|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 73
4
Short Reports
During 2003, the Space Studies Board and its committees issued two short reports. The main text of each is
reprinted in this section.
4.l Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy
On May 29, 2003, Space Studies Board Chair John H. McElroy sent the following letter to Dr. Edward J.
Weller, NASA 's Associate Administrator for Space Science.
In response to your request of January 7, 2003, I am pleased to transmit a review by the National Research
Council's Space Studies Board of the draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy."
The Board concluded that the document provides a thorough, informative summary of scientific objectives,
goals, and the associated missions sponsored by the Office of Space Science (OSS). The integration of technology
development into the four OSS strategic themes was particularly well done, and the Board was pleased to see plans
for reinvigoration of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (ETA) program. The Board is encouraged by the
prospects for new scientific capabilities afforded by advanced nuclear power and propulsion activities and looks
forward to seeing plans (including comparative capabilities enabled, schedules, and cost estimates) for their
possible implementation.
Notwithstanding those strengths of the draft document, there are several key areas in which the Board
recommends improvement and clarification. Highlights of those recommendations follow:
· To represent a true strategy, the document should provide explicit information about resources, criteria for
decision making, priorities, mission plans, time lines, and contingency plans.
· The OSS should resolve the substantial variance between the missions and programs included in the
document's Sun-Earth Connections section and those recommended as high priorities in the National Research
Council (NRC) report The Sun to the Earth and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space
Physics.
· Because the science capabilities of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter mission have not been presented in
significant detail in the OSS draft document, the Board cannot determine whether the mission accurately reflects the
Jupiter-system objectives discussed in the NRC report New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Explora-
tion Strategy.
· Although the draft document does a good job of addressing the roles of research and analysis (11&A) as a
part of the overall space science program, attention to theoretical studies as high-priority elements of R&A falls
73
OCR for page 74
74
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
short of what has been recommended in the NEC reports The Sun to the Earth cored Beyond, New Frontiers in the
Solar System, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, and Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos.
· The OSS should present a comprehensive plan that addresses future needs and solutions for providing and
sustaining human resources, especially women and minorities, required to accomplish its program. The four NRC
surveys mentioned above outline specific training issues and make recommendations that the OSS should employ in
a strategy for developing and maintaining a competent, sustainable workforce. In addition to a plan that engages the
academic community, the plan should describe a mechanism for follow-up evaluations that would focus on
accomplishments and outcomes rather than programs and processes.
Signed by
John H. McElroy
Chair, Space Studies Board
Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy
In a letter dated January 7, 2003 (Attachment 1~), the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science
requested that the Space Studies Board (the Board) of the National Research Council (Attachment 2~) review the
draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,"i which NASA provided on February 7, 2003. In carrying out the
requested review, the Board focused on the main areas listed in the letter of request:
Responsiveness to the NllC's guidance on key science issues and to opportunities provided in recent
science strategy reports,
2. Attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance,
3. Identification and exposition of important opportunities for education and public outreach,
4. Integration of technology development with the science program, and
5. General readability and clarity of presentation.
INPUT USED IN PREPARING THE ASSESSMENT
Detailed recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC) decadal surveys and other recent
reports provided important input to the Office of Space Science (OSS) planning process. The chairs of the Solar
System Exploration Survey Committee, the Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee, the Committee on
Astronomy and Astrophysics, and the Committee on the Physics of the Universe attended the OSS strategic
planning workshop held in San Diego, California, November 7-8,2002, and briefed the participants on the results of
the decadal strategy reports.2 The Board director also presented the highlights of Life in the Universe: An
Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology.3 This review of the OSS strategy document
incorporates inputs received from relevant standing committees of the Board the Committee on Solar and Space
Physics (CSSP), the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), the Committee on the Origins
and Evolution of Life (COEL), and the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA). The Board also had an
opportunity to discuss the strategy document with NASA staff at the Space Studies Board meeting on March 24,
2003, when Ms. Lisa May of the OSS provided a briefing on the draft document. The Board then reviewed and
discussed the document, along with the discipline committees' responses, and assembled this consensus assess-
ment.
The Board has organized its assessment into six categories in keeping with the charge: (1) general observations,
(2) responsiveness to the NllC's guidance on key science issues and opportunities, (3) interdisciplinary aspects and
scenic balance, to) Integration of technology Development with the science program, be) opportunities tor
education and outreach, and (6) readability and clarity of presentation. The Board has highlighted in this short
report what it believes to be the salient points relevant to these areas, which are discussed below.4
*Attachments 1 and 2 are not reprinted in this annual report.
OCR for page 75
Short Reports
75
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The Board believes that the draft "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy" document provides an informative
survey of OSS scientific objectives, goals, and associated missions. It identifies NASA's science objectives for
each space science theme area and notes key missions and programs that the OSS has identified to address
objectives. The document also discusses some resource requirements and external relationships to other federal
agencies and international partners. The Board commends the OSS for incorporating into the 2003 draft document
suggestions that the Board made for improving the 2000 plan.5 The document provides a clear presentation of how
astrobiology fits into the overall plan and does a good job of connecting the technology and future missions in the
OSS theme areas.
However, the Board does not find the draft document to be a true strategy. As the Board noted in its prior
review of the draft 2000 strategic plan, more explicit information about resources, criteria for decision making,
priorities, mission plans, time lines, and contingencies could have transformed this document from a "handbook for
what we intend to do and why" into a strategy.6 While some elements of a strategy are included, they are dispersed
throughout the draft document and do not convey an integrated strategic approach to the OSS program. The Board
is also concerned that the document, in some areas, overlooks critical strategic guidance prepared by the scientific
community in NRC science strategy reports that were requested by NASA.
ItESPONSIVENESS TO THE NItC'S GUIDANCE ON KEY SCIENCE ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
In assessing the draft document, the Board paid particular attention to the extent to which the document reflects
the guidance and priorities provided by the NRC to the OSS on space science issues. The Board is pleased that the
OSS document captures some of the core elements of the solar system exploration (SSE) survey, New Frontiers in
the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, and the astronomy and astrophysics (AA) survey report,
Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium. At the same time, the Board found that the document neglects
the priorities recommended in the solar and space physics (SSP) survey, The Sun to the Earth and Beyond: A
Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics. In addition, the Board believes that the OSS draft
document could be clarified and strengthened by making explicit the process used to create the OSS program and
the priorities for the program it presents.
The Board is concerned that the draft OSS document does not integrate the results of some NRC surveys into
certain theme programs, the most obvious being the Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) section of the document. The
goals presented in the SEC section do not refer to the SSP survey, nor does the document provide a connection
between the missions included in the SEC theme and those identified as high priorities in the SSP survey. For
example, the SEC theme section describes two future Solar Terrestrial Probe (STP) missions, one that will "focus
on reconnection and micro-scale processes in the solar atmosphere using both high-resolution spectroscopy and
imaging"7 (referred to in that section as the Reconnection and Microscale [RAM] probe) and one that will "measure
the polar regions of the Sun and the heliosphere from high solar latitude"8 (referred to as Telemachus). Although
the NASA SEC roadmap team recommended both, the SSP survey placed RAM on the deferred list and did not
endorse Telemachus at any level of priority. If the OSS pursues these two missions, they would displace the STP
missions the Multispacecraft Heliospheric Mission (MSM), Solar Wind Sentinels (SWS), and the Stereo
Magnetospheric Imager (SMI)9 that received high priorities in the SSP survey. As a result, the only remaining
high-priority STPs from the SSP survey to be included in the OSS program would be the currently approved
missions, Geospace Electrodynamic Connections (GEC) and Magnetospheric Constellation (Magcon). The OSS
should address the mismatch between the missions included in the SEC section of the draft document and those
identified as high priorities in the NRC's SSP survey report.
The Board also noted that the draft document made no mention of the important opportunity to transition the
research and instrumentation devoted to the scientific study of solar and space physics into applications and
operations for space weathered The nation's investment in solar and space physics research can provide important
dividends for society, and the OSS should include in the document its plans for transitioning SEC research and
instruments into applications and operations.
In another example, while the SSP survey independently identified a dedicated Jupiter Polar Mission (JPM) as
its third priority, the Board did not find in the draft document any mention of JPM and noticed in the SEC section
(at pages 36-37) only passing mention of the SSE survey's Jupiter Polar Orbiter with Probes (JPOP) mission. It also
OCR for page 76
76
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
found little mention of the relationship between these two missions (JPOP and JPM) and possible plans to combine
them. The document should acknowledge that the SSP community has identified a JPM mission as a high priority
and that opportunities exist to work with NASA's SSE program
.
In the Structure and Evolution of the Universe (SEW) theme, the Board applauds the OSS for initiating the
Einstein Probes, which relate to priorities identified in the NRC report Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos.
However, the SEU section could be strengthened by presenting a more explicit connection to the Connecting
Quarks with the Cosmos report, which provides a new scientific treatment of the foundation of the SEU theme.
Regarding new initiatives, the Board commends the OSS for initiating the New Frontiers Mission Line, an
effort that corresponds directly with some of the priorities recommended in the NRC report New Frontiers in the
Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy. However, the OSS draft document could be strengthened with
the addition of clear statements on the scientific rationale and objectives for the mission lines The Board also
.
applauds the OSS on reinvigorating the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) program under Project
Prometheus and the prospects for new scientific capabilities afforded by the Prometheus advanced power and
propulsion activities activities identified in the SSE survey as key to enabling the future exploration of the outer
planets, including the long-term operation of landers.~3 However, the Board is concerned with the appearance of a
major new mission Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) and the perception of this mission as a priority of the
NRC's SSE survey. According to the presentation by the chair of NASA's Space Science Advisory Committee to
the NASA Advisory Council on March 20, 2003, "This mission [JIMO] responds to the National Academy of
Sciences' recommendation that a Europa orbiter mission be the number one priority for a flagship mission in Solar
System exploration."~4 Yet the science objectives of JIMO, as presented in the draft document, do not map clearly
to the SSE survey's Jupiter-system objectives. Furthermore, the Board has not yet seen a scientific review of the
OSS's proposed implementation of JIMO and thus has no basis on which to assess whether JIMO can achieve the
science objectives recommended for the Europa Geophysical Explorer (EGE) mission.
The Board understands that JIMO is the OSS's response to an emerging budgetary and policy window of
opportunity. Nevertheless it is concerned that, under the OSS draft document, the near- to mid-term exploration of
Europa will become hostage to the successful implementation of an uncertain and expensive advanced technology
development program. Given the uncertainties in mission design and cost, as well as the many other outer solar
system missions that might utilize nuclear reactor technology to address important scientific priorities, NASA's
best near-term strategy may be to consider JIMO as one of several reference missions for establishing the
requirements and guiding the development of advanced power and propulsion technologies until such time as
JIMO's responsiveness to the scientific priorities for the exploration of Europa and the other Galilean satellites can
be assessed.
INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECTS AND SCIENTIFIC BALANCE
The draft document discusses the scientific balance across themes and within theme areas. Section 4.1
Program Elements, describes the array of components that constitute the OSS program, including flight missions,
research and analysis (R&A), sounding rocket and balloon programs, advanced detector and instrument systems,
ground-based programs, laboratory measurements, supporting technologies, and data management. The draft also
refers to interdisciplinary scientific aspects of the OSS program in individual theme sections and in the discussion
on astrobiology, which is the most visible interdisciplinary activity in the program. Overall, the document offers a
balanced description of science within and among themes. In the interest of strengthening the OSS program, the
Board identifies several opportunities for enhancing the scientific balance among these elements and for highlight-
ing additional interdisciplinary activities within the OSS portfolio.
Balance Across Themes
The Board appreciates NASA's efforts to include the search for life as part of its NASA Vision and Mission,
Section 2, page 6, but believes the emphasis is overstated under Goal 5, "Explore the solar system and the Universe
beyond, understand the origin and evolution of life, and search for evidence of life elsewhere" and in the many
repeated references to the search for life, sometimes without substance, throughout the document. This over-
emphasis minimizes science that is not focused on life and sometimes reduces scientific credibility. To cite two
examples, first the SEC theme refers to a link between biospheres and energy from the Sun but does not elaborate on
OCR for page 77
Short Reports
77
how SEC will advance the agency strategic goal, "Understand the origin and evolution of life and search for
evidence of life elsewhere" as presented on page 9. To retain a credible linkage between SEC and biospheric
processes, examples should be provided. The document could discuss potential ultraviolet effects on atmospheric
and ocean chemistry in the form of photolysis reactions that produce oxygen radicals and oxidized forms of sulfur.
These reactions could have an important influence on life even in the absence of photosynthesis. Second, studies
are under way to learn which "biosignatures" identifiable spectral features in a planet's reflected light might
reveal past or present life on a planet. However, to take advantage of this new information it will be necessary to
develop space telescopes of unprecedented size and sophistication.
The Board also believes that additional attention to identifying science and technology connections across
themes, and more generally across the nation's astronomical and Earth-oriented research, would strengthen the OSS
draft document. For example, as pointed out in the NRC report Life in the Universe, there are linkages among Solar
System Exploration, Mars Exploration, and Astrobiology as well as between Astronomical Search for Origins and
Astrobiology,is but none of those connections are explicit in the draft document and others are not mentioned.
The Board did not find any mention in the document of the potential ties between the James Webb Space
Telescope (JWST), which will explore the formation and evolution of planetary systems, and the Near-Earth
Objects program or with other studies of the outer solar system. Another opportunity for strengthening the
connection among theme discipline areas would be to describe the overlaps between studies of dark matter, neutrino
masses, astrometry, and gravitational wave phenomena through the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP), the Solar Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), and neutrino observatories. The OSS draft document
should also provide a clearer connection between terrestrial climate, which is mentioned as a key area for the Living
With a Star (LOOS) program, and how this research is implemented within the broader NASA (Earth Science
Enterprise) and national (e.g., Climate Change Research Initiative) contexts.
The document generally achieves a consistent level of detail within the various theme sections, although the
SEU theme was overly specific in its discussion of missions and mission details (box on page 46~. In addition, one
of the most profound astrophysical discoveries of the last decade was evidence for dark energy and the accelerated
expansion of the universe, which are not yet explained in terms of fundamental physics and are noted as leading
questions in the Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos report.~7 This discovery is so important that the Board
believes it deserves mention in the list of "grand questions" in the opening paragraphs of the SEU theme. The
WMAP's contribution to the exploration of dark energy could also be noted.
The role of astrobiology is presented in the document in the box "Astrobiology and the Search for Life"
(following page 9~. However, the Board believes that the language in the box generally underestimates the
complexity and difficulty of "understanding" how life originated and evolved. At best, scientists can "explore" or
"investigate" the origins and evolution of life; claiming the goal of "determining or understanding" promises much
more than basic science is likely to deliver.
The Board also believes that integration of astrobiology into the document can be improved by clarifying the
definition of "astrobiology" and its value as a unifying theme. The Exobiology R&A program and the NASA
Astrobiology Institute support unique programs to investigate the transition from simple organic compounds to the
simplest forms of living matter. A better understanding of how life emerges from prebiotic chemistry is essential
for knowing what to look for as we search for other environments in which life may have originated. Earth-based
projects have the power to inform us about how to interpret the organic chemistry of Titan and of cometary material
in an effort to understand the starting materials available on early Earth. This research provides an example of
balance across themes, but the Board cautions that knowing everything about the sources and kinds of organic
material in the universe is not equivalent to achieving a full understanding about the origin of life, which may have
occurred independently more than once. Another example already highlighted in the document, under "Objective:
Determine the characteristics of the solar system that led to the origin of life" (page 26), is the Astrobiology
program's study of life in extreme environments. Discoveries of eukaryotic and prokaryotic extremophiles
"coupled with a fuller understanding of the range of possible conditions on other planetary bodies, have significantly
expanded our view of the number of environments within our solar system that might be, or might have been,
conducive to life." The Board suggests that such discoveries warrant mention in the list of major accomplish-
ments and offer a wonderful example of how the OSS draft document should use cross-cutting themes, supported by
the OSS, to illustrate the benefits of interdisciplinary research.
OCR for page 78
78
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
Balance Within Themes
The Board has often urged NASA to foster a balance between R&A, data analysis (DA) programs, and
spacecraft missions,~9 and the Board appreciates the OSS's reference to the functions of research and analysis
programs, as noted in the 1998 NRC report Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs:
Engines for Innovation and Synthesis.20 The Board recognizes that fostering and sustaining an appropriate mix
among the program elements requires continuous adjustments, and the Board notes specific opportunities to
improve the balance. Section 4.1.2 (Scientific Research and Analysis) of the OSS document cites the synergy
between R&A, DA, and missions, but it emphasizes the development and flight-testing of advanced detector and
instrument systems for particular missions and provides scant attention to ground-based research. Acknowledging
the integral importance of laboratory-based and theory-based programs or DA programs for major themes in the
OSS document would help establish a better balance between mission programs and their scientific underpinnings
and results.
The decadal surveys recommended that significant theory, modeling, and other components of research and
data analysis activities are necessary for a vital science program. For example, the AA survey recommended that
2 to 3 percent of the cost of flight projects be devoted to theory.2i The SSE survey recommended "an increase over
the decade in the funding for fundamental Research and Analysis programs at a rate above inflation to a level that is
consistent with the augmented number of missions, amount of data, and diversity of objects studied."22 Further, the
SSP survey recommended several "Vitality Programs" that address theory, computation, and data analysis,23 and
the Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos report noted that "it is essential that an interagency initiative on the physics
of the universe maintain a balanced approach that provides opportunities for investigator-initiated experiments,
detector R&D, theoretical work, and computational efforts that address the committee's scientific questions."24 If
the recommended theory elements are not included in the document, the OSS should discuss the alternatives to or
consequences of this decision. As currently structured, the minimal description of ground-based research creates an
imbalance with the focus on spaceflight missions.
Another important aspect of balance within theme areas is the ability of researchers to interpret data from
multiple spacecraft (box, page 14~. The recognition of the importance of R&A by the science community led to
arguments for the development of the National Virtual Observatory (NVO) and the parallel Virtual Solar
Observatory (VSO). From the perspective of planning future observations, however, the OSS document should
address observations from multiple space and ground-based observatories and how researchers can access such
data. For example, the 2001 NRC report Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA is Earth and Space
Science Mission Data states:
The successful implementation of methods for making complex queries of multiple databases is likely to be
technically challenging and costly. The level of appropriate investment by NASA in federated data systems should be
evaluated at regular intervals and should be based on 1) the importance of the scientific questions that can be addressed
through the simultaneous mining of multiple databases, 2) demonstrated scientific return from past investments, and
3) the readiness of computational and communications technology to support data mining.25
Interagency and International Participation
The OSS document discusses the participation of interagency and international partners in the OSS program
(pages 11, 51, and 64-70~. The OSS and NASA collaborate with a host of U.S. federal agencies, nations, and
organizations, all of which the document recognizes as providing valuable contributions to the OSS program. There
are, however, functions within these partnerships that the Board did not see mentioned in the document. In
interagency partnerships, for instance, the Board saw no mention of the cooperation between NASA and the
National Science Foundation (NSF) on the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), which was recommended by
the SSE survey and addressed by the National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (NAAAC).26
Also, in the description of NASA's cooperation with the Department of Commerce, the Board did not see any
reference to the many areas for NASA-NOAA collaboration on research in solar and space physics in support of
space weather applications, as recommended in the SSP survey.27
OCR for page 79
Short Reports
79
Considering the importance of international cooperation in the OSS's history, the draft document could be
improved by providing additional context as to how the OSS program, especially the flight missions, relate to non-
U.S. programs. One sees mention of foreign-led missions such as Solar-B and BepiColumbo; however, discussion
on the gaps, overlaps, and synergies calf the ()~S nrc~ram vis-a-vis mailer nc~n-U.~. snace science nrc~rams would
provide a broader perspective.
r- -~-
- r--~-
The document also mentions the operational aspects of international cooperation and describes NASA's
interactions with the Department of State on matters related to international agreements, interagency reviews, and
the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The ITAR has raised serious concerns about impediments to
international cooperation28 such as problems some foreign scientists encounter in gaining access to critical
discussions on international missions in which they are involved.29 Many scientists also face significant difficulties
in trying to obtain visas to the United States. The Board is aware of NASA's ongoing efforts to address the
impediments to cooperation under ITAR requirements and believes that reference to such past and planned
activities would address a critical aspect of the OSS's ability to facilitate international cooperation among scientists
and to conduct joint missions with foreign partners. It is also important that the OSS recognize and address the
problems foreign scientists face in seeking visas to the United States.
INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SCIENCE PROGRAM
The Board believes that the linkages between technology development and science objectives in the draft OSS
document are sound and well done. The individual discussions of technology development in some theme areas,
however, could be strengthened. For example, some important new technologies and hardware development
capabilities are omitted,30 and further details on descriptions of some processes associated with technology
development and time lines for those developments would strengthen the documental In addition, the technological
needs of astrobiology are not discussed in any depth and are only highlighted on page 53. Many of the technologies
referenced have no specific relevance to astrobiology, but other critical technologies are not articulated in the
document. For example, the document does not mention the miniaturization of analytical instruments ("labs on a
chip") for the analysis of organic compounds, including their chirality and isotopic composition, which is essential
to the search for life elsewhere in the solar system. The search for life is a primary driver in the OSS document. A
strategy for the development of technology for observing biosignatures and life detection should be articulated. For
sample return missions, details about capabilities, required technologies associated with planetary protection, and
construction time lines are not provided for curation and handling facilities.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
Representatives of the OSS reported during the Board's meeting on March 24, 2003, that the Education and
Public Outreach (EPO) sections of the OSS draft document will be rewritten. The Board agrees that the EPO
sections can be improved significantly and offers suggestions for the next version. For example, the connection
between the actions described on page 20 of the EPO section and the bullets on page 21 could be made clearer in
order to improve the overall linkage to the EPO objectives on page 9. In addition, several aspects of the content
could be improved,32 and discussions of past achievements could be balanced with clearly articulated future goals.
The OSS may also wish to consider how the text might be revised to highlight the unique capabilities of NASA to
generate the excitement and enthusiasm necessary for a successful EPO program and to attract the audience it is
intending to reach.
In the broader context of education and public outreach, the Board believes that the OSS should prepare a
comprehensive, forward-looking plan that defines the level of human resources required to accomplish the OSS
program; how education and training efforts, including the recruitment and training of women and minorities, will
meet those demands; and the resources required to retain this skilled labor force. The OSS document properly
expresses concern about human resources, namely the need to recruit, train, and retain the scientific and technical
talent needed to carry out NASA's mission in the coming decades. The document discusses these resource issues
specifically in the context of staffing at NASA Centers, but NASA would do well to consider this problem beyond
its own staffing requirements. The success of NASA's partnerships with both industry and academia hinges on the
ability to train the next generation of space scientists and engineers.
OCR for page 80
80
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
NASA should articulate a strategy for leveraging its funding for academic training in a way that encourages
universities to develop interdisciplinary programs. The NASA Specialized Center for Research and Training
(NSCORT) programs at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, as well as
the Astrobiology programs at Arizona State University, the University of Washington, and the University of
Colorado, are examples of successful programs to consider for other disciplines. The SSP survey also makes
specific recommendations to create research opportunities in solar and space physics for undergraduate and
graduate education. For example, the survey recommends that NSF and NASA establish "bridged positions" to
support faculty positions in solar and space physics and that NASA support undergraduate research in solar and
space physics through grant programs.33
Efforts to address the future needs for scientific and technical human resources require a long-term commit-
ment beyond awards associated with individual research and analysis grants or NRC postdoctoral fellows. A
follow-up evaluation mechanism would be required to appraise the effectiveness of these human resources
processes and their impact on the future of the OSS program and the space science community. This evaluation
mechanism should be capable of differentiating on the basis of effectiveness (outcome) rather than on intentions
(programs, process).
READABILITY AND CLARITY OF PRESENTATION
The OSS draft document necessarily covers an enormous range of topics, and to do so in a way that can
communicate effectively to a wide range of audiences including scientists and policymakers is a challenge. The
Board believes that revisions to emphasize use of the active voice and a parallel structure in the themes will be
helpful. Furthermore, short executive summaries at the beginning of each major chapter will improve the document
as a communication tool for multiple audiences.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Board found that the strategy document in its current form is an informative guide to the interface between
the OSS program and the agency's vision and goals, to the OSS's policies, and to science theme areas and their
relationship to technology development. However, the document does not include explicit information about many
of the elements necessary for strategic planning (e.g., time lines, resources, plans and priorities for mission
programs, and contingency plans).
In assessing the document's responsiveness to previous NRC advice, in particular the survey reports,34 the
Board found the response uneven. For some themes, such as the Astronomical Search for Origins and Solar System
Exploration, the linkage between proposed programs and NRC recommendations was clear, although the Board
registers serious concern about the uncertain connection between the NRC's advice on a Europa Geophysical
Explorer and the proposed Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. Other theme sections, especially SEC, do not reflect the
integration of NRC advice into the proposed program. In addition the Board found that while the document
reflected the importance of research and data analysis as part of the science program, demonstrating the balance
necessary for a healthy program that includes theory and laboratory-based research as well as flight programs would
improve and strengthen the document.
Education and public outreach are important objectives for NASA and the OSS, and while some accomplish-
ments are noted in the document, the Board found opportunities for a clearer and more engaging presentation of the
objectives, goals, integration with theme-area science, and capabilities required for achieving success.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Responsiveness to NRC Advice
The Office of Space Science (OSSJ should strengthen the "Principles and Policies" and the "Resources
Requirements" sections of its strategy document to include explicit and complete information about resources,
criteria for decision making, priorities, mission plans, time lines, and contingency plans.
The OSS should better reflect the recommendations of the SSP survey and the Connecting Quarks with the
Cosmos report in its document.
OCR for page 81
Short Reports
81
The OSS should consider JIMO as one of several reference missions for establishing the requirements and
guiding the development of advanced power and propulsion technologies.
Interdisciplinary and Science Balance
The OSS should strengthen the interdisciplinary aspects of its document. Appropriate modifications could
include discussing the lineages between the Sun-Earth Connection and Earth science and making the scientific
relationships among the OSS themes more explicit.
Education and Public Outreach
The OSS should sharpen the education and public outreach (EPOJ sections in its document. The four NBC
surveys outline specific training issues and make recommendations that the OSS should adopt. The OSS education
sections should comprehensively address future needs and solutions for providing and sustaining the human
resources required to accomplish the OSS program. Key elements of such ~ forward looking plan should define
(1 J the size and level of the skilled labor force required by industry, academia, and NASA, (2) how education and
training efforts, including the recruitment, training and retention of women and minorities, will meet those
demands, (3J the resources required to retain this skilled labor force, and (4J a mechanism for follow-up
evaluations that would focus on accomplishments and outcomes rather than programs and processes.
Clarity and Readability
The OSS should revise the document to emphasize the use of the active voice and ~ parallel structure in the
themes. The inclusion of short executive summaries at the beginning of each major chapter will improve the
document as ~ communication toolfor multiple audiences.
NOTES
1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Space Science Enterprise, "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,t'
Draft 2, February 6, 2003, Review Draft.
2. Space Studies Board, National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, in press; Space Studies Board, National Research Council, The Sun to
the Earth and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, National Academies Press, Washington,
D.C., 2003, in press. Board on Physics and Astronomy, Space Studies Board, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New
Millennium, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001; Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research
Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C., 2003.
3. Senior managers from the Office of Space Science (OSS) subsequently briefed the Committee on Planetary and Lunar
Exploration and the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life on related aspects of the strategic planning process.
4. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in
accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this
independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report
as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness
to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Baross, University of
Washington, Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University, John Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Louis J.
Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies, Norman H. Sleep, Stanford University, and Alar Toomre, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked
to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
of this report was overseen by Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., Carnegie Institution of Washington, Geophysical Laboratory.
Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this
report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page 82
82
Space Studies Board Annual [Report 2003
5. See Letter from Dr. Claude R. Canizares, Space Studies Board Chair, to Dr. Edward J. Weller, NASA Associate
Administrator for Space Science, "A Review of NASA's Office of Space Science Strategic Plan 2000," May 26, 2000.
6. A recent N~C review of the Administration's Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan listed the following
elements that should be included in any strategic plan:
A clear and ambitious guiding vision of the desired outcome;
A set of unambiguous and executable goals that address the vision and broadly describe what the program is designed to
accomplish;
A clear timetable for accomplishing the goals and criteria for measuring progress;
An assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, thereby identifying required program
changes and unmet needs that must be addressed in subsequent implementation planning;
A set of explicit prioritization criteria to facilitate program design and resource allocation; and
· A management plan that provides mechanisms for ensuring that the goals are met and for coordinating, integrating, and
balancing individual program elements and participating agencies.
See National Research Council, Planning Climate and Global Change [Research: A Review of the Draft U.S. Climate
Change Science Program Strategic Plan, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 1-5.
7. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," Draft
2, February 6, 2003, p. 37.
8. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, `'2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," Draft
2, February 6, 2003, p. 37.
9. National Research Council, The Sun to the Earthbound Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics,
Executive Summary, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 6.
10. See National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space
Physics, Chapter 5, "Solar and Space Environment Effects on Technology and Society," prepublication copy, National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002. For more information on the transition of research to operations, see also
National Research Council, Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of [Research to
Operations, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.
11. National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics,
Chapter 5, "Solar and Space Environment Effects on Technology and Society,?' prepublication copy, National Academies
Press, Washington, D.C., 2002.
12. National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics,
Executive Summary, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 6.
13. National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, prepublication copy,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 222.
14. Presentation on Space Science by Dr. Andrew Christensen to the NASA Advisory Council, March 20, 2003.
15. See National Research Council, Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 36.
The report recommends that:
NASA should foster more extensive links between the Astrobiology and the Astronomical Search for Origins
programs. In the short term, these linkages require cooperation between the NAT and major astronomical institutions,
such as the Space Telescope Science Institute and universities with extensive astronomical programs, in creating joint
workshops and focus groups to educate researchers in both areas and to initiate more extensive and novel research
endeavors.
16. For more information on national climate change initiatives and programs, see Our Changing Planet: The Fiscal Year 2003
U.S. Global Change Research Program and Climate Change [Research Initiative, A Report of the Climate Change
Research Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. A Supplement to the President's Fiscal Year 2003
Budget. Available online at . Accessed on April 10,2003. Also see
the NRC report The Sun to the Earth and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublica-
tion copy, pp. 2-6 and 5-6, for discussion on the Coupling Complexity Research Initiative, a space physics program
proposed to handle nonlinearity, multiprocess coupling, and multiscale and multiregional feedback, which are useful for
integrating data on the near-Earth space domain, including the solar wind, magnetosphere, radiation belts, ionosphere, and
thermosphere.
17. See National Research Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 2.
OCR for page 83
Short Reports
83
18. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, "2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," Draft
2, February 6, 2003, Review Draft, p. 26.
19. See, for example, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA,s
Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.
20. National Research Council, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA is Science Programs: Engines for Innovation
and Synthesis, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 3-4, 63-64.
21. Although theory is mentioned in passing in the section on R&A in the OSS strategy document, it is not given the same
prominence as, for example, laboratory astrophysics or suborbital programs. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey
Committee's decadal report recommended significant changes in NASA support for theory and modeling. The specific
NRC recommendations were that (i) 2 to 3 percent of the cost of flight projects be devoted to theory (for a $2 billion
program like the James Webb Space Telescope, this would mean $40 million to $60 million in theory support over a
~10-year period); (ii) a National Astrophysics Theory postdoctoral program be established (10 3-year postdoctoral
positions each year, or ~$2.25 million per year); and (iii) the Astrophysics Theory Program be significantly augmented
(~$3 million per year). The NRC committee believed strongly that the ensuing theoretical activities would materially
improve NASA's return on investments in space. See National Research Council, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New
Millennium, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 132-135.
22. National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, Republication copy,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 297.
The report states the following on research and analysis programs:
It is largely through the work supported by research and analysis (R&A) programs within the Office of Space Science
that the data returned by flight missions is converted into new understanding, advancing the boundaries of what is known.
The research supported by these programs also creates the knowledge necessary to plan the scientific scope of future
missions. Covered under this line item are basic theory, modeling studies, laboratory experiments, ground-based
observations, long-term data analysis, and comparative investigations. The funds distributed by these programs support
investigators at academic institutions, federal laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and industrial corporations. R&A
furnishes the context in which the results from missions can be correctly interpreted. Furthermore, active R&A programs
are a prime breeding ground for principal investigators and team members of forthcoming flight missions.
Healthy R&A programs are of paramount importance and a necessary precondition for effective missions. This
conclusion has been stated repeatedly and forcefully before, . . . and is shared by NASA's Office of Space Science itself.
The three R&A "clusters" (i.e., Origin and Evolution of Solar System Bodies, Planetary Systems Science, and
Astrobiology and Planetary Instrumentation) most closely associated with solar system exploration were supported at the
level of $96 million in FY 1999. This level is now expected to rise at about 3 percent per year above the underlying
inflation rate for several years. This proposed rise is included in the President's FY 2003 budget. Nevertheless, serious
problems remain with these programs. The proposal oversubscription is typically 3:1, which we believe is too high
since then new proposals can rarely be funded. Also, the availability of authorized funds is often subject to delays and, in
recent times, the value of the median grant has fallen to below $50,000 per annum, a level generally too small to support
a researcher or a tuition-paid graduate student . .
We agree with the Space Studies Board recommendation that NASA should routinely examine the size and number of
grants to ensure that the grant sizes are adequate to achieve the proposed research .... We support the budgetary
proposals that would steadily grow solar system exploration R&A programs. The SSE Survey recommends an increase
over the decade in the funding for fundamental Research and Analysis programs at a rate above inflation to a level
that is consistent with the augmented number of missions, amount of data, and diversity of objects studied.
R&A programs are not presently and, in our opinion, should not be tied to specific mission goals. Thus, individual
research projects do not correspond to particular missions. Nevertheless, as the breadth and depth of the space exploration
missions increase, the R&A programs should expand and be redirected correspondingly. Therefore, in a broadest sense,
R&A programs must be responsive to the current mission opportunities even if they are not rigidly coupled to them.
Previous NRC studies have shown that after a serious decline in the early- to mid-199Os . . . the overall funding for
R&A programs in NASA's Office of Space "Science has in recent vears climbed to annroximatelv 2() percent of the
ov`~rn]] flight mission h'~r1u`~t
- --or---- - ------- -----I --- ------- ~ -----I ------- - -- -- --or------------- —- r ------- -- ----
^vv~v^^ ~ .... Figures supplied by NASA's Solar System Exploration program show that the
corresponding value for planetary activities is closer to 25 percent and is projected to stay at about this level for the next
several years. The SSE Survey believes that this is an appropriate allocation of resources.
Finally, to maintain and enhance the scientific productivity of the entire solar system exploration enterprise and
to ensure the creation of new intellectual capital of the highest quality in the field, the SSE Survey recommends the
initiation of a program of Planetary Fellows, i.e., a postdoctoral program analogous to the Hubble and Chandra
fellowships which have done so much to nurture the next generation of astronomers and astrophysicists. The
purpose of this program would be to allow the brightest young investigators the opportunity to develop independent
research programs during their most creative years. These would be prestigious, multiyear fellowships, based solely on
highly competitive research proposals and tenable at any U.S. institution.
OCR for page 88
88
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
The draft document rationalizes the ESE program almost entirely on the basis of its contributions to
applications. The committee finds that the ESE draft document would be improved by an increased emphasis on
basic science; inadequate focus on a basic understanding of Earth system science may prove to be a crucial
impediment for the timely development of future applications. The committee recommends that the ESE draft
document clearly describe the respective roles of applied and basic science and the appropriate balance
between the two.
The NASA applications strategy should emphasize one of the agency's strengths, which is the provision of
objective, scientifically derived environmental information to all parties, inside or outside governments, in a
neutral, nonpolitical mode. Although the ESE draft document (lines 814-854) addresses the importance of existing
external partnerships, it does not describe how the new partnerships required to achieve the stated objectives will be
established. In addition, the ESE draft document does not detail how existing partnerships will be exploited. The
committee recommends that this strategic element be added to the ESE draft document in the section on
external partnerships (lines 814-854) and that the text in this section be revised accordingly.
The ESE Earth science program is far more exciting, and its applications far more important and far ranging,
than is conveyed in the draft document. The committee believes that development of the programs presented in the
ESE draft document would have benefited from a broader engagement of the external Earth science community.
Prior to the development of ESE's 2006 Strategy, the committee recommends that ESE take new approaches
to engaging the Earth science community, modeled perhaps on the outreach and roadmap efforts made by
the Office of Space Science in developing its own strategy.
4. Does it provide appropriate attention to interdisciplinary aspects, integration of technology
development, and overall scientific balance?
Earth system science is a complex, highly integrated activity requiring critical interaction among the manY
agencies and organizations responsible for performing particular elements of the scientific research. ESE recognizes
this and has indicated clearly that the Earth "systems" science problem requires a "systems" solution. The
committee is concerned that ESE's ability to achieve broad Earth science objectives may be compromised because
no single organization is responsible for coordinating the efforts of the many partners. In light of this concern the
committee recommends that ESE describe how it will take the steps necessary to ensure that all important
scientific components are identified, and that NASA work with other relevant agencies to ensure that the
specific roles of partner organizations are defined and activities properly coordinated.
The draft document uses an interdisciplinary Earth system science template for its proposed program, but this
approach has several deficiencies. The committee recommends that the ESE draft document be revised to
address the following issues:
· The draft document does not explain the ESE strategy for integration of technology and how technology
developments will be strategically coupled to ESE proposed missions.
-=,
-=,
· The draft document does not give sufficient attention to components of the Earth system, in particular,
anthropogenic forcings, which dominate change.
· The "Earth surface and interior" science focus area is not well integrated with the other five science focus
areas.
· There is little discussion of ESE's strategy for transforming mission data into scientific information,
specifically how space-derived data will be made available for use in laboratory investigations, field programs,
theory, and data analysis.
5. What recommendations from recent NRC reports, if any, should be considered in revising the draft?
As detailed in the body of the report, several NEC reports should be consulted in revising the ESE draft
document. In addition, the committee finds that in general the draft document does not provide sufficient context
through references to either subsidiary or superseding ESE documents and plans. The committee recommends
that the ESE revised document summarize the context and constraints established by the NASA Strategic
Plan and that it provide specific references to existing or developing subsidiary ESE documents. ESE assured
the committee that these documents exist but did not make them available to the committee.
OCR for page 89
Short Reports
89
In general, the committee strongly believes that the ESE draft document provided to the committee should be
viewed as an early draft that is deficient in many respects. It is hoped that, with substantial revisions as
recommended, a future more effective ESE strategy document will result.
INTRODUCTION
In response to a letter of request from NASA's Associate Administrator for Earth Science 4 the National
Research Council (NEC) appointed an ad hoc committees to review the draft Earth Science Enterprise Strategy (the
ESE draft document).6 As requested, the committee replied to five questions about the structure and content of the
ESE draft document.
In conducting its review, the committee benefited from presentations by Dr. Ghassem Asra~ and Mr. Gregory
Williams at a May 6 and 7, 2003, meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The committee's initial
discussions occurred prior to and during that meeting. Given the short schedule for delivery of this report,
subsequent discussions were conducted via e-mail or telephone.7
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) is one of six strategic enterprises organized to implement NASA's
mission and goals.8 The primary mission of ESE is to "understand and protect our home planet" by advancing Earth
system science.9 The ESE science, applications, and educational outreach programs provide an essential foundation
for many critical activities and objectives at NASA and elsewhere in the U.S. government, the nation, and the world.
The activities include weather and climate prediction by NOAA, health and environmental monitoring by EPA,
detecting and monitoring land surface characteristics by USGS, and economic development work by organizations
within the government and elsewhere. All of these activities depend on an improved understanding of Earth and its
environment. For example, the effects of weather are estimated to directly affect at least 25 percent of the U.S.
economy.~° Should ESE programs achieve their objectives, there would be a significant and long-term positive
impact on many areas of our economy. Therefore, it is essential that ESE's objectives, plans, activities, and
approaches be articulated forcefully and persuasively to the government, research, and user communities.
The committee found much that is praiseworthy in the ESE themes, objectives, and programs described in the
ESE draft document. However, in its review the committee focused on the draft document's effectiveness in
describing ESE activities and instilling recognition of their importance and confidence in their potential for success.
4See Appendix A [not reprinted in this annual report]. The formal statement of task for the study is shown in Appendix B [not reprinted in this
annual report].
5The members of the Committee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) Strategic Plan are listed in Appendix C [not reprinted
in this annual report], and the members of the Space Studies Board are listed in Appendix D [not reprinted in this annual report].
6NASA, 2003, Understanding and Protecting OurHome Planet: Earth Science Enterprise Strategy, draft dated April 14, 2003. NASA reserves
the term "strategic plan" to refer to its overall agency plan; it denotes the strategic high-level plans of its individual NASA enterprises as "strategies."
Notwithstanding this distinction in terminology, the committee believes that an effective ESE strategy document must have all the key attributes
of a strategic plan.
7This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with
procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid
and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets
institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain
confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Victor
Baker, University of Arizona; Steven Bohlen, Joint Oceanographic Institutions; Robert Corell, Harvard University; John Gille, National Center
for Atmospheric Research; Anthony Janetos, Heinz Center; Ralph Milliff, Colorado Research Associates; Michael Prather, University of
California at Irvine; and David Sandwell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Byron Tapley, University of Texas at Austin. Appointed by the National
Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely
with the authoring committee and the institution.
8As listed in Appendix I of the NASA 2003 Strategic Plan, the other NASA strategic enterprises are Space Science; Biological and Physical
Research; Aerospace Technology; Education; and Space Flight.
9NASA, 2003, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2003 Strategic Plan. Pp. 12-16 and Appendix I, pp. A-6 and A-7.
i°National Research Council, 2003, Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 90
9o
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
The. committee agrees with ESE officials that the final version of the draft document should be elegant, unambigu-
ous in its interpretation, and clear in its vision for a program of national significance.
The committee's approach was to directly address the five questions posed in the NASA letter of request. The
five questions, along with the committee's interpretation of their intent and scope, follow:
2.
Does the draft Strategic Plan clearly and compellingly convey the direction of the Enterprise? Does the
ESE draft document include the necessary components of a strategic plan and are these components
integrated effectively to achieve a coherent plan? In particular, does the ESE draft document satisfy the
six critical elements of a strategic plan as identified by the NEC Committee to Review the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program Strategic Plan and discussed below?
Does it effectively respond to the NASA Strategic Plan? Is the ESE program, as described in the draft
document, aligned with the vision, mission, and goals in the NASA Strategic Plan and does the ESE
approach to achieving its objectives conform to NASA's implementing strategies?
Does it describe an endeavor that stands as can important scientific program and makes needed
contributions to broader national priorities? Are the vision, goals, and objectives as described in the
draft ESE document sufficiently ambitious and properly focused?
4. Does it provide appropriate attention to interdisciplinary aspects, integration of technology develop-
ment, and overall scientific balance? Is the plan described by the ESE draft document comprehensive,
and are the included topics effectively balanced?
What recommendations from recent NBC reports, if any, should be considered in revising the draft?
Does the ESE draft document contain sufficient reference to documents and plans that could help support
or guide the ESE strategy?
The ESE program outlined in the draft document is scientifically and programmatically broad, and its elements
are highly integrated and interdependent. The ESE draft document must therefore adequately address each of the
above questions; such a plan will be both comprehensive and robust, and will serve as an excellent document for
guiding the ESE program and communicating this program to others. The remainder of this report provides a
review of the ESE draft document organized around these five questions.
RESPONSES TO THE FIVE QUESTIONS
1. Does the ESE draft document clearly and compellingly convey the direction of the Enterprise?
At the highest level, the ESE draft document outlines a program to study Earth as a global system, integrating
technology-enabled measurements and comprehensive models to yield greatly improved predictive capabilities for
climate, weather, and natural hazards. The draft document extends beyond scientific research to include the ESE
program's Earth Science Applications theme, which identifies a set of application areas, partner agencies, and
activities, including education. The committee finds that the ESE activities are ambitious, exciting, and critically
important to the nation. However, the draft document does not clearly or compellingly articulate ESE's rationales,
scope, relationships, and programmatic approaches.
Establishing and articulating the draft document's purpose are made difficult by NASA's mandated constraints
on format and organization, but doing so is crucial in light of the ambiguities resulting from the subtle differences
between a "strategy document" and a "strategic plan." The draft document does not clearly define ESE's aims, nor
does it describe its relationship to the higher-level NASA Strategic Plan, or to the lower-level documents that
contain important detail on topics that the draft document only summarizes.
The ESE approach to forecasting future needs of the Earth System Science part of its program, including both
basic science and activities with eventual operational use, would benefit from greater community involvement.~3
iiSee text of footnote 6.
i2Each of NASA's enterprise strategies exists within a hierarchy of agency documents and plans, all of which support and describe portions of
the agency's mission and goals as outlined in the overall NASA 2003 Strategic Plan. NASA officials informed the committee that all of the
enterprise strategies conform to a common organization, format, and terms of reference and that none of the strategies include resource information.
i3This recommendation is similar to that provided in a 1999 NRC letter report on ESE post-2002 planning, which stated, '`The task group
recommends that the science plan to underpin the mission set be developed in an open and deliberative process involving the full range of scientific
OCR for page 91
OCR for page 92
OCR for page 93
OCR for page 94
OCR for page 95
OCR for page 96
OCR for page 97
OCR for page 98
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ese draft
Short Reports
91
The decadal surveys performed for the Office of Space Science are examples of such community involvement and
contributions.~4 The "ten year outcomes" identified as ends for research in each of the science focus areas (see the
table starting at line 435 of the draft document), and in supporting documents, would benefit from greater
traceability to the scientific and operational communities, including a record of the establishment of the science
focus areas and their associated "prediction questions."
Organization and Level o/Detail in the Draft Document
Committee members found the ESE draft document difficult to understand, both in the context of NASA's
plans and as a stand-alone document. These difficulties appear to arise from the lack of explanatory text to guide the
reader, an over-reliance on bulleted lists and complex figures at the expense of prose, and inconsistent levels of
detail in the different sections of the draft document.
The committee understands that ESE must follow a common outline and chapter headings. Unfortunately, the
chapter titles are not intuitive, and they provide little guidance to the reader about the content and the objectives of
the text. For example, few readers have a common understanding of the differences and relationships embedded in
the chapter titles "Strategic Context and Approach" (Chapter II), "Achieving NASA's Objectives" (Chapter III),
and "Strategy Implementation" (Chapter IV). Further, Chapter III (the substantive description of ESE programs,
objectives, and desired outcomes) begins, after a single two-line sentence, with an extremely complicated two-page
table, followed, after six lines of text, by a complex figure, followed after six more lines of text by a cartoon-like
figure in an appreciably different style. The chapter is made up primarily of tables, bullet lists, and schematic (but
nonetheless exceedingly complex) figures, with little explanatory text.
The ESE briefing to the committee on May 6 included an extremely effective "pyramid" figure illustrating the
relationship of ESE activities to overall NASA activities and defining the terminology used throughout the strategic
planning document hierarchy. The briefing also included concise introductions to and summaries of each of the
draft document's chapters. These briefing materials could be used to improve the ESE draft document itself.
The draft document's treatment of the ESE program's Earth System Science theme should include a clearer
textual description of the six science focus areas and of the overall approaches to be pursued for attaining the
objectives. The various roadmap figures in the draft cannot be understood without an accompanying explanatory
text. The references to supporting documents must include more detail. Specific examples of how new tech-
nologies, improved modeling approaches, or new measurement techniques would be applied in pursuit of the
science focus areas would also be helpful. These could convey the excitement and sense of intellectual challenge
that are now lacking in the ESE draft document.
Establishing consistent levels of detail would both clarify the intended level of emphasis on particular topics
and improve the overall readability of the document. Where appropriate, sidebars or similar formatting techniques
could be used to present anecdotal examples or additional detail without detracting from the flow, structure, or logic
of the main text.
Realizability of the Draft Documents Projected Outcomes
It is essential that the ESE outcomes projected in the six science focus areas be viewed as realizable and
attainable within the resources and time specified, and that they be desirable and practical for partner agencies. For
instance, although accurate 10-day forecasts of general global weather patterns might be possible, the committee
believes that useful predictions 10 days in advance of severe storms or hurricanes are not likely to be achieved
disciplines and a diverse set of potential users. To ensure a balanced and coherent strategy that will elucidate the key mechanisms thought
to underlie global change phenomena, the task group recommends that NASA develop the science plan with the participation of USGCIlP
agencies and the academic scientific community and in consultation with international partners. In addition to experts in the various
disciplines, NASA should involve scientists who understand the human role and the socioeconomic and health impacts of the designated priority
science and applications problems." [Emphasis in original text.] See National Research Council, 1999, "NASA's Plans for Post-2002 Earth
Observing Missions,"National AcademyPress, Washington, D.C., pp. 7-8. Thefullreportmay beviewed online at
92
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
within a decade. Similarly, in most cases, accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions and earthquake probabilities
are not likely within the next decade.~5
ESE should carefully evaluate each projected outcome for practicality before including it in future versions of
the draft document. In particular, ESE should evaluate the realizability of its "predictive capabilities enabled by an
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _.e '~ · rat _ ~ · · · ~ · ~ · ~ · · · -
~arth system modeling capability In zu23 (lme MU In the draft document) and/or reword this section to suggest
that these are hoped-for capabilities, that is, something to strive for and to use as guideposts.
The ESE draft document does not make clear whether the 10-year outcomes for each of the six science focus
areas (articulated in the roadmap charts in Section III) should be construed as ESE's description of executable
objectives (one of the required elements of a strategic plan identified below). With the exception of the Weather
Forecast Duration Improvement activity in Section III, the 10-year outcomes (objectives) in the roadmap charts are
qualitative and measurable only in a subjective sense. (In contrast, much more quantitative objectives and
predictive capabilities are offered for the year 2025 [lines 920-9601, but these visionary capabilities are beyond the
current planning horizon, and it is not clear whether they are attainable.) In addition, a clear and concise description
of the Earth Science Applications theme is not found until deep into Section III (lines 589 ff.~. These top-level
summaries within the ESE draft document should (and could) be inspirational rather than a dry list of goals.
Many activities being pursued and planned by ESE are well described in the draft document. Others, however,
are not, even though they have the same levels of scientific and technical challenge, utilization potential, and
criticality for achieving ESE objectives. In particular, the committee notes that the sheer volume of raw and
processed data associated with the planned observing systems (e.g., the Integrated Observing System alluded to at
line 960) is much larger than that currently used by Earth science researchers and other potential users. Moreover,
ESE has developed flexible and useful data systems serving several broad communities, and it has ongoing
programs aimed at revolutionizing the systems of the future. ESE has demonstrated that it has the knowledge of
data set characteristics, scientific and application needs, operating methods, and management processes necessary
to develop and operate these large-scale data systems. These capabilities surely fall under the rubric "as only NASA
can." The committee believes, therefore, that the amount and variety of data that ESE expects to capture, analyze,
archive, and distribute should be more prominently featured in the draft document.
Use of Traditional Strategic Plan Elements in the Draft Document
In a recent report, the Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan listed
the following elements as being critical to any strategic plan:
· A clear and ambitious guiding vision of the desired outcome;
· A set of unambiguous and executable goals that address the vision and broadly describe what the program is
designed to accomplish;
· An assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, thereby identifying
required program changes and unmet needs that must be addressed in subsequent implementation planning;
A clear timetable for accomplishing the goals and criteria for measuring progress;
A set of explicit prioritization criteria to facilitate program design and resource allocation; and
A management plan that provides mechanisms for ensuring that the goals are met and for coordinating,
integrating, and balancing individual program elements and participating agencies.
The committee finds that the ESE draft document is deficient with regard to several of these elements.
The ESE draft document provides only vague, qualitative timetables for producing the Earth system science
outcomes projected between 2003 and 2014. A reader must distill what schedule information exists from an
analysis of the roadmap schematics in each of the six science focus areas.~7 The only listed milestones are the
i5Dennis Mileti, 1999, Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
i6National Research Council, 2003, Review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C.
i7In their briefing to the committee on May 6, 2003, ESE of ficials explained that progress assessments and benchmarks for the six science focus
areas were defined and described in detail in roadmap documents, which are one level below (i.e., more detailed than and in support of) the strategy
document. However, these documents were not explicitly referenced in the draft strategy document.
Short Reports
93
10-year and 2025 deadlines; the document does not provide even approximate dates for completion of intermediate
tasks.
The Earth Science Applications component of ESE's program as presented in the draft document lacks
roadmapsi~ and thus does not have even schematic timetable information. On the positive side, the program has an
explicit benchmarking and assessment component, and it is reasonable to expect that these components might be
useful for measuring progress. The 2002 NRC review of the ESE Applications Plan concluded that "the
Applications Plan needs to articulate a strategy for translating concepts into more tangible actions."~9 The
committee echoes that conclusion.
The draft document does not provide sufficient high-level information on criteria or processes for establishing
priorities. This is a critical problem because of the broad scope and ambitious nature of ESE's activities, the evident
gap between available resources and the stated objectives,20 and the reliance on interagency and international
partnerships (a laudable approach in the committee's view). Although the first bulleted item (lines 329-332) of the
draft document addresses "identifying and prioritizing frontier science questions" as an essential component of the
ESE framework, the draft document describes neither the criteria nor the processes for setting relative priorities
among the six science focus areas. Similarly, the draft document gives no indication of the relative priorities of the
three elements of the ESE's Earth Science Applications theme, nor does it prioritize between the ESE program's
Earth System Science and Earth Science Applications themes.
The ESE draft document touches only briefly on prioritization processes in Section IV, "Strategy Implementa-
tion." Although an ESE Program Management Council will presumably be the ultimate forum that sets priorities,
the document is silent on the composition of the council and the criteria it will apply. What little information is
provided (lines 866-873) appears to be specific to space missions and has a strong focus on mission or project
initiation. Given the decadal extent of the draft document, re-ranking exercises must be expected in response both
to externally imposed perturbations (such as the budget process) and to opportunities and challenges resulting from
unanticipated discoveries and new understanding.2i
The need for prioritization criteria and processes becomes even more urgent in light of ESE's commitment to
"align our science priorities with those of major national imperatives," like the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, the U.S. Weather Research Program, initiatives for a
reduction of vulnerability to natural disasters and for homeland security, the National Ocean Partnership Program,
and the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (lines 437 443),22 and in the context of the many different
interagency partnerships and collaborations identified as required for achieving ESE objectives. In light of these
deficiencies, the committee recommends that ESE carefully examine the draft document to ensure that it
contains all of the elements to successfully and compellingly describe its strategies.
2. Does the ESE draft document effectively respond to the NASA Strategic Plan?
The draft document embraces and is in many ways responsive to the NASA 2003 Strategic Plan. The draft
document states that ESE's role in the NASA vision and mission is "to improve life here" and to "understand and
protect our home planet." It also conforms to NASA's overarching principle to encage only in those activities to
which NASA can make unique and critical contributions.
---= rig -r-~ --o--~- ----a
However, the draft document is weaker in its discussion of how ESE contributes to NASA's goals. For
example, the table at line 399 is presented without any explanatory text, which detracts from the central importance
and excitement of ESE's contributions. The draft document is also lacking in a substantive discussion of
i8The committee uses the term "roadmap" in the context of NASA's draft document, that is, as one of the decadal approaches to addressing each
of ESE's six focus areas. Therefore the roadmaps can be understood to be supportive components of the ESE draft document.
MARC, 2002, Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
20The ESE briefing to the committee on May 6 made clear that the present ESE budget is insufficient to achieve all of the identified objectives
on the notional (decadal) schedule presented in the draft document.
2iAs just one example, many research missions can still provide high-quality measurements after their initial baseline mission ends. Issues
related to the decision to continue highly productive science missions beyond their initial lifetimes are discussed in Satellite Observations of the
Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations. They are also the focus of a forthcoming NRC study, Extending
the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions, which is scheduled for completion in the spring of 2004.
22The draft document provides no indication of the ease or difficulty of these alignments or what actions are needed to ensure their success.
94
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
management approaches and processes and thus is unresponsive to NASA's implementing strategy, to "achieve
management and institutional excellence comparable to NASA's technical excellence."23
The committee strongly endorses NASA's open competition approach but it is not clear to what extent peer
review and open solicitations can be used to manage the complex set of activities and objectives summarized
schematically in the roadmaps. Finally, the ESE draft document would be stronger if it summarized the criteria for
measuring progress and referred to underlying documents that describe the criteria and processes in greater detail.
The committee notes ESE's contributions to both of the goals under NASA's third mission, "inspire the next
generation of explorers," and considers that ESE's record in training the next generation of researchers is strong
and deserves credit. But there are no examples of any such accomplishments in the short section "Earth Science
Education" (line 690), which is also incomplete because it focuses primarily on outreach and K-12 education and
does not describe how ESE will continue to contribute to the development of the next generation of explorers, a
stated goal of NASA's agency-wide Education Enterprise. The committee recommends that the ESE draft
document describe a vision for a strong partnership between NASA and universities with regard to long-
term education needs and the intellectual development of the next generation of Earth system scientists.
To demonstrate the alignment of the ESE program with the NASA Strategic Plan, the committee
recommends that the ESE draft document clearly state the NASA goals to which ESE contributes and that it
link ESE objectives clearly to the agency's goals. Once the NASA goals have been clarified, the specific ESE
objectives should be introduced, and the document should make clear how each ESE objective supports the NASA
goals. While the six ESE science focus areas on predictive capability appear to be introduced in Section II (lines
231-243), it is not clear how each supports one or more of the four NASA goals that the draft document must
support. These six focus areas are the centerpiece of ESE's implementation strategy. Their relevance to NASA's
goals should be explicitly and unambiguously stated in Section II. Later, in Section III, additional detail should be
provided. Finally, in Section IV, the strategies for pursuing each focus area and their interactions should be
described.
The bulleted lists "Earth Observation and Data Management" and "Advanced Technology" (lines 524-588)
present a combination of objectives and implementing strategies for ESE programs. Explanatory text describing the
intent of the bulleted lists would improve the draft document's readability. In some instances, ESE has developed
innovative and successful approaches for achieving the stated aims.24 Other areas25 present significant challenges.
The draft document would benefit greatly from a more extensive discussion of the past progress and anticipated
future challenges associated with each of these implementing strategies.
3. Does the ESE draft document describe an endeavor that stands as an important
scientific program and makes needed contributions to broader national priorities?
The ESE draft document describes a program that has two parts, Earth System Science and Earth Science
Applications, and that is clearly important both scientifically and in terms of its contribution to broader, societally
relevant national priorities. However, because many of ESE's objectives are qualitative their value may be difficult
to assess. The draft document would convey a better understanding of future progress if it were to include some
descriptive examples of how existing ESE programs have already helped to improve the capability for predicting
the effects of Earth system processes. In addition to highlighting the need for new approaches, such examples
would demonstrate clearly the high level of understanding that ESE has of both its present program and its future
objectives.
23NASA, 2003 Strategic Plan, p. 10, A1-A2.
24For instance, the first bulleted item (lines 526-527) addresses the need for flexibility and stability in the overall national and international
integrated observing system. The successful Earth System Science Pathfinder program allows peer-reviewed selection of timely missions to
address high-priority scientific issues to complement more comprehensive (but more costly and longer development time) observatory-class
missions.
25For example, stability in the observing system (lines 526-527), transition of systematic measurements to operational systems (lines 534-535),
and shifting strategic focus from missions to measurements (lines 531-533) are all extremely difficult technical, programmatic, and political aims.
Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations addresses issues associated with
transition. With respect to the transition from a missions focus to a measurements focus, the committee notes that the need for essential synergies
between different measurements makes the design of successful observing systems challenging.
Short Reports
95
Both the NASA Strategic Plan and the ESE draft document emphasize activities that directly support
applications (primarily predictions of climate, weather, and natural hazards). Indeed, the draft document justifies its
programs almost exclusively on the basis of potential societal benefit but says little about the exciting fundamental
science that will be necessary to achieve its objectives. The committee believes that effective progress can be made
only if fundamental and applied research are balanced appropriately.26
Answering specific, societally relevant questions about changes in the Earth system will require investigations
of many basic physical, biological, and biogeochemical processes that are not currently understood. Furthermore,
understanding how these processes orchestrate the evolution of the Earth system at different time scales is an
essential precursor to the development of a scientific framework for the exploration and search for life in the
universe one of the great challenges facing all of science. Progress in this area requires the pursuit of basic
knowledge. However, in contrast to some other areas of science, Earth system science has great societal relevance,
so it is essential that NASA and the Earth science community pursue parallel and strongly interactive paths, basic
and applied the products of which will add to the body of scientific knowledge and also contribute to the
improvement of life on Earth. Considering the unique relationship between basic and applied research in
Earth systems science, the committee recommends that the ESE strategy document clearly describe the
respective roles of applied and basic science and the appropriate balance between the two.
The six science focus areas are important and challenging. However, the reader is left with questions as to how
and why these six were selected. A concise summary of the planning processes that resulted in the six science focus
areas and the 12 applications focus areas, along with references to supporting lower-level documentation, would
strengthen the draft document by demonstrating ESE's expertise at managing planning processes involving input
from broad and diverse communities of implementers and stakeholders.
ESE's strategy for accomplishing its applications goals involves partnerships with other government agencies.
The committee supports this strategy but believes it to be incomplete. ESE's ambitious goals for predictive
capabilities will also require strong and effective collaborations with entities outside government, including
universities, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector. Indeed, new paradigms may be required to achieve
ESE's objectives, for example, a paradigm that considers partnerships to be only one element of a larger strategy
that would also include, for example, the powerful effects of markets as agents for change.
The NASA applications strategy should emphasize one of the agency's strengths, which is the provision of
objective, scientifically derived environmental information to all parties, inside or outside governments, in a
neutral, nonpolitical mode. Although the ESE draft document (lines 814-854) addresses the importance of existing
external partnerships, it does not describe how the new partnerships required to achieve the stated objectives will be
established. In addition, the draft document does not detail how existing partnerships will be exploited. The
committee recommends that this strategic element be added to the ESE draft document in the section on
external partnerships (lines 814-854) and that the text in this section be revised accordingly.
4. Does the ESE draft document provide appropriate attention to interdisciplinary aspects,
integration of technology development, and overall scientific balance?
Interdisciplinary Aspects
The draft document emphasizes many interdisciplinary aspects, beginning most importantly with the compel-
ling need to treat Earth as a single system consisting of continents, atmosphere, oceans, ice, and life and extending
to the influence of solar variability on Earth in collaboration with NASA's Space Science Enterprise. Each of the
identified six science focus areas is, independently, also fundamentally interdisciplinary. Together, the focus areas
constitute the physical, biogeochemical Earth system. However, some important elements of global Earth science
appear to be excluded from the ESE program (e.g., the population-driven contributions to land cover change),
possibly because they are addressed in the programs of other agencies. The ESE draft document should describe
Din Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions, the NRC recommended that effective environmental research should have a
balance of two kinds of research problem-driven research and core research. "Problem-driven research is targeted at understanding and solving
particular, identified environmental problems. Core research aims to provide broader, more generic information that will help improve
understanding of many problems now and in the future." National Research Council, 1997, Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental
Decisions, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 1.
96
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
how NASA will work with other organizations, public and private to ensure that the full spectrum of important
topics is addressed and should make clear how ESE will use the results of work done by other organizations.
Integration Or Technology Elements
The ESE draft document is less successful in addressing the integration of technology development and overall
scientific balance. Discussion of technology development is limited to a brief list of strategic elements (lines
570-588), lists of technology requirements needed to support future missions in the focus area roadmaps and the
2025 vision (lines 964-1025), and passing mention of the New Millennium Program for technology flight
demonstrations. The draft document could be strengthened by including a discussion of the elements and relative
roles of ESE's Earth Science Technology Program and the Aerospace Technology Enterprise's Mission and Sensor
Measurements Technology Program in the development of new technologies to support future ESE missions.
Overall Scientif c Balance
The committee has pointed out the importance of ensuring an appropriate balance between basic and applied
research and notes here several changes that would improve the ESE draft document's scientific balance. The draft
document emphasizes missions, measurements, modeling, and prediction, with less attention to the integration of
aircraft, laboratory, and field programs. As noted in several places above, although the draft document lists
important science questions (lines 1032-1078), it includes very little discussion of how the science will be
addressed, how the questions are (or will be) prioritized, and when answers are expected.
The draft document would be improved by a description of how the Earth System Science Pathfinder program
will be strategically coupled to ESE's set of defined missions. While such a description might be too detailed for an
overview of this kind, including it in the draft document would emphasize the role of technology and hardware in
achieving ESE's objectives. It also would exemplify how NASA will incorporate new concepts rapidly into
measurement programs, leading to exciting, cutting-edge programs.
The ESE draft document should demonstrate that important disciplinary science has not been omitted, perhaps
by describing each science focus area in more detail. Replacing the bulleted and tabular material between lines 416
and 436 with descriptive text, illustrative of the richness and complexity in each focus area, would be beneficial and
more effective. Breadth and inclusiveness are essential in ESE's strategy document, which needs to convey the full
range of possible scientific components and interactions.
In the draft document, solid Earth science stands somewhat apart from, and independent of, the other science
focus areas. Text describing the solid Earth focus and its connections to the other focus areas would help the reader
to understand why Earth must be studied as a system. Connections between seemingly unrelated activities such as
the precise measurement of gravitational fields and hydrology/precipitation would help the reader understand the
synergies between solid Earth science and the other science focus areas. The importance of ESE's geodetic
infrastructural instrumentation, such as its Global Positioning System, Satellite Laser Ranging, and Very Long
Baseline Interferometry capabilities, for pursuing such objectives as well as other applications as diverse as
monitoring ocean level and atmospheric temperatures and weather forecasting should be emphasized.
It is also important that the description of the science in each focus area reflect the complete range of activities
required to perform global Earth science. The existing descriptions do not accomplish this. In particular, the focus area
titles (as in the table starting at line 435) are in some cases not well matched to the schematic information included in the
roadmaps. Deficiencies identified in the roadmaps for each of the six science focus areas include the following:
· Climate Variability, Change, and Prediction. This focus appears to be strongly oriented toward long-term
climate change. A more careful balance including science associated with seasonal variability and other time scales
would be valuable.
· Atmospheric Composition. While ozone-related chemistry is critically important, other topics in chemistry
and atmospheric composition science, including such things as aerosols and sulfur dioxide, are also extremely
important yet are not described in the ESE draft document.
· Ecosystems and Carbon Cycle. While the carbon cycle itself is properly represented as important science,
both the role of ecosystems within the carbon cycle and the science of ecosystems external to the carbon cycle
(including other biogeochemical cycles) are underrepresented.
Short Reports
97
· Water and Energy Cycle. The emphasis on the global aspects of the water and energy cycle results in
insufficient recognition that regional-scale effects are central to many key water and energy issues, including
flooding and drought.
· Weather. This focus area appears to be complete and balanced.
· Earth Surface and Interior. The emphasis on natural hazards, while important, appears to exclude basic
understanding of solid Earth physics and processes.
The committee finds that analysis of the measurement data is not emphasized sufficiently to indicate its central
importance in ESE's end-to-end strategy. Because the productivity of any particular satellite or satellites depends
as much on the readiness of software and data analysis tools as it does on the readiness of sensor and spacecraft
hardware, ESE leadership must "be the advocate for the appropriate balance of investment in data analysis"27 and
should "provide strategic planning and oversight concerning the collection, processing, archiving, and dissemina-
tion of data and information collected by NASA's space missions."28
Related Program Balance Issues
During the discussion at the May 6, 2003, committee meeting, ESE officials stated that the allocation of
funding between universities and NASA centers is based entirely on open competition. The committee believes that
this important strategic principle should be explicitly stated in the ESE draft document. The importance of open
competition could be included as part of a general discussion of the principles for the overall ESE strategy.
The relative allocation of resources among various activities represents another important aspect of program
balance. While detailed budgets are not a necessary part of the ESE document, a discussion of the relative
investments in space observations, data analysis and research, applications, and education would be helpful.
The committee is pleased with the frequent references to international collaborations and partnerships but
believes it would be appropriate to mention how NASA develops these strategically. For example, ESE might wish
to mention NASA's participation in the Integrated Global Observing System Partnership, the Committee on Earth
Observing Systems, and other international forums. Strategic considerations include deliberate redundancy,
scientific and technical expertise, and cost-effectiveness.
Earth system science is a complex, highly integrated activity requiring critical interaction among the many
agencies and organizations responsible for performing particular elements of the scientific research. ESE recognizes
this and has indicated clearly that the Earth "systems" science problem requires a "systems" solution. The
committee recognizes that systems approaches may not be as amenable to scientific research as they are to
engineering development. Nevertheless, many of the concepts inherent in systems engineering, particularly those
related to the coordination of multiple and distinct efforts, can be applied to complex scientific research programs as
well.
ESE has appropriately recognized that its contribution is in areas within the rubric "as only NASA can" and
includes the role of leading or motivating partnerships to accomplish activities that fall at least partly outside the
ESE charter. The committee is concerned that ESE's ability to achieve broad Earth science objectives may be
compromised because no single organization is responsible for coordinating the efforts of the many partners. In
light of this concern the committee recommends that ESE describe how it will take the steps necessary to
ensure that all important scientific components are identified, and that NASA work with other relevant
agencies to ensure that the specific roles of partner organizations are defined and activities properly
coordinated. The committee believes that it is critical that NASA identify those areas appropriate for NASA
leadership, that plans be established to ensure that leadership in other relevant areas has been assigned to
and accepted by other organizations, and that mechanisms by which ESE develops or fosters the necessary
partnerships be formalized.
Finally, the ESE draft document should address data availability. The draft document is silent on ESE's data
policy. An inflexible open data access policy could have a significant impact on the range of partnerships ESE is
27National Research Council, 2002, Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA's Earth and Space Science Mission Data, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 4.
28Ibid.
98
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2003
able to develop, while a substantial shift to limitations on data access could impede interdisciplinary use of many
data sets. An expanded discussion of the processes and procedures by which data policies are reviewed and are
assessed over time would greatly enhance the utility of the ESE strategy document. The committee recommends
that the revised ESE strategy document contain a brief description of ESE data policies and the mechanisms
by which they will be regularly reviewed and appropriately revised.
5. What recommendations from recent NRC reports, if any, should be considered in revising the draft?
The committee's review was guided by several recent NRC reports, including Satellite Observations of the
Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, 2003; Review of the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program Strategic Plan, 2003; Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program
Plan, 2002; Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, 2000; and "NASA's
Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions," 1999. These reports are cited elsewhere in this report. Below, the
committee calls attention to several additional findings and recommendation calf these and other renc~rts that ESE
may consider as it refines and improves the draft document.
- -r
Section III outlines the approach of the ESE Applications Division in working with other federal agencies to
enhance nationally important decision support systems. The NEC review of the ESE Applications Program Plan29
suggested that NASA expand its pool of potential partners, and a recent NRC report on the use of satellite data by
local and state governments30 provides valuable advice on how more widespread and beneficial use of satellite data
by state and local governments can be encouraged and achieved. The ESE draft document would benefit from an
explanation of why regional, state, and local applications no longer form a part of NASA's approach. Some
elaboration of why the particular application areas were chosen rather than others would also improve the
document.
Recommendation 5 of the NRC's Review of NASA,s Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for
2000-20103 recommends "matrices that map the detailed science questions to measurement parameters, imple-
mentation procedures, models, calibration/validation/verification requirements, and potential partners." The ESE
draft document should address these issues in order to demonstrate the links between key science questions and the
research missions designed to address them. This suggestion responds to a concern raised above by the com-
mittee namely, that the strategic paths to the achievement of goals should be addressed in more detail. Material of
this kind would be best included in Section IV.
Finally, the committee recommends that ESE make reference to its earlier strategic plan32 and
describe how the present draft document builds on and continues that strategy, here new emphases have
been added, what they are, and how they were selected. Non-Nl{C documents, including internal ESE
roadmaps, should also be referenced.33
29National Research Council, 2002, Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
30National Research Council, 2003, Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making,
National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
3iNational Research Council, 2000, Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
32NASA Earth Science Enterprise, "Understanding Our Home Planet, Earth Science Enterprise Strategic Plan," Washington, D.C., 2001.
Available online at: .
33In particular, discussions in the ESE strategy document related to the solid Earth sciences might examine the following:
· Living on a Restless Planet, Solid Earth Science Working Group, NASA, 2002. Available online at .
· EarthScope InSAR. Available online at .
· Bathymetry from Space: Oceanography, Geophysics, and Climate, Geoscience Professional Services, Bethesda, Maryland, June 2003,
24 pp. Available online at .
