I am pursuing a PhD in the field of planetary sciences at the moment, and I can definitely vouch for the fact that there is a lot of discussion amongst the "you

I am pursuing a PhD in the field of planetary sciences at the moment, and I can definitely vouch for the fact that there is a lot of discussion amongst the "younger folks" about the elistism of science, particularly for missions like Curiosity. The last few conferences I've been to (Division on Planetary Sciences, European Planetary Science Congress, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting) have highlighted how worried publishers like Elsevier are about the changing attitudes in the field. I've been to a number of dedicated PR seminars at these conferences, where it is clear that the pitch is that publishers that require payment for the publication of scientific papers are not preventing taxpayers from gaining access to results, but are rather simply seeking appropriate compensation for their efforts in coordinating peer-review processes and bringing the results to the attention of the wider community. I very openly tell my colleagues that change is necessary to make it clear that investment in missions like MSL, MESSENGER, JUICE etc. is for the mutual benefit of everyone. I think as a scientist, I have an OBLIGATION to communicate my results to those that make my work possible. Open access journals are making some headway, but unfortunately, until the bigwigs in the field really make a clear statement of intent to shift from the traditional publishing houses to these new publishers, the status quo will be maintained. I applaud the OP's efforts to make these results accessible to to everyone, and sincerely hope that there are no legal repercussions.