|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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:
space studies
