening salvo in a months-long budget-making process, and if Congress pushes back, the end result will likely be less traumatic than it first appeared. But until the final budgetary vote is cast, Hayne and the Young Scientists for Planetary Exploration will continue to speak up. “We would love a mission to spend our careers on,” he says, “and if this budget stands, that probably won’t happen. The worst thing we can do right now is nothing.”