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 6
Acquires and Me mbe~rship FIRST QUAItTEIt HIGHLIGHTS The tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its crew on February 1, 2003, made the beginning of the year anything but normal. NASA and the space community mourned the loss of seven extraordinary people, and they were confronted with the loss of much of the scientific yield from the Space Transportation System (STS)-107 mission and all of the unique research equipment and facilities that were carried aboard Columbia. They also faced an uncertain near-term future that included a shuttle fleet composed of only three orbiters, a shuttle flight stand- down of unknown duration, and equally uncertain impacts on the completion and use of the International Space Station (ISS). Quickly organized examinations of the accident and its causes were expected to lead to policy changes as well as technical solutions. And while the task of devising those changes would be consequential enough by itself, the assessments were going forward in a broader, global context that was marked by apprehension over multiple threats to international security and stability, weakened economies, and skittish markets. The Columbia accident became a condensation nucleus around which a much more sweeping national debate began about the purposes and character of the U.S. space program. The debate extended beyond questions about shuttle replacements; it encompassed questions about the roles of humans in space, balance in the use of humans and robots, the objectives of the ISS, and the basic purposes of the space program. The early discussions were largely thoughtful and reasoned, taking place in important venues, including Congress. Importantly, there was reason to hope that the debates might inform and impact policy decisions. As the discussions unfolded, there was reason to look back at how things developed after the Challenger accident, which had occurred on January 28, 1986, and to ask what lessons that experience might provide. One lesson related to how long it took, in terms of the length of the launch stand-down, to understand the impact of the accident. In late February 1986, NASA officials were expecting shuttle flights to resume within 1 year and to build from 9 launches in the first year to 14 per year within 3 years. By late April 1986, the stand-down was expected to last 18 months, and by July, NASA officials were privately expecting a 2-year hiatus. The first post-Challenger launch finally occurred 32 months after the accident. Although NASA quickly concluded that Challenger should be replaced with a new, fourth orbiter for the shuttle fleet, a White House decision to go forward with a replacement did not occur until mid-August 1986. The months following the Challenger accident also saw several major policy debates emerge. One pertained to the question of the primacy of the space shuttle versus the use of a mixed fleet of expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) plus the shuttle. A second issue was about what NASA's major goals should be. At the time of the Challenger accident, the shuttle had been mandated to be the principal U.S. launch vehicle, which was to be used for government civil and national security satellite launches and also for commercial payloads. By March 1986, there were debates inside NASA between advocates of staying with the shuttle and only 6
OCR for page 7
Activities and Membership 7 using ELVs for "overflow" versus advocates of a mixed fleet in which the shuttle would only be used when needed to draw on its unique capabilities. NASA's science of lice pushed the latter position vigorously. Congress began to question whether the Department of Defense (DOD) should be underwriting the costs of the shuttle program, and by the end of 1986, the DOD was expressing serious doubts about its earlier plans to use shuttle launches from a launch site being built at the Western Test Range (WTR) in California. As we now know, the WTR shuttle launch effort was abandoned, national launch policy moved strongly to a mixed-fleet approach, and the shuttle later became almost exclusively dedicated to supporting the ISS. The second policy discussion, about the fundamental goals of the space program, started slowly and never built up much momentum. The May 1986 report of the Reagan administration's blue-ribbon National Commission on Space outlined a bullish perspective on directions of the U.S. space program, but the unfortunate timing of its delivery only a few months after the Challenger accident meant that the report never received the attention that it might have otherwise enjoyed. Astronaut Sally Ride moved to NASA headquarters in September 1986 to lead a study of future goals and directions for NASA, and in February 1987, a little more than 1 year after the accident, senior NASA managers convened to discuss potential leadership initiatives. Alternatives ranged from lunar bases or human missions to Mars to a focus on robotic planetary exploration or a "mission to planet Earth." These initiatives were compared with an approach that would simply stay with NASA's then-current program with the shuttle, space station, great observatories for space astronomy, planetary missions, Earth science, and so on. The study led by Ride later examined these alternatives in the August 1987 report Leadership and Americas Future in Space, but the option based on the ongoing program prevailed almost by default over the more ambitious, but controversial, alternatives. Inside NASA, defenders of one approach would not yield to competing alternatives. Outside NASA, policy makers were not convinced that the more ambitious directions were affordable, especially when NASA was still coping with recovery from the accident and dealing with questions about the future cost of a space station. So what might we try to learn from this glimpse back at the year after the Challenger accident? First, technical experts and managers can be overly optimistic and can be swayed by wishful thinking. This was probably the case with the initial estimates of the post-Challenger stand-down. In any case, the space research community had to prepare in 2003 for the uncertain and potentially protracted impact of the Columbia' accident on future uses of the shuttle fleet. Additionally, although the postaccident period did create a unique opportunity to open, or reopen, important policy issues, the lesson from the period following the loss of Challenger suggests that the policy debates are easier to close on immediate topics than on the longer-range questions. Consensus and action about longer- range issues such as the primary direction of the U.S. space program can be elusive, particularly when costs appear to be outside preconceived bounds. Finally, in looking back at 1986-1987, it must be recognized that a truly national discussion and consensus about the direction of the U.S. space program are essential. The 1987 NASA Ride report, which was solid in many ways, was not embraced broadly. The events of 2003 presented a unique new opportunity to engage in a national discussion about the future of the space program. The Space Studies Board held its 139th meeting on March 24-26 in Washington, D.C. One major topic for discussion was the administration's FY 2004 budget proposal and its implications for space research and applications. Guest speakers included David Radzanowski, Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Richard Obermann of the House Science Committee staff; Shannon Lucid, NASA chief scientist; Edward Weller, NASA Office of Space Science (OSS); Ghassem Asrar, NASA Office of Earth Science; Guy Fogleman, NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR); and Greg Withee, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. Other special guests during the meeting included David Southwood, Science Programme director for the European Space Agency, and Charles Bennett, principal investigator for NASA's WiLkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe mission. After discussions with Office of Space Science representatives Marc Allen and Lisa May Board members synthesized comments from several SSB standing committees and began preparations for a report on the Board's independent review of the draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy." The Board also conducted internal discussions of two draft SSB reports Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions, by the Committee on Earth Studies, and Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos, by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics. SSB member Peter Voorhees presented a science tale on "Coarsening in Solid-Liquid Mixtures." The Board also reviewed the status of ongoing studies and committee activities and devoted considerable time to discussions of the policy implications of the space shuttle Columbia accident.
OCR for page 8
8 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 SECOND QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS In late 1999, when the search began for the next chair of the Space Studies Board, the Board hoped, as always, to find the perfect candidate. And it did. John McElroy brought extraordinary experience and insight to the job. As a former practicing engineer in the U.S. Army and NASA, a senior R&D manager and leader at NASA, NOAA, and Hughes Communications, Inc., and a professor and dean in academia, he brought an unsurpassed breadth and depth of perspectives to the Board. In addition, his sense of history, analytical inclinations, and unflappability made him especially well equipped to lead the SSB during a period when the space program had numerous major issues to challenge the Board. In a wonderful illustration of the adage that "timing is everything," the Board was able to catch John McElroy at the perfect time he was retiring from the University of Texas in May 2000, and he agreed to take on the SSB chair for a 3-year tour beginning in July of that year. Under his leadership from 2000 to 2003, the SSB published some 30 study reports that were intended to assist NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), DOD, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as well as the Executive Office of the President, the U.S. Congress, and even local governments. One of John's most personal legacies from his time as chair was in the pages of the quarterly SSB newsletter, "Space Studies Bulletin." For more than a decade, one of the responsibilities of the chair was to author a column "From the Chair" in the newsletter. The topic was always up to the chair, and the views expressed were always entirely those of the author. John rose to the opportunity with relish, and his thoughtful and provocative pieces frequently elicited spontaneous compliments from readers. He wrote about numerous aspects of topics such as R&D management, robotic versus piloted spaceflight, and international cooperation. John's columns were especially valuable in terms of both the analytical perspectives that they offered and the questions that they raised. Collectively, those questions would present a full agenda for the SSB all by themselves. John often ended a column with a statement along these lines: "Obviously, I have raised many questions and I have given no answers. I really don't believe that there are universal answers. Instead, I believe that once the issues are raised in a given context, wise people on the advisory and agency sides can reach solutions, perhaps imperfect ones, that best serve the public need." His columns have been collected in a single volume Questions from the Chair which can be found online at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/. The questions that he has posed demand our careful attention. During the second quarter, the Board completed its response to a request from Edward Weller, associate administrator of NASA's Office of Space Science, for a review the draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," a document that lays out the plan for NASA's space science program over the next 5 years. Weller specifically asked the Board to consider the strategy's responsiveness to previous NRC advice, attention to interdisciplinary aspects and scientific balance, discussion of opportunities for education and outreach, integration of technology development with the science program, and readability and clarity of presentation. The Board delivered its findings in a letter report, "Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," dated May 29, 2003 (reprinted in Chapter 4 of this annual report). The SSB held its 140th meeting on June 17-19 at the National Space Science and Technology Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. A major agenda item for the meeting was an extended discussion of space policy in the aftermath of the Columbia accident and of possible relevant SSB actions to promote a constructive national debate on the subject. A special highlight was a series of briefings about key research and technology activities at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, as well as the opportunity to tour the International Space Station payload operations control center and to hear about work in the microgravity research laboratories. Alan Newhouse and Colleen Hartman from NASA headquarters also spoke on Project Prometheus and optical communi- cations R&D, respectively. Additionally, the Board members received an update from the NRC staff on current procedures for granting visas for foreign visitors to the United States and discussed possible SSB international activities with the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Jean-Claude Worms from the European Space Science Committee gave a briefing on European activities. Members reviewed progress by the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategy. Members also discussed possible future space applications projects. Committee chairs and NRC staff members reported on the status of the Board's committees and task groups.
OCR for page 9
Activities and Membership 9 Farewells were said to several retiring members: John H. McElroy, chair of the Board; James P. Bagian, chair of the Task Group on Research on the International Space Station; and Peter Voorhees, chair of the Committee on Microgravity Research. The Board also welcomed Lennard A. Fisk, new chair of the Board as of July 1, 2003. THIRD QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS As the third quarter of 2003 came to a close, the programmatic outlook for space research in the United States was decidedly mixed. One can imagine that if it were described in meteorological terms, the forecast might have been "periods of sun early, followed by partly cloudy with a chance of showers, some possibly accompanied by high winds and heavy downpours." NASA's space science program continued to produce new scientific data and garner public attention via a steady stream of results from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-Ray Observatory, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, and more than two dozen other operating missions. The Space Infra-Red Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and twin Mars Rovers that were launched in 2003 were well on their way to being able to add to that data stream. In the Earth sciences, NASA could draw on a fleet of eight operating missions to provide new global perspectives of the Earth system. NASA's microgravity life and physical sciences program remained seriously constrained following the stand-down of space shuttle flights and ISS construction, but a two-man crew aboard the ISS was reported to be pursuing some 20 research investigations in spite of those handicaps. When and to what extent the full outfitting and use of the ISS for research would resume remained quite uncertain. From a budgetary perspective, the situation was also mixed. The Congress, having failed to complete funding legislation for the fiscal year beginning October 1, passed a continuing resolution that would keep federal agencies in business until the appropriations bills could be completed. The NASA Office of Space Science seemed to be slated for a significant increase in FY 2004, and based on an analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the administration was projecting a 43 percent inflation-adjusted increase for OSS over the 5-year period FY 2004-2008. The budget for the Office of Biological and Physical Research would gain by 11.6 percent over the same period, but the Office of Earth Science would lose ground by 6.7 percent, again in inflation-adjusted terms. For comparison, the administration's 5-year projections for NSF and NOAA R&D were +2.3 percent and-1.8 percent, respectively. Based on recent experience, one had reason to expect Congress to be relatively supportive of the proposed increases for space science and possibly supportive of increases for NSF larger than the administration's proposal. The clouds on the horizon appeared to come from at least three directions. First NASA's response to the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) was very likely to require additional funding for the agency's human spaceflight program. The report accompanying the Senate version of the FY 2004 appropriations bill recognized this by saying, NASA's existing budget profile already maps out an aggressive role for the United States in both manned and unmanned space exploration. However, the potential out-year costs are substantial and will likely be very difficult to sustain. This difficulty will be compounded further by whatever NASA proposes in the way of reforms and investments in response to the final findings of the CAIB (U.S. Senate Report No. 108-143 on S. 1584, FY 2004 Appropriations for NASA). While the Congress, and NASA in most situations, had been careful to keep a protective fence between the budgets for research and for the space shuttle and ISS programs, this was not guaranteed in the future. Indeed, if NASA was required to operate under a flat overall budget envelope, then some very tough choices would need to be made across the full suite of human and robotic activities. The second source of concern stemmed from competing high-priority demands on the federal budget. Bush administration priorities that were identified when the FY 2004 budget request was submitted to Congress were economic growth, homeland security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and they were likely to remain priority areas for the next couple of years. To these one had to add the continuing costs of postwar activities in Iraq. While there may have been some level of consensus throughout both branches of government that the space program is an important effort, there was little reason to suspect that its priority would compete at the level of the areas noted above. Finally, there was the growing, record-setting, national debt. Fewer than 10 years earlier, a Republican-led Congress and the Clinton administration had reached and implemented an agreement on a plan to eliminate the
OCR for page 10
10 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 deficit. Then, after the September 2001 terrorist attacks that plan was put aside in order to address major issues of homeland security. But one could not assume that the pendulum would not eventually swing back in the direction of deficit reduction; then areas of discretionary spending such as the space program might be hard-pressed to argue for any budget growth. To return to the meteorological metaphor the space program could soon be confronted with its own version of 7 a nor'easter a violent storm brought on by the collision of air masses. The competing forces aloft above the heads of the space research community were the budgetary needs of the space shuttle/lSS program, the demands of urgent national priorities, and the pressure from a growing national deficit. The Board did not meet during the third quarter. However, the SSB Executive Committee met for its annual strategic planning session on September 9-11 at the National Academies' J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Topics for discussion during the meeting included roles and operations of the Board and its committees, future SSB membership, future study projects, and planning for the November SSB meeting. During the meeting the Executive Committee was joined by former SSB chairs Claude Canizares, Thomas Donahue, Richard Goody, and Louis Lanzerotti. FOURTH QUAINTER HIGHLIGHTS The Board held its 141st meeting on November 11-13 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The main focus of the meeting was the Workshop on National Space Policy, cosponsored by the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB). The workshop, introduced by Lennard Fisk, SSB chair, and William Hoover, ASEB chair, included contributions by approximately 20 invited guests, as well as plenary discussions on origins, . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ _ rationale, and guiding principles and boundary conditions for forging a 21st-century space policy. SSE member Radford Byerly accepted the charge to lead the preparation of a summary report on the workshop for release in January 2004. Prior to the workshop, John Logsdon, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, gave a presentation on findings of the CAIB. Work during the meeting included a report by Fisk on recent visits to government officials and on results of the September 2003 Executive Committee meeting and the NASA Advisory Council meeting. Additional briefings were provided by Gerhard Haerandel, chair of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC); Torrence Johnson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Curt Niebur, NASA Headquarters, on Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, part of Project Prometheus; SSB member Margaret Kivelson on the American Astronomical Society conference on women in astronomy; SSB member Roger Angel on the NRC Workshop on Large Optics in Space; and SSB staff officer Pamela Whitney on dissemination of the three remote-sensing reports. Status reports on studies in progress were given by Allen Huang, chair of the Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization; Michael Freilich, chair of the Committee on Earth Studies; Craig Wheeler, co-chair of the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life; Roger Blandford, co-chair of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Reta Beebe, chair of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. The SSB also discussed statements of task for planned new studies. Welcome was extended to new members who were appointed to the Board in July: Donald Ingber, Harvard Medical School; Tamara Jernigan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Calvin Lowe, Bowie State University; and Dennis Readey, Colorado School of Mines. SSB vice chair George Paulikas and director Joseph Alexander participated in the meeting of the European Space Science Committee on December 1-2 in Strasbourg, France, and briefed the ESSC on SSB activities. The year 2003 was, by any measure, an extraordinary year—one indelibly marked by great tragedy but also great successes and promise. The Columbia space shuttle accident in February, which took the lives of seven astronauts, had profound effects on the U.S. space program and on the space station's international partners as well. Then, in August, an accident at Brazil's Alcantra launch facility left 21 workers dead. These incidents were the ultimate reminders that spaceflight is a risky business and that systems devised and managed by humans can be vulnerable and fragile. In the United States, the Columbia' accident catalyzed a wide-ranging examination of the purposes and future directions of the civil space program, and that assessment has the potential to make a lasting . . . positive Impact. Among the successes to be celebrated were the launches of the university-class Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer (CHIPS); the Ice, Clouds, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat); the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX); the European Space Agency's (ESA's) SMART-1 lunar mission; the Solar Radiation and Climate
OCR for page 11
Activities and Membership 11 Experiment (SORCE); and the Spitzer Space Telescope (nee SIRTF); as well as the ISS crew rotation Soyuz flights in April and October. As the year drew to a close, almost all attention was focused on the coming landings of the one European and two U.S. Mars missions. (As of December 31, ESA's Mars Express spacecraft was operating in orbit around Mars, but the British Beagle-2 lander had not made contact with Earth.) Among the many highlights of other ongoing space missions, several might be singled out: the spectacular results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Mission, the observations by multiple space and ground instruments of the dramatic solar eruptions in October and November, and the tantalizing evidence that Voyager-1 may be entering the interface region between the helio- sphere and interstellar space. The year 2003 was also a milestone year in other ways. In July, senior representatives from more than 30 nations met in Washington, D.C., for the first Earth Observations Summit. Japan's new Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) went into full operation on October 1. Also in October, observers throughout the world congratulated China on the occasion of that nation's first piloted spaceflight. November saw the unveiling of the European Commission white paper, "Space: A New European Frontier for an Expanding Union," and the adoption of a new European Community and European Space Agency Framework Agreement both of which reflect a rapidly evolving space program environment in Europe. Finally, celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, by the Wright brothers, served to remind us of how fast technology can evolve and be applied. Tempering these developments, as always seems inevitable, were reminders that civil space programs are discretionary, subject to political decisions, and in competition with many other national and international activities. In the United States, NASA did not gain final congressional approval for its FY 2003 budget until more than four months after the fiscal year began, and as of the end of calendar year 2003, Congress had failed to pass an FY 2004 budget for NASA and many other agencies. Once enacted, the budgets for NASA and NOAA seemed likely to be rather more spartan than in the previous year. Space programs in Europe and Japan are also facing increasingly serious budgetary challenges. Reflecting on the events of 2003, several messages come to mind. First, one cannot help but be impressed by the extraordinary advances that have occurred in the 46 years since the launch of Sputnik or the 45 years since the creation of NASA. Scientific exploration of Earth, the solar system, and the universe from space constitutes one of the major success stories of our age. Second, for reasons that are more visceral and cultural than cerebral or scientific, and notwithstanding the intrinsic risks, human spaceflight will always be a significant element of space exploration. The Chinese entry into the human spaceflight arena and ESA's Aurora program planning for future human exploration of Mars show that this is becoming a global decision. Third, in contrast to the programs of China and Europe, the U.S. post-Apollo human spaceflight program, at least up until 2003, has lacked a clear sense of any long-term direction. One can hope that the post-Columbia-accident assessments of the future of the U.S. program will remedy that. And finally, as those assessments progress, there is a need to appreciate the reality that the U.S. space program, perhaps like few others in the federal government, is truly the people's program. Space exploration is about the search for discovery, knowledge, understanding, inspiration, and a source of optimism for the future. These all add to the richness of the people of a nation and the world. If that does make space exploration the people's program, then we have an immediate task, which is to engage them in plotting the future of the program just as vigorously as we are sure to engage them in sharing the flood of early results from the Mars landings. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A summary of all reports published by the Space Studies Board during 2003 is presented in Table 2.1. Included in that collection were reports of interest to all three NASA science offices and to NSF, NOAA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Office of Naval Research, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Transpor- tation. The reports included two full-length studies, one topical report of under 100 pages, and two letter reports. Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report 2002, all reports were subjected to full peer review under oversight by the NRC Report Review Committee (RRC). Typically from 4 to 7 reviewers (occasionally as many as 12) are selected, on the basis of recommendations by NAS and NAE section liaisons and SSB members and staff and subject to approval by the NRC. The identities of external reviewers are not known to the report's authors until after the review has been completed and the report has been approved by the RRC. The report authors, with the
OCR for page 12
12 TABLE 2.1 Space Studies Board Reports Published in 2003 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 Authoring Committee Pr~nc:lpal Agency Audiences Report Title or Boarda OSS OBPR OES NOAA NSF Other '`Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Earth Science TO X Enterprise Strategy" (letter) "Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy" (letter) SSB X Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: CONNTRO X X Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations Space Studies Board Annual [Report—2002 SSB All Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led CES X Earth Science Missions The Sun to the Earthbound Beyond: Panel Reports SSPSP X X X DOD aAuthoring committee or board TO Task Group SSB Space Studies Board CONNTRO Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations CES Committee on Earth Studies SSPSP Solar and Space Physics Survey Panels bPrincinal agency audience ~ - , ~ OSS NASA Office of Space Science OBPR NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research OES NASA Office of Earth Science NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation DOD Department of Defense assistance of SSB staff, must provide some response to every specific comment from every external reviewer. The response-to-review process is overseen and refereed by an independent coordinator, to ensure that appropriate technical revisions are made to the report, and by a monitor appointed by the PRC, to ensure that the revised report complies with NRC policy and standards. All of the reviews place an emphasis on scientific and technical clarity and accuracy and on proper substantiation of the findings and recommendations presented in the report. Names of the external reviewers, including the coordinator and monitor, are published in the final report, but their individual comments are not released. Another important measure of the capacity of the Board to produce high-quality work derives from the size, breadth, and depth of the cadre of experts who serve on SSB committees and task groups or who participate in other ways in the activities of the Board. Some highlights of the demographics of the SSB in 2003 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year, a total of 264 individuals from 84 colleges and universities and 76 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. Approximately 200 individuals participated in SSB activities either as briefers or as invited workshop participants. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during the period 30 different external reviewers contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, approximately 495 individuals from 88 academic institutions, 52 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 32 government agencies or offices participated in SSB activities. That number included 35 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and/or the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Being able to draw on such a broad base of expertise is a unique strength of the NEC advisory process. A different way to assess the performance of the SSB is to examine its productivity with respect to study reports. The chart in Figure 2.1 shows the total number of peer-reviewed reports published by the SSB from 1988
OCR for page 13
Activities and Membership TABLE 2.2 Experts Involved in the SSB and Its Subunits, January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003 13 Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 167 84 Government and national facilitiesa 43 33 Private industry 44 34 Nonprofit and others 10 9 Totaled 264 160 aIncludes NASA and other U.S. agencies and national facilities (e.g., LLNL, BNL, LANL, NRL, USGS, EPA). b"Other" includes foreign institutions and entities not classified elsewhere. CIncludes 26 NAS, NAE, and IOM members. Thirty SSB members, 234 committee and task group members. TABLE 2.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2003 Government and Nonprofit Total Academia National Facilitiesa Private Industry and Others Individuals Board/committee members 167 43 44 10 264 Guest experts 61 91 14 11 177 Reviewers 19 5 5 1 30 Workshop participants 17 6 1 0 24 Total 264 145 64 22 495 NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of +3 due to possible miscategorization. aIncludes government agencies and national facilities (e.g., NOAO, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Space Telescope Science Institute). Total number of NAS, NAE, and/or IOM members Total number of non-U.S. participants Total number of countries represented, including United States Total number of participants by gender Total number of different institutions represented: Academia Government and national facilities Industry Nonprofit and other 35 326(M); 77(F) 88 32 36 16 U.S. government agencies represented: NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIST, USGS, EPA, OSTP, OMB, DOD, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Congress. to 2003. "Broad" reports include classical scientific strategies (long-range goals and priorities in a particular discipline or set of disciplines) and programmatic strategies or analyses that cross all of an agency office or even several agencies. "Focused" reports include more narrowly directed topical studies, assessments, and letter reports. One sees that the volume of work, as measured by the number of reports, has grown over the decade, while there have been somewhat more focused studies than broad strategic and policy reports, particularly in the past year. Finally, one can also examine the extent to which the Board's efforts have been relevant to the full range of government interests in civilian space research. Figure 2.2 summarizes the principal federal agency audiences to which SSB reports were directed from 1997 through 2003. Reports on NASA-wide issues were addressed to multiple NASA offices or the whole agency; OES reports, to the Office of Earth Science; OBPR reports, to the Office of Biological and Physical Research (formerly OLMSA, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications); and OSS reports, to the Office of Space Science. The "multiple government agencies" category covers reports that were directed to one or more agencies besides NASA for example, NOAA, NSF, the Department of Energy (DOE), and/or DOD. One also sees a few reports prepared specifically for NSF. Within NASA, OSS has been the leading sponsor of reports, with the OES in second place.
OCR for page 14
14 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 Oh ~ 14- o Q ~ 12- 0 10- a~ I 8- I 6- 4 - 2 - Focusecd Broac 20 - ~ Hi_ _ `§ ~ `~ `~ `~§ `~ `§ `§ ~ `~ ~ 0°° 0°` 0°~ god Year FIGURE 2.1 Number and type of peer-reviewed Space Studies Board reports published from 1988 through 2003. MULTIPLE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 1 9 NSF 11 NASA/OBPR 14 NASA-WIDE 6 NASA/DES 19 NASA/OSS 37 FIGURE 2.2 Principal federal agency audiences for Space Studies Board reports published from 1997 through 2003. NOTE: Totals are inclusive of more than one agency audience per report.
OCR for page 15
Activities and Membership 15 SSB OUTREACH AND DISSEMINATION Enhancing outreach to a variety of interested communities and improving dissemination of Board reports was a special priority for the SSB during the year. The quarterly newsletter's print distribution list was expanded and supplemented with an electronic version that had more than 300 subscribers at year's end. Several kinds of report announcements, fliers, and mailing list sign-up cards were designed and used at SSB committee meetings and national and international scientific society meetings. The Board teamed with other NRC units (including the Division on Earth and Life Studies, the Board on Physics and Astronomy, the National Academies Press, the Office of News and Public Information, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel) to take exhibits to national meetings of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Astronomical Society (AAS). The SSB also participated in the NASA Astrobiology Institute meeting and presented at state and local government meetings. As a consequence of these activities, roughly 5,700 additional SSB reports were distributed and more than 100 addresses were added to mailing lists for future SSB reports. Membership of the Space Studies Board Lennard A. Fisk,§ University of Michigan (chair, as of July 1, 2003) John H. McElroy,*§ University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (chair, July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2003) George A. Paulikas,§ The Aerospace Corporation (retired) (vice chair, as of July 1, 2003) J. Roger P. Angel,§ University of Arizona James P. Bagian,* Veterans Health Administration Ana P. Barros, Harvard University Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University James L. Burch, Southwest Research Institute Radford Byerly, Jr.,§ University of Colorado Howard M. Einspahr, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute (retired) Steven H. Flajser, Loral Space and Communications Ltd. Michael Freilich, Oregon State University Don P. Giddens,§ Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University Donald Ingber, Harvard Medical School Ralph H. Jacobson, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) Tamara E. Jernigan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California, Los Angeles Calvin W. Lowe, Bowie State University Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired) Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee Dennis W. Readey, Colorado School of Mines Anna-Louise Reysenbach, Portland State University Roald S. Sagdeev, University of Maryland, College Park Carolus J. Schrijver, Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory Robert J. Serafin,§ National Center for Atmospheric Research Mitchell Sogin,§ Marine Biological Laboratory C. Megan Urry, Yale University Peter Voorhees,* Northwestern University J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas, Austin Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (ex officio, U.S. representative to COSPAR) William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired) (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Gerhard Haerendel, International University Bremen (liaison, chair of the European Space Science Committee) Joseph K. Alexander, Director Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer
OCR for page 16
16 Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant Catherine A. Gruber, Senior Program Assistant *Term ended during 2003. Member of the Executive Committee. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) met during the first quarter via a teleconference on February 25 to discuss its input into SSB's review of NASA's draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy." During the second quarter, CAA held its spring meeting in Washington, D.C., on April 29-30. The meeting had three main topics: a discussion with policy makers from the various federal agencies involved in astronomy and astrophysics, a review of proposed new facilities in radio astronomy, and consideration of potential new tasks for the committee. The policy discussion included representatives from NASA, NSF, and DOE, as well as OMB and OSTP. In part owing to the NRC report Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos, astronomy and astrophysics have become fields of interest beyond the traditional NSF/NASA partnership. The discussion provided an opportunity for the committee to hear how the agencies believe their collaboration is working and to address any difficulties or concerns that the agencies might have. Included in this discussion was a presentation from Robert Gehrz, chair of the National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee. The committee heard from the new director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), Fred K. Lo, on the future of radio astronomy in the United States. Others from NRAO made presentations on the technical aspects of the Square Kilometer Array and the Extended Very Large Array. The final section of the spring meeting was devoted to the consideration of two potential projects that could be undertaken under CAA's auspices. The first would be a research briefing (i.e., a small report that highlights an exciting new area of scientific inquiry) on extrasolar planets and solar system formation. The committee heard about the status of planet searches around the world from Sara Seager of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and then engaged in a discussion about the topic led by CAA member Alyssa Goodman of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The second project would be a similar research briefing examining the advances in understanding gravity. Eanna Flanagan of Cornell University gave a scientific presentation, which was followed by a discussion led by CAA co-chair Roger Blandford. CAA spent the third quarter preparing to undertake a new task. On July 2, CAA co-chair Wendy Freedman visited the relevant agencies in Washington, D.C., to identify topics that the committee should address in a potential new study. One idea that emerged from conversations at NSF is that CAA should oversee the creation of a short booklet that would highlight the exciting science questions being addressed by mainstream astronomy today, particularly focusing on the origins of galaxies, stars, and planets. A proposal to undertake this project was completed in October. In addition to this project, NASA officials suggested a number of issues that could use CAA's attention. At the top of the list was a review of the science and plans for the Terrestrial Planet Finder. During the fourth quarter, CAA met on December 1-2 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Agenda items included a discussion of the future of the Hubble Space Telescope with Andrew Christensen, chair of NASA's Space Science Advisory Committee; a discussion with Anne Kinney, NASA Headquarters, about the challenges in providing theory funding lines in astronomy missions at NASA; an update on the progress of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST); and a presentation from Charles Beichman, California Institute of Technology, on the proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder. CAA also considered several issues in ground-based astronomy, including a strategy for guiding a number of proposed telescopes through NSF's Major Research Equipment line; it discussed the role of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the nation's astronomical portfolio; it also heard from chairs of both the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope Working Group and the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope Science Working Group. CAA provided further comments on a number of new tasks: a research briefing on the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets; and SSB's studies on (1) NASA's principal-investigator-led space science missions, (2) future nuclear-powered space science missions, and (3) the capabilities of large optical systems in space. A historical summary of reports from CAA and related committees is presented in Figure 2.3.
OCR for page 29
Activities and Membership . ~ ' Life Sciences in Space ' ....................................................................................................... if.. .._.. ... ... ... ... ...~... .. .._.. .._.. .._.. . ~ Post-Viking Bio/ogica/ investigations of Mars 1 977 Origin and Evolution of Life— /mp/ications for the Planets: A Scientific Strategy for the 1980s 1 981 Strategy for the Detection and Study of Other P/anetary Systems and Extraso/ar P/anetary Materials: 1990-2000 1 990 The Search for Life's Origins: Progress and Future Directions in P/anetary Biology and Chemica/ Evolution 1 990 ............................................. ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ a. m a. m ., ~, , , , , , , ,., , ,., , ,., , , , , , , , , , , ,., ,.* An integrated Strategy for the P/anetary by. _. .. _. by, . . ... . Sciences: 1995-2010 1994 ~ L Size Limits of Very SmaR Microorganisms: Proceedings ...................................... .................................................................................................... 1 999 m ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ m ~ ~ m 1 ~...................................................................................... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,—l 29 ~3 . ~ Conference on Hazard of Pianetary Contamination Due to Microbio/ogica/ Contamination in the interior of Spacecraft Components 1 965 r Biology and the Exploration of Mars 1 966 Extraterrestria/ LifeAn Anthology and Bibliography Supplementary to Biology and the Exploration of Mars 1 966 "Study on the Biological Quarantine of Venus" 1 967 ~ ................................................................................................. "Review of the Sterilization Parameter Probability of Growth (Pa)" 1 970 "On Contamination of the Outer Planets by Earth Organisms" 1 976 "Recommendation on Quarantine Policy for Uranus, Neptune, and Titan" 1 976 F recommendations on Quarantine Policy for Mars, Jupiter, Satum, Uranus, Neptune and Titan _ 1978 "On Categorization of the Mars Orbiter Mission" 1 985 . Bio/ogica/ Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations 1 992 Mars Sample Retum: issues and Recommendations 1997 .. .... .......................................................... ................................................................................................ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" L Forward __ Contamination of The Quarantine and Certification Europa of Martian Samp/es 2000 2002 Sl gns of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques 2002 "On NASA Policy for P;anetary Protection" ~ 1 1 "On Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous- Asteroid Flyby Mission" 1 986 ' 1 "Recommendation on Planetary Protection Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous-Asteroid Flyby Mission and the Titan- Cassini Mission" 1 988 Evaluating the Bio/ogica/ Potentia/ in Samp/es Retumed from P/anetary Sate//ites and Sma// Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making 19 98 .... ~ Life in the Universe: An Assessment of US. and /ntemationa/ Programs in Astrobiology 2003 FIGURE 2.6 SSB-NRC advice on astrobiology and planetary protection (1965-2003~. "On Scientific Assessment of Options for the Disposition of the Galileo Spacecraft" 2000
OCR for page 30
30 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 and Eric Lindstrom from Ocean.US. The committee also held a roundtable discussion with Bill Jeffrey (Office of Science and Technology Policy), Jean Toal-Eisen (Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space), and Brant Sponberg (Office of Management and Budget). Greg Williams from NASA's Office of Earth Science was also present to discuss plans for the NEC review of the Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Strategy. Other activities included writing of initial drafts for the "Mission Extension" report, final revisions to the report on principal-investigator-led Earth science missions (discussed at the March SSB meeting), planning for committee participation in the review of the ESE strategy and discussion of the role of the committee in the NRC review of the climate change science research program. During the second quarter, the committee met on May 5-7, at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. For most of the meeting, the committee met as part of the larger ad hoc committee that was tasked to review NASA's Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Strategy, a component of the overall NASA Strategic Plan. The ad hoc committee reviewed the most recent draft of the ESE Strategy, "Understanding and Protecting Our Home Planet." A draft letter report from the ad hoc committee entered the National Academies' external review process in June. In addition to the ESE Strategy review, the committee continued to draft its report, Extending the Elective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions. The report Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions entered external review in June. CES worked on three studies during the third quarter. CES members were part of an ad hoc committee chaired by Robert Serafin, which reviewed the most recent draft of the Earth Science Enterprise Strategy, "Understanding and Protecting Our Home Planet." A letter report, which included detailed suggestions for substantive changes in the draft document, was delivered to NASA on July 31,2003 (the letter report is reprinted in Chapter 4 of this annual report). The committee also completed its response to external review for the report Steps to Facilitate Principal- Investigc~tor-Led Earth Science Missions. Finally, the committee continued revision of its draft report, Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions. The committee met on August 12-14 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, devoting most of the meeting to work on the two ongoing studies. During the fourth quarter, CES met on October 8-10 in Washington, D.C., with most of the meeting devoted to revision of the draft report, Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions. The committee plans to send a draft of this report to external review by March 2004. During the last quarter, the committee also completed its response to external review for the report Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator- Led Earth Science Missions. Following NEC approval, the committee delivered a prepublication version of the executive summary of the report to NASA on October 17. Editing and publication of the full report will be completed in early 2004 . On October 29, the SSB received a letter from Ghassem Asrar, NASA associate administrator of the Office of Earth Science, requesting that a study be completed by the fall of 2005 that would "convey the Earth system science community's priorities for questions and measurements" for the coming decade. The terms of reference for this study, tentatively titled "Earth Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future," are being discussed with NASA and NOAA, and a statement of task for the study is being finalized. A meeting to organize the study will be scheduled in early 2004. ~ , _ (, CES Membership Michael Freilich, Oregon State University (chair) Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park Carol Anne Clayson, Florida State University William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation William C. Gibson, Southwest Research Institute Sarah Gille, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. Bruce D. Marcus, TOW, Inc. (retired) Steven W. Running, University of Montana, Missoula Robert A. Shuchman, Altarum, Inc. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville William Stoney, Mitretek Corporation Jan Svejkovsky, Ocean Imaging, Inc.
OCR for page 31
Activities and Membership Kurt Thome, University of Arizona John Townshend, University of Maryland, College Park Arthur Charo, Study Director Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant Committee to Review the NASA ESE Strategic Plan Memberships Robert J. Serafin, National Center for Atmospheric Research (chair) Ana P. Barros, Harvard University Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park Janet W. Campbell, University of New Hampshire Carol Anne Clayson, Florida State University Michael Freilich, Oregon State University William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Marvin A. Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook William C. Gibson, Southwest Research Institute Sarah Gille, University of California, San Diego Ross N. Hoffman, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. Bruce D. Marcus, TRW, Inc. (retired) George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Carl F. Schueler, Raytheon Santa Barbara Remote Sensing Robert A. Shuchman, Altarum, Inc. Roy W. Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville William Stoney, Mitretek Corporation Jan Svejkovsky, Ocean Imaging, Inc. Kurt Thome, University of Arizona John Townshend, University of Maryland, College Park Arthur Charo, Study Director Richard Leshner, Research Associate Claudette Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant *All terms ended during 2003. TASK GROUP ON RESEARCH ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION 31 The Task Group on Research on the International Space Station (TGRISS) did not meet during 2003. In the first quarter, minor editing work continued on the phase II report, Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences, which had been released in prepublication form in September 2002. In February, the space shuttle Columbia tragedy resulted in numerous requests from the press for the report and for information related to the possible future of the ISS. During the second quarter, final editorial revisions were made in the phase II report, and it was published in August. This report concluded the activities of the task group. TGRISS Memberships James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration (chair) Adele L. Boskey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University John F. Brady, California Institute of Technology Jay C. Buckey, Jr., Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Meredith B. Colket III, United Technologies Research Center Herman Z. Cummins, City College of the City University of New York
OCR for page 32
32 Lynette Jones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alan Lawley, Drexel University Steven E. Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory David Pine, National Academy of Public Administration Liaison Tom Utsman, National Academy of Public Administration Liaison Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant *All terms ended during 2003. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) was in hiatus for the duration of the TGRISS study and resumed to active status during the second quarter. Donald E. Ingber of Harvard Medical School agreed to serve as chair and began his term on the Space Studies Board on July 1. NASA began consideration of two potential tasks for CSBM. CSBM did not meet during the third quarter. Discussions continued with NASA regarding a possible task to assess selected areas of basic research to support the development of biomedical countermeasures for the effects of spaceflight. A draft statement of task for this activity was sent to NASA in late August and was reviewed by the agency. CSBM was not active during the fourth quarter, as NASA continued to consider a task in which the committee would perform a study related to basic research in support of biomedical countermeasures for astronauts. The committee also expects to assist the Institute of Medicine and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board in organizing a second study that will provide an independent assessment of NASA's Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap. A historical summary of reports from CSBM and related committees is presented in Figure 2.7. CSBM Membership Donald Ingber, Harvard Medical School (chair) James P. Bagian,* Veterans Health Administration (chair) Adele L. Boskey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University John F. Brady, California Institute of Technology Jay C. Buckey, Jr., Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Meredith B. Colket III, United Technologies Research Center Herman Z. Cummins, City College of the City University of New York Lynette Jones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alan Lawley, Drexel University Steven E. Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant *Term ended ding 2003. COMMITTEE ON MICROGItAVITY RESEARCH The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) did not meet in the first quarter. Revisions to the committee's report, Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research atNASA, continued. This report was released in prepublication form in November 2002. Following the space shuttle Columbia tragedy,
OCR for page 33
Activities and Membership SHE BI | Science in Space. Biological Science and Space Research | 1 960 · ! . ~ Report on NASA Biology Program 1 968 . ~ · 1 1 1970 1 . ~ ............................. Beyond ~ Earths Environment 1979 .......... _ BUMAN S E IGH DIE Physiology in the Space Manned Spaceflight Environment Life Sciences in Space: Report of the Study to Review NASA Life Sciences Programs 1 970 ...... .................................................................................. ~ Priorities for Space Research: 1971-1980 1971 Scien c es of t Space Shuttle 1 974 = ... 1 967 1 .......... _ ..... ... ....... .......... 1999 Radiation Protection Infectious Disease Guides and in Manned Constraints for Spaceflight: Space-Mission and Probabilities and Vehicle-Design Countermeasures Studies Involving 1970 Nuclear Missions 1970 A ~ .. HZE-Particle Effects in Manned Spaceflight ......... 1m ......... ...................................................................................................................... ........ A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 19BOs and 199Os 1987 "On Several Issues in the Space Life Sciences" 1 993 ................. ~ 1988 ~ Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine—1991 1 991 ..' F....... 1 "On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program" 1 994 "On Peer Review in NASA Life Sciences Programs" 1 995 "On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research Institute" 1 996 Twined =~ bum the BEVALAC Facility" T Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies 1 996 A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century 1998 + ............ Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station 2001 .............................. Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station tOf Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences 2002 FIGURE 2.7 SSB-NRC advice on space biology and medicine (1960-2000~. 55 "On the Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Research Program" 1999 . Review of NASA's Biomedical Research Program 2000
OCR for page 34
34 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 numerous questions appeared in the media regarding the quality of shuttle research, and both committee members and SSB staff gave frequent interviews to the press during this period and worked to bring the findings of this report to the attention of reporters. The report was also included in a special NRC Web site that was developed in February to make reports relevant to the shuttle and ISS readily accessible to the press. During the second quarter, Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA was published in its final form and, at NASA's request, copies were distributed at an Office of Biological and Physical Research strategy development workshop on June 12. CDs of the report were also made available. On July 1, Dennis Readey of the Colorado School of Mines was appointed to the Space Studies Board to represent microgravity research; he will also serve as chair of CMGR. Preliminary discussions were held with NASA regarding the selection of the committee's next task. CMGR did not meet during the third quarter. Discussions were held during the quarter to develop language for a requested roadmapping study that would identify physical sciences research supporting space exploration technology development. A draft statement of task was sent to NASA in September for review, and a search is under way for potential committee members for this study. Also in September, staff officer Sandra Graham attended the Microgravity Transport Processes in Fluid, Thermal, Biological and Materials Sciences Conference III in Davos, Switzerland. The meeting offered numerous talks on microgravity effects on processes that affect spacecraft systems and provided the opportunity to exchange information and ideas with investigators who are experienced in looking at these issues. CMGR was not active during the fourth quarter, but work continued on identifying potential participants and resource materials for a study on developing a physical sciences research strategy that would enable advanced exploration technology development. A historical summary of reports from CMGR and related committees is presented in Figure 2.8. CMGR Membership Dennis W. Readey, Colorado School of Mines (chair) Peter W. Voorhees,* Northwestern University (chair) J. Iwan D. Alexander,* Case Western Reserve University Cristina H. Amon, Carnegie Institute of Technology Howard R. Baum, National Institute of Standards and Technology John L. Brash,* McMaster University Moses H.W. Chan,* Pennsylvania State University Jayavant P. Gore, Purdue University John L. Hall, University of Colorado Richard H. Hopkins,* Hopkins, Inc., Consulting Michael Jaffee, Medical Device Concept Laboratory Bernard H. Kear,* Rutgers University Jan D. Miller, University of Utah G.P. Peterson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Peter Staudhammer, TRW, Inc. Viola Vogel,* University of Washington, Seattle Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant *Term ended during 2003. STEERING COMMITTEE ON SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COMMERCIALIZATION The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) completed work on its third report, Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making, which was published in March. The report is based in large part on the workshop Facilitating Public Sector Uses of Remote Sensing Data, held in Boulder, Colorado, in January 2002, and addresses the opportunities and challenges
OCR for page 35
Activities and Membership Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015. Fundamental Physics and Chemistry 1 988 | Microgravity Research Opportunities for the l990s l 1 1995 1 An Initial Review of Microgravity Research in Support of Human Exploration and Development of Space 1 997 Future Biotechnology Research on the Intemational Space Station 2000 The Mission of Micrr Igravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA 2001 Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA 2002 ' ~ ' l "On Clarification of Issues in the Opportunities Report" 1 995 Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies 2000 FIGURE 2.8 SSB-NRC advice on Microgravity research (1978-20021. 35 Materials Processing in Space 1978 Microgravity Science and Applications: Report on a Workshop 1 986 - 1 ~ 1 1 1 Toward a Microgravity Research Strategy 1 992 1 ~ "On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program" 1 994 "On the Utilization of the Space Station', 1 994 1 1 1 "On Research Facilities Planning for the International Space Station" 1 997 Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the Intemational Space Station 2001 | Factors Affecting the Utilization of | the Intemational Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences 2002
OCR for page 36
36 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 of using remote sensing data in state, local, county, and regional government. The previous two SAPPSC reports are Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications and Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research. President's Circle Communication Initiative (PCCI) During the second quarter, the President's Circle Communication Initiative (of the National Academies) awarded funds for SAPPSC to conduct outreach for Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government in order to better target state and local managers and elected officials. Reviewers of the report and others had suggested that the NRC go directly to the targeted audience and provide the results at conferences that this audience may be likely to attend. In particular, committee or staff members participated in the Environmental Systems Research Institute meeting in July, the Annual Meeting of the International City/County Managers Association in September, and the Virginia Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Conference in October. The latter pair of presentations were done in collaboration with the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR), which recently completed the report GIS for Housing and Urban Development. One goal at each of these meetings was to explore with state and local officials how they might benefit from NRC activities. Several themes emerged from this outreach, and SSB and BESR staff members are developing a proposal for project initiation fund activities to explore the feasibility and potential interest in formal NRC activities. Another objective of this outreach was to help build a bridge between the Academies and state and local government. The National Academies have traditionally provided advice to the federal government, yet as issues such as homeland security command national attention and rely increasingly on geospatial and infrastructure data collected at the state and local levels, effective partnerships among state, local, regional, and federal governments have never been more important. SAPPSC Memberships Roberta Balstad Miller, Columbia University (chair) Alexander F.H. Goetz, University of Colorado Lawrence W. Harding, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park John R. Jensen, University of South Carolina Chris J. Johannsen, Purdue University Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future John S. MacDonald, Institute for Pacific Ocean Science and Technology Jay S. Pearlman, The Boeing Company Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *All terms expired during 2003. COMMITTEE ON NASA-NOAA TRANSITION FROM RESEARCH TO OPERATIONS The Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO), initiated by the Space Studies Board in collaboration with the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, explores the need for a systematic approach to transitioning from research to operations at NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) and considers, among other issues, approaches for streamlining the process of introducing new sensor and satellite technologies into the NESDIS satellite system and potential new users for NESDIS data and their needs. CONNTRO met on January 7-8 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to complete its responses to comments received from external reviewers on the draft report. The final draft report, Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, was approved by the NRC on January 31 and was released to the public in prepublication form on March 27. Committee chair Richard Anthes gave a briefing of the report to NASA, NOAA, and OMB officials on March 17, with a follow-up briefing for
OCR for page 37
Activities and Membership 37 NOAA's associate administrator for NESDIS, Greg Withee, on March 18. Dr. Anthes also briefed the Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization on March 13. During the second quarter, committee chair Richard Anthes gave briefings on the report to staff of the House Committee on Science's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics jointly with staff of the Subcommittee on Environment (April 29), and to staff of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries and Coast Guard (April 30~. The final report was published in early June. Committee chair Richard Anthes also briefed the results of the report to a workshop on developing an Earth Observation System held by NOAA's NESDIS in August and was also invited to present the report at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Committee member Bill Gail presented the results of the report at the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium in July in Toulouse, France. CONNTRO Membership Richard A. Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (chair) Susan K. Avery, University of Colorado (vice chair) Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University Grant C. Aufderhaar, The Aerospace Corporation George L. Frederick, Vaisala Meteorological Systems, Inc. Russell Koffler, NOAA (retired) Peter R. Leavitt, University of Regina, Canada William L. Smith, NASA Langley Research Center Richard W. Spinrad, National Ocean Service Paul Try, Science and Technology Corporation Christopher S. Velden, University of Wisconsin, Madison Michael Freilich, Oregon State University (CES Liaison) William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation (CES Liaison) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Richard B. Leshner, Research Associate Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA UTILIZATION The Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization (CESDU) held its second teleconference on January 27. The committee heard brief presentations from Gerald Dittberner, Chief of the Advanced Systems Planning Division in NOAA's NESDIS, and from Gregory Williams, senior policy analyst, NASA Office of Earth Science. In open session, the committee discussed general issues and agency concerns with Dittberner and Williams. In the closed session that followed, the committee discussed the white papers that members had drafted outlining issues and goals for the study. The committee made plans for future meetings. CESDU held its first full meeting on March 11-13 at the Keck Center of the National Academies in Washington, D.C. The first two days were information-gathering sessions. The committee heard from NASA's Earth Science Enterprise, NOAA NESDIS, NOAA National Climate Data Center, NOAA Space Environment Center, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Integrated Project Office, and David Jones, president and CEO of StormCenter Communications, Inc. During closed sessions the committee heard a briefing on the NRC report Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations from CONNTRO chair Richard Anthes; reviewed the previous days' talks; drafted a tentative outline of the report; and made initial writing assignments. During the second quarter, CESDU met on June 17-19 at the University of Wisconsin's Pyle Center in Madison. The committee heard from several experts, worked on the outline and case studies for its report, and planned its next meeting. During the third quarter, CESDU met on September 9-11 at the Keck Center of the National Academies in Washington, D.C. The committee heard presentations from NOAA and NASA staff on NPOESS data exploitation
OCR for page 38
38 Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003 and on the Comprehensive Large-Array Data Stewardship System. Other presentations covered improved utiliza- tion of remotely sensed data, DOD environmental satellite data utilization, agricultural monitoring for global food security status of Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) satellite crop monitoring, remote sensing in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, satellite data and national weather prediction, the Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS) Project, and the role of satellite data in environmental modeling. In closed sessions, the committee completed the outline of its report, reviewed draft material, discussed the draft report, and made writing assignments. During the fourth quarter, CESDU met on December 2-4 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to work on its draft report. The committee held a follow-up teleconference on December 19 to discuss and edit the findings and recommendations of the report. The committee plans to release the report by spring 2004, in time to make it useful during NASA's FY 2006 budget formulation. CESDU Membership Hung-Lung Allen Huang, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair) Philip E. Ardanuy, Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services John R. Christy, University of Alabama James Frew, University of California, Santa Barbara Susan B. Fruchter, Smithsonian Institution Aris P. Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology Ying-Hwa (Bill) Kuo, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research David S. Linden, DSL Consulting, Inc. Kevin P. Price, University of Kansas Steven W. Running, University of Montana Marijean T. Seelbach, QuakeFinder Thomas H. yonder Haar, Colorado State University Robert A. Weller, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Robert L. Riemer, Study Director Richard Leshner, Research Associate Rosalyn A. Pertzborn, Assistant to Chair, University of Wisconsin-Madison (from August 2003) Brian Osborne, Assistant to Chair, University of Wisconsin-Madison (through July 2003) Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant FUTURE OF LARGE OPTICS IN SPACE During the third quarter, SSB member Roger Angel chaired a project-scoping meeting on Large Optics in Space at the Keck Center of the National Academies in Washington, D.C., on September 25-26. The purpose of the meeting was to identify questions related to the science objectives and operational needs for large optics in space; enabling technologies for large optics; options for development, launch, operations, locations, and deployment of large optics in space; and policy issues of interagency collaboration on large optics in space. The NRC Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences provided project initiation funds for the meeting. Representatives from NASA, NOAA, the Air Force, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, aerospace industry, and the science community, as well as consultants to the National Reconnaissance Office, attended. The project-scoping meeting included three panel discussions: Visions and Goals for Large Optics in Space; Character of Telescopes and Desired Operating Locations; and Space Logistics, Assembly, and Orbital Transfer and Maintenance. Participants broke into splinter groups to discuss whether an NRC study on large optics in space would be useful and which key issues an NRC study might address. During the plenary session, facilitators from each of the break-out sessions reported that their groups supported the development of a full NRC study on large antics. The plenary group drafted a rough statement of task and discussed possible approaches for obtaining funding for the study. During the fourth quarter, the SSB and the ASEB developed a statement of task, received NRC approval on the study proposal, and began to seek sponsorship from various agencies to support the study.
OCR for page 39
Activities and Membership Pamela Whitney, Study Director Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer Maureen Mellody, Program Officer, ASEB Richard Leshner, Research Associate Brian Dewhurst, Research Associate, BPA PREVENTING FORWARD CONTAMINATION OF MARS 39 During the second quarter, following a request by NASA that the SSB conduct a study on preventing forward contamination of Mars, the Board began working on nominating a committee for this task. The Board has a long history of providing advice to NASA on this topic, and its reports have often served as de facto policy on planetary protection for the international space community. The committee will (1) assess and recommend levels of cleanliness and sterilization required to prevent the forward contamination of Mars by future spacecraft missions (given current understanding of the martian environment and of terrestrial microorganisms in extreme environ- ments), (2) review methods to achieve and measure the appropriate level of cleanliness and sterilization for Mars spacecraft and recommend alternatives in light of recent advancements in science and technology, and (3) identify scientific investigations that should be accomplished to reduce the uncertainty in the above assessments. During the fourth quarter, Christopher Chyba of Stanford University and the SETI Institute was appointed chair for the committee. Mars Committee Membership Christopher F. Chyba, Stanford University (chair) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR During the first quarter, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) met on March 18-20 at COSPAR headquarters in Paris, France, for its annual meetings of the program and publications committees and of the COSPAR Bureau. The Bureau included several new members elected by the COSPAR Council at the World Space Congress in October 2002 T. Kosugi (Japan), M.E. Machado (Argentina), G.G. Sheperd (Canada), and J.B. Zielinski (Poland) as well as newly elected president Roger Bonnet (France) and vice presidents Edward Stone (United States) and Wim Hermsen (Netherlands). J. Audouze (France) and G. Horneck (Germany) were reelected to the Bureau by the COSPAR Council. The Bureau discussed ongoing COSPAR business, finances, and publications, and began planning for the 2004 COSPAR Scientific Assembly, which will be held in Paris, France, on July 18-25, 2004. COSPAR did not meet during the second quarter. Planning continued for COSPAR's 2004 Scientific Assembly. During the third quarter, the SSB office began compiling nominations for the COSPAR awards that are to be presented at the 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. The COSPAR Awards Committee and the Bureau will select the awarders. COSPAR did not meet during the fourth quarter. Planning for the 35th COSPAR Scientific Assembly continued. The Scientific Program Committee will meet on March 30-31, 2004, to finalize the scientific program, and the COSPAR Bureau will meet on April 1, 2004, to handle COSPAR business. Pamela L. Whitney, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Representative terms from entire chapter: