2
Activities and Membership

During 1996, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task groups gathered for a total of 49 meetings. The following narratives present highlights of these meetings. Formal study reports and short reports developed and approved during the meetings and issued during 1996 are represented in this annual report either by their executive summaries (for full-length reports) in Section 3 or by reproduction in full (for short reports) in Section 4.

Four full-length reports were distributed or delivered, including a study on archiving microgravity flight data and samples (section 3.1), a review of NASA’s planned Mars program (3.2), an analysis of radiation hazards to crews on interplanetary missions (3.3), and an assessment of recent changes in the Explorer program (3.4).

Five short reports were also prepared and released during 1996. They addressed optimum phasing of SIRTF with respect to other Great Observatories, Internet access to astronaut biomedical data, NASA’s solar system exploration roadmap, plans for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, and mission options for NASA’s sample return from Mars. These short reports are reprinted in full in Section 4.

The Board testified once before the Congress on the role of NASA Headquarters in science management. Late in the year, the Board co-hosted a NASA-NRC workshop on “origins” as an organizing theme for space science. Workshop participants joined with NASA officials to present the results of this workshop to Vice President Al Gore at a subsequent meeting in mid-December.

SPACE STUDIES BOARD

With snow days and furloughs receding, activity in Washington, D.C., and in the space program gathered momentum as 1996 got under way. Space science experienced a brilliant moment in mid-February with the launch of three science missions in an eight-day period: the Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) on the 17th was followed in midweek by the Tethered Satellite System (TSS)/USMP-3 shuttle mission, and the week was capped by the successful West Coast launch of Polar, the last U.S. component of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program. On its way to asteroid Eros, the first Discovery mission NEAR sent back images of its first cruise phase target of opportunity, the Moon. Even the TSS, whose snapped cable was widely reported as a second failure for the unlucky Italian-U.S. collaboration, met an important mission objective in measuring a voltage of 3,500 volts and a current of almost half an ampere before the break.

Two significant documents were released by NASA during February. The first, a new NASA Strategic Plan, clearly laid out the philosophical premises and goals of America’s space program in 1996. Anyone with aerospace industry proposal team experience would recognize and appreciate the dense but orderly and well-illustrated style that enables so much to be said in so few pages. The other major agency report was the “Final Publication” version of the NASA Science Institutes Plan. In 13 scant pages, this report presented the objectives and top-level plan for a radical rethinking of science at NASA. The 1994–1995 NASA Zero Base Review are plans for an overall contraction of NASA and dispersal of many program management functions to the centers. Expected to be



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 2 Activities and Membership During 1996, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task groups gathered for a total of 49 meetings. The following narratives present highlights of these meetings. Formal study reports and short reports developed and approved during the meetings and issued during 1996 are represented in this annual report either by their executive summaries (for full-length reports) in Section 3 or by reproduction in full (for short reports) in Section 4. Four full-length reports were distributed or delivered, including a study on archiving microgravity flight data and samples (section 3.1), a review of NASA’s planned Mars program (3.2), an analysis of radiation hazards to crews on interplanetary missions (3.3), and an assessment of recent changes in the Explorer program (3.4). Five short reports were also prepared and released during 1996. They addressed optimum phasing of SIRTF with respect to other Great Observatories, Internet access to astronaut biomedical data, NASA’s solar system exploration roadmap, plans for the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, and mission options for NASA’s sample return from Mars. These short reports are reprinted in full in Section 4. The Board testified once before the Congress on the role of NASA Headquarters in science management. Late in the year, the Board co-hosted a NASA-NRC workshop on “origins” as an organizing theme for space science. Workshop participants joined with NASA officials to present the results of this workshop to Vice President Al Gore at a subsequent meeting in mid-December. SPACE STUDIES BOARD With snow days and furloughs receding, activity in Washington, D.C., and in the space program gathered momentum as 1996 got under way. Space science experienced a brilliant moment in mid-February with the launch of three science missions in an eight-day period: the Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) on the 17th was followed in midweek by the Tethered Satellite System (TSS)/USMP-3 shuttle mission, and the week was capped by the successful West Coast launch of Polar, the last U.S. component of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program. On its way to asteroid Eros, the first Discovery mission NEAR sent back images of its first cruise phase target of opportunity, the Moon. Even the TSS, whose snapped cable was widely reported as a second failure for the unlucky Italian-U.S. collaboration, met an important mission objective in measuring a voltage of 3,500 volts and a current of almost half an ampere before the break. Two significant documents were released by NASA during February. The first, a new NASA Strategic Plan, clearly laid out the philosophical premises and goals of America’s space program in 1996. Anyone with aerospace industry proposal team experience would recognize and appreciate the dense but orderly and well-illustrated style that enables so much to be said in so few pages. The other major agency report was the “Final Publication” version of the NASA Science Institutes Plan. In 13 scant pages, this report presented the objectives and top-level plan for a radical rethinking of science at NASA. The 1994–1995 NASA Zero Base Review are plans for an overall contraction of NASA and dispersal of many program management functions to the centers. Expected to be

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 contentious and painful, this broader restructuring claimed a first casualty. The widely respected shuttle director Bryan O’Connor resigned at the end of February when oversight of flight readiness review was transferred to Johnson Space Center. On March 8, Orbital Sciences successfully launched the first Pegasus-XL payload, an Air Force radiation satellite built by CTA. A successful follow-on flight of a BMDO payload would unblock a string of NASA missions held up by the XL’s previous two failures in 1994 and 1995. Earth scientists had the opportunity to defend the Mission to Planet Earth’s space observation plans once again at a House science committee hearing on March 6. Later in the month, proposed legislation to create a special, politically appointed science panel to review the Earth Observing System (EOS) measurement set was dropped. At hearings on March 26 and 28, Administrator Goldin responded to Senate concerns about Russian participation in the space station program and the steep drop-off in outyear agency funding apparent in the administration’s FY97 budget. This new NASA budget, released on March 19, drew fire from all sides for its long-term projections. The proposal for fiscal 1997 itself, fixed at the de facto level of the unfinalized FY96 limit of $13.8 billion, was broadly viewed as very positive. Beginning in FY98, however, the proposed budget declined steeply to $11.6 billion (unadjusted for inflation) in FY00. Proponents of the space program worried about the impact of a reduction of this size, and space scientists were particularly alarmed about being caught between the demands of the shuttle and station programs and the slumping budget ceiling. Republican lawmakers assailed the budget as a political gimmick that deferred real budget pain until after the November elections. Even the Administrator, during his formal presentation of the budget, asserted that the outyear numbers were “not chiseled in stone,” promising to work with Congress and the administration to improve the space agency’s share of national R&D spending. The combination of continuing downsizing at the agency with electoral year balanced-budget politics posed a tough and fractious puzzle in the context of similar situations all across the federal government. The Space Studies Board held its 118th meeting on February 28 to March 1 in Washington, D.C. The first guest, NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova, spoke on plans for revising science budget categories, establishing a new Space Station Utilization Board, and implementing recent management directions provided in a document entitled Administrator’s Guidance—1996. Next, the members heard a set of presentations by congressional Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) staff on the broad picture for space science programs and budgets. This dialogue was somewhat hampered compared to years past by the unusual state of the FY97 budget request: only a summary one-year plan had been forwarded to the Congress at the time of the meeting, with a more detailed submission due at the end of the month. As a result, details of the FY97 budget were not presented by OMB and CBO, and congressional staff could comment only in very broad terms. Before moving onto status and planning reports of its committees and task groups, the Board was pleased to receive a report on European space science and the status of the European Space Science Committee by ESSC Chair François Becker. Later in the afternoon, the Board heard presentations from Drs. Steven Holt and Vincent Salomonson on science management at Goddard Space Flight Center and had the opportunity to discuss the impact of NASA program management changes at that center. The first day ended with a short teleconference with Mr. Alfonso Diaz, former head of the NASA Science Institute Planning Integration Team, on the final plan for establishing new science institutes at Johnson Space Center and several other NASA field centers. The second day of the meeting began with a NASA management panel consisting of Associate Administrators Wesley Huntress and Harry Holloway and Deputy Associate Administrator William Townsend. Subsequent discussion focused on the downsizing changes facing NASA in the outyears and resulting management and program adaptation. Before breaking for lunch, the Board heard from Messrs. Anthony DiMarcantonio and W. Michael Hawes of the space station program and from Mr. Mark Uhran, deputy director of the utilization office on progress on the International Space Station. The remainder of the day was devoted to committee reports and guidance. The final morning of the meeting was spent finishing committee reports and hearing from National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) Director Robert Winokur on NOAA operational Earth observation programs and issues. The later session included very interesting issues related to convergence of U.S. programs and the status of international negotiations in the Earth observation area. Decision actions of the Board during the meeting included approving revised statements of task for projects for the Board’s Joint Committee on Technology (shared with the NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) and the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 As spring rolled into the dog days of another Washington summer, space scientists could rejoice in some successes, mourn some failures, and continue to puzzle over the future. To start with, the budget picture, at least in the short term, was adequate overall. The long-awaited budget for FY96 was finalized nearly seven months late when President Clinton signed the FY96 Omnibus Appropriations bill on April 25. At $13,903 million, the FY96 appropriation for NASA represented a modest decline from FY95’s $14,064 million (exclusive of the special $400 million National Aeronautics Facilities line). The final version of the FY96 package actually added $83 million to the earlier conference bill for NASA Science, Aeronautics, and Technology. As the second quarter ended, progress was being made on the new, FY97 spending plan. On June 26, the House passed NASA’s appropriations bill, signaling a further decline in overall NASA spending to $13,604 million. Science Committee Chair Robert Walker wanted to shift resources from Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) to space science, but the net result in the House-passed bill was an MTPE reduction from FY96 of $220 million with no change from the request ($1,857 million). As usual, a measure by Representative Tim Roemer to reduce funding for the space station was defeated, but he had more success in getting a prohibition on NASA participation in the controversial U.S.-Russian Bion life sciences missions. Action moved to the Senate, where the climate for MTPE was definitely warmer, including strong support from Senators Burns and Pressler, chairs of NASA’s Senate authorizing subcommittee and full committee, respectively. The strange part of the budget story was the outyears picture. On the one hand, the president’s FY97 budget proposal presented by NASA Administrator Goldin on March 19 showed a remorseless decline for NASA: $13,100 million for FY98; $12,400 million for FY99; and $11,600 million for FY00. On the other hand, there was a quiet message being propagated by NASA and other agency heads to their constituencies that relief would be obtained in their particular case next year (i.e., after the election). On June 9, the Washington Post reported a remarkable hearing exchange between Senator Bond and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown, in which the latter announced that he was not “planning to live with the president’s line.” Administrator Goldin told Senator Bond that “the White House has instructed us to take no precipitous action on the outyear budget,” a posture reaffirmed by the Administrator during a discussion with NASA’s Space Science Advisory Committee on June 24. Nonetheless, NASA employees, particularly those at Headquarters, had good reason to be apprehensive. Backing up the objective of halving the current complement of 1,430 positions by late 1997, Deputy Administrator Jack Dailey on April 17 issued a memorandum reducing the Headquarters Zero Base Review “go-to” personnel targets from more than 1,000 (by the year 2000) to 669. The science codes, which had been hard at work crafting management organizations that could carry out Headquarters functions with between 47 and 68 staff each, were informed that they would have to make do with 40 each, instead. A survey of the plans provided by Codes M, S, U, X, and Y in response to a May 3 deadline revealed strongly argued cases for addbacks, concerns about increased risk, and arguments for the importance of Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) temporary staff. Taken by surprise by the new cuts, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski reacted vigorously in press and in budget bill report language. It is easy to see the interconnectedness of outyear budget projections and the proposed sweeping personnel changes; uncertainty about the real significance of those projections, mixed with the politics of federal employment and real concerns about how NASA’s science programs will be managed, seemed to preclude an orderly assessment of where space science is headed. Above the Beltway, the disastrous loss of the four Cluster spacecraft on June 4 during the Ariane-5’s maiden voyage stunned the space physics community, which seemed to be left with little prospect of recovering the science from this vital piece of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program. Paradoxically, the failure seemed to strengthen the realization that international cooperation was going to be key to such complex and costly projects in the future. The Board met for its 119th meeting on June 12–14 at the Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. In using this opportunity to hear about ongoing research programs and management issues in the field, the Board continued a tradition of holding its spring meetings at NASA centers. Since 1991 the Board has met at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Johnson Space Center (JSC), Marshall Space Flight Center, and Goddard Space Flight Center. The major thrusts of the meeting were oversight of its committees and task groups and interaction with Ames scientists and managers. On the first day of the meeting, the Board also held telecons with NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova, Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress, and Acting Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Arnauld Nicogossian. The Board also was briefed by JPL Assistant Director Charles Elachi on project management at JPL and on the recently completed planetary explora-

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 tion roadmap development effort, which he headed. The Board was informed that NASA was abruptly abandoning efforts to establish independent science institutes as a result of an unfavorable ruling by the Office of Personnel Management on requests for waivers for certain pension and revolving-door limitations in civil service employment. The only exception would be the proposed biomedical institute at the Johnson Space Center, whose formation would not entail transfer of civil servants. The Board spent some time discussing plans for this remaining institute and its proposed role in program management in the life sciences. Two letter reports were drafted on life sciences topics. The second day of the meeting featured a series of short briefings covering a broad range of research initiatives under way at Ames. These areas spanned planetary science and astrobiology, life sciences, and information systems and robotics. The remainder of the second day and the morning of the third were occupied by committee reports and discussion of projects under way. The Board was pleased to have as guests European Space Science Committee Deputy Chair Herbert Schnopper and Scientific Assistant Jean-Claude Worms. As all space researchers know, the third quarter of the year is “high noon” for the budget process in Washington. There was a striking contrast between the FY97 process and the situation one year before. Previously, the mood was contentious; 1996 was nearly collegial. At least for the VA-HUD-IA bill, where NASA’s appropriation is to be found, the path through the Congress to the White House was orderly and uncontroversial. President Clinton signed it into law on September 26, well before the fiscal year deadline. Taken on the whole, NASA did well compared to the administration’s request of $13.8 billion, experiencing a reduction of only $100 million to $13.7 billion. Yet although this outcome as anticipated could be seen as a favorable one in the budget game, the result did contain some surprises. As the bill made its way from House to Senate to conference, several adjustments were made in the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology (SA&T) account, where space research funds are book-kept. First, the House took $300 million out of the administration’s $ 1.4 billion request for Mission to Planet Earth. The Senate version gave it back but provided that the SA&T account be reduced by $100 million overall, at NASA discretion. This unspecified cut was reduced in conference to $95 million, but a series of “unfunded mandates” were inserted in the form of earmarks for a total of $69 million. In the end, MTPE suffered a specified cut of only $5 million for the GLOBE education project. Program managers within the SA&T account now have to identify $164 million in reductions in ongoing and planned programs. This might not seem like a lot out of a total SA&T budget of nearly $5.8 billion, but most programs had already been squeezed hard, and avoiding real damage as these cuts were made offered a real challenge to NASA executives. The classical space sciences progressed in many areas, including the playback of fascinating new Galileo images of Europa (which indicate past or even present existence of liquid water), possible evidence in an Antarctic meteorite of ancient life on Mars, and launch of the Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer (FAST). The shuttle-borne Life and Microgravity Sciences mission was in orbit as the third quarter of 1996 began, featuring a full complement of U.S. and international investigations for a record-breaking 17-day mission. At the same time, the space laboratory sciences were confronted by new planning and budgeting challenges. Difficulties experienced by the space station, as it struggled to stay within the flat multiyear budget cap imposed after its last reconfiguration several years ago, forced a rethinking of existing science utilization plans. Because of the development problems, additional funds were needed, and these funds have been found in the research and utilization dollars contained in the $2.1 billion fixed yearly space station budget. Appropriation report language specifically provided for “general transfer authority of up to $177 million” across the firewall that was to have shielded these resources from diversion to development costs. Although space station development managers argued that without adequate resources to build the station there would be nothing to utilize, the proposed transfer of these funds left the laboratory science programs with multiyear gaps in flight opportunities and potentially very late delivery of crucial outfitting such as the centrifuge and related equipment. The Board did not meet during the third quarter, but its Executive Committee and some additional Board members met at the J.Erik Jonsson Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on August 14–16. The meeting included telephone conference calls with Dr. Wes Huntress, associate administrator of the Office of Space Science, NASA; Dr. Michael Mann, deputy associate administrator (Management) of the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, NASA; Dr. Kenneth Nealson, chair of the Task Group on Issues in Sample Return; Dr. Janet Luhmann, chair of the Committee on Solar and Space Physics; and Dr. Ronald Greeley, chair of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. The Executive Committee approved an assessment report prepared by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration on the planetary exploration roadmap, approved nominations for the Committee on

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Microgravity Research, and revised the draft of a proposed letter report on technology issues. The Executive Committee also discussed plans for possible follow-on to the work of the Task Group on Issues in Sample Return; an input from the Board to the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications review of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics; plans for review of reports when approval is needed prior to Board meetings; and a possible study of plans for International Space Station use of space weather information. Several other committee and Board appointments were also discussed, along with possible directions for the Board and preliminary plans for the next Board meeting. Another major development at the end of the third quarter was release on September 19 of the Clinton administration’s long-awaited National Space Policy. Divided into major “guideline” sections for Civil, National Security, Commercial, and Intersector issues, the space researcher’s attention is naturally drawn to the first. Here the policy provides for focusing R&D on “space science to enhance knowledge of the solar system, the universe, and fundamental natural and physical sciences; Earth observation to better understand global change and the effect of natural and human influences on the environment; human space flight to conduct scientific, commercial, and exploration activities; and space technologies and applications….” The Civil section goes on to elaborate, endorsing the International Space Station, project demonstrations for next-generation launchers, space and Earth science, and technology. The subsection on space and Earth science is strongly weighted toward solar system studies: of four undertakings specifically cited, three deal with planets and other bodies in our own and other solar systems and the last supports the Earth Observing System. Neither space life sciences, nor materials and fluids research in microgravity, nor astronomy or cosmology is mentioned specifically. Further on, in the Intersector section, guidelines are provided for international cooperation, and outer solar system researchers were heartened to note the provision that the Department of Energy “maintain the necessary capability to support space missions which may require the use of space nuclear power systems.” The Board held its 120th meeting on November 13–15 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Members heard from senior NASA Headquarters science managers about program status via videoconference, and were briefed by Jet Propulsion Laboratory Director Edward Stone on sweeping changes facing the lab’s personnel and relations with industry and academia. Chairs of the Board’s committees and task groups described project progress and plans. These discussions included Board approval of a new study on research readiness for the next solar maximum, to be undertaken by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics, and approval of several reports. The Board approved the final reports of the Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics and of the Task Group on Issues in Sample Return; provisional approval was bestowed, subject to specified revisions, on the third and final report of the Committee on Human Exploration series on science in a program of human exploration. On the second day, Mr. Michael Suffredini, head of the new JSC Office of Space Station Payloads, described efforts to optimize early science utilization of the station/shuttle system in the face of tight budget constraints. Mr. Gregory Withee and colleagues from the NOAA NESDIS discussed via videoconference the outlook for an integrated National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and NOAA perspectives on an Integrated Global Observing Strategy. The Board also held a teleconference with Professor Joan Johnson-Freese, member of the Board’s Committee on International Programs, on her work in Japanese space policy. On the morning of the meeting’s last day, the Board was treated to a very up-to-date account of Galileo science by Project Scientist Torrence Johnson, who was just returning from a meeting on the subject at the San Juan Capistrano Institute. After the frenzy of the national campaigns, Washington slipped into the year-end holidays in a mood of exhausted anticipation. The Clinton administration was returned for a second term, but what direction it will take remains uncertain. The scent of deficit reduction, however, persists after a bruising contest fought at the center of the political spectrum. Space researchers could point to some promising achievements and hopeful signs. The Mars Global Surveyor and Pathfinder spacecraft were launched successfully in November and December. Shannon Lucid was retrieved from Mir after a record-breaking 183-day tour, providing assurance that human investigators can be expected to perform effectively on multinational crews in a space station environment. The space station node, a critical U.S. component of this international project, completed final pressure tests after some earlier concerns. The Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C/X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (SIR-C/X-SAR) discovered a long-buried channel of the Nile, providing an important datum to scientists investigating the geology of the region and its impact on local populations. Galileo, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory continued to return exciting results, and NASA finalized a contract for development and operation of the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 On the minus side, the massive Russian Mars-96 spacecraft crashed back into Earth, causing temporary confusion and alarm about the trajectory of its debris. The U.S. High Energy Transient Experiment (HETE), a much smaller but exciting mission designed to vastly improve information about the location of cosmic gamma-ray bursters, fell prey to launch failure on the Pegasus-XL. Ominous signals continued to be heard about Russia’s ability to meet agreed-on launch schedules for some of its key elements of the international space station. On the whole, though, in looking toward 1997, space researchers could find reasons to be hopeful. The White House space policy offered support for resisting the secular decline in space science funding suggested in previous budget projections. The Vice President’s Space Science Symposium, held in mid-December, offered community members the best opportunity in a long time to make their case at the highest level of government. Because of the strength of these indicators and the vitality of projects now under way, space scientists could look toward the promised space summit and the new budget cycle with satisfaction in past achievements and guarded optimism. Membership of the Space Studies Board Claude R.Canizares,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Mark Abbot, Oregon State University John A.Armstrong,* IBM Corporation (retired) James P.Bagian, Environmental Protection Agency Daniel N.Baker, University of Colorado Lawrence Bogorad,§ Harvard University Donald E.Brownlee, University of Washington John J.Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc. Gerard W.Elverum, Jr., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) Anthony W.England, University of Michigan Daniel J.Fink,* D.J.Fink Associates, Inc. Martin E.Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives Noel W.Hinners,*§ Lockheed Martin Astronautics Andrew H.Knoll, Harvard University Janet G.Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley John H.McElroy,* University of Texas at Arlington Roberta Balstad Miller,§ Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Kenneth H.Nealson, University of Wisconsin Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center Simon Ostrach,§ Case Western Reserve University Morton B.Panish, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired) Carlé M.Pieters,§ Brown University Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona Roland W.Schmitt,* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired) John A.Simpson, University of Chicago Robert E.Williams, Space Telescope Science Institute Louis J.Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio, U.S. representative and vice president of COSPAR) Marvin A.Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook (ex officio, chair of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research) Jack D.Warner, The Boeing Company (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Vincent Vitto, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio, chair of the Naval Studies Board Space Panel) François Becker, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Physique (liaison from the European Space Science Committee) Marc S.Allen, Director Betty C.Guyot, Administrative Officer Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 §   member of the Executive Committee

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, a joint committee of the Space Studies Board and the Board on Physics and Astronomy, met in Washington, D.C., on April 8. The meeting began with a discussion with Professor Patrick Thaddeus, chair of the Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, on plans for that study. The public session began with a presentation by Dr. Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST), on the AST budgets for FY96 and FY97, the status of the Gemini Telescope project and the Millimeter Array project, and the anticipated need for a new survey of astronomy and astrophysics. Department of Energy (DOE) physics research branch chief Dr. P.K.Williams described the new DOE-NSF-NASA Science Assessment Group for Experiments in Non-Accelerator Physics (SAGENAP). SAGENAP was assembled to facilitate cross-agency decision making in particle astrophysics. Space Telescope Science Institute Director Robert Williams, gave a science talk on the Hubble Space Telescope’s deep field images. The talk was followed by a discussion of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA)-commissioned report of the Hubble Space Telescope and Beyond Committee. The following day, CAA co-chairs and members joined the TGSAA for its inaugural meeting and heard from NASA science theme directors Alan Bunner and Edward Weiler about their need for a scientific strategy for space astronomy and astrophysics. The committee met again on September 5–6 in Washington, D.C. The director of the National Science Foundation Division of Astronomical Sciences, Dr. Hugh Van Horn, and the NASA science theme directors responsible for astronomy and astrophysics, Drs. Edward Weiler and Alan Bunner, briefed the committee. The committee devoted most of the meeting to a review of the list of science priorities developed by the Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics. For the discussion, the committee was joined by the task group chair, Dr. Patrick Thaddeus, and subpanel chairs. CAA Membership Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley (co-chair) Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona (co-chair) Leo Blitz, University of Maryland Arthur F.Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University Wendy L.Freedman, Carnegie Observatories Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics John P.Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Steven M.Kahn, Columbia University Kenneth I.Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Richard A.McCray,* University of Colorado at Boulder Robert Rosner, University of Chicago Bernard Sadoulet,* University of California at Berkeley Michael S.Turner, Fermilab Robert L.Riemer, Study Director Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES The Committee on Earth Studies met in Washington, D.C., on February 13–15 to continue discussions on the capabilities of small satellites to fulfill core Earth observation needs in NASA and NOAA programs. The meeting began with a review of the status of ongoing committee activities by committee Chair John McElroy, including a report that Earth Observations from Space: History, Promise, and Reality had been published. The first two days of the meeting were devoted to presentations on technology for lightweight land, ocean, and atmospheric remote sensing instruments. The committee also received briefings on program status and new initiatives in Mission to Planet Earth, New Millennium, Earth System Science Pathfinders, Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES), and the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). Highlights of the meeting

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 included briefings on sensor and spacecraft technology from Mr. Sam Venneri of NASA’s Office of Space Access and Technology; an update on NOAA POES, GOES, and NPOESS from Mr. Robert Winokur and Mr. James Mannen, of NOAA’s NESDIS; and recent developments and technology initiatives in NASA MTPE and Earth System Science Pathfinders from Dr. Charles Kennel, associate administrator for MTPE, and Dr. Robert Price, from the MTPE division at Goddard Space Flight Center. The committee also received follow-up briefings from the Naval Research Laboratory on small satellite technology and the “Clementine-RS” and “Windsat” proposals; and from Dr. Rick Fleeter, AeroAstro president and microsatellite developer, and Dr. Robert François, who is leading Raytheon Corporation’s development of lightweight antennas for the Iridium project. In addition, the committee also received a series of briefings from NASA Langley Research Center officials on spaceborne lidar and other small satellite technologies. Finally, the committee heard presentations on a Phase A design tool from Dr. Joel Greenberg, president of Princeton Synergetics, Inc., and on high-resolution land imaging satellites from Dr. William Stoney, of MITRE’s newly created commercial company Mitretek Systems. The meeting ended with a half-day discussion of plans to complete the small satellite study and a discussion of potential new studies. The committee met in Washington, D.C., on July 10–12 under the direction of its new chair, Dr. Mark Abbott, and received briefings from Mr. Michael Luther, director for program planning and development in NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth, on recent developments in the MTPE/EOS, New Millennium, Landsat, and Earth System Science Pathfinder programs. Most of the meeting focused on discussion and revision of the committee’s draft “phase II” synthetic aperture radar (SAR) report. This study examines the utility of spaceborne SAR in Earth observations and issues related to the development of more affordable spaceborne SARs. Other items on the agenda included continuing discussion of the “small satellite” study, which focuses on the potential to incorporate smaller, less expensive satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth observation programs, and a discussion of potential new work for the committee. In particular, the committee discussed a potential collaboration with the NRC Board on Sustainable Development on the “Integrated Global Observing Strategy.” A meeting previously planned for November was rescheduled, and the committee met in Washington, D.C., on December 4–6. Highlights of the meeting included a discussion of the Board’s Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs study with task group member James Anderson; in-depth briefings on program status and near-term issues related to MTPE, the Earth Observing System, and NPOESS, by Mr. Michael Luther, director of NASA program planning and development for MTPE; briefings by Dr. Keith Raney, of Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, on the potential role of small satellites in NPOESS architectures; and briefings by Dr. Miriam Baltuck, from NASA MTPE, and Dr. Diane Evans, from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, on LightSAR and issues related to the development of affordable spaceborne synthetic aperture radar systems for scientific and commercial applications. The committee continued work on its draft report examining the role of small satellites for NASA and NOAA Earth remote sensing programs and on a second report that updates and expands earlier work on the development of civilian spaceborne synthetic aperture radar systems. To expedite completion of these reports, the committee decided to add a January meeting to its regular schedule. CES Membership Mark Abbott, Oregon State University (chair) John H.McElroy,* University of Texas at Arlington (former chair) William D.Bonner,* University of Colorado Otis B.Brown, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science John V.Evans,* COMSAT Laboratories Inez Y.Fung,* University of Victoria Elaine R.Hansen, University of Colorado at Boulder Daniel J.Jacob, Harvard University Roy L.Jenne,* National Center for Atmospheric Research Christian J.Johannsen, Purdue University Victor V.Klemas, University of Delaware Pamela E.Mack,* Clemson University Bruce D.Marcus, TRW Aram M.Mika, Hughes Aircraft Company Richard K.Moore, University of Kansas

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Stanley Morain,* University of New Mexico Peter M.P.Norris, Santa Barbara Research Center Ian M.Whillans, Ohio State University Thomas T.Wilheit, Jr., Texas A&M University Arthur A.Charo, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION The Committee on Human Exploration met on May 22–23 in Washington, D.C., to hear briefings from NASA officials on managing space science in the context of human space flight programs. Dr. Harry Holloway, former associate administrator of NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications; Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, acting head of that office; Mr. Wilbur Trafton, associate administrator for the Office of Space Flight; and Dr. France Cordova gave the committee the benefit of their thoughts on how space science has been and will be managed in the context of the shuttle and space station programs. Dr. Carl Pilcher, assistant associate administrator for strategic and international planning in the Office of Space Science, briefed the committee on NASA’s current plans for the exploration of Mars. The committee used the new information to update the draft of its third report, Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space. CHEX Membership Noel W.Hinners, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (chair) William J.Merrell, Jr., H.John Heinz III Center Robert H.Moser, Nutrasweet (retired) John E.Naugle, NASA (retired) Marcia Smith, Congressional Research Service Gerald J.Wasserburg, California Insitute of Technology Peter W.Rooney, Study Director Barbara L.Jones, Administrative Associate COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS The newly reconstituted Committee on International Programs met for the first time in Washington, D.C., on February 21–22. The committee heard from several NASA representatives on the first day. Mr. John Schumacher, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of External Relations, presented an overview on international cooperation between the United States and Europe from the Office of External Relations’ perspective. Dr. Lisa Shaffer, director of the Mission to Planet Earth division of the Office of External Relations, spoke to the committee about international cooperation in the MTPE office. Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, deputy associate administrator for life and microgravity sciences and applications, provided an overview of international cooperation in these sciences, including discussions of the Spacelab and Space Station arrangements. Mr. Ian Pryke, head the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Washington office, presented ESA structure, process, and perspectives on international cooperation with the United States. Following these presentations, the committee discussed the charge for the study on U.S.-Europe collaboration in space science and considered the audience for the report. Committee members also discussed the retrospective nature of the charge and considered incorporating several prospective and current issues into the study. On the second day, Dr. Alan Bunner, chief of NASA’s high-energy astrophysics branch, spoke about cooperation in space science, including the risks of and obstacles to collaboration. Dr. Asrar Ghassem, MTPE, presented an overview of the science aspects of cooperation in the MTPE program, including the challenges in cooperating with Europe. After further discussion, the committee selected preliminary case missions for the study.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 The committee met with its European counterpart, the European Space Science Committee in Obernai, France, just outside Strasbourg on April 29-May 1. The joint workshop focused on the Board’s joint study on U.S.-Europe collaboration in space science. The CIP-ESSC discussed the direction and content of the study and broke up into discipline teams for discussion and writing. The participants agreed on case missions to be studied in the report and on a schedule for written materials. Following the workshop, committee Chair Berrien Moore III and Study Director Pamela Whitney met with the NASA European Representative James Zimmerman at his office in Paris to discuss the joint study and the Strasbourg workshop. In addition, Mr. Zimmerman noted pertinent activities in the European space arena and offered his assistance in locating information or contacts for the study. Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, COSPAR vice president and U.S. national representative, and Pamela Whitney, executive secretary, U.S. National Committee, attended the 31st Scientific Assembly of COSPAR on July 14–21 at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. Meetings of the COSPAR Bureau and Council were held before the Assembly on July 13–14, and after the Assembly on July 20–21, to address business matters. In addition, the COSPAR Publications Committee, chaired by Dr. Lanzerotti, held meetings on July 14 and 18. The COSPAR Council decided to hold a second World Space Congress, with the International Astronautical Federation (IAF), in 2002; the First World Space Congress was held in Washington, D.C., in 1992. The Congress will be a joint COSPAR-IAF program involving both the scientific and the engineering communities. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) will organize the logistics for the Congress, while COSPAR, the IAF, and other bodies will develop the program. The prospective site for the Congress is Houston, Texas, near the NASA Johnson Space Center. Study participants attending the Scientific Assembly of COSPAR in Birmingham, England, met informally on July 17. The meeting was attended by CIP members Jonathan Grindlay, Darrell Strobel, and Louis J.Lanzerotti, ex officio; ESSC members Michael Cruise and Gerhard Haerendel; and CIP Study Director Pamela Whitney and ESSC Scientific Secretary Jean-Claude Worms. Participants discussed the status of the report draft, issues concerning the study, schedule for the report, and preliminary agenda for the Woods Hole workshop. CIP and ESSC study participants met for a second joint workshop on September 21–25 at the NRC Woods Hole Center to revise two draft chapters, which members had been writing over the summer, and to discuss and record the findings of the study. Accordingly, the workshop included both plenary sessions for the group discussions and splinter sessions for break-out writing by the scientific discipline teams. Discipline groups met with Dr. Roger Launius, NASA chief historian, to obtain guidance on specific historical questions. At the end of the workshop, CIP Chair Berrien Moore III and ESSC Chair François Becker agreed to hold a CIP-ESSC working session on January 23–25 in Paris, France. A small delegation from the CIP and ESSC were to work on the recommendations, conclusions, and executive summary of the report. Dr. Moore presented committee status and plans at the recent Space Studies Board meeting held November 13– 15 in Irvine, California. Similarly, the ESSC held its 13th meeting on November 25–26 at COSPAR Headquarters in Paris, France. Professor Becker discussed the status of the joint CIP-ESSC study. Dr. Claude Canizares, Board chair, and Ms. Pamela Whitney attended. Ms. Whitney and Dr. Worms met prior to the ESSC meeting to prepare materials on the CIP-ESSC report, and the ESSC also devoted time on the agenda for its members to review and discuss the draft report. CIP Membership Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire (chair) Robert J.Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University Robert E.Cleland, University of Washington Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Joan Johnson-Freese, Air War College/Air University Victor V.Klemas, University of Delaware Donald G.Mitchell, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory James R.Morrison, BDM International, Inc. (retired) S.Ichtiaque Rasool, University of New Hampshire John A.Simpson, University of Chicago Darrell F.Strobel, Johns Hopkins University

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Louis J.Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio) Pamela L.Whitney, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH The Committee on Microgravity Research met on February 8–9 in Irvine, California, to review the final edited draft of the archiving report and to discuss the next task of the committee. On the first morning, the committee heard about the results of the recent USML-2 mission from Dr. Bradley Carpenter of NASA’s Microgravity Science and Applications Division (MSAD). Although relatively few analyzed science results were available, the mission was considered extremely successful from an operational standpoint, with a new multiplexed video downlink system that allowed the investigators to have greater interaction with their experiments than in the past. Mr. Robert Rhome, director of MSAD, gave a briefing on the status of MSAD and the planning for NASA science institutes. The general session concluded with a presentation by Mr. Rhome and Dr. Carpenter regarding potential tasks for CMGR, followed by discussion with the committee. During executive session on the following day, the committee quickly reviewed its archiving report and gave it final approval with a few minor editorial changes. The committee then discussed Mr. Rhome’s request for a review of the MSAD research program with the aim of identifying research areas that could support NASA’s Human Exploration and Development of Space enterprise. It was agreed that two or more variations on this task statement would be drawn up, discussed with Mr. Rhome, and then reviewed again by the committee. The committee met on May 22–23 in Washington, D.C., to begin preparing for a planned review of NASA science relevant to exploration goals. Presentations were made by several different NASA divisions on technology development needs of the agency. In addition, the committee heard briefings from microgravity program managers at NASA Headquarters, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Lewis Research Center on the planned realignment of program responsibility. The committee was especially interested in the impact of proposed organizational changes on the quality of the science and decided that some of these issues should be brought to the attention of the Board. The meeting concluded with a discussion of planning details for the proposed task on exploration technologies and new committee membership categories. The committee met at Woods Hole on September 11–13 to work on its assessment of microgravity science relevant to NASA’s exploration goals. On the first day of the meeting the committee heard talks from representatives of Lewis Research Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on technology needs and potential technology contributions from the microgravity research managed by each center. The committee received a status update from Microgravity Sciences and Applications Division Director Robert Rhome on the rephasing of space station science facilities development and of associated experiment flight opportunities, including a lengthy hiatus projected for all space flight of microgravity experiments. The committee discussed with NASA representatives the planning for a technology workshop needed for the committee study. An outline was developed for the report, and writing assignments were made. Dr. Eugene Trinh, a member of the Space Studies Board’s Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs, made a presentation to the committee requesting a committee contribution to the task group’s work. It was agreed that member Dr. Gary Leal would work with Dr. Trinh to summarize input received from each committee member. The committee met for a fourth and final time in 1996 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on November 7–9 to continue work on its assessment of microgravity science relevant to NASA’s exploration goals. The meeting began with a discussion of the upcoming NASA technology workshop tentatively set for January. The committee expressed concern over whether the NASA workshop or the January AIAA meeting in Reno, Nevada, could provide the list of critical technologies needed for the report. It was resolved that the first report would have to take a preliminary look at the technology issues with a more in-depth examination reserved for the second phase of the study. Committee member Robert Ash gave a briefing on in situ resource utilization on the first day of the meeting, and Dr. Neal Pellis of Johnson Space Center gave a presentation on the Bioreactor on the second day. Committee member Gary Leal also led a discussion of the committee contribution to the report of the Board’s Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs. The rest of the meeting was held in executive session so that the committee could discuss and modify its draft report. At various times throughout the meeting the committee broke up into small writing teams to work directly on different sections of the report. The meeting ended on the evening

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine held a cell biology workshop at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, on February 12–15 as part of its task to conduct a major strategic analysis of NASA life sciences. This activity was the first in a series of planned workshops for obtaining input from the outside scientific community about priorities in specific areas of life sciences research. Although the workshop participants consisted primarily of investigators without any previous connection to NASA, a small number of NASA-funded investigators were also included. The workshop was chaired by CSBM member Elliot Meyerowitz. Four other CSBM members also participated, functioning as both session chairs and members of the writing team. The workshop began with an introduction by Dr. Meyerowitz and CSBM Chair Mary Jane Osborn, followed by an Ames Research Center presentation on the facilities available to support NASA life sciences research. The workshop participants then toured several JSC facilities, including mock-ups of the research labs aboard the space station. Participants reported that this was especially useful, giving them a clearer idea of the kind of conditions under which space research must be performed. The next two days of the workshop were devoted to focused presentations and discussions by workshop participants, grouped into sessions targeted at specific areas such as gene expression. The final discussion on the third day of the meeting was devoted to capturing the consensus of the workshop. For most of the participants, the workshop ended at noon on the third day. The writing team, however, which consisted of the session chairs and CSBM members present, remained for an additional day to document the workshop findings. After much discussion, this group forged an outline document that would be presented to the entire CSBM at its next meeting. The overall workshop was judged to be successful in meeting CSBM goals, and participants reported that the cross-disciplinary discussion and level of discourse had been very useful and rewarding. The committee met on March 13–14 in Washington, D.C., to continue work on the strategy. The meeting began with opening remarks by Dr. Osborn, who described recently announced organizational changes at NASA that appeared to move most of the control of the science programs to the centers or to institutes. The general session then began with a detailed presentation by Dr. Neal Pellis, of the Johnson Space Flight Center, on the Bioreactor program and the different cell lines being investigated using the device. This was followed by a discussion with Dr. Harry Holloway, associate administrator of NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, regarding the impact that the changing plans for space station utilization and facilities would have on the life sciences program. There was a discussion of the possibility that the development of the space station centrifuge might be delayed so that the funds could be applied to station development. The general session concluded with a presentation by Ms. Mary Frey, of NASA headquarters, on the Neurolab mission. In the afternoon, the committee heard from member Richard Setlow regarding the progress of the radiation task group that he chairs. Then Dr. Meyerowitz described the results of the cell biology workshop. The committee examined and discussed in detail the outline of priorities and conclusions developed at the workshop. Most of the following day was spent on discussion and detailed planning for the developmental biology workshop. After the meeting, the committee continued to plan for its workshop on developmental biology, scheduled for August 19–22, at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Committee Chair Mary Jane Osborn and member Robert Cleland attended a workshop in plant space biology in Bonn, Germany, on June 24–27. This workshop was part of a series organized by the international space agencies to look at issues in space biology; the committee participated in these workshops as part of its review of NASA life sciences. The developmental biology workshop took place at the Beckman Center on August 19–22 as planned. This activity was the second in a series of workshops designed to obtain input from the outside scientific community on priorities within specific areas of life sciences research. Once again, the majority of workshop participants were investigators without any previous connection to NASA, but NASA-funded investigators were also included. Committee member Anthony Mahowald chaired the workshop. Six other committee members also participated in the workshop, functioning as both session chairs and members of the writing team. Following a day’s presentations from NASA representatives, the next two days of the workshop were devoted to focused presentations and discussions by workshop participants. The presentations were grouped into sessions targeted at areas such as neural development. The final discussion on the third day of the meeting was devoted to capturing the consensus of the workshop about the areas of greatest opportunity for low-gravity research to contribute to the field of developmental

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 biology. The writing team, consisting of the session chairs and committee members present, remained for an additional day to write up the workshop findings for presentation to the committee at its September meeting. The committee held a regular meeting on September 26–27 at the Beckman Center. This was a working meeting with no invited speakers, and its purpose was to review the information collected to date for the strategy study and to plan the next phase of the study. On the first day the committee heard presentations on the results of several recent workshops attended by the committee members. The committee also reviewed in detail the results of its own August workshop on developmental biology. Then discussion turned to planning for the committee’s next workshop, in systems physiology. The committee then considered its strategy for the remainder of the study, particularly for its next full meeting. The rest of the meeting was devoted to incorporating current material and results into a draft report and refining report structure and organization. The meeting concluded with the development of writing assignments. The committee did not meet during the last quarter but was organizing a workshop on Systems Physiology to be held May 28–31. The purpose of the workshop was to obtain additional input for its ongoing research strategy study. In addition, the committee sent representatives to international workshops on bone and muscle physiology sponsored by the European and Japanese space agencies. CSBM Membership Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center (chair) Norma M.Allewell, University of Minnesota Charles J.Arntzen,* Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Inc. Robert E.Cleland, University of Washington Mary F.Dallman, University of California at San Francisco Francis (Drew) Gaffney, Vanderbilt University Medical Center James R.Lackner, Brandeis University Anthony P.Mahowald, University of Chicago Elliot Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology Kenna D.Peusner, George Washington University Medical Center Steven E.Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center Gideon A.Rodan, Merck Research Laboratories Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory Sandra J.Graham, Study Director Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant Catherine A.Gruber, Senior Program Assistant Victoria P.Friedensen, former Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 COMMITTEE ON SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS The Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research held their spring meeting on March 12–15 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The committees spent the first day discussing how well solar physics goals during the next decade would be met by anticipated available ground-based instrumentation and associated human resources. The committees heard briefings on this subject from Dr. Jacques Beckers, director (on leave) of the National Solar Observatory (NSO); Dr. Douglas Rabin, acting director of NSO; Dr. Steven Keil, from the Air Force Phillips Laboratory; Dr. Michael Knoelker, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research High Altitude Observatory; committee member Gordon Hurford, from the California Institute of Technology; Dr. Barry LaBonte, from the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii; and committee member Roger Ulrich, from the University of California at Los Angeles. Presenters discussed both the many scientific opportunities in the field of solar physics and the problems now besetting the field. In particular, presenters called attention to important facilities that are in danger of being closed, the need for facility modernization, and the lack of support for solar physics within academia.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 The second day of the meeting was devoted to work on the committees’ report on space weather, to be posted on the World Wide Web (WWW). Related to this activity and to the larger issue of the National Space Weather Program (NSWP), the committees were briefed during the third day of the meeting on the status of the NSWP Implementation Plan by Col. Tom Tascione, of the Department of Defense, and Dr. Richard Behnke, of NSF. A “rapid prototyping center” for the NSWP is still envisioned, but the mechanism by which it will be managed and its location remain to be determined. Identification of metrics by which progress can be measured for the NSWP is another important area that needs definition. The committees heard further reports on space weather activities from Dr. Ernest Hildner, director of NOAA’s Space Environment Center, and Lt. Col. Alan Ronn, chief of the weather operations branch of the USAF Forecasting Center in Colorado Springs. Their presentations emphasized the need for close interactions between the science and user communities in the NSWP. Dr. J.David Bohlin provided a Headquarters review of NASA space physics. He reported that the reorganization of NASA Headquarters was proceeding and that program implementation would be moving to Goddard Space Flight Center. The fate of the internal advisory committee structure at NASA, and in particular of the Mission Operation Working Groups (MOWGs), which have represented the “grass-roots” contacts with Headquarters, was in question. Since MOWGs have significant costs, their format and meeting strategy were being rethought. In anticipation of the NASA strategic planning workshop scheduled for the summer of 1997, the Sun-Earth Connections enterprise leader, Dr. George Withbroe, had initiated a number of preparatory activities. These included formation of a steering committee, which had met at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, as well as plans for other meetings throughout the year. In a separate but related development, the NASA space physics program issued a NASA Research Announcement for advanced mission concept studies. The decision on MIDEX selection was in its final stages and expected sometime in April. In addition to exciting new mission concepts, exploitation of operating missions was identified as a major concern for the future. Dr. Bohlin stressed the need for the community to communicate the value of continuing missions, as well as to help streamline and reduce their costs. A short report containing an assessment of NASA’s 1995 Office of Space Science strategy in the space physics area continued under final review. In addition to a possible new task to assess the health of solar physics, the committees have an approved task to evaluate the science content of Explorer line selections in light of the recently completed science strategy. Action on the latter would commence following the MIDEX selection. The committee met on June 4–7 at the Beckman Center. The committee was completing its report on space weather and, for purposes of fact finding, spent much of the first day hearing briefings by videocon from a number of scientists representing International Space Station (ISS)-related activities. The planned ISS orbit inclination is now almost 52 degrees, similar to that of MIR, making space weather a greater concern. In addition, a large number of extravehicular activities are planned during the construction phase, which spans the next solar maximum. Reports were provided by Dr. Ronald Turner of ANSER, who convened a workshop on interplanetary space weather for NASA Headquarters, and by Drs. Gautam Badhwar, of Johnson Space Center; John Wilson, from Langley Research Center; and Dale Ferguson and David Snyder, of the Lewis Research Center. The new, higherlatitude orbit of ISS necessitated additional consideration of space environment issues, but needed coordination was not evident. The committee began its assessment of the science goals of recent Explorer line selections in light of the CSSP-CSTR science strategy report. To better understand the evolution of the program and its potential for fulfilling the science objectives of the discipline, the committee arranged for briefings on several space physics Explorers in the SMEX and MIDEX line (SAMPEX, TRACE, FAST, and IMAGE), as well as the STEDI and UNEX line (these programs make significant use of students while executing an ambitious, low-cost scientific program). In general, all of the Explorer presenters expressed satisfaction with the flexible working arrangements and relative autonomy that characterize Explorers. An important observation was that many features of the Explorer missions, including many of the experiments, owe their substantial capabilities to heritage—significant in planning for “better, faster, cheaper” missions. Indeed, the heritage often came from much larger missions that could be regarded as having “bootstrapped” the Explorer line. In this regard, the latest selection, the first space physics MIDEX, called IMAGE, was somewhat unusual. Dr. James Burch, principal investigator for IMAGE, described the experiments on the spacecraft, a number of which were new designs. The federated committees met on September 24–27 in Boulder, Colorado. The meeting was held at NOAA’s Space Environment Center to allow the committees to receive in-depth briefings on the interagency NSWP and the

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 role of the Center in this and related programs. Center personnel briefed the committee on plans for the next solar cycle and the Rapid Prototyping Concept. They also presented the results of the Stereo and Shine workshops, the space weather measures of success workshop, and the workshop on prediction of solar cycle 23. Other briefings at the September meeting included University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and JPL discussions on the use of the Global Positioning System to monitor the ionosphere. The committees received updates on SOLAR-B, NASA plans following the loss of the Cluster satellite, Sun-Earth connections roadmap activities, and funding issues related to SOHO. The committees also conferred with Drs. George Withbroe, of NASA’s Office of Space Science, and Richard Behnke, of the National Science Foundation, on several issues of importance to the space physics community. Finally, the committees worked to complete ongoing work, including the science assessment of the recently selected IMAGE mission. During the last quarter, the committees also completed the space weather primer, which will be published on the World Wide Web; continued preparation for a potential study on the future of ground-based solar research; and conferred with NASA scientists on issues related to space weather hazards to the International Space Station. The committee’s report An Assessment of the Solar and Space Physics Aspects of NASA’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan was approved by the NRC and moved to the editing and publication phase. CSSP Membership Janet G.Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley (chair) Spiro K.Antiochos, Naval Research Laboratory Tamas I.Gombosi, University of Michigan Raymond A.Greenwald, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Janet U.Kozyra,* University of Michigan Robert P.Lin, University of California at Berkeley Donald G.Mitchell,* Johns Hopkins University Arthur D.Richmond,* National Center for Atmospheric Research High Altitude Observatory Margaret A.Shea, Air Force Phillips Laboratory Harlan E.Spence, Boston University Keith T.Strong, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Center Michelle F.Thomsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory Roger K.Ulrich,* University of California at Los Angeles Arthur A.Charo, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY The Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science and Applications, a steering group composed of members of the NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the Space Studies Board, undertook a study on research mission costs, risks, and effectiveness. The joint committee met on May 31 in Washington, D.C., to plan for a workshop to explore the major contributing factors to space science mission costs. On October 16–18, the committee held a workshop for approximately 40 invited participants on reducing the costs of space science missions at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The objective of the workshop was to explore innovative ways to reduce space science research mission costs. At the end of the year, the committee was working to complete its report on the workshop findings. JCT Membership John J.Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc. (SSB co-chair) Barbara C.Corn, B.C.Consulting, Inc. (ASEB co-chair) Donald J.Kutyna,* Loral Corporation (ASEB former co-chair) James P.Bagian, Environmental Protection Agency

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Daniel N.Baker, University of Colorado B.John Garrick, PLG, Inc. Wiley J.Larson, U.S. Air Force Academy and International Space University Michael Malin, Malin Space Science Systems George Sebestyen, CTA Space Systems Allison Sandlin, Study Director Victoria P.Friedensen, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1996 TASK GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SPACE RADIATION The Task Group on Biological Effects of Space Radiation met February 5–6 in Washington, D.C., to continue its assessment of the radiation hazards to humans on extended, deep space missions. Although this was a writing meeting with no outside presentations planned, committee member James Smathers and Research Assistant Shobita Parthasarathy reported on the first day on a recent radiation workshop both had attended. The committee spent most of the first day reviewing and revising the report draft and discussing technical issues. One topic of particular concern was the utilization of the Brookhaven National Laboratory beam source for animal studies. The second day of the meeting focused on finalizing and prioritizing the list of research questions to be recommended in the report. At the end of the meeting the committee agreed on writing assignments and deadlines for the strategy portion of the report, as well as on assignments for revising other sections of the report. The task group met March 19–20 in Washington, D.C., for its final scheduled meeting, which was devoted primarily to finalizing the draft report assessing the radiation hazards to humans on extended, deep-space missions. One outside speaker, Dr. Harry Holloway, NASA associate administrator for life and microgravity sciences and applications, was invited to discuss NASA planning for a potential piloted Mars mission in 2018. This discussion took place on the afternoon of the first day, and the rest of the meeting was held in executive session. Most of the meeting was spent discussing revisions to the report, with particular focus on the strategy section and executive summary. Revisions were made, and a new draft was handed out on the second day of the meeting for additional changes. Plans were made at the close of the meeting for completing report revisions by mail, and specific assignments were made. The final report, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies, was delivered to NASA on December 16. TGBESR Membership* Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory (chair) John F.Dicello, Jr., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine R.J.Michael Fry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory John B.Little, Harvard University School of Public Health R.Julian Preston, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology James B.Smathers, University of California at Los Angeles Robert L.Ullrich, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Sandra J.Graham, Study Director Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant Catherine A.Gruber, Senior Program Assistant Victoria P.Friedensen, former Senior Program Assistant *   task group disbanded in 1996 TASK GROUP ON ISSUES IN SAMPLE RETURN The Task Group on Issues in Sample Return met on April 25–26 at Ames Research Center to hear briefings from NASA scientists and others on the back-contamination problem. The task group heard from Drs. Michael Meyer, NASA planetary protection officer; David Des Marais, senior research scientist at Ames; Harold Klein,

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 research scientist at the SETI Institute and former chair of the Space Studies Board’s Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution; Donna Shirley, manager of the Mars Exploration Program at JPL; Donald De Vincenzi, senior researcher at Ames; John Bagby, former deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Michael Duke, senior visiting scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute; Elliot Levinthal, former deputy leader of the Viking Imaging Team; and Donald MacGregor, from the Decision Research Institute. The task group met again at the Beckman Center on June 20–21 to continue work on the report. A splinter group of the task group held a meeting on July 25 in Washington, D.C., to address legal and regulatory issues. Invited participants included representatives from NASA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A final meeting of the full task group was held August 19–21 at the Beckman Center, and a draft executive summary of the report was written. The final report was presented to Space Studies Board for approval at its November meeting. TGISR Membership Kenneth H.Nealson, University of Wisconsin (chair) Michael H.Carr, U.S. Geological Survey Benton C.Clark, Lockheed Martin Astronautics Russell F.Doolittle, University of California at San Diego Bruce M.Jakosky, University of Colorado Edward L.Korwek, Partner, Law Offices of Hogan & Hartson Norman R.Pace, University of California at Berkeley Jeanne S.Poindexter, Barnard College and Columbia University Margaret S.Race, SETI Institute Anna-Louise Reysenbach, Rutgers University J.William Schopf, University of California at Los Angeles Todd O.Stevens, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Peter W.Rooney, Study Director Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant Barbara L.Jones, Administrative Associate TASK GROUP ON RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS The Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs held its first meeting in Washington, D.C., on June 18–19. The task group is undertaking a study on the content and role of NASA’s research and analysis programs in the context of NASA’s evolving management organization and approach to conducting scientific missions. On the first day, the task group heard from Mr. Steven Isakowitz, OMB, who presented an overview of the budget scenario for NASA over the next five years. Mr. Isakowitz also discussed OMB’s perspective on R&A and emphasized the importance of the task group study. He commented that OMB needs information on R&A to inform the defense of these programs against competing budget items. The task group also heard from NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova, who discussed NASA R&A activities within each of the science offices. She noted that NASA was in the process of redefining R&A-related programs. The term “Research and Technology Support” is currently being used to encompass R&A, Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA), Advanced Technology Development (ATD), and New Millennium activities. Mr. Ronald Konkel, consultant to the task group, presented a status report on the data analysis that he was providing for the study. On the second day, the task group heard from Mr. Malcolm Peterson, comptroller for NASA, who discussed the NASA perspective on budget projections for the agency. Mr. Peterson also commented on R&A-related activities and budgets within the NASA science offices. The NASA and OMB speakers all mentioned an interest in evaluating R&A outputs. Many noted the need for performance measurements or “metrics” to assess R&A spending. The Government Performance and Results Act was mentioned as a factor increasing interest in metrics. The task group decided to rely on the Board discipline committees to provide input on the key research goals, gaps, and directions for each discipline. The task group made plans to send a representative to a meeting of each discipline committee and has developed a list of key questions for the disciplines’ consideration.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 The task group next gathered on October 28–30 in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to continue collecting information for its study, to finalize the study outline, and to begin drafting the report. The task group heard from several officials. Dr. Richard Obermann, professional staff member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, spoke about congressional perspectives on R&A and preliminary insights on the FY98 budget. NASA representatives, Dr. Joan Vernikos, director of the Life Sciences Division, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA); Mr. Robert Rhome, director of the Microgravity Science and Applications Division, OLMSA; Dr. Robert Harriss, director of the Science Division, Office of Mission to Planet Earth; and Dr. Henry Brinton, director of Research Programs Management Division, Office of Space Science, discussed R&A activities and structures within the program offices. The task group also heard from Dr. Louis Walter, assistant director of Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Earth Sciences Directorate, who discussed GSFC’s perspective on R&A, the relationship between GSFC and universities, and GSFC’s role as manager of and participant in the Earth Observing System. Other speakers included the task group’s consultant, Mr. Ronald Konkel, who is collecting supporting data for the task group’s report, and Mr. Greg Davidson, assistant director of mission operations and data systems at GSFC, who spoke on metrics for space sciences. TGRAP Membership Anthony W.England, University of Michigan (chair) James G.Anderson, Harvard University Magnus Höök, Texas A&M University Juri Matisoo, IBM Research (retired) Roberta Balstad Miller, Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network Douglas D.Osheroff, Stanford University Christopher T.Russell, University of California at Los Angeles Steven W.Squyres, Cornell University Paul G.Steffes, Georgia Institute of Technology June M.Thormodsgard, U.S. Geological Survey Eugene H.Trinh, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Arthur B.C.Walker, Jr., Stanford University Patrick J.Webber, Michigan State University Pamela L.Whitney, Study Director Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant Ronald M.Konkel, Consultant TASK GROUP ON SPACE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS In October 1995, the NRC received a request from NASA for a study to update the scientific objectives laid out in the 1991 survey report (The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.) by assessing scientific progress and identifying open questions in astronomical and astrophysical research. In response, the Space Studies Board obtained NRC approval and created the Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, consisting of four panels and a steering group of panel chairs, operating under the aegis of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics. The steering group held its first meeting on March 13 in Washington, D.C., to develop a plan for its science strategy study. After opening remarks by task group Chair Patrick Thaddeus, Board Director Marc Allen gave a brief presentation of the NRC’s perspective on the study. Dr. Guenter Riegler, from the Research Program Management Division in NASA’s Office of Space Science, discussed the type of information NASA hoped to obtain from the study. Dr. Riegler stressed the need for a prioritization of the top science objectives and identification of a group of the “next-to-most-important” goals. Dr. Marc Davis, co-chair of CAA, followed Dr. Riegler’s presentation with remarks about CAA’s involvement in the task group’s study. The meeting set out study tasks and goals on a specific time line.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 The initial plenary meeting of the task group’s panels was held in Washington, D.C., on April 9–10. The task group’s Panel on Planets, Star Formation, and the Interstellar Medium and its Panel on Galaxies and Stellar Systems met in Madison, Wisconsin, on June 9 (in conjunction with the American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting). The Panel on Cosmology and Fundamental Physics met in Princeton, New Jersey, on June 23 (in conjunction with the “Critical Dialogues in Cosmology” symposium). In addition, a community outreach effort was initiated, involving an extensive mailing to leading astronomers and astronomy departments, the creation of a WWW home page, and the publication of articles in the AAS’s bulletin and electronic newsletter. The task group held several additional meetings during the third quarter: the steering group in Berkeley, California, on August 26–27, and in Washington, D.C., on September 5–6; the Panel on Planets, Star Formation, and Interstellar Medium in Wellesley, Massachusetts, on July 20–21; and the Panel on Galaxies and Stellar Systems in Chicago, Illinois, on August 1–2. Initial drafts of the four panel reports were completed in mid-August, and overall priorities were set by the steering group during its meeting in Berkeley. These priorities were reaffirmed, with minor modifications, by a joint meeting of the steering group and the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics on September 5–6. Final drafts of the panel reports were completed in late September, and work on integrating them commenced. The draft was submitted to the Board for approval at its November meeting. Steering Group Membership Patrick Thaddeus, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (chair) Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Michael Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute Richard G.Kron, University of Chicago Yerkes Observatory Christopher F.McKee, University of California at Berkeley Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona J.Craig Wheeler, University of Texas at Austin Planets, Star Formation, and the Interstellar Medium Panel Membership Christopher F.McKee, University of California at Berkeley (panel chair) Charles A.Beichman, California Institute of Technology Leo Blitz, University of Maryland John E.Carlstrom, University of Chicago Suzan Edwards, Smith College David J.Hollenbach, NASA Ames Research Center Charles A.Lada, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Douglas N.C.Lin, University of California Lick Observatory Daniel McCammon, University of Wisconsin Richard A. McCray, University of Colorado Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics Blair D.Savage, University of Wisconsin J.Michael Shull, University of Colorado Stars and Stellar Evolution Panel Membership J.Craig Wheeler, University of Texas at Austin (panel chair) Andrea K.Dupree, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics David J.Helfand, Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory Steven M.Kahn, Columbia University David L.Lambert, University of Texas at Austin Robert D.Mathieu, University of Wisconsin Thomas A.Prince, California Institute of Technology Robert Rosner, University of Chicago Jean H.Swank, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Paula Szkody, University of Washington

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Galaxies and Stellar Systems Panel Membership Richard G.Kron, University of Chicago Yerkes Observatory (panel chair) Jill Bechtold, University of Arizona Arthur F.Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University Alan M.Dressler, Carnegie Observatories Martin Elvis, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Wendy L.Freedman, Carnegie Observatories Jacqueline N.Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John P.Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Robert C.Kennicutt, University of Arizona Jerry E.Nelson, University of California Lick Observatory B.Thomas Soifer, California Institute of Technology James W.Truran, Jr., University of Chicago C.Megan Urry, Space Telescope Science Institute Cosmology and Fundamental Physics Panel Membership Michael Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute (panel chair) Elihu Boldt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Kenneth I.Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Philip Lubin, University of California at Santa Barbara Richard F.Mushotsky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Anthony C.S. Readhead, California Institute of Technology Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley David N.Spergel, Princeton University Michael S.Turner, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Rainer Weiss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Clifford M.Will, Washington University David H.Smith, Study Director Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant Stephanie A.Roy, Research Assistant Altoria B.Ross, Senior Program Assistant PANEL TO REVIEW THE EXPLORER PROGRAM In response to a May 13 request by the NASA Office of Space Science, the Panel to Review the Explorer Program was established to assess the scientific efficacy and responsiveness to community needs of the Explorer program as it is being refocused on smaller missions and higher flight rates, similar to the Discovery program in planetary exploration. The panel held its single meeting in Washington, D.C., on September 12–14 and heard presentations from NASA and from industry and university representatives. The final report of the panel was approved by the Board in early November and delivered to NASA in mid-December. PREP Membership Richard M.Goody, Harvard University (emeritus) (chair) William V.Boynton, University of Arizona Thomas B.Coughlin, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Andrea K.Dupree, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Larry W.Esposito, University of Colorado W.E. (Gene) Giberson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) Angelo (Gus) Guastaferro, nView H.Warren Moos, Johns Hopkins University Norman F.Ness, University of Delaware

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Christopher T.Russell, University of California at Los Angeles Alan M.Title, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc. Marc S.Allen, Study Director Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant Nathaniel B.Cohen, Consultant WORKSHOP ON THE SEARCH FOR ORIGINS During the fall of 1996, the Board was asked by NASA’s Office of Space Science (OSS) to help conduct a workshop on the theme of “Origins”; in this context, origins encompasses “beginnings” in its broadest possible sense, from the first instants of the universe to the stirrings of life on Earth. The idea of the workshop was to bring together a very diverse group of scientists specializing in such different fields as cosmology and microbiology to consider the state of knowledge across the theme of origins and to identify, in general terms, directions for future research. It was anticipated that the results of the workshop would be provided to Vice President Gore in preparation for an administration-Congress space summit to take place in February or March 1997. The workshop was structured as a joint activity of NASA, under the leadership of OSS Assistant Associate Administrator Carl Pilcher and Chief of Staff Carrie Sorrels; of the OSS Space Science and Applications Advisory Committee, under Chair Anneila I. Sargent; and of the Board; it was held on October 28–30. More than three dozen prominent scientists participated on extremely short notice. Based on presentations and dialogue at the workshop, a workshop steering group prepared a summary package composed of briefing charts and a narrative discussion paper. The discussion paper was delivered by NASA to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in late November and was used as the basis for an informal symposium conducted for Vice President Gore on December 11 with participation by a subset of the original expert group and NASA and OSTP officials. The planned space summit between congressional and administration leaders was subsequently called off because of the major improvement in NASA’s outyear budget outlook contained in the administration’s FY98 budget submission. Workshop Steering Group Claude R.Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (workshop co-chair) Anneila I.Sargent, California Institute of Technology (workshop co-chair) David C.Black, Lunar and Planetary Institute Roger D.Blandford, California Institute of Technology Joseph A.Burns, Cornell University John P.Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Christopher P.McKay, NASA Ames Research Center Patrick Thaddeus, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Universe Subgroup Roger D.Blandford, California Institute of Technology (subgroup co-chair) Patrick Thaddeus, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (subgroup co-chair) John N.Bahcall, Princeton University Institute for Advanced Study Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution Sandra M.Faber, University of California Lick Observatory Wendy L.Freedman, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution Steven H.Kahn, Columbia University Richard Kron, University of Chicago Yerkes Observatory John Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona Steward Observatory David N.Schramm, University of Chicago

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1996 Planets Subgroup David C.Black, Lunar and Planetary Institute (subgroup co-chair) Joseph A.Burns, Cornell University (subgroup co-chair) Bernard F.Burke, Massachusetts Institute of Technology George D.Gatewood, Allegheny Observatory Janet G.Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley Glenn Mason, University of Maryland Eugene N.Parker, University of Chicago Laurence A.Soderblom, U.S. Geological Survey George W.Wetherill, Carnegie Institution of Washington Maria Zuber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Life Subgroup John P.Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (subgroup chair) Christopher P.McKay, NASA Ames Research Center (subgroup chair) Michael H.Carr, U.S. Geological Survey Bruce M.Jakorsky, University of Colorado Andrew H.Knoll, Harvard University David McKay, NASA Johnson Space Center Kenneth H.Nealson, University of Wisconsin Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center Norman R.Pace, University of California at Berkeley Yvonne Pendleton, NASA Ames Research Center Beverly K.Pierson, University of Puget Sound J.William Schopf, University of California at Los Angeles Steven W.Squyres, Cornell University O.Brian Toon, University of Colorado Marc S.Allen, Study Director David H.Smith, Senior Program Officer Stephanie A.Roy, Research Assistant Anne K.Simmons, Senior Project Assistant