National Academies Press: OpenBook

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011 (2012)

Chapter: 5 Summaries of Major Reports

« Previous: 4 Workshops, Symposia, Meetings of Experts, and Other Special Projects
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5

Summaries of Major Reports

This chapter reprints the summaries of Space Studies Board (SSB) reports that were released in 2011 (note that the official publication date may be 2012). Reports are often written in conjunction with other National Research Council boards, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) or the Ocean Studies Board (OSB), as noted.

Two reports were released in 2010 but published in 2011—Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions and Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Their summaries were reprinted in Space Studies Board Annual Report2010. Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey was released in December 2010 in prepublication form and is reprinted here.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5.1 Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color
Research and Operations

A Report of the OSB and SSB Ad Hoc Committee on Assessing Requirements for
Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations

Summary

The ocean hosts a fundamental component of Earth’s biosphere. Marine organisms play a pivotal role in the cycling of life’s building blocks such as nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, silica, and sulfur. About half of the global primary production—the process by which CO2 is taken up by plants and converted to new organic matter by photosynthesis—occurs in the ocean. Most of the primary producers in the ocean comprise microscopic plants and some bacteria; these photosynthetic organisms (phytoplankton) form the base of the ocean’s food web. Scientists are exploring how future climate change and sea surface warming might impact the overall abundance of phytoplankton. A long-term change in phytoplankton biomass would have major implications for the ocean’s ability to take up atmospheric CO2 and support current rates of fish production. Therefore, sustaining a global record of the abundance of phytoplankton and their contribution to global primary productivity is required to assess the overall health of the ocean, which is currently threatened by multiple stresses such as increased temperature and ocean acidification (both due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions), marine pollution, and overfishing.

Because the ocean covers roughly 70 percent of Earth’s surface, ships alone cannot collect observations rapidly enough to provide a global synoptic view of phytoplankton abundance. Only since the launch of the first ocean color satellite (the Coastal Zone Color Scanner [CZCS] in 1978) has it been possible to obtain a global view of the ocean’s phytoplankton biomass in the form of chlorophyll. These observations led to improved calculations of global ocean primary production, as well as better understanding of the processes affecting how biomass and productivity change within the ocean basins at daily to interannual time scales.

THE OCEAN COLOR TIME-SERIES IS AT RISK

Currently, the continuous ocean color data record collected by satellites since the launch of the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS, in 1997) and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS, on Terra in 1999 and on Aqua in 2002) is at risk. The demise of SeaWiFS in December 2010 has accentuated this risk. MODIS on Aqua is currently the only U.S. sensor in orbit that meets all requirements (see below) for sustaining the climate-quality1 ocean color time-series and products. However, this sensor is also many years beyond its design life. Furthermore, it is no longer possible to rectify problems with the Aqua sensor degradation that were addressed through comparisons with SeaWiFS in the past few years. Therefore, it is uncertain how much longer data from U.S. sensors will be available to support climate research. Although the European Medium-Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) meets all the requirements of a successful mission, it is also beyond its design life. Because of the many uncertainties surrounding the next U.S. satellite mission (more specifically the Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite [VIIRS] sensor scheduled to launch fall 2011); data acquired through the VIIRS mission threaten to be of insufficient quality to continue the climate-quality time-series.

Even if fully successful, the VIIRS sensor’s capabilities are too limited to explore the full potential of ocean col- or remote sensing. Thus, the U.S. research community is looking to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to provide ocean color sensors with advanced capabilities to support new applications and for significant improvements to current research products beyond what is possible with data from SeaWiFS and MODIS or will

_______________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1-7.

1 Climate-quality observations are a time-series of measurements of sufficient length, consistency, and continuity to assess climate variability and change (following NRC, 2004b).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

be possible from VIIRS. However, the Pre-Aerosol-Clouds-Ecosystem (PACE)—the first of NASA’s planned three missions that would advance the capabilities for basic ocean color research—is not scheduled to launch before 2019.

Without the ability to sustain high-quality ocean color measurements or to launch next generation sensors with new capabilities, many important research and operational uses are compromised, including the capability to detect impacts of climate change on primary productivity. Therefore, it is imperative to maintain and improve the capability of satellite ocean color missions at the accuracy level required to understand changes to ocean ecosystems that potentially affect living marine resources and the ocean carbon cycle, and to meet other operational and research needs. Given the importance of maintaining the data stream, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) asked the National Research Council to convene an ad hoc study committee to review the minimum requirements to sustain global ocean color radiance measurements for research and operational applications and to identify options to minimize the risk of a data gap (see Box S.1 for the full statement of task). Because the ability to sustain current capabilities is at risk, the report focuses on minimum requirements to sustain ocean color observations of a quality equivalent to the data collected from SeaWiFS. Meeting these requirements will mitigate the risk of a gap in the ocean color climate data record but will be insufficient to explore the full potential of ocean color research and will fall short of meeting all the needs of the ocean color research and operational community. To meet all these needs, a constellation of multiple sensor types2 in polar and geostationary orbits will be required. Note that satellite requirements for research leading to the generation of novel products would vary depending on the question addressed and are difficult to generalize.

THE REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN HIGH-QUALITY GLOBAL OCEAN COLOR DATA

Satellite ocean color sensors measure radiance at different wavelengths that originate from sunlight and are backscattered from the ocean and from the atmosphere. Deriving the small ocean component from the total radiance measured by satellite sensors is a complex, multi-step process. Each step is critical and needs to be optimized to arrive at accurate and stable measurements. Using a set of algorithms (starting with removal of the contribution from the atmosphere, which is most of the signal), radiance at the top of the atmosphere is converted to water-leaving radiance (Lw) and then to desired properties such as phytoplankton abundance and primary productivity. To detect long-term climactic trends from these properties, measurements need to meet stringent accuracy requirements. Achieving this high accuracy is a challenge, and based on a review of lessons learned from the SeaWiFS/MODIS era, requires the following steps to sustain current capabilities:

1. The sensor needs to be well characterized and calibrated prior to launch.

2. Sensor characteristics, such as band-set and signal-to-noise, need to be equivalent to the combined best attributes from SeaWiFS and MODIS.

3. Post-launch vicarious calibration3 using a Marine Optical Buoy (MOBY)-like approach with in situ measurements that meet stringent standards is required to set the gain factors of the sensor.

4. The sensor stability and the rate of degradation need to be monitored using monthly lunar looks.4

5. At least six months of sensor overlap are needed to transfer calibrations between space sensors and to produce continuous climate data records.

6. The mission needs to support on-going development and validation of atmospheric correction, bio-optical algorithms, and ocean color products.

7. Periodic data reprocessing is required during the mission.

_______________

2 Type 1: Polar orbiting sensors with relatively low spatial resolution (1 km) with 8 (or many more) wave bands.

Type 2: Polar orbiting sensors with medium spatial resolution (250-300 m) and more bands to provide a global synoptic view at the same time as allowing for better performance in coastal waters.

Type 3: Hyper-spectral sensors with high spatial resolution (~30m) in polar orbit.

Type 4: Hyper- or multi-spectral sensors with high spatial resolution in geostationary orbit.

3 Vicarious calibration refers to techniques that use natural or artificial sites on the surface of Earth and models for atmospheric radiative transfer to provide post-launch absolute calibration of sensors.

4 Monthly lunar looks refers to the spacecraft maneuver that looks at the surface of the moon once a month as a reference standard to determine how stable the sensor’s detectors are. The information from the lunar looks is then used for determining temporal changes in sensor calibration.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

Box S.1
Statement of Task

Continuity of satellite ocean color data and associated climate research products are presently at significant risk for the U.S. ocean color community. Temporal, radiometric, spectral, and geometric performance of future global ocean color observing systems must be considered in the context of the full range of research and operational/application user needs. This study aims to identify the ocean color data needs for a broad range of end users, develop a consensus for the minimum requirements, and outline options to meet these needs on a sustained basis.

An ad hoc committee will assess lessons learned in global ocean color remote sensing from the SeaWiFS/MODIS era to guide planning for acquisition of future global ocean color radiance data to support U.S. research and operational needs. In particular, the committee will assess the sensor and system requirements necessary to produce high-quality global ocean color climate data records that are consistent with those from SeaWiFS/MODIS. The committee will also review the operational and research objectives, such as described in the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy, for the next generation of global ocean color satellite sensors and provide guidance on how to ensure both operational and research goals of the oceanographic community are met. In particular the study will address the following:

1. Identify research and operational needs, and the associated global ocean color sensor and system high-level requirements for a sustained, systematic capability to observe ocean color radiance (OCR) from space;

2. Review the capability, to the extent possible based on available information, of current and planned national and international sensors in meeting these requirements (including but not limited to: VIIRS on NPP and subsequent JPSS spacecrafts; MERIS on ENVISAT and subsequent sensors on ESA’s Sentinel-3; S-GLI on JAXA’s GCOM-C; OCM-2 on ISRO’s Oceansat-2; COCTS on SOA’s HY-1; and MERSI on CMA’s FY-3);

3. Identify and assess the observational gaps and options for filling these gaps between the current and planned sensor capabilities and timelines; define the minimum observational requirements for future ocean color sensors based on future oceanographic research and operational needs across a spectrum of scales from basin-scale synoptic to local process study, such as expected system launch dates, lifetimes, and data accessibility;

4. Identify and describe requirements for a sustained, rigorous on-board and vicarious calibration and data validation program, which incorporates a mix of measurement platforms (e.g., satellites, aircraft, and in situ platforms such as ships and buoys) using a layered approach through an assessment of needs for multiple data user communities; and

5. Identify minimum requirements for a sustained, long-term global ocean color program within the United States for the maintenance and improvement of associated ocean biological, ecological, and biogeochemical records, which ensures continuity and overlap among sensors, including plans for sustained rigorous on-orbit sensor inter-calibration and data validation; algorithm development and evaluation; data processing, re-processing, distribution, and archiving; as well as recommended funding levels for research and operational use of the data.

The review will also evaluate the minimum observational research requirements in the context of relevant missions outlined in previous NRC reports, such as the NRC “Decadal Survey” of Earth Science and Applications from Space. The committee will build on the Advance Plan developed by NASA’s Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry program and comment on future ocean color remote sensing support of oceanographic research goals that have evolved since the publication of that report. Also included in the review will be an evaluation of ongoing national and international planning efforts related to ocean color measurements from geostationary platforms.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

8. A system needs to be in place that can archive, make freely available, and distribute rapidly and efficiently all raw,5 meta- and processed data products to the broad national and international user community.

9. Active research programs need to accompany the mission to improve algorithms and products.

10. Documentation of all mission-related aspects needs to be accessible to the user community.

Meeting these requirements would contribute to sustaining the climate-quality global ocean color record for the open ocean. However, further enhancements to sensors and missions, such as higher spectral and spatial resolution, will be required to meet the research and operational needs for imaging coastal waters and for obtaining information about the vertical distribution of biomass or particle load. High frequency sampling (e.g., imagery every 30 minutes for a fixed ocean area), such as can be obtained from geostationary orbit, are desirable enhancements for applications such as ecosystem and fisheries management, as well as naval applications.

ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE SENSORS IN MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS

As Figure S.1 indicates, all current sensors except for Ocean Colour Monitor on-board Oceansat-2 (OCM-2) are beyond their design life. The recent demise of SeaWiFS is also putting into question the future of the MODIS sensors because their recent rapid degradation resulted in a reliance on SeaWiFS data to calibrate the MODIS data. Without this calibration, it is unclear how long MODIS data can be made available at the necessary accuracy. MERIS is a high-quality mission but also beyond its design life.

Therefore, the launch of VIIRS planned for fall 2011 comes at a very critical time. Unless there is a successful transition from European Space Agency’s (ESA) MERIS to ESA’s Ocean Land Colour Instrument (OLCI) sensor, and data from OCLI are available immediately, the success and the continuity of the global ocean color time-series will be dependent on the success of the VIIRS mission, because OCM-2 does not collect global data.

The research community has long questioned the ability of VIIRS to deliver high-quality data because of a manufacturing error in one of its optical components. Since this issue has been raised, the sensor has been mounted onto its launch vehicle and undergone additional testing and characterization. The most recent tests have resulted in a more optimistic assessment about its performance, and a software solution to overcome part of the optical hardware issue has been proposed.

However, based on the committee’s assessment of the overall planning and budgeting, it is currently unlikely that this mission will provide data of sufficient quality to continue the ocean color climate data record. This conclusion reflects inadequacies in the current overall mission design and provisions to address all the key requirements of a successful ocean color mission (see above for 10 requirements). In particular, NOAA has not developed a capacity to process and reprocess the data such as is available at NASA.

Conclusion: VIIRS/NPP has the potential to continue the high-quality ocean color time-series only if NOAA takes ALL of the following actions:

1. Implement spacecraft maneuvers as part of the mission, including monthly lunar looks using the Earth-viewing port to quantify sensor stability;

2. Form a calibration team with the responsibility and authority to interact with those generating Level 16 products, as well as with the mission personnel responsible for the sensor, to provide the analyses needed to assess trends in sensor performance and to evaluate anomalies;

3. Implement a vicarious calibration process and team using a MOBY-like approach;

_______________

5 Raw data is defined as data in engineering units to which new calibration factors can be applied to generate radiance values at the top of the atmosphere.

6 There are five different levels of processing of satellite data:

Level 0: Raw data as measured directly from the spacecraft in engineering units (e.g., volts or digital counts).

Level 1: Level 0 data converted to radiance at the top of the atmosphere using pre-launch sensor calibration and characterization information adjusted during the life of the mission by vicarious calibration and stability monitoring.

Level 2: Data generated from Level 1 data following atmospheric correction that are in the same satellite viewing coordinates as Level 1 data.

Level 3: Products that have been mapped to a known cartographic projection or placed on a two-dimensional grid at known spatial resolution.

Level 4: Results derived from a combination of satellite data and ancillary information, such as ecosystem model output.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
images/img-52-1.jpg

FIGURE S.1 The launch sequence of past, current, and planned ocean color sensors in polar orbit are displayed. The sensors still operational are shown with a one-sided arrow; the hatched area indicates when a sensor is beyond its design life. The gray shaded background indicates a data gap in the past and a potential data gap if MODIS sensors and MERIS cease today. The question marks are used to indicate sensors that either do not yet meet the minimum requirements or are vulnerable to changes in funding allocation. Future sensors are shown having either a five- or seven-year lifetime, according to their individual specifications. CZCS: Coastal Zone Color Scanner; OCTS: Ocean Color and Temperature Scanner; SeaWiFS: Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor; OCM/OCM-2: Ocean Colour Monitor; MODIS-Terra/MODIS-Aqua: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer on Terra/Aqua, respectively; MERIS: Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer; GLI: Global Imager; VIIRS: Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite; OLCI: Ocean Land Colour Instrument onboard Sentinel-3; PACE: Pre-Aerosol-Clouds-Ecosystem; GCOM-C: Global Change Observation Mission for Climate Research; JPSS: Joint Polar Satellite System. SOURCE: Based on data from http://www.ioccg.org/sensors_ioccg.html.

4. Implement a process to engage experts in the field of ocean color research to revisit standard algorithms and products, including those for atmospheric correction, to ensure consistency with those of heritage instruments and for implementing improvements;

5. Form a data product team to work closely with the calibration team to implement vicarious and lunar calibrations, oversee validation efforts, and provide oversight of reprocessing; and

6. Provide the capability to reprocess the mission data multiple times to incorporate improvements in calibration, correct for sensor drift, generate new and improved products, and for other essential reasons.

Conclusion: If these steps are not implemented, the United States will lose its capability to sustain the current time-series of high-quality ocean color measurements from U.S. operated sensors in the near future, because the only current viable U.S. sensor in space (MODIS-Aqua) is beyond its design life.

Regardless of how well VIIRS performs, it has only a very limited number of ocean color spectral bands and thus cannot provide the data required by the research community for advanced applications. Under ideal conditions of international cooperation, data from U.S. and non-U.S. sensors planned for the future could be made readily available to meet the many needs for research and operations, but ideal conditions are difficult to negotiate for many

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

complicated reasons. The European MERIS mission is currently providing high-quality global data, albeit with somewhat less frequent global coverage owing to its narrower swath as compared to the U.S. missions. The European Space Agency (ESA) expects MERIS will continue to operate until its follow-on sensor (OLCI) is launched on ESA’s Sentinel-3 platforms in 2013. ESA, NASA and NOAA have ongoing discussions about full exchange of MERIS mission data, including raw satellite data and calibration data. The Indian space agency launched the OCM-2 sensor in 2009. OCM-2 has excellent technical specifications, but to date, data access is very limited. Furthermore, OCM-2 is not a global mission; its data collection priority focuses on the Indian Ocean. The Japanese space agency is planning an advanced ocean color sensor, Second-Generation Global Imager (S-GLI), for launch in 2014 that has high potential based on its technical specifications.

Conclusion: Under the following conditions non-U.S. sensors can be viable options in replacing or augmenting data:

1. A U.S. program is established to coordinate access to data from non-U.S. sensors, including full access to pre-launch characterization information and timely access to post-launch Level 1 or Level 0 data, and direct downlink for real-time access; and

2. This program includes sufficient personnel and financing to collect independent calibration and validation data, assess algorithms and develop new algorithms as required, produce and distribute data products required by U.S. users, support interactions among U.S. research and operational users in government, academia and the private sector, and has the capability to reprocess data from U.S. missions (e.g., MODIS, SeaWiFS) as well as the non-U.S. sensors to establish a continuous time-series of calibrated data.

The committee finds that non-U.S. sensors can be viewed as a source of data to complement and enhance U.S. missions. For example, merging calibrated data from multiple sensors, particularly if the sensors have different equatorial crossing times, can provide much more complete global coverage than is possible from a single sensor. Mean coverage from a single sensor averages about 15 percent of the global ocean per day, owing to cloud cover and limitations imposed by swath width and orbit characteristics. Daily coverage can be increased by merging data from multiple sensors, if they are in complementary orbits. Furthermore, sensors such as MERIS, OLCI, and OCM-2 have much better capabilities—including higher spatial and spectral resolution—for imaging coastal waters than current U.S. sensors or VIIRS. Routine access to the data from these non-U.S. sensors, particularly MERIS and OLCI, is essential to advance the research and operational uses of ocean color data for U.S. coastal applications. OCM-2 has potential but is not currently operated for global observations.

Finally, non-U.S. space agencies are taking some of the development risk for new approaches to ocean color data collection. For example, South Korea in 2010 became the first country to put an ocean color imager into geostationary orbit (viewing the East China Sea), and thus will help the international user community understand the potential of this approach, including the capability to view the same ocean area about every 30 minutes during daylight hours.

MINIMIZING THE RISK OF A DATA GAP

The risk of a data gap in the U.S. ocean color time-series is very real and imminent because MODIS is not likely to deliver high-quality data for much longer. Many issues remain unresolved regarding the VIIRS missions, and the next U.S. ocean color mission, NASA’s Pre-Aerosol-Clouds-Ecosystem (PACE) mission, will not launch before 2019. To minimize this risk, the principal recommendation of the committee is:

Recommendation: NOAA should take all the actions outlined above to resolve remaining issues with the VIIRS/NPP. In addition, NOAA needs to fix the hardware problems on the subsequent VIIRS sensors and ensure all the above actions are incorporated into the mission planning for the subsequent VIIRS launches on JPSS-1 and JPSS-2. Taking these steps is necessary to generate a high-quality dataset, because VIIRS is the only opportunity for a U.S. ocean color mission until the launch of NASA’s PACE mission, currently scheduled for launch no earlier than 2019. In addition, if MERIS ceases operation before Sentinel-3A is launched in 2013, VIIRS/NPP would be the only global ocean color sensor in polar orbit.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

To develop quality ocean color products requires highly specialized skill and expertise. Currently, the NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group (OBPG) at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is internationally recognized as a leader in producing well-calibrated, high-quality ocean color data products from multiple satellite sensors. NOAA currently lacks the demonstrated capacity to readily produce high-quality ocean color products and provide the comprehensive services currently available from the OBPG, although NOAA is in the process of building its capacity. For example, although NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) plans to archive a climate-level7 radiance data record, it is unclear how NOAA can generate the products or make them easily accessible to U.S. and foreign scientists.

Both NASA and NOAA support ocean color applications, with NASA focused primarily on research and development and NOAA focused on operational uses. Because both agencies have a strong interest in climate and climate impacts, they share a common interest in climate data records.If NOAA builds its own data processing/ reprocessing group, two independent federal groups will then be developing ocean color products and climate data records. While this can be justified given the distinct missions of NOAA and NASA, it can also raise problems when discrepancies appear in the data records. Moreover, the committee anticipates major challenges to generating high-quality products from the VIIRS/NPP data, which call for involving the expertise currently only available at NASA’s OBPG. For these reasons, the committee concludes the following:

Conclusion: NOAA would greatly benefit from initiating and pursuing discussions with NASA for an ocean color partnership that would build on lessons learned from SeaWiFS and MODIS, in particular.8

Recommendation: To move toward a partnership, NASA and NOAA should form a working group to determine the most effective way to satisfy the requirements of each agency for ocean color products from VIIRS and to consider how to produce, archive, and distribute products of shared interest, such as climate data records, that are based on data from all ocean color missions. This group should comprise representatives from both agencies and include a broad range of stakeholders from the ocean color research and applications community.

Based on its review of previous ocean color missions, the committee concludes that a long-term national program to support ocean color remote sensing involves multiple agencies—NOAA and NASA in particular, with input from the academic research community, and continuous funding that goes beyond the lifetime of any particular satellite mission. Such a mechanism is required to ensure that:

1. Continuity is achieved and maintained between U.S. and non-U.S. satellite missions;

2. Lessons learned from previous missions are incorporated into the planning for future missions;

3. Mission planning and implementation are timed appropriately to ensure continuity between satellite missions;

4. Capability for data processing and reprocessing of U.S. and non-U.S. missions is maintained; and

5. Planning for transition from research to operation occurs early for each mission and is implemented seamlessly via cooperation and interaction between government, academic, and private-sector scientists.

Recommendation: To sustain current capabilities, NOAA and NASA should identify long-term mechanisms that can:

• Provide stable funding for a MOBY-like approach for vicarious calibration;

• Maintain the unique ocean color expertise currently available at NASA’s OBPG over the long term and make it available to all ocean color missions;

• Nurture relations between NASA and NOAA scientists so that both agencies meet their needs for ocean color data in the most cost-effective manner and without needless duplication;

_______________

7 Climate-level means repackaged data to look like a MODIS granule and all metadata repackaged accordingly to ease the reprocessing of the Level 0 data.

8 Consistent with the conclusions and recommendations of “Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions” (NRC, 2010).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

• Establish and maintain validation programs, and maintain and distribute the data over the long term;

• Provide the planning and build the will for continuity in the satellite missions over the long term; and

• Sustain the viability of the scientific base by supporting research and training.

The committee envisions that such a mechanism could be a U.S. working group modeled after the International Ocean Colour Coordinating Group (IOCCG). The establishment of a working group with representation from all the interested federal agencies, from U.S. academic institutions and the private sector could provide the necessary long-range planning to meet the needs of U.S. users, provide external advice to the individual missions, interact with foreign partners, and develop consensus views on data needs and sensor requirements.

CONCLUSION

The diverse applications of, and future enhancements to, ocean color observations will require a mix of ocean color satellites in polar and geostationary orbit with advanced capabilities. Although the three missions described in NASA’s Decadal Survey (Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem/Pre-Aerosol-Cloud-Ecosystem, Geostationary Coastal and Air Pollution Events [GEOCAPE], and Hyperspectral Infrared Imager [HyspIRI]) will potentially provide many advanced capabilities, meeting all user needs within the next decade will likely surpass the capability of a single space agency or nation.

Conclusion: U.S. scientists and operational users of satellite ocean color data will need to rely on multiple sources, including sensors operated by non-U.S. space agencies, because the United States does not have approved missions to sustain optimal ocean color radiance data for all applications.

Recommendation: NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service and NASA’s Science Mission Directorate should increase efforts to quickly establish lasting, long-term data exchange policies, because U.S. users are increasingly dependent on ocean color data from non-U.S. sensors.

The IOCCG presents an effective body through which NASA and NOAA can engage with foreign space agencies and develop a long-term vision for meeting the research and operational needs for ocean color products. Through the IOCCG, space agencies can identify options for collaborations and approaches mutually beneficial to all interested parties. The group has been active in communicating user needs and is working with the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) to develop plans for the Ocean Colour Radiometry Virtual Constellation9 (OCR-VC). In the long term, international partnerships will be needed to sustain the climate-quality global ocean color time-series, and at the same time, to advance ocean color capabilities and research.

_______________

9 A virtual constellation is a set of space and ground segment capabilities operating together in a coordinated manner; in effect, a virtual system that overlaps in coverage in order to meet a combined and common set of Earth Observation requirements. The individual satellites and ground segments can belong to a single or multiple owners.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5.2 Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration:
Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era

A Report of the SSB and ASEB Ad Hoc Committee for the Decadal Survey on
Biological and Physical Sciences in Space

Summary

SCIENCE AND EXPLORATION

More than four decades have passed since a human first set foot on the Moon. Great strides have been made since in our understanding of what is required to support an enduring human presence in space, as evidenced by progressively more advanced orbiting human outposts, culminating in the current International Space Station (ISS). However, of the more than 500 humans who have so far ventured into space, most have gone only as far as near-Earth orbit, and none have traveled beyond the orbit of the Moon. Achieving humans’ further progress into the solar system has proved far more difficult than imagined in the heady days of the Apollo missions, but the potential rewards remain substantial. Overcoming the challenges posed by risk and cost—and developing the technology and capabilities to make long space voyages feasible—is an achievable goal. Further, the scientific accomplishments required to meet this goal will bring a deeper understanding of the performance of people, animals, plants, microbes, materials, and engineered systems not only in the space environment but also on Earth, providing terrestrial benefits by advancing fundamental knowledge in these areas.

During its more than 50-year history, NASA’s success in human space exploration has depended on the agency’s ability to effectively address a wide range of biomedical, engineering, physical science, and related obstacles—an achievement made possible by NASA’s strong and productive commitments to life and physical sciences research for human space exploration, and by its use of human space exploration infrastructures for scientific discovery.1 This partnership of NASA with the research community reflects the original mandate from Congress in 1958 to promote science and technology, an endeavor that requires an active and vibrant research program. The committee acknowledges the many achievements of NASA, which are all the more remarkable given budgetary challenges and changing directions within the agency. In the past decade, however, a consequence of those challenges has been a life and physical sciences research program that was dramatically reduced in both scale and scope, with the result that the agency is poorly positioned to take full advantage of the scientific opportunities offered by the now fully equipped and staffed ISS laboratory, or to effectively pursue the scientific research needed to support the development of advanced human exploration capabilities.

Although its review has left it deeply concerned about the current state of NASA’s life and physical sciences research, the Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space is nevertheless convinced that a focused science and engineering program can achieve successes that will bring the space community, the U.S. public, and policymakers to an understanding that we are ready for the next significant phase of human space exploration. The goal of this report is to lay out steps whereby NASA can reinvigorate its partnership with the life and physical sciences research community and develop a forward-looking portfolio of research that will provide the basis for recapturing the excitement and value of human spaceflight—thereby enabling the U.S. space program to deliver on new exploration initiatives that serve the nation, excite the public, and place the United States again at the forefront of space exploration for the global good. This report examines the fundamental science and technology that underpin developments whose payoffs for human exploration programs will be substantial, as the following examples illustrate:

_______________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1-10.

1These programs’ accomplishments are described in several National Research Council (NRC) reports—see for example, Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

• An effective countermeasures program to attenuate the adverse effects of the space environment on the health and performance capabilities of astronauts, a development that will make it possible to conduct prolonged human space exploration missions.

• A deeper understanding of the mechanistic role of gravity in the regulation of biological systems (e.g., mechanisms by which microgravity triggers the loss of bone mass or cardiovascular function)—understanding that will provide insights for strategies to optimize biological function during spaceflight as well as on Earth (e.g., slowing the loss of bone or cardiovascular function with aging).

• Game changers, such as architecture-altering systems involving on-orbit depots for cryogenic rocket fuels, an example of a revolutionary advance possible only with the scientific understanding required to make this Apollo-era notion a reality. As an example, for some lunar missions such a depot could produce major cost savings by enabling use of an Ares I type launch system rather than a much larger Ares V type system.

• The critical ability to collect or produce large amounts of water from a source such as the Moon or Mars, which requires a scientific understanding of how to retrieve and refine water-bearing materials from extremely cold, rugged regions under partial-gravity conditions. Once cost-effective production is available, water can be transported to either surface bases or orbit for use in the many exploration functions that require it. Major cost savings will result from using that water in a photovoltaic-powered electrolysis and cryogenics plant to produce liquid oxygen and hydrogen for propulsion.

• Advances stemming from research on fire retardants, fire suppression, fire sensors, and combustion in microgravity that provide the basis for a comprehensive fire-safety system, greatly reducing the likelihood of a catastrophic event.

• Regenerative fuel cells that can provide lunar surface power for the long eclipse period (14 days) at high rates (e.g., greater than tens of kilowatts). Research on low-mass tankage, thermal management, and fluid handling in low gravity is on track to achieve regenerative fuel cells with specific energy greater than two times that of advanced batteries.

In keeping with its charge, the committee developed recommendations for research fitting in either one or both of these two broad categories:

1. Research that enables space exploration: scientific research in the life and physical sciences that is needed to develop advanced exploration technologies and processes, particularly those that are profoundly affected by operation in a space environment.

2. Research enabled by access to space: scientific research in the life and physical sciences that takes advantage of unique aspects of the space environment to significantly advance fundamental scientific understanding.

The key research challenges, and the steps needed to craft a program of research capable of facilitating the progress of human exploration in space, are highlighted below and described in more detail in the body of the report. In the committee’s view, these are steps that NASA will have to take in order to recapture a vision of space exploration that is achievable and that has inspired the country, and humanity, since the founding of NASA.

ESTABLISHING A SPACE LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH PROGRAM:
PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES

Research in the complex environment of space requires a strong, flexible, and supportive programmatic structure. Also essential to a vibrant and ultimately successful life and physical sciences space research program is a partnership between NASA and the scientific community at large. The present program, however, has contracted to below critical mass and is perceived from outside NASA as lacking the stature within the agency and the commitment of resources to attract researchers or to accomplish real advances. For this program to effectively promote research to meet the national space exploration agenda, a number of issues will have to be addressed.

Administrative Oversight of Life and Physical Sciences Research

Currently, life and physical science endeavors have no clear institutional home at NASA. In the context of a programmatic home for an integrated research agenda, program leadership and execution are likely to be produc-

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

tive only if aggregated under a single management structure and housed in a NASA directorate or key organization that understands both the value of science and its potential application in future exploration missions. The committee concluded that:

  • Leadership with both true scientific gravitas and a sufficiently high level in the overall organizational structure at NASA is needed to ensure that there will be a “voice at the table” when the agency engages in difficult deliberations about prioritizing resources and engaging in new activities.
  • The successful renewal of a life and physical sciences research program will depend on strong leadership with a unique authority over a dedicated and enduring research funding stream.
  • It is important that the positioning of leadership within the agency allows the conduct of the necessary research programs as well as interactions, integration, and influence within the mission-planning elements that develop new exploration options.

Elevating the Priority of Life and Physical Sciences Research in Space Exploration

It is of paramount importance that the life and physical sciences research portfolio supported by NASA, both extramurally and intramurally, receives appropriate attention within the agency and that its organizational structure is optimally designed to meet NASA’s needs. The committee concluded that:

  • The success of future space exploration depends on life and physical sciences research being central to NASA’s exploration mission and being embraced throughout the agency as an essential translational step in the execution of space exploration missions.
  • A successful life and physical sciences program will depend on research being an integral component of spaceflight operations and on astronauts’ participation in these endeavors being viewed as a component of each mission.
  • The collection and analysis of a broad array of physiological and psychological data from astronauts before, during, and after a mission are necessary for advancing knowledge of the effects of the space environment on human health and for improving the safety of human space exploration. If there are legal concerns about implementing this approach, they could be addressed by the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections.

Establishing a Stable and Sufficient Funding Base

A renewed funding base for fundamental and applied life and physical sciences research is essential for attracting the scientific community needed to meet the prioritized research objectives laid out in this report. Researchers must have a reasonable level of confidence in the sustainability of research funding if they are expected to focus their laboratories, staff, and students on research issues relevant to space exploration. The committee concluded that:

  • In accord with elevating the priority of life and physical sciences research, it is important that the budget to support research be sufficient, sustained, and appropriately balanced between intramural and extramural activities. As a general conclusion regarding the allocation of funds, an extramural budget should support an extramural research program sufficiently robust to ensure a stable community of scientists and engineers who are prepared to lead future space exploration research and train the next generation of scientists and engineers.
  • Research productivity and efficiency will be enhanced if the historical collaborations of NASA with other sponsoring agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, are sustained, strengthened, and expanded to include other agencies.

Improving the Process for Solicitation and Review of High-Quality Research

Familiarity with, and the predictability of, the research solicitation process are critical to enabling researchers to plan and conduct activities in their laboratories that enable them to prepare high-quality research proposals.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

Regularity in frequency of solicitations, ideally multiple solicitations per year, would help to ensure that the community of investigators remains focused on life and physical science research areas relevant to the agency, thereby creating a sustainable research network. The committee concluded that:

  • Regularly issued solicitations for NASA-sponsored life and physical sciences research are necessary to attract investigators to research that enables or is enabled by space exploration. Effective solicitations should include broad research announcements to encourage a wide array of highly innovative applications, targeted research announcements to ensure that high-priority mission-oriented goals are met, and team research announcements that specifically foster multidisciplinary translational research.
  • The legitimacy of NASA’s peer-review systems for extramural and intramural research hinges on the assurance that the review process, including the actions taken by NASA as a result of review recommendations, is transparent and incorporates a clear rationale for prioritizing intramural and extramural investigations.
  • The quality of NASA-supported research and its interactions with the scientific community would be enhanced by the assembly of a research advisory committee, composed of 10 to 15 independent life and physical scientists, to oversee and endorse the process by which intramural and extramural research projects are selected for support after peer review of their scientific merit. Such a committee would be charged with advising and making recommendations to the leadership of the life and physical sciences program on matters relating to research activities.

Rejuvenating a Strong Pipeline of Intellectual Capital Through Training and Mentoring Programs

A critical number of investigators is required to sustain a healthy and productive scientific community. A strong pipeline of intellectual capital can be developed by modeling a training and mentoring program on other successful programs in the life and physical sciences. Building a program in life and physical sciences would benefit from ensuring that an adequate number of flight- and ground-based investigators are participating in research that will enable future space exploration. The committee concluded that:

  • Educational programs and training opportunities effectively expand the pool of graduate students, scientists, and engineers who will be prepared to improve the translational application of fundamental and applied life and physical sciences research to space exploration needs.

Linking Science to Needed Mission Capabilities Through Multidisciplinary Translational Programs

Complex systems problems of the type that human exploration missions will increasingly encounter will need to be solved with integrated teams that are likely to include scientists from a number of disciplines, as well as engineers, mission analysts, and technology developers. The interplay between and among the life and physical sciences and engineering, along with a strong focus on cost-effectiveness, will require multidisciplinary approaches. Multidisciplinary translational programs can link the science to the gaps in mission capabilities through planned and enabled data collection mechanisms. The committee concluded that:

  • A long-term strategic plan to maximize team research opportunities and initiatives would accelerate the trajectory of research discoveries and improve the efficiency of translating those discoveries to solutions for the complex problems associated with space exploration.
  • Improved central information networks would facilitate data sharing with and analysis by the life and physical science communities and would enhance the science results derived from flight opportunities.

ESTABLISHING A LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH PROGRAM: AN INTEGRATED MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO

Areas of Highest-Priority Research

NASA has a strong and successful track record in human spaceflight made possible by a backbone of science and engineering accomplishments. Decisions regarding future space exploration, however, will require the gen-

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

eration and use of new knowledge in the life and physical sciences for successful implementation of any options chosen. Chapters 4 through 10 in this report identify and prioritize research questions important both to conducting successful space exploration and to increasing the fundamental understanding of physics and biology that is enabled by experimentation in the space environment. These two interconnected concepts—that science is enabled by access to space and that science enables future exploration missions—testify to the powerful complementarity of science and the human spaceflight endeavor. For example, the research recommended in this report addresses unanswered questions related to the health and welfare of humans undertaking extended space missions, to technologies needed to support such missions, and to logistical issues with potential impacts on the health of space travelers, such as ensuring adequate nutrition, protection against exposure to radiation, suitable thermoregulation, appropriate immune function, and attention to stress and behavioral factors. At the same time, progress in answering such questions will find broader applications as well.

It is not possible in this brief summary to describe or even adequately summarize the highest-priority research recommended by the committee. However, the recommendations selected (from a much larger body of discipline suggestions and recommendations) as having the highest overall priority for the coming decade are listed briefly as broad topics below. The committee considered these recommendations to be the minimal set called for in its charge to develop an integrated portfolio of research enabling and enabled by access to space and thus did not attempt to further prioritize among them. In addition, it recognized that further prioritization among these disparate topic areas will be possible only in the context of specific policy directions to be set by NASA and the nation. Nevertheless, the committee has provided tools and metrics that will allow NASA to carry out further prioritization (as summarized below in the section “Research Portfolio Implementation”).

The recommended research portfolio is divided into the five disciplines areas and two integrative translational areas represented by the study panels that the committee directed. The extensive details (such as research time-frames and categorizations as enabling, enabled-by, or both) of the research recommended as having the highest priority are presented in Chapters 4 through 10 of the report, and much of this information is summarized in the research portfolio discussion in Chapter 13.

Plant and Microbial Biology

Plants and microbes evolved at Earth’s gravity (1 g), and spaceflight represents a completely novel environment for these organisms. Understanding how they respond to these conditions holds great potential for advancing knowledge of how life operates on Earth. In addition, plants are important candidates for components of a biologically based life support system for prolonged spaceflight missions, and microbes play complex and essential roles in both positive and negative aspects of human health, in the potential for degradation of the crew environment through fouling of equipment, and in bioprocessing of the wastes of habitation in long-duration missions. The highest-priority research, focusing on these basic and applied aspects of plant and microbial biology, includes:

  • Multigenerational studies of International Space Station microbial population dynamics;
  • Plant and microbial growth and physiological responses; and
  • Roles of microbial and plant systems in long-term life support systems.

Behavior and Mental Health

The unusual environmental, psychological, and social conditions of spaceflight missions limit and define the range of crew activities and trigger mental and behavioral adaptations. The adaptation processes include responses that result in variations in astronauts’ mental and physical health, and strongly stress and affect crew performance, productivity, and well-being. It is important to develop new methods, and to improve current methods, for minimizing psychiatric and sociopsychological costs inherent in spaceflight missions, and to better understand issues related to the selection, training, and in-flight and post-flight support of astronaut crews. The highest-priority research includes:

  • Mission-relevant performance measures;
  • Long-duration mission simulations;
  • Role of genetic, physiological, and psychological factors in resilience to stressors; and
  • Team performance factors in isolated autonomous environments.
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

Animal and Human Biology

Human physiology is altered in both dramatic and subtle ways in the spaceflight environment. Many of these changes profoundly limit the ability of humans to explore space, yet also shed light on fundamental biological mechanisms of medical and scientific interest on Earth. The highest-priority research, focusing on both basic mechanisms and development of countermeasures, includes:

  • Studies of bone preservation and bone-loss reversibility factors and countermeasures, including pharmaceutical therapies;
  • In-flight animal studies of bone loss and pharmaceutical countermeasures;
  • Mechanisms regulating skeletal muscle protein balance and turnover;
  • Prototype exercise countermeasures for single and multiple systems;
  • Patterns of muscle retrainment following spaceflight;
  • Changes in vascular/interstitial pressures during long-duration space missions;
  • Effects of prolonged reduced gravity on organism performance, capacity mechanisms, and orthostatic intolerance;
  • Screening strategies for subclinical coronary heart disease;
  • Aerosol deposition in the lungs of humans and animals in reduced gravity;
  • T cell activation and mechanisms of immune system changes during spaceflight;
  • Animal studies incorporating immunization challenges in space; and
  • Studies of multigenerational functional and structural changes in rodents in space.

Crosscutting Issues for Humans in the Space Environment

Translating knowledge from laboratory discoveries to spaceflight conditions is a two-fold task involving horizontal integration (multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary) and vertical translation (interaction among basic, preclinical, and clinical scientists to translate fundamental discoveries into improvements in the health and well-being of crew members during and after their missions). To address the cumulative effect of a range of physiological and behavioral changes, an integrated research approach is warranted. The highest-priority crosscutting research issues include:

  • Integrative, multisystem mechanisms of post-landing orthostatic intolerance;
  • Countermeasure testing of artificial gravity;
  • Decompression effects;
  • Food, nutrition, and energy balance in astronauts;
  • Continued studies of short- and long-term radiation effects in astronauts and animals;
  • Cell studies of radiation toxicity endpoints;
  • Gender differences in physiological effects of spaceflight; and
  • Biophysical principles of thermal balance.

Fundamental Physical Sciences in Space

The fundamental physical sciences research at NASA has two overarching quests: (1) to discover and explore the laws governing matter, space, and time and (2) to discover and understand the organizing principles of complex systems from which structure and dynamics emerge. Space offers unique conditions in which to address important questions about the fundamental laws of nature, and it allows sensitivity in measurements beyond that of ground-based experiments in many areas. Research areas of highest priority are the following:

  • Study of complex fluids and soft matter in the microgravity laboratory;
  • Precision measurements of the fundamental forces and symmetries;
  • Physics and applications of quantum gases (gases at very low temperatures where quantum effects dominate); and
  • Behavior of matter near critical phase transition.
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

Applied Physical Sciences

Applied physical sciences research, especially in fluid physics, combustion, and materials science, is needed to address design challenges for many key exploration technologies. This research will enable new exploration capabilities and yield new insights into a broad range of physical phenomena in space and on Earth, particularly with regard to improved power generation, propulsion, life support, and safety. Applied physical sciences research topics of particular interest are as follows:

  • Reduced-gravity multiphase flows, cryogenics, and heat transfer database development and modeling;
  • Interfacial flows and phenomena in exploration systems;
  • Dynamic granular material behavior and subsurface geotechnics;
  • Strategies and methods for dust mitigation;
  • Complex fluid physics in a reduced-gravity environment;
  • Fire safety research to improve screening of materials in terms of flammability and fire suppression;
  • Combustion processes and modeling;
  • Materials synthesis and processing to control microstructures and properties;
  • Advanced materials design and development for exploration; and
  • Research on processes for in situ resource utilization.

Translation to Space Exploration Systems

The translation of research to space exploration systems includes identification of the technologies that enable exploration missions to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere, as well as the research in life and physical sciences that is needed to develop these enabling technologies, processes, and capabilities. The highest-priority research areas to support objectives and operational systems in space exploration include:

  • Two-phase flow and thermal management;
  • Cryogenic fluid management;
  • Mobility, rovers, and robotic systems;
  • Dust mitigation systems;
  • Radiation protection systems;
  • Closed-loop life support systems;
  • Thermoregulation technologies;
  • Fire safety: materials standards and particle detectors;
  • Fire suppression and post-fire strategies;
  • Regenerative fuel cells;
  • Energy conversion technologies;
  • Fission surface power;
  • Ascent and descent propulsion technologies;
  • Space nuclear propulsion;
  • Lunar water and oxygen extraction systems; and
  • Planning for surface operations, including in situ resource utilization and surface habitats.

For each of the high-priority research areas identified above, the committee classified the research recommendations as enabling for future space exploration options, enabled by the environment of space that exploration missions will encounter, or both.

Research Portfolio Implementation

While the committee believes that any healthy, integrated program of life and physical sciences research will give consideration to the full set of recommended research areas discussed in this report—and will certainly incorporate the recommendations identified as having the highest priority by the committee and its panels—it fully recognizes that further prioritization and decisions on the relative timing of research support in various areas

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

will be determined by future policy decisions. For example, and only as an illustration, a policy decision to send humans to Mars within the next few decades would elevate the priority of enabling research on dust mitigation systems, whereas a policy decision to focus primarily on advancing fundamental knowledge through the use of space would elevate the priority of critical phase transition studies. The committee therefore provided for future flexibility in the implementation of its recommended portfolio by mapping all of the high-priority research areas against the metrics used to select them. These eight overarching metrics, listed below with clarifying criteria (see also Table 13.3) added in parentheses, can be used as a basis for policy-related ordering of an integrated research portfolio. Examples of how this might be done are provided in the report.

  • The extent to which the results of the research will reduce uncertainty about both the benefits and the risks of space exploration (Positive Impact on Exploration Efforts, Improved Access to Data or to Samples, Risk Reduction)
  • The extent to which the results of the research will reduce the costs of space exploration (Potential to Enhance Mission Options or to Reduce Mission Costs)
  • The extent to which the results of the research may lead to entirely new options for exploration missions (Positive Impact on Exploration Efforts, Improved Access to Data or to Samples)
  • The extent to which the results of the research will fully or partially answer grand science challenges that the space environment provides a unique means to address (Relative Impact Within Research Field)
  • The extent to which the results of the research are uniquely needed by NASA, as opposed to any other agencies (Needs Unique to NASA Exploration Programs)
  • The extent to which the results of the research can be synergistic with other agencies’ needs (Research Programs That Could Be Dual-Use)
  • The extent to which the research must use the space environment to achieve useful knowledge (Research Value of Using Reduced-Gravity Environment)
  • The extent to which the results of the research could lead to either faster or better solutions to terrestrial problems or to terrestrial economic benefit (Ability to Translate Results to Terrestrial Needs)

Facilities, Platforms, and the International Space Station

Facility and platform requirements are identified for each of the various areas of research discussed in this report. Free-flyers, suborbital spaceflights, parabolic aircraft, and drop towers are all important platforms, each offering unique advantages that might make them the optimal choice for certain experiments. Ground-based laboratory research is critically important in preparing most investigations for eventual flight, and there are some questions that can be addressed primarily through ground research. Eventually, access to lunar and planetary surfaces will make it possible to conduct critical studies in the partial-gravity regime and will enable test bed studies of systems that will have to operate in those environments. These facilities enable studies of the effects of various aspects of the space environment, including reduced gravity, increased radiation, vacuum and planetary atmospheres, and human isolation.

Typically, because of the cost and scarcity of the resource, spaceflight research is part of a continuum of efforts that extend from laboratories and analog environments on the ground, through other low-gravity platforms as needed and available, and eventually into extended-duration flight. Although research on the ISS is only one component of this endeavor, the capabilities provided by the ISS are vital to answering many of the most important research questions detailed in this report. The ISS provides a unique platform for research, and past NRC studies have noted the critical importance of its capabilities to support the goal of long-term human exploration in space.2 These include the ability to perform experiments of extended duration, access to human subjects, the ability to continually revise experiment parameters based on previous results, the flexibility in experimental design provided by human operators, and the availability of sophisticated experimental facilities with significant power and data resources. The ISS is the only existing and available platform of its kind, and it is essential that its presence and dedication to research for the life and physical sciences be fully utilized in the decade ahead.

_______________

2See, for example, National Research Council, Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

With the retirement of the space shuttle program in 2011, it will also be important for NASA to foster interactions with the commercial sector, particularly commercial flight providers, in a manner that addresses research needs, with attention to such issues as control of intellectual property, technology transfer, conflicts of interest, and data integrity.

Science Impact on Defining Space Exploration

Implicit in this report are integrative visions for the science advances necessary to underpin and enable revolutionary systems and bold exploration architectures for human space exploration. Impediments to revitalizing the U.S. space exploration agenda include costs, past inabilities to predict costs and schedule, and uncertainties about mission and crew risk. Research community leaders recognize their obligations to address those impediments. The starting point of much of space-related life sciences research is the reduction of risks to missions and crews. Thus, the recommended life sciences research portfolio centers on an integrated scientific pursuit to reduce the health hazards facing space explorers, while also advancing fundamental scientific discoveries. Similarly, revolutionary and architecture-changing systems will be developed not simply by addressing technological barriers, but also by unlocking the unknowns of the fundamental physical behaviors and processes on which the development and operation of advanced space technologies will depend. This report is thus much more than a catalog of research recommendations; it specifies the scientific resources and tools to help in defining and developing with greater confidence the future of U.S. space exploration and scientific discovery.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5.3 Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the
New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey

A Report of the BPA and SSB Report of the ad hoc Panel on Implementing Recommendations
from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey

Executive Summary

The 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH), outlines a scientifically exciting and programmatically integrated plan for both ground- and space-based astronomy and astrophysics in the 2012-2021 decade.1 However, late in the survey process, the budgetary outlook shifted downward considerably from the guidance that NASA had provided to the decadal survey. And since August 2010—when NWNH was released—the projections of funds available for new NASA Astrophysics initiatives has decreased even further because of the recently reported delay in the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2015 and the associated additional costs of at least $1.4 billion.2 These developments jeopardize the implementation of the carefully designed program of activities proposed in NWNH. In response to these circumstances, NASA has proposed that the United States consider a commitment to the European Space Agency (ESA) Euclid mission at a level of approximately 20 percent.3 This participation would be undertaken in addition to initiating the planning for the survey’s highest-ranked, space-based, large-scale mission, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the National Research Council (NRC) convene a panel to consider whether NASA’s Euclid proposal is consistent with achieving the priorities, goals, and recommendations, and with pursuing the science strategy, articulated in NWNH. The panel also investigated what impact such participation might have on the prospects for the timely realization of the WFIRST mission and other activities recommended by NWNH in view of the projected budgetary situation.4

The Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey convened its workshop on November 7, 2010, and heard presentations from NASA, ESA, OSTP, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and members of the domestic and foreign astronomy and astrophysics communities. Workshop presentations identified several tradeoffs among options: funding goals less likely versus more likely to be achieved in a time of restricted budgets; narrower versus broader scientific goals; and U.S.-only versus U.S.-ESA collaboration. The panel captured these tradeoffs in considering four primary options.5

Option A: Launch of WFIRST in the Decade 2012-2021

The panel reaffirms the centrality to the overall integrated plan articulated in NWNH of embarking in this decade on the scientifically compelling WFIRST mission. If WFIRST development and launch are significantly delayed beyond what was assumed by NWNH, one of the key considerations that led to this relative ranking is no longer valid. However, until there is greater clarity on how and when WFIRST can be implemented, it is difficult to

_______________

NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from the from the prepublication version of Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-2, which was released on December 10, 2010.

1 National Research Council, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010 (prepublication version).

2 J. Casani, et al., “James Webb Space Telescope Independent Comprehensive Review Panel: Final Report,” October 29, 2010 (publicly released on November 10, 2010).

3 At the November 7, 2010 workshop NASA said that the current participation level on Euclid is planned at 20% of the estimated mission development cost (see Appendix B for more information).

4 The panel’s statement of task is given in this report’s Preface. Information on the workshop is provided in Appendixes A and B.

5 The four options are not ranked in any particular order.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

determine whether the relative priorities of NWNH should be reconsidered. These issues may well require consideration by the decadal survey implementation advisory committee (DSIAC) recommended in NWNH.6

Option B: A Joint WFIRST/Euclid Mission

If the budget constraints that have emerged since delivery of the NWNH report are not adequately addressed and a timely WFIRST as originally conceived is not possible (see Option A), one option to accomplish WFIRST’s goals would be a single, international mission, combining WFIRST and ESA’s Euclid. Either a U.S.-led mission or an ESA-led mission could be consistent with the NWNH report, contingent on whether or not the United States plays “a leading role” and “so long as the committee’s recommended science program is preserved and overall cost savings result” (p. 1-6). Therefore, it would be advantageous for NASA, in collaboration with ESA, to study whether such a joint mission is feasible. Waiting to decide on a significant financial commitment to such a partnership, whatever its form, would allow time for such studies and for the DSIAC to be established and provide guidance on this issue.

Option C: Commitment by NASA of 20 percent Investment in Euclid prior to the M-class decision

A 20 percent investment in Euclid as currently envisioned and as presented by NASA is not consistent with the program, strategy, and intent of the decadal survey. NWNH stated the following if the survey’s budget assumption cannot be realized: “In the event that insufficient funds are available to carry out the recommended program, the first priority is to develop, launch, and operate WFIRST, and to implement the Explorer program and core research program recommended augmentations” (p. 7-40). A 20 percent plan would deplete resources for the timely execution of the broader range of NWNH space-based recommendations and would significantly delay implementing the Explorer augmentation, as well as augmentations to the core activities that were elements in the survey’s recommended first tier of activities in a less optimistic budget scenario. A 20 percent contribution would also be a non-negligible fraction of the resources needed for other NWNH priorities.

Option D: No U.S. Financing of an Infrared Survey Mission This Decade

If neither options A nor B are viable due to budget constraints (or if option A is not viable and option B is not possible due to programmatic difficulties), and option C is rejected, the panel concluded that to be consistent with the overall plan in NWNH, any existing budget wedge could go to other NWNH priorities: the next-ranked large recommendation (augmentation of the Explorer program), technology development for future missions, and the high-priority medium and small recommended activities, possibly with the omission of WFIRST. Although an extremely unfortunate outcome with severely negative consequences for the exciting science program advanced by NWNH, this option seems consistent with NWNH, which did not prioritize between its large, medium, and small recommended activities. However, such a major change of plan should first be reviewed by the recommended DSIAC.

Providing strategic advice under current conditions is extremely challenging. The question of whether today’s changing conditions fundamentally alter the long-term approach of the decadal survey might understandably be asked. However, the panel emphasizes that the 2010 decadal survey provided integrated advice that was explicitly designed to be robust for the entire decade. The survey anticipated that fiscal and scientific conditions would change. NASA’s rapidly changing budgetary landscape highlights the urgency of establishing a mechanism such as the DSIAC to ensure that appropriate community advice is available to the government. The NWNH recommendations remain scientifically compelling, and this panel believes that the decadal survey process remains the most effective way to provide community consensus to the federal government to assist in its priority setting for U.S. astronomy and astrophysics.

_______________

6 In NWNH, the recommended DSIAC was charged to “monitor progress toward reaching the goals recommended in [NWNH], and to provide strategic advice to the agencies over the decade of implementation” (p. 1-5).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5.4 Sharing the Adventure with the Public—The Value of Excitement:
Summary of a Workshop

Marcia Smith, Rapporteur

Workshop Overview

The premise of the workshop was that NASA and its associated science and exploration communities have not been as effective as they could be in communicating with the public about what NASA does or how its activities contribute to resolving critical problems on Earth. Although not explicitly stated, an underlying assumption seemed to be that if the public had a better understanding, it would be more supportive of NASA, which in turn could generate more political support for the organization. In the case of global climate change, the broader issue is how to convince the public of the magnitude of the problem and the need for solutions. The role of new social media tools like Facebook and Twitter in interacting with the public was an integral part of the discussion.

HAS COMMUNICATION BEEN EFFECTIVE TO DATE?

Throughout the workshop, the topic of global climate change was put forward as a primary example of where communication between the scientific community and the public has failed. Specifically, many of the scientists concluded that the “Climategate”1 incident demonstrated the fragility of the public’s trust in the scientific community and in the data showing that climate change is human induced. Charles F. Kennel, Space Studies Board (SSB) chair, related that polls by the Pew Trust showed that the public’s belief and trust that climate change was real and that scientists were telling the truth dropped 20 points after Climategate, an unprecedented drop in the history of Pew’s polling.

Kennel characterized Climategate as a dramatic lesson for the climate science community that thought it had “discovered the key for communicating with decision-makers” through the “elaborate peer review process” embedded in the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). SSB member Berrien Moore III, former co-chair of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) decadal survey on Earth science and applications from space, passionately held that the climate science community has failed to communicate successfully the seriousness of the climate change problem to the public.

Some of the communicators,2 however, disagreed. Christie Nicholson, journalist and online contributor for Scientific American, asked Moore how he could consider it a failure when people think about Earth “all the time now.” She and other communicators explained how the public makes decisions on issues for which they have little background or understanding, like climate change, by using “information shortcuts” and “confirmation biases” to decide who to believe or not believe. During the panel discussion for Session 5, Moore initially resisted the notion that climate change is a belief-based issue—“the data are there,” he said—but Nicholson and Andrew Lawler, a science journalist, helped him understand that it is indeed a matter of belief.

Lawler said that although he had learned to trust and believe the data Moore presented, there has been a loss of trust, and he sees this in journalism, too—people do not know who to believe. He acknowledged that scientists have a difficult time understanding that some people do not believe the data charts. Nicholson concurred, adding that even two scientists can draw different conclusions from the same data. She called it a confirmation bias—the tendency for a person to believe one scientist versus another based on that person’s preconceived ideas, adding: “I don’t know when climate change…became such a strong belief system on the level of religion and political beliefs,

_______________

NOTE: “Workshop Overview” reprinted from Sharing the Adventure with the Public—The Value of Excitement: Summary of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1-8.

1 Charles Kennel’s explanation of “Climategate” is summarized in Session 1.

2 For simplicity, participants in the workshop are categorized in this discussion as scientists or communicators since the purpose was to bring those two communities together. The terms should not be interpreted precisely, however. The communicators are essentially the non-space and Earth scientists in the group even though some, like Joan Johnson-Freese, are academics and not in the communications profession. Also, some of the scientists, like Joan Vernikos, have encompassed communications in their current careers.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

but it has.” By the end of the discussion, Moore said that he now understood that it is not whether people believe or not in global warming, it is whether they believe or not “in what we said” and thanked Lawler and Nicholson “because I learned something.”

Science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson tied his grave concern about climate change to the question of how best to communicate about the human spaceflight program, which many of the participants cited as a particularly difficult sell. Robinson emphasized that one could not discuss human spaceflight without reference to the “planetary environmental emergency that we are now in without being escapist and doing more harm than good.” He asserted that talking about human space exploration could be “easily misinterpreted as escapist and elitist, involving only a small percentage of the human population,” and the focus should be on space and Earth science, especially the connection between the two, for example comparative planetology. He reacted to assertions by others that the public in general does not trust scientists by commenting that there should be posters reminding people that their doctors and the people who build and fly airplanes are scientists too. As for the climate issue, he argued that the climate science community, as a community, should “bite the bullet” and tell the public that “we are in a fight for the hearts and minds of our own population.”

Washington Post science reporter Marc Kaufman’s complaint about communicating with the public about the human spaceflight program, or exploration, was that he could not imagine a worse scenario than what has happened in the past 10 years. The 2003 space shuttle Columbia tragedy was followed by President George W. Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration to return humans to the Moon by 2020 and then go on to Mars. That idea was endorsed by Congress but not funded adequately, which tells people that we are not serious, he said. When the Obama administration determined there was not enough money to execute President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration and do many other things on NASA’s plate, it “understandably decided to blow up the whole process,” he asserted. In terms of communicating with the public about all of this, Joan Vernikos, former director of life sciences at NASA and an SSB member, emphasized that actions speak louder than words, and if they are disparate the result is “disastrous.” That was her assessment of the situation with the human spaceflight program today.

Kaufman thinks President Obama’s “commercial crew” concept of relying on the commercial sector to build and operate systems that will take government astronauts, as well as tourists, back and forth to low Earth orbit, and especially the International Space Station (ISS), will reinvigorate public interest in space. Former CNN science correspondent Miles O’Brien, who gave the keynote address, also finds commercial crew to be a “very exciting” story because “we’re taking free enterprise into orbit” and there are great storylines there. Linda Billings of George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs strongly disagreed. A former journalist who covered commercial space companies for many years and worked in the industry later in her career, she said she firmly believes that space exploration will continue to be the domain of government agencies for the foreseeable future. The private sector’s interest is profit not the public interest, she insisted. However, she also is “deeply skeptical about prospects for the human future in space” today.

Robinson opined that only wealthy people could afford to go into space as tourists, referring to the practice as “bungee jumping for the ultra-rich,” and that having space as a “gated community” is a “misuse” of space because space exploration is more important than that. He emphasized that eventually humans would make the solar system their “neighborhood,” but now is not the time. Instead, this is the time to focus on the health of Earth, in his view.

Kaufman concluded that the public is more interested in space science than exploration in any case. He uses the number of times an electronic newspaper story is shared on Facebook as a measure of its popular appeal and said that stories about space exploration do not get the same number of Facebook shares as science stories: “Science trumps [human] exploration by orders of magnitude.” Using his metric of Facebook shares, Kaufman observed that looking at the websites of the Washington Post and the New York Times it is easy to tell that the public is fascinated by stories about space science, especially astrobiology—the search for life elsewhere—as well as supermassive black holes and “gas bubbles in the middle of the Milky Way.” Overall he is convinced that the public is interested in stories that respond to a sense “of potential transcendence, of curiosity answered, of wonder peaked.”

Conversely, Dietram Scheufele, professor and chair of science communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that he does not believe the public agrees that there is an intrinsic value to science, but rather that its interest is driven by global competitiveness. Citing the Apollo era as a period when Americans were strongly supportive of science because of the competition with the Soviet Union, he argued that the same approach needs to be taken to generate excitement again. If China does something spectacular in space, Americans will want to spend more on space to compete with them, he said. Lawler disputed that idea, arguing that the science community is still “hooked” on the Apollo model, but everything has changed, and it does not work anymore.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

Some of the scientists and communicators felt that astrobiology is an area where scientists generally have done a good job of engaging with the public, although SSB member Robert T. Pappalardo, a senior research scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) at the California Institute of Technology, wondered if the public understands that the search is for microbes, not intelligent life. He also observed that astrobiology raises issues at the “boundary of the triple junction among science, religion, and philosophy,” adding to the complexity of discussions about it.

There have been communication missteps with astrobiology and other space science stories, however, in the views of many of the scientists and communicators. Three examples cited repeatedly in the workshop were the following:

Mars meteorite ALH 84001. In 1996, NASA announced that scientists had discovered biosignatures in a meteorite discovered in Antarctica that originated on Mars, which was reported in the press as demonstrating that Mars once supported life. Many scientists did not concur in that interpretation. O’Brien said that the NASA public relations department “got way ahead of the science” and had the “president of the United States saying we found life on Mars, and it really wasn’t quite there yet.” Kaufman said it left the public with a confusing message. Lawler added, however, that public interest translated into more money to explore Mars, even though many scientists were skeptical of the claims.

Pluto. When the International Astronomical Union reclassified Pluto as a “dwarf planet” instead of a planet in 2006, the astronomy community did not adequately explain the rationale to the public. Heidi B. Hammel, senior research scientist and co-director of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, and Lawler criticized the astronomers for ignoring the need to explain it to the public in understandable terms, thus creating unnecessary controversy.

Gliese 581. A team of U.S. scientists announced in 2010 that they had discovered a planet in the habitable zone of the red dwarf star Gliese 581. The data were not released prior to the announcement, but once they were, a scientific team in Switzerland refuted the claim. Sara Seager, professor of planetary science and physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed that the degree of uncertainty in the U.S. finding was not adequately conveyed to the public. It had a confidence level of 99.7 percent, she said, which is acceptable in science, but there are three chances in a thousand that “it could be wrong.”

Overall, however, some of the communicators felt that the space science community is doing a good job in communicating with the public. In addition to Nicholson’s comments about how the climate change community has made people think about Earth “all the time,” SSB member Joan Johnson-Freese, a political scientist and professor at the Naval War College, observed that the scientists at the workshop “have been way, way too hard on themselves.” She later added, “I think you’ve been doing a heck of a job, but we can always get better.”

WHO ARE SCIENTISTS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH AND WHY?

Johnson-Freese and others asked a key question about what the scientists really are seeking to do in sharing the adventure with the public. “I have to ask, toward what goal?” she inquired. Nicholson similarly asked what the target audience for these efforts is. These questions were raised but not directly answered.

Billings emphasized that there “is no monolithic public” for space exploration, but rather many publics. She also is not convinced that better communications would result in increased public support, stating, “Public information, public education, public interest, public engagement, public understanding, and public support are all different social processes and phenomena, and one does not necessarily lead to another.” Public participation is also different, she continued, and government agencies “tend to be resistant to true public participation in planning and policy making,” but that may be the only path to “enduring public involvement.”

Billings believes that the space community “continually underestimates its audiences” and that it should think “more broadly and deeply about the values, functions, and meanings of space exploration and worry less about marketing the concrete benefits.” She believes that the key is “public participation in exploration planning and policy making,” involving “community consultations, citizen advisory boards, and policy dialogues.” It would be “complicated and time-consuming” and require “power sharing,” but it is a democratic approach and in keeping with President Obama’s promise of “transparency, openness and participation in government.”

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

HOW TO COMMUNICATE

Social Media

A major theme of the workshop was the tremendous ongoing changes in traditional media, especially the decline of newspapers and the reduction in the number of print and broadcast science reporters, versus the emergence of the new social media. Discussion focused on how the space community is or is not taking advantage of social media tools like Twitter and Facebook to communicate within their own communities and with the public.

Two of the scientists, Hammel and Seager in particular, lauded the benefits of the social media and exhorted their colleagues to at least try it. The reluctance on the part of many of their colleagues was palpable, however. Alan Dressler, astronomer at the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution and an SSB member, said that social media was worrisome because of all the “kook mail” he gets. Moore agreed, saying that the climate science community was not embracing it because of the “hate tweets” they have been getting since Climategate.

Nicholson was the most ardent of the communicators in encouraging scientists to at least try the various types of social media to see if any meet their goals. If a particular platform does not achieve those goals after a trial period, she advised them to stop and try another platform. She said social media can provide visibility and promotion, community and networking, monitoring of conferences (such as this workshop), testing the waters for different ideas, keeping a finger on the pulse of what is happening, and improving writing skills, especially brevity. The main advantage of social media, she repeatedly emphasized, is that it allows “many to talk to many” instead of “one to many” as in traditional communications. Scientists should first decide on the message they want to convey, and then choose which of the tools facilitates that, she said. She excitedly explained that communications is moving across platforms now—video, audio, text, and graphics: “We’re in the very beginning of all of this” and have not yet begun to use the Web fully yet, she said.

O’Brien and others complimented JPL for embracing Twitter, especially in the case of the Mars Phoenix mission, which was the first space mission to “tweet.” JPL’s Veronica McGregor tweeted in the first person as though she was the spacecraft. In a taped interview that O’Brien played for the audience, McGregor said that people who thought they were not interested in following space missions found that they were fascinated if they could get the information in “tiny updates day by day.”

O’Brien provided data showing that 44 percent of people polled want more coverage of scientific news and discoveries (Figure 1). He believes social media is the way to provide that coverage. He recommended that scientists not think about how to get on the CBS Evening News, but about how to use social media instead: “All of you should be tweeting” and “sharing the enthusiasm of what you all do.”

Kaufman emphasized that the Facebook/Twitter era does not mean the end of books. He believes that people want long as well as short treatments of topics, noting that he just finished writing a book on astrobiology.

Seager read a Facebook message she received from a colleague in Canada who wanted to point out that there have been many new forms of communications in the past century and social media are just the latest, and their full implications are not yet known. Kennel offered his opinion that the social media revolution probably “has the same degree of importance as the invention of printing.” He added that “we don’t know…how all of that will work out” and NASA and scientists are groping to find out how to use these new ways, but “if we learn to adapt we…will be among the groups that…survive this change in the way we communicate.”

Tips on Connecting with the Public

A recurring theme from the communicators was that the space community has to take the public “along for the ride” on space missions and build that feature into missions from the beginning. O’Brien said “NASA is run by engineers, and there are no mission requirements for public affairs.” That has to change, he said, adding, “It cannot be tacked on” at the end, but must be part of the mission from the beginning—a “clean sheet mission requirement.”

One question, however, was how to keep the public interested in programs that proceed on an incremental basis with sometimes slow progress. Varying points of view were expressed. Pappalardo wondered, “If we find microbes” and not people on Mars, “will the people care?” Steven Benner, distinguished fellow at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, however, said that he detects no intolerance on the part of the public for the “struggle” and “incrementalism” inherent in science. Kaufman agreed, but cautioned that there is “danger when incremental change is miniscule,” because with a dwindling cadre of science writers, the media may decide that something is no longer

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
images/img-71-1.jpg

FIGURE 1 Coverage of science news and discoveries.
SOURCE: K. Purcell, L. Rainie, A. Mitchell, T. Rosenstiel, and K. Olmstead, Understanding the Participatory News Consumer, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C., March 1, 2010. Courtesy of Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C.

a story worth covering. O’Brien initially said that the media does a poor job of covering incremental stories, but amended that later in the workshop by observing that with the new social media, that may change.

Storytelling, narratives, frames, and “people-izing”—making stories more compelling by incorporating the personal stories and enthusiasm of the scientists involved—were all techniques communicators advised would make science communication more effective. Nicholson explained that telling stories is a narrative art, and when they involve human drama “you have a slam dunk almost every time.” Inspiring awe is another method, she added, citing a New York Times article in February 20103 that looked at the most emailed stories and showed they had one thing in common—they all inspired awe, and science can do that, in her view. She also offered that it is important

_______________

3 J. Tierney, “Will you be e-mailing this column? It’s awesome,” February 8, 2010, The New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/09tier.html.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

to decide how to frame the issue and gave examples from health communications, where different messages can be framed as a gain or a loss. Messages concerning cancer prevention are communicated quite differently if the goal is to get people to use sunscreen versus getting a mammogram. Scheufele expressed a similar theme, saying that frames, narratives, and terminology are critical aspects of relating to the public. As an example, he noted that, at the time of the economic crisis, the story was about “bank bailouts,” but it quickly changed to “rescues” because while people do not want to bail out a bank, they do want to rescue the economy.

Some of the communicators advised that messages need to be conveyed in a manner that the public can absorb. Lawler said he was struck at how stark a picture Moore painted about the climate change situation. It is “doom and gloom,” Lawler said, a story to which people do not respond well. Using storytelling would be better, he concluded, citing Roger-Maurice Bonnet’s presentation in Session 5 as an example. Bonnet, executive director of the International Space Science Institute in Switzerland, used the ISS as an analogy to Earth in order to get across points such as population limits and the need for certain systems—like a thermal protection system (which for Earth is its atmosphere)—to function correctly for the “crew” to survive.

Such analogies were cited as an effective communication technique and one often used by scientists. Hammel used a Humpty Dumpty analogy in Session 4 for explaining how the theory of solar system creation has completely changed since she defended her dissertation in 1988. Saying that people connect to a story through narratives, Lawler commended Hammel for her skill at telling the story of the solar system as though it was a “living creature.”

Robinson cautioned, however, that analogies can be misleading. He asserted that space is not like the New World or the Wild West, but more like Antarctica, which he found to be difficult and boring when he was there.

Scientists and communicators also discussed the need for accuracy in reporting about science, although Kaufman said all science stories in publications like his are likely to have factual errors. The discussion included the fact that scientific interpretations may evolve over time, and discovery by its nature means an ever-changing landscape. As to how to communicate that to the public, Benner stressed that it is not the job of scientists or the media to represent science as anything other than what it is—there are wrong answers or sometimes the need for the reinterpretation of data. Scientists “are not better than the average bear” and should not be represented that way, he said.

Kennel suggested that scientists should use the media as intermediaries, but Vernikos strongly disagreed. She said that scientists were excited about what they were doing, and “it’s an energy transfer” when they tell their stories. Bonnet agreed in general, but added that climate scientists did not communicate effectively and could have benefited from taking advantage of professional communicators. Instead, they have opened the door to undue criticisms, in his view.

Scheufele remarked that engaging with the interested public is easy, but the question is how to reach the people who are not inclined, for example, to go to science museums. Fifty percent of highly educated Americans go to museums at least once a year, which means that the other 50 percent never go, he pointed out. For people who only went to high school, attendance is less than 10 percent. Science is not an issue the public cares about, he asserted. He also noted that half of the American public does not know how long it takes Earth to move around the Sun.

What to Avoid

Hammel said astronomers “failed miserably” in explaining to the public why Pluto was demoted from being a planet. She insisted that it was an easy story to tell, and it only takes her 15 minutes to explain it, but astronomers did not think they had to tell it. Lawler agreed, saying that astronomers did not understand that there is “a real emotional tie that people have with planets,” going back to astrology. They are mythical figures and “when you mess with [them], people get upset.” He said that the public felt Pluto was being “knocked off its throne,” and they needed a new story, not just for their old story to be destroyed. Hammel tells that new story, he said.

Kennel cited a colleague who believes the public needs to be better educated so that scientists can communicate with them, but thinks any such effort will fail. He wryly noted that the message from the communicators is that there is a new way to communicate now, but many scientists have not mastered the old way.

Scheufele listed five ways to ensure a communications failure:

  • Be reactive instead of proactive; i.e., only start going public after a crisis/event occurs.
  • Address only issues and ignore values, emotions, etc., that people bring to the table.
  • Assume that science will ultimately prevail.
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
  • Assume that new and social media do not matter as much as traditional media.
  • Assume that communication is an art rather than a science.

ASSESSMENTS OF NASA’S PUBLIC AFFAIRS EFFORTS

Kaufman offered an unsolicited compliment that NASA public affairs “is far and away the best one I’ve dealt with,” and while there may be problems with how some information in conveyed, he felt the agency deserved a “shout out” because it is doing a better job than most agencies.

Later, NASA official Alan Ladwig directly asked for feedback on how NASA is doing. Dexter Cole of the Science Channel and Lawler both agreed with Kaufman’s assessment that NASA is better than typical federal agencies. However, Lawler also offered a list of improvements NASA could make both at headquarters and the NASA field centers.

Separately, Billings observed that NASA’s efforts over the decades have focused on branding and marketing, which she concludes is ineffective. “The aim of marketing is to build public support, and what we all are talking about here is…informing people about the work of the science and scientists.” She believes the key to success is public participation, as described above.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW COMMUNICATION ERA
AND HOW THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES SHOULD RESPOND

In his remarks at the conclusion of the workshop, SSB chair Kennel commented that the convergence of computing and communications via the Internet and space communications at end of the 20th century has accelerated to this day. That, too, is a product of the science and technology revolution, he said, but because it changes relationships between human beings, it has the potential—combined with science—to produce a second enlightenment in the century we are now entering.

It is that second enlightenment, created by a partnership between science and communication, that will be critically needed to cope with stark problems of climate change and sustainability, Kennel believes. He feels that in the climate change area, the science community’s “honest attempts to communicate” failed. While a failure of communication in inspirational areas of space science may have consequences such as delaying funding, the failure of communication in the climate area “threatens our entire civilization,” he said.

In closing, Kennel voiced a clarion call to the National Academies to adjust to the revolution in communications.

[The] final message…is for our own National Academy. It is the principal social tool by which the United States translates scientific knowledge into the public and policy arena and therefore it cannot neglect the revolution in communications. We have also heard of how venerable media institutions who did not react to this revolution have failed and we have heard how those who did have continued to prosper in the present world because of the importance…of their brand and what they do. I think it is essential for the Academy in the next couple of years—and that is the time scale on which things are occurring—it is necessary for the Academy to adjust to the revolution in communications and the new media.

This doesn’t mean getting a few geeks into the back room and providing equipment to people, it means, like everything else, adjusting the social processes by which science is communicated and the people who work on it. I’m not sure I know how that will be done, but I think I can see the need. I am hoping that as we go forth with our study of the potential for human exploration beyond 2020 that we will be able to stimulate—this is an area where this kind of work is critical— and I hope we will be able to stimulate and help the Academy go through this transition. The one thing that is clear, it draws on the talents of many of the smartest people in the United States and it certainly can do it and I’m sure it will.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

5.5 Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022

A Report of the SSB Ad Hoc Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey

Executive Summary

In recent years, planetary science has seen a tremendous growth in new knowledge. Deposits of water ice exist at the Moon’s poles. Discoveries on the surface of Mars point to an early warm, wet climate and perhaps conditions under which life could have emerged. Liquid methane rain falls on Saturn’s moon Titan, creating rivers, lakes, and geologic landscapes with uncanny resemblances to Earth’s. Comets impact Jupiter, producing Earth-size scars in the planet’s atmosphere. Saturn’s poles exhibit bizarre geometric cloud patterns and changes; its rings show processes that may help us understand the nature of planetary accretion. Venus may be volcanically active. Jupiter’s icy moons harbor oceans below their ice shells: conceivably Europa’s ocean could support life. Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus has enough geothermal energy to drive plumes of ice and vapor from its south pole. Dust from comets shows the nature of the primitive materials from which the planets and life arose. And hundreds of new planets discovered around nearby stars have begun to reveal how the solar system fits into a vast collection of other planetary systems.

This report was requested by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to review the status of planetary science in the United States and to develop a comprehensive strategy that will continue these advances in the coming decade. Drawing on extensive interactions with the broad planetary science community, the report presents a decadal program of science and exploration with the potential to yield revolutionary new discoveries. The program will achieve long-standing science goals with a suite of new missions across the solar system. It will provide fundamental new scientific knowledge, engage a broad segment of the planetary science community, and have wide appeal for the general public whose support enables the program.

A major accomplishment of the program recommended by the Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey will be taking the first critical steps toward returning carefully selected samples from the surface of Mars. Mars is unique among the planets in having experienced processes comparable to those on Earth during its formation and evolution. Crucially, the martian surface preserves a record of earliest solar system history, on a planet with conditions that may have been similar to those on Earth when life emerged. It is now possible to select a site on Mars from which to collect samples that will address the question of whether the planet was ever an abode of life. The rocks from Mars that we have on Earth in the form of meteorites cannot provide an answer to this question. They are igneous rocks, whereas recent spacecraft observations have shown the occurrence on Mars of chemical sedimentary rocks of aqueous origin, and rocks that have been aqueously altered. It is these materials, none of which are found in meteorites, that provide the opportunity to study aqueous environments, potential prebiotic chemistry, and perhaps, the remains of early martian life.

If NASA’s planetary budget is augmented, then the program will also carry out the first in-depth exploration of Jupiter’s icy moon Europa. This moon, with its probable vast subsurface ocean sandwiched between a potentially active silicate interior and a highly dynamic surface ice shell, offers one of the most promising extraterrestrial habitable environments in the solar system and a plausible model for habitable environments outside it. The Jupiter system in which Europa resides hosts an astonishing diversity of phenomena, illuminating fundamental planetary processes. While Voyager and Galileo taught us much about Europa and the Jupiter system, the relatively primitive instrumentation of those missions, and the low volumes of data returned, left many questions unanswered. Major discoveries surely remain to be made. The first step in understanding the potential of the outer solar system as an abode for life is a Europa mission with the goal of confirming the presence of an interior ocean, characterizing the satellite’s ice shell, and enabling understanding of its geologic history.

The program will also break new ground deep in the outer solar system. The gas giants Jupiter and Saturn have been studied extensively by the Galileo and Cassini missions, respectively. But Uranus and Neptune represent

_______________

* NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 1-7.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

a wholly distinct class of planet. While Jupiter and Saturn are made mostly of hydrogen, Uranus and Neptune have much smaller hydrogen envelopes. The bulk composition of these planets is dominated instead by heavier elements: oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur are the likely candidates. What little we know about the internal structure and composition of these “ice giant” planets comes from the brief flybys of Voyager 2. The ice giants are thus one of the great remaining unknowns in the solar system, the only class of planet that has never been explored in detail. The proposed program will fill this gap in knowledge by initiating a mission to orbit Uranus and put a probe into the planet’s atmosphere. It is exploration in the truest sense, with the same potential for new discoveries such as those achieved by Galileo at Jupiter and Cassini at Saturn.

The program described in this report also vigorously continues NASA’s two programs of competed planetary missions: New Frontiers and Discovery. It includes seven recommended candidate New Frontiers missions from which NASA will select two for flight in the coming decade. These New Frontiers candidates cover a vast sweep of exciting planetary science questions: the surface composition of Venus, the internal structure of the Moon, the composition of the lunar mantle, the nature of Trojan asteroids, the composition of comet nuclei, the geophysics of Jupiter’s volcanic moon Io, and the structure and detailed composition of Saturn’s atmosphere. And continuation of the highly successful Discovery program, which involves regular competitive selections, will provide a steady stream of scientific discoveries from small missions that draw on the full creativity of the science community.

Space exploration has become a worldwide venture, and international collaboration has the potential to enrich the program in ways that will benefit all participants. The program therefore relies more strongly than ever before on international participation, presenting many opportunities for collaboration with other nations. Most notably, the ambitious and complex Mars Sample Return campaign is critically dependent on a long-term and enabling collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA).

To assemble this program, the committee used four criteria for selecting and prioritizing missions. The first and most important was science return per dollar. Science return was judged with respect to the key science questions identified by the planetary science community; costs were estimated via a careful and conservative procedure that is described in detail in the body of this report. The second was programmatic balance—striving to achieve an appropriate balance among mission targets across the solar system and an appropriate mix of small, medium, and large missions. The other two were technological readiness and availability of trajectory opportunities within the 2013-2022 time period.

To help in developing its recommendations, the committee commissioned technical studies of many candidate missions that were selected for detailed examination on the basis of white papers contributed by the scientific community. Using the four prioritization criteria listed above, the committee chose a subset of the studied missions for independent assessments of technical feasibility, as well as conservative estimates of costs. From these, the committee finalized a set of recommended missions intended to achieve the highest-priority science identified by the community within the budget resources projected to be available. The committee’s program consists of a balanced mix of small Discovery missions, medium-size New Frontiers missions, and large “flagship” missions, enabling both a steady stream of new discoveries and the capability to address major challenges. The mission recommendations assume full funding of all missions that are currently in development, and continuation of missions that are currently in flight, subject to approval obtained through the appropriate review process.

SMALL MISSIONS

Missions for NASA’s Discovery program lie outside the bounds of a decadal strategic plan, and so this report makes no recommendations on specific Discovery flight missions. The committee emphasizes, however, that the Discovery program has made important and fundamental contributions to planetary exploration and can continue to do so in the coming decade. Because there is still so much compelling science that can be addressed by Discovery missions, the committee recommends continuation of the Discovery program at its current level, adjusted for inflation, with a cost cap per mission that is also adjusted for inflation from the current value (i.e., to about $500 million in fiscal year [FY] 2015). And so that the science community can plan Discovery missions effectively, the committee recommends a regular, predictable, and preferably rapid (≤24-month) cadence for release of Discovery Announcements of Opportunity and for selection of missions.

An important small mission that lies outside the Discovery program is the proposed joint ESA-NASA Mars Trace Gas Orbiter that would launch in 2016. The committee supports flight of this mission as long as the currently negotiated division of responsibilities and costs with ESA is preserved.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

MEDIUM MISSIONS

The current cost cap for NASA’s competed New Frontiers missions, inflated to FY2015 dollars, is $1.05 billion, including launch vehicle costs. The committee recommends changing the New Frontiers cost cap to $1.0 billion FY2015, excluding launch vehicle costs. This change represents a modest increase in the effective cost cap and will allow a scientifically rich and diverse set of New Frontiers missions to be carried out, and will help protect the science content of the New Frontiers program against increases and volatility in launch vehicle costs.

Two New Frontiers missions have been selected by NASA to date, and a third selection was underway while this report was in preparation. The committee recommends that NASA select two additional New Frontiers missions in the decade 2013-2022. These are referred to here as New Frontiers Mission 4 and New Frontiers Mission 5. New Frontiers Mission 4 should be selected from among the following five candidates:

  • Comet Surface Sample Return,
  • Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return,
  • Saturn Probe,
  • Trojan Tour and Rendezvous, and
  • Venus In Situ Explorer.

No relative priorities are assigned to these five candidates; instead, the selection among them should be made on the basis of competitive peer review.

If the third New Frontiers mission selected by NASA addresses the goals of one of these mission candidates, the corresponding candidate should be removed from the above list of five, reducing to four the number from which NASA should make the New Frontiers Mission 4 selection.1

For the New Frontiers Mission 5 selection, the following missions should be added to the list of remaining candidates:

  • Io Observer, and
  • Lunar Geophysical Network.

Again, no relative priorities are assigned to any of these mission candidates.

Tables ES.1 and ES.2 summarize the recommended mission candidates and decision rules for the New Frontiers program.

LARGE MISSIONS

The highest-priority flagship mission for the decade 2013-2022 is the Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C), which will begin a three-mission NASA-ESA Mars Sample Return campaign extending into the decade beyond 2022. At an estimated cost of $3.5 billion as currently designed, however, MAX-C would take up a disproportionate share of NASA’s planetary budget. This high cost results in large part from the goal to deliver two large and capable rovers—a NASA sample-caching rover and the ESA’s ExoMars rover—using a single entry, descent, and landing (EDL) system derived from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) EDL system. Accommodation of two such large rovers would require major redesign of the MSL EDL system, with substantial associated cost growth.

The committee recommends that NASA fly MAX-C in the decade 2013-2022, but only if the mission can be conducted for a cost to NASA of no more than approximately $2.5 billion FY2015. If a cost of no more than about $2.5 billion FY2015 cannot be verified, the mission (and the subsequent elements of Mars Sample Return) should be deferred until a subsequent decade or canceled.

It is likely that a significant reduction in mission scope will be needed to keep the cost of MAX-C below $2.5 billion. To be of benefit to NASA, the Mars exploration partnership with ESA must involve ESA participation in other missions of the Mars Sample Return campaign. The best way to maintain the partnership will be an equitable reduction in scope of both the NASA and the ESA objectives for the joint MAX-C/ExoMars mission, so that both parties still benefit from it.

_______________

1 On May 25, 2011, following the completion of this report, NASA selected the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample-return spacecraft as the third New Frontiers mission. Launch is scheduled for 2016.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

TABLE ES.1 Medium-Class Missions—New Frontiers 4 (in alphabetical order)

Mission Recommendation Science Objectives Key Challenges Chapter
Comet Surface Sample Return
  • Acquire and return to Earth for laboratory analysis a macroscopic (≥500 cm3) comet nucleus surface sample
  • Characterize the surface region sampled
  • Preserve sample complex organics
  • Sample acquisition
  • Mission design
  • System mass
4
Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Same as 2003 decadal surveya Not evaluated by decadal survey 5
Saturn Probe
  • Determine noble gas abundances and isotopic ratios of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen in Saturn’s atmosphere
  • Determine the atmospheric structure at the probe descent location
  • Entry probe
  • Payload requirements growth
7
Trojan Tour and Rendezvous Visit, observe, and characterize multiple Trojan asteroids
  • System power
  • System mass
4
Venus In Situ Explorer Same as 2003 decadal surveya (and amended by 2008 NRC report Opening New Frontiersb) Not evaluated by decadal survey 5

NOTE: On May 25, 2011, following the completion of this report, NASA selected the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample-return spacecraft as the third New Frontiers mission. Launch is scheduled for 2016.

a National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

b National Research Council, Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.

TABLE ES.2 Medium-Class Missions—New Frontiers 5 (in alphabetical order)

Mission Recommendation Science Objectives Key Challenges Decision Rules Chapter
Comet Surface Sample Return See Table ES.1 See Table ES.1 Remove if selected for NF-4 4
Io Observer Determine internal structure of Io and mechanisms contributing to Io’s volcanism
  • Radiation
  • System power
None 8
Lunar Geophysical Network Enhance knowledge of the lunar interior
  • Propulsion
  • Mass
  • Reliability
  • Mission operations
None 5
Lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return Same as 2003 decadal surveya Not evaluated by decadal survey Remove if selected for NF-4 5
Saturn Probe See Table ES.1 See Table ES.1 Remove if selected for NF-4 7
Trojan Tour and Rendezvous See Table ES.1 See Table ES.1 Remove if selected for NF-4 4
Venus In Situ Explorer Same as 2003 decadal surveya (as amendedb) Not evaluated by decadal survey Remove if selected for NF-4 5

NOTE: On May 25, 2011, following the completion of this report, NASA selected the OSIRIS-REx asteroid sample-return spacecraft as the third New Frontiers mission. Launch is scheduled for 2016.

a National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

b National Research Council, Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

The second-highest-priority flagship mission for the decade 2013-2022 is the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO). However, its cost as JEO is currently designed is so high that both a decrease in mission scope and an increase in NASA’s planetary budget are necessary to make it affordable. The projected cost of the mission as currently designed is $4.7 billion FY2015. If JEO were to be funded at this level within the currently projected NASA planetary budget it would lead to an unacceptable programmatic imbalance, eliminating too many other important missions. Therefore, while the committee recommends JEO as the second-highest-priority flagship mission, close behind MAX-C, it should fly in the decade 2013-2022 only if changes to both the mission and the NASA planetary budget make it affordable without eliminating any other recommended missions. These changes are likely to involve both a reduction in mission scope and a formal budgetary new start for JEO that is accompanied by an increase in the NASA planetary budget. NASA should immediately undertake an effort to find major cost reductions for JEO, with the goal of minimizing the size of the budget increase necessary to enable the mission.

The third-highest-priority flagship mission is the Uranus Orbiter and Probe mission. The committee carefully investigated missions to both ice giants, Uranus and Neptune. Although both missions have high scientific merit, the conclusion was that a Uranus mission is favored for the decade 2013-2022 for practical reasons involving available trajectories, flight times, and cost. The Uranus Orbiter and Probe mission should be initiated in the decade 2013-2022 even if both MAX-C and JEO take place. But like those other two missions, it should be subjected to rigorous independent cost verification throughout its development, and should be descoped or canceled if costs grow significantly above the projected cost of $2.7 billion FY2015.

Table ES.3 summarizes the recommended large missions and associated decision rules.

EXAMPLE FLIGHT PROGRAMS: 2013-2022

Following the priorities and decision rules outlined above, two example programs of solar system exploration can be described for the decade 2013-2022.

The recommended program can be conducted assuming a budget increase sufficient to allow a new start for JEO. It includes the following elements (in no particular order):

  • Discovery program funded at the current level adjusted for inflation,
  • Mars Trace Gas Orbiter conducted jointly with ESA,

TABLE ES.3 Large-Class Missions (in priority order)

Mission Recommendation Science Objectives Key Challenges Decision Rules Chapter
Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher descope
  • Perform in situ science on Mars samples to look for evidence of ancient life or prebiotic chemistry
  • Collect, document, and package samples for future collection and return to Earth
  • Keeping within Mars Science Laboratory design constraints
  • Sample handling, encapsulation, and containerization
  • Increased rover traverse speed over Mars Science Laboratory and Mars Exploration Rover
Should be flown only if it can be conducted for a cost to NASA of no more than approximately $2.5 billion (FY2015 dollars) 6
Jupiter Europa Orbiter descope Explore Europa to investigate its habitability
  • Radiation
  • Mass
  • Power
  • Instruments
Should be flown only if changes to both the mission design and the NASA planetary budget make it affordable without eliminating any other recommended missions 8
Uranus Orbiter and Probe (no solar-electric propulsion stage)
  • Investigate the interior structure, atmosphere, and composition of Uranus
  • Observe the Uranus satellite and ring systems
  • Demanding entry probe mission
  • Long life (15.4 years) for orbiter
  • High magnetic cleanliness for orbiter
  • System mass and power
Should be initiated even if both MAX-C and JEO take place 7
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
  • New Frontiers Missions 4 and 5,
  • MAX-C (descoped to $2.5 billion),
  • Jupiter Europa Orbiter (descoped), and
  • Uranus Orbiter and Probe.

The cost-constrained program can be conducted assuming the currently projected NASA planetary budget (see Appendix E). It includes the following elements (in no particular order):

  • Discovery program funded at the current level adjusted for inflation,
  • Mars Trace Gas Orbiter conducted jointly with ESA,
  • New Frontiers Mission 4 and 5,
  • MAX-C (descoped to $2.5 billion), and
  • Uranus Orbiter and Probe.

Plausible circumstances could improve the budget picture presented above. If this happened, the additions to the recommended program should be, in priority order:

1. An increase in funding for the Discovery program,

2. Another New Frontiers mission, and

3. Either the Enceladus Orbiter mission or the Venus Climate Mission.

It is also possible that the budget picture could be less favorable than the committee has assumed. If cuts to the program are necessary, the first approach should be to descope or delay flagship missions. Changes to the New Frontiers or Discovery programs should be considered only if adjustments to flagship missions cannot solve the problem. And high priority should be placed on preserving funding for research and analysis programs and for technology development.

Looking ahead to possible missions in the decade beyond 2022, it is important to make significant near-term technology investments now in the Mars Sample Return Lander, Mars Sample Return Orbiter, Titan Saturn System Mission, and Neptune System Orbiter and Probe.

NASA-FUNDED SUPPORTING RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

NASA’s planetary research and analysis programs are heavily oversubscribed. Consistent with the mission recommendations and costs presented above, the committee recommends that NASA increase the research and analysis budget for planetary science by 5 percent above the total finally approved FY2011 expenditures in the first year of the coming decade, and increase the budget by 1.5 percent above the inflation level for each successive year of the decade. Also, the future of planetary science depends on a well-conceived, robust, stable technology investment program. The committee unequivocally recommends that a substantial program of planetary exploration technology development should be reconstituted and carefully protected against all incursions that would deplete its resources. This program should be consistently funded at approximately 6 to 8 percent of the total NASA Planetary Science Division budget.

NSF-FUNDED RESEARCH AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The National Science Foundation supports nearly all areas of planetary science except space missions, which it supports indirectly through laboratory research and archived data. NSF grants and support for field activities are an important source of support for planetary science in the United States and should continue. NSF is also the largest federal funding agency for ground-based astronomy in the United States. The ground-based observational facilities supported wholly or in part by NSF are essential to planetary astronomical observations, both in support of active space missions and in studies independent of (or as follow-up to) such missions. Their continued support is critical to the advancement of planetary science.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×

One of the future NSF-funded facilities most important to planetary science is the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). The committee encourages the timely completion of LSST and stresses the importance of its contributions to planetary science once telescope operations begin. Finally, the committee recommends expansion of NSF funding for the support of planetary science in existing laboratories, and the establishment of new laboratories as needs develop.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Research Council. 2012. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13329.
×
Page 70
Next: 6 Congressional Testimony »
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The original charter of the Space Science Board was established in June 1958, 3 months before the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) opened its doors. The Space Science Board and its successor, the Space Studies Board (SSB), have provided expert external and independent scientific and programmatic advice to NASA on a continuous basis from NASA's inception until the present. The SSB has also provided such advice to other executive branch agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Defense, as well as to Congress.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2011 covers a message from the chair of the SSB, Charles F. Kennel, where he expresses that 2011 was a challenging and uncertain year for NASA and the space science research communities. This report also explains the origins of the Space Science Board, how the Space Studies Board functions today, the SSB's collaboration with other National Research Council units, assures the quality of the SSB reports, acknowledges the audience and sponsors, and expresses the necessity to enhance the outreach and improve dissemination of SSB reports.

This report will be relevant to a full range of government audiences in civilian space research - including NASA, NSF, NOAA, USGS, and the Department of Energy, as well members of the SSB, policy makers, and researchers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!