Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 2 Activities and Membership FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The Space Studies Board (SSB) held its 142nd meeting on March 16-18, 2004, at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. One major topic for discussion was the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget proposal and its implications for space research and applications. Guest speakers included David Radzanowski, Office of Management and Budget (OMB); William Jeffrey, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); David Goldston, Bill Adkins, and Richard Obermann, House Science Committee staff; and Michelle Burkett, House Appropriations Committee staff. A NASA overview of the budget and the new Vision for Space Exploration were presented by John Schumacher, Gary Martin, and Doug Comstock. Edward Weiler, NASA Office of Space Science, spoke on the implications for the space science program and on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). He reported that the National Academies will be asked to do a study on how to keep the HST going as long as possible. Ghassem Asrar, NASA Office of Earth Science; Mary Kicza, NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research; Douglas Cook, NASA Office of Exploration Systems; and Colleen Hartman, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, also spoke on programs of their offices as well as on the 2005 budget. Other special guests during the meeting included Mike Moore, NASA HST program executive, and Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, who discussed HST lifetime and servicing issues. A luncheon splinter group meeting addressed international issues of interest to the SSB. Graham Gibbs, Canadian Space Agency; Masato Koyama, Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency; Frederic Nordlund, European Space Agency; and Ian Pryke, George Mason University, discussed international views on NASA’s new space exploration goals. Chair Lennard Fisk reported on his testimony to the Aldridge Moon-Mars Commission and to the House Science Committee and on his attendance at the NASA Advisory Council and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board meetings during the week prior to the Board meeting. The Board discussed task statements for a number of new studies and also reviewed the status of ongoing studies and committee activities. SECOND QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The Space Studies Board held its 143rd meeting on June 15-17 at the NOAA Space Environment Center in Boulder, Colorado. A major agenda item for this meeting was a series of progress reports by committee chairs and National Research Council (NRC) staff members and SSB review of the status of all projects that are being conducted under SSB auspices.
OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 NOAA staff presented a series of briefings and tours at the NOAA SEC. Ernest Hildner and Barbara Poppe’s presentations were on NOAA’s Space Weather Program; Joseph Kunches’ presentation was “Predicting Extreme Events: The Halloween Storms of 2003”; and Howard Singer’s presentation was “Research and Development at SEC.” Marc Allen from NASA Headquarters provided an update on lunar mission and exploration planning. A special highlight was the Web telecast of the press conference on the Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy. Board member Meg Urry gave a science presentation on her work on supermassive black holes, and member Hap McSween briefed the Board on new results from the Mars Exploration Rovers. Planning for the Executive Committee meeting on August 24-26 and the next Board meeting on November 17-19 also took place. Farewells were said to several retiring members: J. Roger Angel; James L. Burch, chair of the Committee on Solar and Space Physics; Howard M. Einspahr; Steven H. Flajser; Michael H. Freilich, chair of the Committee on Earth Studies; Don P. Giddens; Bruce D. Marcus; Robert Serafin; Mitchell Sogin; and C. Megan Urry. Board staff members continue to work with the Board and other NRC staff to broaden our pool of qualified candidates from underrepresented minority populations who can be nominated to serve on study committees formed under the aegis of the Board. In keeping with this commitment, an SSB staff member attended the NASA 2004 Chicago Diversity Workshop in June. From this workshop we successfully identified candidates who could be considered for membership on forthcoming study committees. THIRD QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The Space Studies Board did not meet during the third quarter; however, the SSB Executive Committee did meet on August 24-26 at the National Academies’ J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, for its annual strategic planning session. In addition to a general discussion with Al Diaz, the new NASA associate administrator for science, topics during the meeting included a review of roles and operations of the Board and its committees, several studies in progress, international topics, future SSB membership, potential new study projects, as well as planning for the November Board meeting. FOURTH QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS SSB held its 144th meeting on November 17-19, at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The meeting provided a venue for wide-ranging discussions of guiding principles and major roles for science in the context of NASA’s new vision for space exploration. The meeting included presentations by and discussions with Al Diaz, NASA associate administrator for science, and Charles Elachi, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA director of advanced planning. Gerhard Haerandel, chair of the European Space Science Committee, Laurie Leshin, who served on the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, and SSB member Radford Byerly, who was rapporteur for the report on the 2003 NRC space policy workshop, all gave background presentations to provide perspectives for the discussions. Various SSB members also provided summary overviews of recent relevant NRC science strategy reports for consideration at the meeting. Following open plenary sessions on November 17-18, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Space Exploration, consisting of the SSB members present plus Laurie Leshin and U.S. COSPAR representative Edward Stone, met in closed session to outline a draft report. The report was sent to NRC external review in mid-December, and was released in the first quarter of 2005. Other items covered at the meeting included the SSB’s annual bias and conflict of interest discussion, reviews of ongoing and potential new SSB studies, and plans for the spring meeting. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A summary of all reports published by the Space Studies Board during 2004 is presented in Table 2.1. Included in that collection were reports of interest to the NASA science offices and to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NOAA. The reports included four full-length studies, two workshop reports, two letter reports, and a special publication for lay audiences.
OCR for page 8
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 TABLE 2.1 Space Studies Board Reports Published in 2004 Report Title Authoring Committee or Boarda Principal Agency Audienceb SMD ExSMD NOAA NSF Other “Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope,” Letter Report (July 13) TG X X Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report TG X X Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report CSSP X X Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy SSB X X X Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos CSSP X X “Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report” (September 23) TG X Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration TG X X X Space Studies Board Annual Report—2003 SSB All Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics [booklet] CSSP X X X X X Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond TG X X aAuthoring committee or board CES Committee on Earth Studies CSSP Committee on Solar and Space Physics SSB Space Studies Board TG Ad Hoc Task Group bPrincipal agency audience SMD NASA Science Mission Directorate ExSMD NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report—2003 and the illustrated booklet Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics, all reports were subjected to full peer review overseen by the NRC Report Review Committee (RRC). Typically from 4 to 7 reviewers (occasionally as many as 12) are selected, on the basis of recommendations by NAS and NAE section liaisons and SSB members and staff and subject to approval by the NRC. The identities of external reviewers are not known to the report’s authors until after the review has been completed and the report has been approved by the RRC. The report authors, with the assistance of SSB staff, must provide some response to every specific comment from every external reviewer. The response-to-review process is overseen and refereed by an independent coordinator, to ensure that appropriate technical revisions are made to the report, and by a monitor appointed by the RRC, to ensure that the revised report complies with NRC policy and standards. All of the reviews place an emphasis on scientific and technical clarity and accuracy and on proper substantiation of the findings and recommendations presented in the report. Names of
OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 TABLE 2.2 Experts Involved in the SSB and Its Subunits, January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004 Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 174 67 Government and national facilitiesa 22 13 Private industry 53 30 Nonprofit and otherb 27 16 Totalc,d 276 126 aIncludes NASA and other U.S. agencies and national facilities (e.g., Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NOAA). bOther includes foreign institutions and entities not classified elsewhere. cIncludes 33 NAS, NAE, IOM members. dThirty-seven SSB members, 239 committee and task group members. TABLE 2.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004 Academia Government and National Facilitiesa Private Industry Nonprofit and Others Total Individuals Board/committee members 174 22 53 27 276 Guest experts 42 87 18 31 178 Reviewers 40 10 6 5 61 Workshop participants 25 20 4 11 60 Total 281 139 81 74 575 NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of ±3 due to possible miscategorization. aIncludes government agencies and national facilities (e.g., National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), LANL, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Space Telescope Science Institute). Total number of NAS, NAE, and/or IOM members 45 Total number of non-U.S. participants 10 Total number of countries represented, incl. United States 6 Total number of participants by gender 346(M); 74(F) Total number of different institutions represented Academia 75 Government and national facilities 21 Industry 40 Nonprofit and other 29 U.S. government agencies represented: NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIST, USGS, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), OSTP, OMB, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Congress. the external reviewers, including the coordinator and monitor, are published in the final report, but their individual comments are not released. Another important measure of the capacity of the Board to produce high-quality work derives from the size, breadth, and depth of the cadre of experts who serve on SSB committees and task groups or who participate in other ways in the activities of the Board. Some highlights of the demographics of the SSB in 2004 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year, a total of 276 individuals from 67 colleges and universities and 59 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. Over 200 individuals participated in SSB activities either as presenters or as invited workshop participants. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during the period 60 different external reviewers contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, approximately 575 individuals from 75 academic institutions, 69 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 21 government agencies or offices participated in SSB activities. That number included 45 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and/or the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Being able to draw on such a broad base of expertise is a unique strength of the NRC advisory process.
OCR for page 10
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 FIGURE 2.1 Number and type of peer-reviewed Space Studies Board reports published from 1988 through 2004. FIGURE 2.2 Principal federal agency audiences for Space Studies Board reports published from 1998 through 2004. NOTE: Totals are inclusive of more than one agency audience per report.
OCR for page 11
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 A different way to assess the performance of the SSB is to examine its productivity with respect to study reports. The chart in Figure 2.1 shows the total number of peer-reviewed reports published by the SSB from 1988 to 2004. “Broad” reports include classical scientific strategies (long-range goals and priorities in a particular discipline or set of disciplines) and programmatic strategies or analyses that cross all of an agency office or even several agencies. “Focused” reports include more narrowly directed topical studies, assessments, and letter reports. Finally, one can also examine the extent to which the Board’s efforts have been relevant to the full range of government interests in civilian space research. Figure 2.2 summarizes the principal federal agency audiences to which SSB reports were directed from 1998 through 2004. Reports on NASA-wide issues were addressed to multiple NASA offices or the whole agency; reports on SMD issues to the Science Mission Directorate (created in 2004 from the consolidation of the former Office of Space Science and Office of Earth Science); reports on ExSMD issues to the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (formerly the Office of Biological and Physical Research). The “multiple government agencies” category covers reports that were directed to one or more agencies besides NASA—for example, NOAA, NSF, the Department of Energy (DOE), and/or the Department of Defense (DOD). One also sees a few reports prepared specifically for NSF. Within NASA, SMD has been the leading sponsor of reports. SSB OUTREACH AND DISSEMINATION Enhancing outreach to a variety of interested communities and improving dissemination of Board reports was a special priority for the SSB during the year. The quarterly newsletter’s print distribution list was expanded and supplemented with an electronic version that continued to attract over 300 subscribers at year’s end. Several kinds of report announcements, fliers, and mailing list sign-up cards were designed and used at SSB committee meetings and national and international scientific society meetings. The Board teamed with other NRC units (including the Division on Earth and Life Studies, the Board on Physics and Astronomy, the National Academies Press, the Office of News and Public Information, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel) to take exhibits to national meetings of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Astronomical Society. Popular versions of two recent decadal surveys (the Solar System Exploration Survey and the Solar and Space Physics Survey) were shipped to Native American schools in Wisconsin. In addition to these schools, NASA Explorer Schools and Science Outreach Centers affiliated with several universities continue to request the popular versions. As a consequence of these activities, roughly 6,000 additional SSB reports were distributed. Membership of the Space Studies Board Lennard A. Fisk,§ University of Michigan (chair) George A. Paulikas,§ The Aerospace Corporation (retired) (vice chair) J. Roger P. Angel,§* University of Arizona Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder Ana P. Barros,§ Duke University Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University James L. Burch,* Southwest Research Institute Radford Byerly, Jr.,§ University of Colorado, Boulder Judith A. Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology Howard M. Einspahr,* Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute (retired) Jack D. Farmer, Arizona State University Steven H. Flajser,* Loral Space and Communications Ltd. Michael Freilich,* Oregon State University Don P. Giddens,* Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University Jacqueline N. Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Donald E. Ingber, Harvard Medical School Ralph H. Jacobson,§ Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) Tamara E. Jernigan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
OCR for page 12
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 Margaret G. Kivelson,§ University of California, Los Angeles Calvin W. Lowe, Bowie State University Bruce D. Marcus,* TRW (retired) Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Norman P. Neureiter, Texas Instruments (retired) Suzanne Oparil, University of Alabama, Birmingham Ronald F. Probstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dennis W. Readey, Colorado School of Mines Anna-Louise Reysenbach, Portland State University Roald Z. Sagdeev, University of Maryland, College Park Carolus J. Schrijver, Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory Robert J. Serafin,* National Center for Atmospheric Research Mitchell Sogin,* Marine Biological Laboratory Harvey D. Tananbaum, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory C. Megan Urry,* Yale University J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas, Austin A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (ex officio, U.S. representative to COSPAR) William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired) (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Gerhard Haerendel, International University Bremen (liaison, chair of the European Space Science Committee) Joseph K. Alexander, Director Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer Barbara S. Akinwole, Information Management Associate Vern Menkir, Financial Associate Christina O. Shipman, Financial Associate Richard Leshner, Research Associate (through July 9, 2004) Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant Catherine A. Gruber, Assistant Editor * Term ended during 2004. § Member of the Executive Committee. Membership of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Space Exploration Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan (chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado Ana P. Barros, Duke University Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University Radford Byerly, Jr., University of Colorado Donald E. Ingber, Harvard Medical School Tamara E. Jernigan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California, Los Angeles Laurie Leshin, Arizona State University Suzanne Oparil, University of Alabama, Birmingham George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Ronald F. Probstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dennis W. Readey, Colorado School of Mines Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology Harvey D. Tananbaum, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
OCR for page 13
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas, Austin A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Joseph K. Alexander, Study Director David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) did not meet during the first quarter but instead prepared for upcoming meetings and a NASA-requested review of the scientific goals for the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) mission. The TPF mission was recommended by the 2000 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium. As a result, the Panel to Review the Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder was tasked with producing a brief letter report that reviews NASA’s current scientific objectives for the TPF mission by conducting an independent scientific assessment as to whether these objectives remain consistent with the priority given to the mission by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee. Other topics studied were the implementation of the decadal survey report’s theory recommendations, interagency cooperation on a Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM), and effects of the new NASA exploration vision on the astronomy program. The CAA panel to review the science goals of the TPF mission met on May 18 in Washington, D.C. Mike Brown of the California Institute of Technology, Jim Kasting of Pennsylvania State University, and Ben Oppenheimer of the American Museum of Natural History provided the committee with extended knowledge in certain key areas. The committee heard presentations on recent decisions on TPF science, technology for finding and characterizing Earth-like planets, and the status of the TPF project. CAA did not meet during the third quarter, but several projects that were organized under its auspices passed key milestones. The letter report on the TPF mission was delivered to NASA on September 23, 2004. The committee also began work on organizing a group to prepare a document that will help interested lay audiences appreciate research to understand the origins of galaxies, stars, and planets. CAA met on November 30-December 1, in Irvine, California. The committee examined plans for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope as presented by Thomas Rimmele and Steve Keil of the National Solar Observatory. A science talk from Alan Title helped the committee place the instrument in its scientific context. Other topics were the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) Scientific Collaboration, presented by Tom Prince and Albert Lazzarini, respectively (both from Caltech). In addition, the committee heard program updates from the astronomy divisions at the NSF and NASA. A new ad hoc committee, the Committee on Review of Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal Vision, was established to begin review of the scientific discoveries and technical advances in astronomy and astrophysics over the 5 years since the publication of the 2000 decadal survey. The committee will address the implications of recent scientific and technical developments as well as changes in the federal program and assess progress toward realizing the vision for the field articulated in the decadal survey and the report Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos. Chaired by Meg Urry, the committee’s first meeting was October 23-24 in Washington, D.C. The report is planned for early in 2005. A historical summary of reports from CAA and related committees is presented in Figure 2.3. CAA Membership Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University (co-chair) C. Megan Urry, Yale University (co-chair) Wendy L. Freedman,* Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (co-chair) Charles Alcock, University of Pennsylvania Donald Backer, University of California, Berkeley Lars Bildsten, University of California, Santa Barbara Thomas J. Bogdan, National Center for Atmospheric Research John E. Carlstrom,* University of Chicago
OCR for page 14
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 FIGURE 2.3 SSB-NRC advice on astronomy and astrophysics (1979-2004).
OCR for page 15
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 Richard S. Ellis,* California Institute of Technology Alexei Filippenko, University of California, Berkeley Andrea Ghez,* University of California, Los Angeles Timothy M. Heckman, Johns Hopkins University David J. Hollenbach, NASA Ames Research Center Chryssa Kouveliotou, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Stephan Meyer, University of Chicago Eve Ostriker, University of Maryland Frazer N. Owen,* National Radio Astronomy Observatory Mark J. Reid, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Scott Tremaine, Princeton University Jean L. Turner, University of California, Los Angeles Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota Brian Dewhurst, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant * Term ended during 2004. Membership of the Committee on Review of Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal Vision C. Megan Urry, Yale University (chair) Lars Bildsten, University of California, Santa Barbara Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University John E. Carlstrom, University of Chicago Neal J. Evans, University of Texas at Austin Jacqueline N. Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Craig James Hogan, University of Washington John P. Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Christopher F. McKee, University of California, Berkeley Anneila I. Sargent, California Institute of Technology Sara Seager, Carnegie Institution of Washington Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis COMMITTEE ON PLANETARY AND LUNAR EXPLORATION The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) met on March 3-5 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., devoting the meeting to advanced planning and preparation for the forthcoming study on priorities for space science enabled by nuclear power and propulsion. In addition, the committee heard presentations on the current status of NASA’s Solar System Exploration and Mars Exploration programs and on the formation of NASA’s new Exploration Systems Office. COMPLEX’s planned June meeting was cancelled so that committee members could assist with the activities of the Committee on Space Science Priorities Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion. COMPLEX’s final meeting of 2004 was held on October 20-22 at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The meeting was devoted to preparing material, requested by the Space Studies Board, on the impact of NASA’s new exploration vision on solar system decadal science priorities. In addition, the committee heard presentations on the current status of NASA’s Solar System, Lunar, and Mars Exploration programs. NASA representatives Marc Allen and Doug McCuistion briefed the members on the proposed roadmap for the coming year. Members continue to offer assistance with PI-led missions and the panels of the Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion as requested. A historical summary of reports from COMPLEX and related committees is presented in Figure 2.4.
OCR for page 16
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 FIGURE 2.4 SSB-NRC advice on solar system exploration (1969-2002).
OCR for page 26
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 FIGURE 2.7 SSB-NRC advice on space biology and medicine (1960-2002).
OCR for page 27
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 CSBM Membership Donald E. Ingber, Harvard Medical School (chair) Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE ON REVIEW OF NASA’S BIOASTRONAUTICS CRITICAL PATH ROADMAP The Committee on Review of NASA’s Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap is a joint committee organized under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Board on Health Sciences Policy with assistance from the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. Membership of the Committee on Review of NASA’S Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap David E. Longnecker, University of Pennsylvania Health System (chair) James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Valerie J. Gawron, Veridian Corporation Christopher Hart, Federal Aviation Administration Charles E. Land, National Cancer Institute Daniel R. Masys, University of California, San Diego Bruce McCandless, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company Tom S. Neuman, University of California, San Diego Thomas F. Oltmanns, Washington University Lawrence A. Palinkas, University of California, San Diego James Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University Bruce Rabin, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Karlene H. Roberts, University of California, Berkeley Carol Scott-Conner, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Margaret Rhea Seddon, Vanderbilt University Medical Center Jay R. Shapiro, Kennedy Krieger Institute Thomas R. Ten Have, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Lisa M. Vandemark, Staff Officer, Institute of Medicine Sandra J. Graham, Senior Staff Officer, Space Studies Board COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) was not active during 2004, except for various tracking and dissemination activities such as providing requested materials and information on prior reports. CMGR is awaiting NASA feedback regarding a proposed task to develop a physical sciences research strategy that would enable advanced exploration technology development. The committee chair, Dennis Readey, proposed some restructuring of the committee to reflect recent changes in the content of NASA’s microgravity program. A historical summary of reports from CMGR and related committees is presented in Figure 2.8. CMGR Membership Dennis W. Readey, Colorado School of Mines (chair) Cristina H. Amon,* Carnegie Institute of Technology Howard R. Baum,* National Institute of Standards and Technology Jayavant P. Gore,* Purdue University John L. Hall,* University of Colorado
OCR for page 28
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 FIGURE 2.8 SSB-NRC advice on microgravity research (1978-2002).
OCR for page 29
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 Michael Jaffee,* Medical Device Concept Laboratory Jan D. Miller,* University of Utah G.P. Peterson,* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Peter Staudhammer,* TRW, Inc. Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant * Term ended during 2004. COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE DATA UTILIZATION The Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization (CESDU) held its final writing meeting on February 17 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. Its report, Utilization of Operation Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond, concerns such topics as the likely multiplicity of uses of environmental data collected by operational environmental satellites, the likely interfaces between the data provider (principally the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the satellite system operator) and the range of data users, the implications of these interfaces in terms of data management activities, and approaches to secure the engagement of the science and applications community in successfully dealing with the challenges identified in the topics above. Preparation of Utilization of Operation Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond continued during the second quarter. Prepublication copies were delivered to NASA and NOAA on September 2. Committee chair Allen Huang briefed NASA and NOAA on September 7. Dissemination of the printed report began on December 9. CESDU Membership Hung-Lung Allen Huang, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair) Philip E. Ardanuy, Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services John R. Christy, University of Alabama James Frew, University of California, Santa Barbara Susan B. Fruchter, Smithsonian Institution Aris P. Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology Ying-Hwa (Bill) Kuo, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research David S. Linden, DSL Consulting, Inc. Kevin P. Price, University of Kansas Steven W. Running, University of Montana Marijean T. Seelbach, QuakeFinder Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Colorado State University Robert A. Weller, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Robert L. Riemer, Study Director Richard Leshner, Research Associate Rosalyn A. Pertzborn, Assistant to Chair, University of Wisconsin-Madison Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant * All terms ended during 2004. COMMITTEE ON PREVENTING THE FORWARD CONTAMINATION OF MARS The Committee on Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars (PREVCOM) held its first meeting on February 26-27 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. The meeting focused on obtaining an overview of planetary protection and on understanding the statement of task for the study. John Rummel, NASA’s
OCR for page 30
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 planetary protection officer, provided an overview of NASA’s Planetary Protection Program and the COSPAR Planetary Protection Program. Other briefings to the committee covered the 1992 National Research Council (NRC) study Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations; planetary protection for the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers; methods for detecting bioload on spacecraft; and an overview of the NASA Mars program and recent science results. The committee also heard about issues relevant to preventing forward contamination of Mars; lessons learned from planetary protection on the Beagle 2 rover of the Mars Express mission; and lessons learned from planetary protection for the Viking landers. During the second quarter, PREVCOM held its second meeting on May 5-7 at Diversa Corporation in San Diego, California, to obtain data and information for the report, develop a preliminary outline for the report, identify preliminary conclusions and recommendations, and discuss assignments for drafting the report. The committee held a miniworkshop that included speakers on microbial contamination on Viking missions and recent Mars rovers; measurement techniques and molecular methods for detecting life; new methods and instrumentation for detecting life; organic contamination and the Astrobiology Field Laboratory; the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionospheric Sounding (MARSIS) on the European Space Agency’s Mars Express spacecraft; the SHAllow RADar (SHARAD) that will fly on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO); life detection experiments for Mars and sensitive techniques in the search for life; and work on radioisotope thermoelectric generators and melting ice. Eric Mathur, vice president of scientific affairs at Diversa and a member of the PREVCOM, led the committee and visitors on a tour of Diversa. On the second day, the committee heard presentations on planetary protection and human missions to Mars and theory and evidence for the distribution of water on Mars: the Mars Odyssey mission’s Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) observations of hydrogen and water on the near surface; ground-penetrating radar as applied to the search for ground-water and ground ice; nucleic-acid-based techniques for microbial discovery; high-throughput cultivation; and microbial diversity research at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The committee devoted the remainder of its meeting to preparing a preliminary outline for the report, deliberating on key issues, identifying gaps, and discussing the schedule. PREVCOM held its third meeting on August 3-5 at the Search for the Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute in Mountain View, California, to conduct final data-gathering efforts, deliberate on its findings, and to work on a first draft of the committee’s report. Topics included a geographic information system (GIS) to aid decision making on Mars planetary protection; the search for life on Mars and the implications of planetary protection on life detection; sterilization techniques and their potential application for spacecraft; and research projects and plans to explore methods for bioburden reduction at JPL. The committee also toured the SETI Institute. During the fourth quarter, PREVCOM held a splinter group meeting with five members on November 8-10 at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to revise the draft report. External review, approval, and release of the report are planned for the first quarter of 2005. PREVCOM Membership Christopher F. Chyba, Stanford University (chair) Stephen Clifford, Lunar and Planetary Institute Alan Delamere, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Martin S. Favero, Johnson & Johnson Eric J. Mathur, Diversa Corporation John C. Niehoff, Science Applications International Corporation Gian Gabriele Ori, Universitá d’Annunzio David A. Paige, University of California, Los Angeles Ann Pearson, Harvard University John C. Priscu, Montana State University Margaret S. Race, SETI Institute Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory Cristina Takacs-Vesbach, University of New Mexico Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
OCR for page 31
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE The Committee on Assessment of Options to Extend the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope held its first meeting on June 1-3 in Washington, D.C., and met again on June 22-24. This joint SSB and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board study was tasked to consider issues of safety of use of the space shuttle for servicing with an astronaut crew, feasibility of robotic servicing approaches, the impacts of servicing options on the scientific capability of the HST, and risk/benefit relationships between servicing options that are deemed acceptable. During the third quarter, the committee’s third meeting, on July 12-14, at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., was devoted to development of the final committee report and briefings related to that effort. The committee heard presentations from NASA on planning for a robotic servicing option and on recent analyses of lifetime expectancies for Hubble components such as batteries and fine guidance sensors. Representatives of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency gave a presentation on the Orbital Express program. The interim report was transmitted to NASA and congressional staff on July 13. On August 23-25, the committee met at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The committee received briefings from Al Diaz, NASA associate administrator for science, and Jennifer Wiseman, Hubble program scientist, regarding the status of NASA studies and plans. Former astronaut Bruce McCandless shared his perspectives with the committee, and the committee spent considerable time in discussions with representatives of the Aerospace Corporation regarding the Aerospace Corporation’s analysis of servicing alternatives. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to the committee’s own analysis efforts and preparation of its report. The committee’s final meeting, held on September 27-29 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., was devoted entirely to work on the final report. During the fourth quarter, prepublication copies of Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope were delivered to NASA and the public on December 8. Committee chair Louis Lanzerotti briefed the agency on December 7. On December 8 a press briefing was held with commentary from a panel of four committee members, and several briefings were also given to congressional staff. The release of the final printed report was scheduled for the first quarter of 2005. The terms of the committee members were extended through April 2005 in order to support congressional briefings on Hubble planned for February 2005 and potential follow-up requests from Congress. Membership of the Committee on Assessment of Options to Extend the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope* Louis J. Lanzerotti, Bell Laboratories; Lucent Technologies; and New Jersey Institute of Technology (chair) Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Charles F. Bolden, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps (retired); TechTrans International, Inc. Rodney A. Brooks, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Jon H. Bryson, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Benjamin Buchbinder, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired) Bert Bulkin, Lockheed Missiles and Space (retired) Robert F. Dunn, U.S. Navy (retired); National Consortium for Aviation Mobility Sandra M. Faber, University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory; University of California, Santa Cruz B. John Garrick, Independent Consultant Riccardo Giacconi, Johns Hopkins University; Associated Universities, Inc. Gregory J. Harbaugh, Sun ’n Fun Fly-In, Inc.; Florida Air Museum Tommy W. Holloway, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired) John M. Klineberg, Space Systems/Loral (retired) Vijay Kumar, University of Pennsylvania Forrest S. McCartney, U.S. Air Force (retired); Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired) Stephen M. Rock, Stanford University Joseph H. Rothenberg, Universal Space Network Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Princeton University Roger E. Tetrault, McDermott International, Inc. (retired) Richard H. Truly, U.S. Navy (retired); National Renewable Energy Laboratory
OCR for page 32
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 Sandra J. Graham, Study Director, Space Studies Board Maureen Mellody, Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Amanda Sharp, Research Assistant, Space Studies Board Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board * All terms expire in 2005. Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion The Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion was organized jointly with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board to identify meritorious space science missions that could be enabled in the time frame beyond 2015 by development of advanced spacecraft nuclear power and propulsion systems. The committee’s study also considers the engineering requirements for such missions and makes recommendations for an evolutionary technology development program for future space science mission nuclear power and propulsion capabilities. The steering committee, supported by three science panels and an engineering panel, met for the first time in Washington, D.C., on April 7-9. The steering group held its second meeting on August 31-September 2 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. The panels met during the second, third, and fourth quarters: Solar System Exploration Panel (May 5-7 and June 21-23), Solar and Space Physics Panel (September 9-11 and October 4-6), and Astronomy and Astrophysics Panel (August 16-18 and September 22-24). Each panel forwarded draft material to the steering group prior to the November meeting. Prior to its first meeting, the steering committee had received extensive input from the SSB’s standing committees, in particular, the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) and the Committee on Solar and Space Physics. In addition, COMPLEX members made up a significant fraction of the membership of the Solar System Exploration Panel and, to a lesser extent, the steering committee. The steering committee held its final meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on November 15-16. Input to the report has been received from the Astronomy and Astrophysics Panel, the Solar System Exploration Panel, and the Solar and Space Physics Panel. The committee is on track to release its phase one report in the second quarter of 2005. Steering Committee Membership William A. Anders, General Dynamics Corporation (retired) (co-chair) Ellen R. Stofan, Proxemy Research (co-chair) Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University William D. Cochran, University of Texas Robert Farquhar, Johns Hopkins University Sergio B. Guarro, The Aerospace Corporation William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired) Steven D. Howe, Los Alamos National Laboratory William Madia, Battelle Memorial Institute William B. McKinnon, Washington University Nathan A. Schwadron, Southwest Research Institute David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board Maureen Mellody, Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, until August 2004 Alan C. Angleman, Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board Astronomy and Astrophysics Panel Membership E. Sterl Phinney, California Institute of Technology (chair)
OCR for page 33
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 William D. Cochran, University of Texas (vice chair) Gary Bernstein, University of Pennsylvania Webster C. Cash, University of Colorado, Boulder Michael S. Kaplan, The Boeing Company Victoria M. Kaspi, McGill University Daniel F. Lester, University of Texas, Austin Ho Jung Paik, University of Maryland Edward L. Wright, University of California, Los Angeles Solar and Space Physics Panel Membership William C. Feldman, Los Alamos National Laboratory (chair) Nathan A. Schwadron, Southwest Research Institute (vice chair) Stephen W. Bougher, University of Michigan Herbert Funsten, Los Alamos National Laboratory Umran S. Inan, Stanford University William S. Kurth, University of Iowa Paulett C. Liewer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Robert P. Lin, University of California, Berkeley Ralph McNutt, Johns Hopkins University Mark E. Wiedenbeck, California Institute of Technology Solar System Exploration Panel Membership Richard P. Binzel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University (vice chair) Anita L. Cochran, University of Texas, Austin Michael Duke, Colorado School of Mines Martha S. Gilmore, Wesleyan University Heidi B. Hammel, Space Science Institute James W. Head III, Brown University Krishan Khurana, University of California, Los Angeles Ralph Lorenz, University of Arizona Louise M. Prockter, Johns Hopkins University Thomas R. Spilker, Jet Propulsion Laboratory David J. Stevenson, California Institute of Technology Engineering Panel Membership William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired) (chair) Samim Anghaie, University of Florida Douglas M. Chapin, MPR Associates, Inc. Alec D. Gallimore, University of Michigan Sergio B. Guarro, The Aerospace Corporation Yacov Y. Haimes, University of Virginia Robert Hanrahan, Jr., U.S. Department of Energy Steven D. Howe, Los Alamos National Laboratory Ivana Hrbud, Purdue University Anthony K. Hyder, University of Notre Dame Andrew Klein, Oregon State University William Madia, Battelle Memorial Institute Dennis Readey, Colorado School of Mines David A. Waite, CH2M Hill, Inc.
OCR for page 34
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 Harvey J. Willenberg, Independent Consultant, Huntsville, Alabama George M. Levin, Director, ASEB Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer, ASEB Connie Woldu, Administrative Assistant, ASEB COMMITTEE ON PI-LED MISSIONS IN THE SPACE SCIENCES: LESSONS LEARNED The Committee on Principal Investigator (PI)-Led Missions in the Space Sciences (COMPILED) is exploring factors that have contributed to the successes and challenges of PI-led missions, mainly in the Discovery and Explorer lines. The committee also is considering the Mars Scout and New Frontiers PI mission lines. The committee held its first meeting on September 1-2 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. During the meeting Al Diaz, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, spoke to the committee on perspectives on PI-led space science missions. The committee also heard presentations from NASA project managers, project scientists, and PIs on the Explorer, Discovery, Mars Scout, and New Frontiers projects, including Deep Impact, SPIDR, TERRIERS, WMAP, Messenger, SWIFT, SAMPEX, CINDI Mission of Opportunity, and PI-Led Missions in the Earth Sciences. On the last day of the meeting, the committee discussed the next steps, study process, communications, and meeting and report schedule. COMPILED held its second meeting on November 17-19 at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado, Boulder, to continue conducting interviews of principal investigators, project managers, and industry officials as part of its data gathering efforts. The presentations included industry perspectives on PI-led missions, project management on Deep Impact, Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), Jupiter Magnetospheric Explorer, Stardust, Student Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE), Lunar Prospector, Genesis, Comet Nucleus Tour Mission (CONTOUR), Phoenix, Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE), and New Horizons. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussing an outline and writing assignments for the report. Publication of the report is planned for mid-2005. COMPILED Membership Janet G. Luhmann, University of California, Berkeley (chair) James S. Barrowman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (retired) Mary Chiu, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory (retired) Hugh H. Kieffer, U.S. Geological Survey (retired) John W. Leibacher, National Solar Observatory Gary J. Melnick, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics H. Warren Moos, Johns Hopkins University Kathryn Schmoll, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Alan M. Title, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant LARGE OPTICAL SYSTEMS IN SPACE During a project scoping meeting on Large Optical Systems in Space held at and funded by the NRC in late September 2003, several federal agencies (National Reconnaissance Office, NASA, the U.S. Air Force, NOAA, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) expressed interest in a full NRC study on the topic. SSB staff members began work with several agencies to obtain sponsorship for the study. Staff members also solicited suggestions for candidates—especially individuals with active security clearances—to chair the study, which requires access to classified information. In consultation with the ASEB, a committee will be formed to summarize existing studies and activities that identify scientific and operational goals for large spaceborne optical systems; conduct an initial, top-level assessment of technology, infrastructure, and policies relevant to goals and needs and identify key areas for in-depth
OCR for page 35
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 analysis in a subsequent study; and identify the issues that would need to be analyzed with respect to locating large optics on the Moon, if that alternative were to be evaluated in a future study. The study will summarize national goals for large optics in space and identify key technologies and infrastructures needed to meet those goals. The study will include a review of the conclusions of previous studies by the NRC and by the different agencies and consideration of which goals cannot be achieved through options other than large space optics. It will also identify those specific key technology, infrastructure, and policy issues that may warrant thorough exploration in a more detailed investigation, thereby providing the basis for decision and tasking for a subsequent new study. A subcommittee made up of committee members with appropriate security clearances will focus on specific aspects of the charge to the committee that may involve specific technologies and issues pertaining to classified national security applications of large optical systems in space. Members of the subcommittee will also serve on the full committee. There will be a report of the full committee and there may also be a separate report of the subcommittee. Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR Officers of the Publications Committee, the Program Committee, and the Bureau of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) met March 29-April 1 at COSPAR headquarters in Paris. The meetings focused on approaches for continuing to strengthen COSPAR publications, especially Advances in Space Research (ASR), on planning for the COSPAR scientific assembly to be held July 18-25 in Paris, and on COSPAR business and operations. COSPAR continued to make strides in improving the quality, image, and speed of ASR. All papers must be refereed by two scientists, and editors are encouraged to insist on high standards of quality in the content of the journal. The journal has a newly designed cover, and all papers are now typeset to create a more uniform and professional appearance. In addition, COSPAR has contracted with Elsevier Sciences, publisher of ASR, for an editorial office for the journal. This measure streamlines the processing of ASR papers and improves the speed of getting papers published. Further, Elsevier is publishing ASR papers through its online Science Direct service. As soon as individual papers are ready for publication, they can be posted to Science Direct, accessed, and referenced by readers. Printed, hardcopy issues of ASR continue to be published as thematic volumes. The president of COSPAR, Roger Bonnet, initiated an effort to reflect and brainstorm on the future of COSPAR and any necessary changes the organization should consider. To that end, the Space Studies Board, as the U.S. National Committee to COSPAR, invited input on the future of COSPAR. General questions to scientists active in the COSPAR community included these: What is the value added of COSPAR? What role should COSPAR play vis-à-vis the science community, agencies, and international scientific bodies—e.g., the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Astronomical Union, and the International Academy of Astronautics? What will space research be like 20 years from now? Should the COSPAR commissions change, and in what ways? COSPAR met July 18-27 in Paris for its 35th scientific assembly. Key issues on the COSPAR agenda included continuing improvements to COSPAR publications and an assessment of the future of COSPAR as a scientific organization. A brainstorming workshop, which included COSPAR officers and invited speakers, was held following the COSPAR Paris meeting. The participants considered whether and how COSPAR should change, how the organization can best meet the needs of the scientific community, and how COSPAR can attract young scientists, among other issues regarding COSPAR’s future. Several task groups were formed to explore key issues identified during the brainstorming sessions and to report their results at COSPAR’s next Bureau meeting in March 2005. Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology, U.S. representative to COSPAR Pamela L. Whitney, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
OCR for page 36
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 PRESIDENT’S CIRCLE COMMUNICATION INITIATIVE The SSB obtained internal NRC funds to expand outreach and dissemination efforts for the 2003 report of the Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization, Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making. The outreach effort focused on bringing the results of the report to state and local managers and elected officials and on further dissemination of the report to interested individuals. Roberta Balstad, chair of the authoring committee, presented the results of the report at a workshop held in May 2004 at Rutgers University. The workshop focused on the use of remote sensing data in New Jersey state and local government. In addition, the SSB used President’s Circle Communication Initiative (PCCI) funds to create and distribute CDs including all three of the steering committee’s remote sensing reports to the 100 workshop participants. PCCI funds also supported the wide dissemination of a lay-audience publication, New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration, which was prepared to summarize highlights of the decadal science strategy for solar system exploration, and the funds were used to prepare and distribute a similar document, Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics. Both publications have been made available via a variety of education venues.
Representative terms from entire chapter: