2
Activities and Membership

As usual, in the first quarter the space science news in Washington was dominated by the budget story. The news was good, as the precipitous decline in NASA’s outyear forecast disappeared in favor of a nearly flat profile for the agency as a whole. While the glass may not have been 100 percent full—as some observers noted that the gentle downward slope did not account for inflationary erosion—there was widespread relief that the projected levels would provide a stable basis for orderly planning. The physical space sciences, which had been especially threatened in the previous year’s scenario, were particular beneficiaries: key projects not funded in the earlier plan, such as the Space Interferometer Mission, Next Generation Space Telescope, and outer planet missions, were included. Previously included activities, such as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and Mars Sample Return, were advanced over the earlier plan (2001 and 2005, respectively). More immediately, researchers were delighted at a second very successful Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, where two powerful new instruments (including the first infrared instrument) and a number of other replacement subsystem components were installed and an unplanned repair to frayed thermal insulation was deftly accomplished. The several spacecraft of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program gave space physicists the most complete data set ever on a major solar storm, when a disturbance emitted from the Sun on January 6 swept by Earth and left in its wake a host of questions about malfunctioning spacecraft.

In the space laboratory sciences, the FY98 request exhibited a conspicuous dip that the 5-year runout showed restored beginning in FY99. The big issue for researchers in space life sciences and microgravity research is the decreased opportunity for space experimentation before “assembly complete” in 2002 that is implied by transference of facilities funding to space station vehicle development. Since space experiment programs cannot easily be turned off and on again over a 5-year period, there is interest in setting aside a few shuttle flights during the station assembly period for science use. The impending delay in delivery of the crucial Russian service module added another element of uncertainty to the overall station schedule, as well. In the meantime, the future of the aging Mir space station now in service was called into question by malfunctions and even a fire in its oxygen-generating equipment. On the political side, there is concern that reintroduction of design and cost uncertainty could impact the hard-fought consensus established in the Congress for the international space station program.

Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) was completing its first regularly scheduled biennial review. In the meantime, the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee recommended that major components of the troubled Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) be reappraised, and that later elements of the flight program and the balance of flight hardware and scientific research also be reassessed. Funding is included for extended operations for some very productive science missions, and the first Earth System Science Pathfinder awards were at hand.

The Space Studies Board held its 121st meeting in Washington, D.C., March 3–5. As in previous years, the emphasis of this winter meeting was on the new budget for NASA and space research. A broad overview of the new



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 2 Activities and Membership As usual, in the first quarter the space science news in Washington was dominated by the budget story. The news was good, as the precipitous decline in NASA’s outyear forecast disappeared in favor of a nearly flat profile for the agency as a whole. While the glass may not have been 100 percent full—as some observers noted that the gentle downward slope did not account for inflationary erosion—there was widespread relief that the projected levels would provide a stable basis for orderly planning. The physical space sciences, which had been especially threatened in the previous year’s scenario, were particular beneficiaries: key projects not funded in the earlier plan, such as the Space Interferometer Mission, Next Generation Space Telescope, and outer planet missions, were included. Previously included activities, such as the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and Mars Sample Return, were advanced over the earlier plan (2001 and 2005, respectively). More immediately, researchers were delighted at a second very successful Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, where two powerful new instruments (including the first infrared instrument) and a number of other replacement subsystem components were installed and an unplanned repair to frayed thermal insulation was deftly accomplished. The several spacecraft of the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics program gave space physicists the most complete data set ever on a major solar storm, when a disturbance emitted from the Sun on January 6 swept by Earth and left in its wake a host of questions about malfunctioning spacecraft. In the space laboratory sciences, the FY98 request exhibited a conspicuous dip that the 5-year runout showed restored beginning in FY99. The big issue for researchers in space life sciences and microgravity research is the decreased opportunity for space experimentation before “assembly complete” in 2002 that is implied by transference of facilities funding to space station vehicle development. Since space experiment programs cannot easily be turned off and on again over a 5-year period, there is interest in setting aside a few shuttle flights during the station assembly period for science use. The impending delay in delivery of the crucial Russian service module added another element of uncertainty to the overall station schedule, as well. In the meantime, the future of the aging Mir space station now in service was called into question by malfunctions and even a fire in its oxygen-generating equipment. On the political side, there is concern that reintroduction of design and cost uncertainty could impact the hard-fought consensus established in the Congress for the international space station program. Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) was completing its first regularly scheduled biennial review. In the meantime, the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee recommended that major components of the troubled Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) be reappraised, and that later elements of the flight program and the balance of flight hardware and scientific research also be reassessed. Funding is included for extended operations for some very productive science missions, and the first Earth System Science Pathfinder awards were at hand. The Space Studies Board held its 121st meeting in Washington, D.C., March 3–5. As in previous years, the emphasis of this winter meeting was on the new budget for NASA and space research. A broad overview of the new

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 budget was provided by Mr. David Moore, of the Congressional Budget Office, and Mr. Steven Isakowitz, of the Office of Management and Budget, followed by a congressional perspective from House staffers Ms. Shana Dale and Dr. Richard Obermann. The general theme of these talks and the ensuing discussion was the broad improvement in NASA’s outlook that was evident in the Administration’s proposal; however, the tight overall budget context was recognized, and there is never assurance that the final outcome of the congressional appropriations process will be identical to the submission. The Board conferred tentative approval on two new Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration reports, one on exploration of near-Earth asteroids, and the other on exploration of the trans-Neptune solar system. Mr. Mark Uhran, of NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA), updated the Board on space station utilization planning and introduced a set of proposed performance metrics for the space station as a science laboratory. Prof. François Becker, chair of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), briefed the Board on recent developments in European space science and led a discussion on a preliminary draft of the joint ESSC-SSB study on space science mission collaboration. On the second day of the meeting, Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress presented the outlook for his programs in the new budget and described plans for the summer update of the Office of Space Science (OSS) strategic plan. In 1996, the Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT) was disestablished and its programs dispersed among the science offices and the Office of Aeronautics. The Board was interested in the status of various OSAT components that were placed in the science offices. Mr. Edward Gabris, director of commercial programs in OLMSA, presented the objectives and current status of these activities, and Dr. Peter Ulrich and Mr. Granville Paules gave an overview of technology planning and integration in OSS and the Office of Mission to Planet Earth (OMTPE). In the afternoon, the Board heard from Mr. Robert Winokur, of NOAA, and Mr. James Mannen, of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Integrated Program Office, about operational Earth observation and planning for convergence of defense and civil systems, as well as opportunities presented by this convergence for Earth science and climate change research. On the morning of the final day of the meeting, Acting Associate Administrator for MTPE William Townsend briefed the Board on EOS status and plans, including the ongoing biennial program review. During the 2 1/2 days of the meeting the Board also heard from its committee chairs about progress on numerous discipline and crosscutting projects under way. “Steady as she goes” seemed to be the watchword in the space program during the second quarter of 1997. The FY98 budget request, characterized on February 6 by Administrator Daniel Goldin as “stable funding for the next five years,” made positive progress in the congressional approval cycle. Even though NASA’s total request was 1.5 percent below the FY97 appropriation, a dip in the space laboratory sciences proposed was compensated by small increases in space science and MTPE, so that the science total was essentially flat. On May 13–16, OSS held its scheduled strategic planning retreat in Breckenridge, Colorado; Dr. Canizares and several committee chairs attended for the first day in order to report NRC science priorities to the gathering of NASA officials and members of OSS’s advisory committees. After the departure of Board representatives, retreat participants worked to develop an updated OSS strategic plan for the next 5 years. The Board was formally asked to assess a draft of the plan and took it up at its next meeting on July 16 at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. As part of the first MTPE biennial review, the review’s external panel was briefed in early June on NASA’s plans to rephase the capabilities of EOSDIS and to retain the baseline spacecraft plan for the CHEM-1 mission. Contractor progress on the EOSDIS and the possibility of breaking the CHEM-1 instrumentation complement among smaller spacecraft had surfaced as issues due to critical recommendations developed earlier in the year by the OMTPE’s internal advisory committee. As the generally tranquil quarter drew to a close, there were dramatic events aloft. A lengthening list of problems for the Mir space station was headlined when a departing Progress resupply module, being maneuvered for training purposes, lost control and punctured the Spektr module. While none of the three crew, including American Michael Foale, were injured, an internally routed power cable had to be disconnected and the available power level on the station was reduced to half. Later, the attitude control gyrodynes failed temporarily and an oxygen generator was shut down. While repairs and work-arounds were being devised, many observers, including House Science Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner, were asking about the safety and utility of continued U.S. participation in the Mir flight program.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 On the plus side, final preparations were being made for the reflight of the MSL-1 shuttle science mission, which was terminated prematurely earlier in the year due to shuttle problems. The Discovery mission Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) successfully carried out an en-route encounter with asteroid 253 Mathilde, returning numerous fascinating pictures of this extremely dark minor planet. As the craft sped on its way toward its final destination, 433 Eros, scientists were left to puzzle out Mathilde’s apparently unusually low density and huge craters. The Mars Pathfinder mission was looking good for its July 4 arrival, a dramatic direct descent that would end with an innovative airbag-cushioned landing and deployment of the Sojourner microrover. During the same week as the Mir accident and the Mathilde flyby, the space research community was stunned and wounded by the sudden loss of NASA Solar System Exploration Director Jurgen Rahe, who died in a freak weather accident in suburban Maryland. Many space researchers recall Jurgen’s incisive intellect and adept management, but the remembrance most often shared among his friends and colleagues is of the warm and personal leadership style with which he enriched our nation’s space program. The Board did not meet during the second quarter; conflicts among the members’ schedules caused the summer meeting to be scheduled later than usual, in July, when the Board gathered at the Johnson Space Center. The third quarter began with a thump as the diminutive Mars Pathfinder bounced to rest on a rubble strewn plain, mid-latitude on Mars. After a brief delay while mission controllers gingerly unloaded the shoebox-sized rover from the open petals of the descent module, the world was fascinated by a stream of images as the rover, named Sojourner, crept around the surface imaging and sampling rocks with its alpha-proton-x-ray spectrometer. Perhaps even more remarkable than the technical and scientific feats of the mission was the inauguration of a new era of truly public exploration of space. Web users around the world accessed promptly posted images and reports on numerous mirror web sites; according to NASA, a record was set on July 8, when 47 million hits in a single day doubled a previous daily record from the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. At the end of September, having depleted its batteries and exceeded its original 7-day primary mission design by nearly 3 months, Sojourner set out on an extended walk-about on solar power alone to continue imaging the landscape. Meanwhile, overhead, Mars Global Surveyor made Mars orbit on September 11 and began making ground-breaking magnetometer measurements as it aerobraked its way into a circular orbit. The new strategy for “smaller-faster-cheaper” flight missions based on innovative technology has always acknowledged a dark side—acceptance of increased risk of failure. The unhappy reality of this tradeoff was experienced when Pathfinder’s brilliant success was offset by the disappointing failure of the Lewis Earth observation technology satellite. The payload consisted of two high-performance imaging spectrometers intended to advance both scientific and commercial applications of Earth remote sensing. Conceived as a testbed for new procurement approaches and a host of new technology subsystems, Lewis was successfully launched on August 22 by the Lockheed Martin LMLV-1 launch vehicle and entered a nominal circular orbit. During checkout 4 days later, however, the spacecraft went into a slow spin that allowed its batteries to discharge. Despite repeated attempts to contact the spacecraft, it reentered on September 28. During the last month of the quarter, controversy erupted over continued U.S. participation in the shuttle-Mir program. According to plans, astronaut Michael Foale was to be replaced on the Mir space station by another U.S. astronaut. Questions arose, however, about the wisdom of sending another American to the aging space station, which over recent months had experienced a partial depressurization and a series of fires, oxygen system failures, and main computer outages. The dispute came to a head in early September with release of a report from the NASA Inspector General stating that NASA was overlooking safety issues in its desire to complete the full shuttle-Mir series. During a House Science Committee hearing on September 18, Inspector General Roberta Gross expressed concern about the independence of the program’s formal safety review and about a perception that legitimate reservations within the agency might have been suppressed by management commitment to program goals. Although several outside witnesses at the hearing shared her concerns or felt that enough goals of the program had been achieved to warrant its discontinuation, NASA assured the committee that all safety issues had been fully considered. On the morning of September 25, after weighing supportive findings of four separate safety reviews, Administrator Daniel Goldin announced the decision to proceed, and astronaut David Wolf lifted Mir-bound into space on Atlantis later that day. Several other events during the quarter deserve note. Launched on August 1 on a Pegasus XL, the Sea-viewing Wide-Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) began delivering long-awaited ocean color data. These data will be used for environmental and ecology studies of the ocean. The mission is also significant because of its innovative

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 funding and management arrangement. SeaWiFS, a commercial enterprise flying on an Orbital Sciences Corporation spacecraft, is to provide successor data to the Coastal Zone Color Scanner of a decade ago. Investigators of the ESA-NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) announced the discovery of plasma currents beneath the surface of the Sun. Resembling jet streams on Earth, these currents may help explain the familiar, but still mysterious, phenomena of solar cycles and solar activity. Ultimately, improvements in our understanding of solar variability could lead to progress in dealing with its consequences for communications and power distribution networks on Earth. The NEAR spacecraft, like Mars Pathfinder a member of NASA’s new family of small Discovery missions, detected a strong cosmic gamma-ray burst. Designed to perform geochemical measurements at the asteroid Eros on arrival in 1999, NEAR’s instrumentation was upgraded in-flight with new software to be able to detect and report gamma-ray bursts. This capability is significant because of the extension of the triangulation baseline that NEAR’s trajectory adds to other gamma-ray detectors in low-Earth orbit; the longer baseline, which allows better determination of the direction to bursters, may help researchers identify these mysterious objects and subsequently understand where and what they are. Closer to home, the Space Studies Board sent NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin a letter on July 8 expressing concern about the prospect of a protracted hiatus in flight opportunities for the space laboratory sciences during the years of International Space Station assembly. In a letter of reply on August 7, Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, OLMSA associate administrator, related planning under way to mitigate this problem. According to this planning, NASA is contemplating flying three additional shuttle research missions in the 1998–2001 time frame. These “transition” missions would begin in October 1998 and feature a commercial pressurized carrier module offering 55 percent allocation to NASA objectives. Two additional flights would follow, with expanded opportunities for research in life and microgravity sciences. The Board met for its 122nd meeting at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) on July 16–18. Much of the meeting was focused on two items: a review of NASA’s OSS Strategic Plan and learning about facilities and programs at JSC. Inputs for review of the OSS plan were received from committees of the Board: the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, and the Committee on Solar and Space Physics, and representatives of those committees were on hand to present their views to Board members. Based on these inputs and subsequent Board discussion, an integrated review was prepared for NRC approval. (The assessment was delivered to OSS on August 27.) The Board reviewed and approved the report of the Committee on International Space Programs and the ESSC, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, approved the reappointment of Dr. Louis Lanzerotti as U.S. representative to COSPAR, provisionally approved a project on science accountability, and approved a charter for the Steering Group on Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology (later renamed the Steering Group on Astrobiology). The Board discussed trends in university research and directions for the UNEX program. In addition to status reports by committee chairs, the Board also had a teleconference with Mr. William Townsend, NASA acting associate administrator for the OMTPE, on status and plans. Dr. Ron White, associate director of the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, presented the new institute’s plans; Mr. Randy Brinkley gave an overview and update on the Space Station; Mr. Michael Suffredini discussed payload planning for the Space Station; and Mr. Douglas Cooke discussed exploration studies. Mr. George Abbey, JSC director, invited members to Mission Control in the early morning of July 17 to view the shuttle landing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Later that day, members had a tour of JSC that included talks by Dr. Neal Pellis on the bioreactor, Dr. David McKay with an update on the Mars meteorite, Mr. Doug Ming on the lunar Mars life support test project, Dr. John-David Bartoe on the International Space Station trainer; and Dr. Thomas Jones on the space shuttle trainer. The tour culminated with members examining a high-fidelity mock-up of the space shuttle. The Board’s Executive Committee met September 22–24 at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Members gave preliminary approval to a draft report by the Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs, considered a draft letter report on the Far-Infrared Space Telescope (FIRST)/Planck missions from the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), and approved projects by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration on Europa and by CAA on NASA/NSF coordination. A pilot science accountability study and a possible workshop on the future of NASA space applications and commercialization were also approved. Members discussed the Government Performance Review Act with NASA and Office of Management and Budget officials (via teleconference); university/industry/center partnerships; and a draft response to questions from the NRC’s Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications, which was conducting a review of the Board. Members also discussed

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 objectives and planning for the new Steering Group on Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology and held teleconferences with NASA officials on the subject. The Board met for its 123rd meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on November 19–21. Much of the meeting was focused on two items: NASA space technology programs, including status, management, and interface to NOAA, and a mini-forum on NASA-university relations. Mr. Greg Withee from NOAA, and Dr. Peter Ulrich and Mr. Granville Paules from OSS and OMPTE, respectively, discussed current issues and the interface between the agencies. The mini-forum included discussions with Dr. Jeffrey Rosendhal, OSS; Mr. Michael Mann, OMTPE; Mr. Al Diaz of Goddard Space Flight Center; and Dr. Edward Stone of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Board heard Dr. François Becker, outgoing ESSC chair, and Dr. J.Leonard Culhane, incoming chair, discuss European events. Dr. Louis J.Lanzerotti, U.S. vice president and representative to COSPAR, provided views on the issues surrounding COSPAR and the upcoming World Space Congress to be held in Houston, Texas, in 2002. OLMSA Associate Administrator Nicogossian provided status and plans, and Drs. Michael Meyer and David Morrison discussed the exobiology program and the new Astrobiology Institute set up at Ames Research Center. Regular Board business included status of committees and preliminary approval of reports on NPOESS and the new research strategy by the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine. Dr. Miriam Forman from the Office of Science and Technology Policy provided perspectives to Board members. A statement of task for a workshop on size limits to very small organisms was approved in principle, subject to consultation with the Board’s new Steering Group on Astrobiology, formerly the Steering Group on Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology. The past year can rightly be seen as a watershed in the conduct of space science. Initiatives coming to fruition in 1997 have set the directions for a decade or more of exploration. These changes are most obvious in NASA’s planetary exploration program. The first data were returned from the inaugural Discovery mission, NEAR, while another Discovery mission, Mars Pathfinder, made the headlines throughout the summer with its reports from the martian surface. Meanwhile, Pathfinder’s companion orbiter, Mars Global Surveyor, the first mission in the decade-long Mars Surveyor program, started to return data. As these new-style small missions opened a new chapter in the exploration of the solar system, Galileo, having completed its prime mission at Jupiter, began an extended mission dedicated to the exploration of icy Europa and what may be the last of the multibillion-dollar, long-term missions—Cassini—was launched on its 7-year journey to Saturn. Plans were well under way for a refocusing of technology support for science, with the first of the New Millennium missions, Deep Space-One, scheduled to be launched in 1998, and others scheduled at the rate of one per year. The emphasis on technology for science was reflected also in reorganization, as NASA’s Office of Space Access and Technology was merged with OSS. At the same time, Congress moved to involve a larger community in advancing technology, directing that OSS combine its Advanced Technology Development (ATD) work into a single budget line and open 75 percent of that budget line to competitively selected projects. The FY98 R&D budget approved for NASA by the Congress was good news, but there were questions about what lay beyond. While NASA’s R&D budget increased to $9.8 billion, a $493 million (5.3 percent) increase over FY97, within a total NASA budget of $13.6 billion, $203 million of that increase will cover developmental overruns on the Space Station. Moreover, Dr. Wesley Huntress cautioned the space science community in an open letter to the American Astronomical Society that the balanced budget agreement reached during the past year means that “the budget pressures will not ease, and the new programs for Space Science in our Strategic Plan will continue to be a fiscal challenge in the future.” Compounding this are delays in at least the first launch element for the International Space Station, increasing costs which Congress would offset through cuts that will affect NASA’s R&D account. The size of the offsets at this point remains uncertain. The experiences over the past year of major international partners in space science—Japan and Europe—mirrored those of the United States: a variety of difficulties, from budgetary to operational, bookended by a determination to continue a vigorous effort in space. Thus European countries, while almost uniformly having to cope with smaller budgets and the imperative to gain efficiencies, also maintained a strong program; notable is the effort to recover from the loss of the ESA Cluster mission on the inaugural flight of the Ariane V launcher in 1996. As one sign of resourcefulness under budget pressures, the relaunch will make use of two Russian Soyuz rockets, saving some 35 percent of launch costs. Japanese space efforts also faced severe difficulties. The Test Satellite-7 mission was compromised by problems with the attitude control system; the Advanced Earth Observing System failed in June; and the budget of

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) was cut. cut the same time, reflecting again the leitmotif of continuance under pressure, NASDA and the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) reached an accord with NASA on cooperative work on the Origins program. In addition, Japan’s role in the International Space Station was solidified, with the Japanese Experiment Module on budget and schedule. NASA and NASDA successfully launched the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) to study tropical rainfall and atmospheric circulation and their effects on global weather and climate. Finally, as Space News aptly commented in a year-end roundup, “As government agencies throughout the world coped with shrinking budgets in 1997, commercial markets were booming. Companies around the world announced ambitious new commercial satellite ventures and launches reached record numbers.” There is of course much more to write about: the perils of Mir; the travails of the Earth Observing System; or the status of future launch systems, such as the X-33. However, the capsules offered above on the past year at the very least suggest some questions on the future shape of the space program: Is Cassini truly the last of the “giant” missions? Or will the inherent limits of smaller missions prove incongruent with some scientific goals? If so, which will bend—the emphasis on smaller missions or the drive to tackle ambitious scientific goals? What will emerge from the new directions in strengthening technology programs in support of space science? What will be the role of industry? Of academia? Of other agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD)? Of other spacefaring countries? How will the possible resurgence of budget pressures affect the federal effort in space science? What will be the impact as the construction of the International Space Station accelerates? What new arrangements will emerge among countries, bound by their various problems and by their common determination to continue vigorous programs? And, finally, what will be the influence on space science and technology of a reinvigorated commercial effort in space? There will be much to do, adding over time to what is already a very demanding portfolio for the Board, much of which is described in detail below. Membership of the Space Studies Board Claude R.Canizares,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Mark Abbot, Oregon State University James P.Bagian,* Environmental Protection Agency Daniel N.Baker, University of Colorado Lawrence Bogorad,§ Harvard University Donald E.Brownlee, University of Washington John J.Donegan,* John Donegan Associates, Inc. Gerard W.Elverum, Jr., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) Anthony W.England, University of Michigan Marilyn L.Fogel, Carnegie Institution of Washington Martin E.Glicksman,* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives Andrew H.Knoll, Harvard University Janet G.Luhmann,* University of California at Berkeley Roberta Balstad Miller,§ Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Kenneth H.Nealson, University of Wisconsin Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center Simon Ostrach,§ Case Western Reserve University Morton B.Panish, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired) Carlé M.Pieters,§ Brown University Marcia J.Rieke,* University of Arizona Pedro L.Rustan, Jr., U.S. Air Force (retired)

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 John A.Simpson, University of Chicago George L.Siscoe, Boston University Edward M.Stolper, California Institute of Technology Raymond Viskanta, Purdue University Robert E.Williams, Space Telescope Science Institute Louis J.Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio, U.S. representative and vice president of COSPAR) Michael C.Kelley, Cornell University (ex officio, chair of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research) Jack D.Warner, The Boeing Company (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) François Becker, École Nationale Supérieure de Physique (liaison from the European Space Science Committee) Marc S.Allen, Director Norman Metzger, Interim Director Betty C.Guyot, Administrative Officer Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant Amber Whipkey, Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997 §   member of the Executive Committee JOINT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY The Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science, a steering group composed of members of the NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and the Space Studies Board, issued its report, Reducing the Cost of Space Science Research Missions. JCT Membership* John J.Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc. (SSB co-chair) Barbara C.Corn, B.C. Consulting, Inc. (ASEB co-chair) James P.Bagian, Environmental Protection Agency Daniel N.Baker, University of Colorado B.John Garrick, PLG, Inc. Wiley J.Larson, U.S. Air Force Academy and International Space University Michael Malin, Malin Space Science Systems George Sebestyen, CTA Space Systems Allison Sandlin, Study Director Victoria P.Friedensen, Senior Program Assistant *   all terms ended during 1997 COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) met in Washington, D.C., April 24–25. The National Science Foundation (NSF) budget for astronomy and astrophysics were presented by Dr. Hugh Van Horn, director of NSF’s astronomy division. NASA astronomy and astrophysics activities were discussed by Dr. Carl Pilcher, OSS assistant associate administrator for strategic and international planning, and Dr. Alan Bunner, director of the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Program. The committee received an update on the Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research from Prof. Robert Rosner, the CAA liaison member on that task group. The CAA named liaison members to participate in a workshop on the exploration of substellar-mass objects, a joint project with the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX). The CAA was briefed on the progress on the Millimeter Array and the rest of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) program by NRAO Director Paul Vanden Bout. The committee developed additional input for the Board’s Task Group on Research and Analysis study.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 The committee met on June 25 to review the draft OSS strategic plan. Dr. Pilcher discussed the outcome of the Breckenridge workshop and presented a draft of the key points that will appear in the plan. The CAA considered the reviews of the draft letter on the merging of ESA’s Far-Infrared Space Telescope (FIRST) and Planck missions. Given a European Space Agency tiger team report advising against merging the missions, and the CAA tabled the letter to await developments. NSF Astronomy Division Deputy Director Morris Aizenman alerted the committee to the House Science Committee Report 105–63 (accompanying H.R. 1273), the NSF 1997 Authorization Act, 4/21/97, p. 27, on Support for Astronomy and Astrophysical Research: “The Committee is concerned over the plans for long-term support for basic research in astronomy and astrophysics. Although the first priority recommended by the ‘Bahcall Report’ on the future of astronomy addressed core funding for basic research grants and for operation and maintenance of existing facilities, these have generally lagged in agency planning. “In addition, the Committee is concerned over the extent to which the major funding agencies, NSF and NASA, have coordinated their respective plans for basic research. NASA has taken on an increasing share of basic research responsibility in astronomy because of the need to complement major facility class missions such as the Space Telescope, the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility and the Space Infrared Telescope. However, this basic research support is associated with the mission lifetimes. NSF must address more fully the need to provide ongoing stable and balanced support for basic research. The Committee urges NSF and NASA to conduct a joint review of the division of responsibilities and funding for core support in astronomy and astrophysics and to develop a plan which addresses the long-term needs of the science community in this area.” Dr. Aizenman told the CAA that the NSF intends to work with NASA, the House Science Committee staff, the Board on Physics and Astronomy and SSB to define a suitable charge for a study. Dr. Aizenman said that the report would be needed around the end of the fiscal year in order to fit in the congressional cycle. The CAA met September 8–9 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The main agenda item was the request by the House Science Committee (HSC) for a review of federal funding for astronomical research. Deputy HSC Staff Director Bill Smith described the aims of the request. Also making presentations to the CAA were Drs. Van Horn and Aizenman and, from NASA via videoconference, Dr. Bunner and Deputy Director Harley Thronson (Astronomical Search for Origins and Planetary Systems Program), and OSS Program Manager Guenter Riegler. Dr. Anthony Readhead, liaison member from the Board on Physics and Astronomy, reported on the plans for the next astronomy and astrophysics survey. The CAA heard about further developments concerning the European Space Agency’s FIRST and Planck cosmic background radiation mission. Results from a recent study on graduate education in astronomy conducted by the American Astronomical Society were presented by Drs. Steven Strom and Suzan Edwards. The CAA also heard a presentation from the frontier of high-energy astronomy by Nobel laureate James Cronin, who is leading the Pierre Auger Project, an international collaboration to study extremely energetic cosmic rays. The final meeting of the year was held December 8–9 in Washington, D.C. The agenda included presentations from Dr. Ed Weiler, director of NASA’s Office of Space Science Origins Program, and Dr. Paul Hertz, deputy director of the Structure and Evolution of the Universe Program, as well as Drs. Van Horn and Aizenman. The CAA was joined by Mr. Ronald Konkel, a data analysis consultant, for an intensive discussion of the data-gathering activity needed for its study on the federal funding for astronomical research. The CAA prepared a response to NRC review of its revised letter on the FIRST/Planck missions and heard a brief recounting of the November 1 planning meeting for the upcoming astronomy and astrophysics survey. Senior Program Officer Robert Riemer described the new operational requirements for NRC committees under the 1997 amendments to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The NSF report from the Special Emphasis Panel on Theoretical Physics was summarized by CAA member Michael Turner. The status of the joint COMPLEX-CAA Workshop on Substellar Mass Objects was also recounted by Dr. Turner. The work of the Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research (chaired by Prof. Eugene Parker) was described by CAA member Robert Rosner. CAA Membership Marc Davis,** University of California at Berkeley (co-chair) John P.Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (co-chair) Thomas A.Prince, California Institute of Technology (co-chair)

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Marcia J.Rieke,* University of Arizona (co-chair) Eric E.Becklin, University of California at Los Angeles Leo Blitz,* University of Maryland Todd A.Boroson, National Optical Astronomy Observatory Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia Arthur F.Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University Neal J.Evans, University of Texas at Austin Wendy L.Freedman, Carnegie Observatories Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Jacqueline N.Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Steven M.Kahn,* Columbia University Kenneth I.Kellermann,* National Radio Astronomy Observatory Stanton J.Peale, University of California at Santa Barbara Deane Peterson, State University of New York Robert Rosner, University of Chicago David N.Spergel, Princeton University Observatory Michael S.Turner, University of Chicago Robert L.Riemer, Study Director Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997 **   term as co-chair ended during 1997; remained on committee as member COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES A special meeting of the Committee on Earth Studies (CES) took place on January 15–17 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to accelerate completion of two ongoing studies, the Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs, and Small Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radars (SARs). The latter is the second phase of a two-part study of spaceborne SAR. Nearly all of the meeting was devoted to writing and discussion. In addition, Prof. Jean-Bernard Minster, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and Prof. Howard Zebker, from Stanford University, briefed the committee on the Earth Change and Hazard Observatory (ECHO) proposal for a relatively inexpensive spaceborne SAR that would be focused on tectonic and volcanic hazard monitoring and temporal change monitoring for ground subsidence, landslides, and flooding. Previously, the committee had been briefed by Dr. Diane Evans, from Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Dr. Miriam Baltuck, from NASA Headquarters, on the LightSAR proposal, which would have many of the capabilities of ECHO in addition to other modes of operation that might attract commercial partners. The Space Studies Board sponsored an international meeting of the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) Strategic Implementation Team on February 6–7 at the Beckman Center in Irvine. The Strategic Implementation Team was established at the November 1996 CEOS Plenary to refine the Integrated Global Observing Strategy (IGOS) concept, concentrating on the space component. The team seeks to harmonize long-term CEOS-member plans with IGOS goals, based on consolidated user requirements. U.S. participants at the meeting included Mr. William Townsend, acting associate administrator of NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth (OMTPE), and Mr. Robert Winokur, director of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. In addition, Prof. Mark Abbott, chair of the Board’s Committee on Earth Studies, participated. The NRC has been asked by the U.S. Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Task Force on Observations and Data Management to review the IGOS concept, especially as it might relate to a U.S. contribution to such a strategy. The task force is chaired by Mr. Townsend and vice-chaired by Mr. Winokur. The CES met May 28–30 in Washington, D.C., and received briefings from NASA Headquarters on the MTPE and the Earth Observing System (EOS) program and from NOAA on polar weather satellite programs and the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Integrated Program Office. Presentations were also made by Drs. John McElroy, former CES chair; Jerry Mahlman, recent chair of NASA’s Earth Science Advisory Committee; Frank Eden, former EOS scientist at GE AstroSpace; and Keith Raney of the Johns

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. The committee also heard about development of advanced technology for the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program and from scientists involved in instrument development. There was discussion about a prospective study that would examine issues related to the transition of NASA research instruments to operational use by NOAA. The study would have a specific focus on potential integration of the planned Department of Commerce (NOAA)-Department of Defense (Air Force) operational weather satellite system, NPOESS, with the second series of EOS spacecraft. In addition, the study would examine technology development in the NOAA GOES series and the potential for increased integration of GOES with EOS. The committee also worked on completion of its small satellite report and made revisions to its phase 2 report on spaceborne synthetic aperture radar. A subpanel of CES, including Chair Mark Abbott and members Aram Mika and Bruce Marcus, met in Sunnyvale, California, on July 2–3 to continue work on the report on use of small satellites in Earth observations. The report will include a primer on the physics that governs trades between such key sensor characteristics as spectral, spatial, and radiometric resolution, as well as sensor ground coverage. The full committee held a workshop on September 24–26 in Irvine, California, on climate data issues related to the new study of the potential integration of operational and research satellites requested by NOAA and NASA. This study will explore technical and organizational challenges in developing instruments and spacecraft that would service multiple federal agencies and the data needs of the civil, scientific, and military user communities. The study will also analyze the potential of the planned NOAA-DOD NPOESS to be integrated with the NASA EOS, a planned constellation of Earth remote sensing satellites that are the centerpiece of NASA’s MTPE. Finally, the study will also examine whether there are opportunities to insert advanced technologies from NASA into next-generation NOAA geostationary satellites. Among the committee’s most important tasks will be to determine if there are opportunities to leverage comparatively small investments and/or changes in program direction that would enhance the science return of NPOESS and GOES. At the workshop, the committee heard presentations from Drs. Thomas Smith, NOAA Climate Prediction Center; Lee-Lueng Fu, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL); Mark Schoeberl, NASA; Joe Waters, JPL; John R.Christy, University of Alabama; and Richard Willson, Columbia University, on data-gathering issues and processing, and from Dr. David Goodrich, associate director of the NRC Board on Sustainable Development, on the progress of the Global Change Research Committee. The committee began writing an interim report at the end of the workshop, outlining some of the areas that need to be addressed in the process of integrating the NPOESS and EOS programs. Also at the workshop, a few members completed the revision of the synthetic aperture radar report in response to reviewers’ comments. The CES met December 16–18 in Washington, D.C., to devote time to a continuation of work begun at the September meeting on the potential integration of NPOESS with follow-ons in NASA’s EOS series of satellites. The meeting began with an update on NPOESS activities from Capt. David Yeager of the NOAA Integrated Program Office, and Col. Michael Haas from DOD. The committee also heard from Mr. Michael Luther of NASA’s Office of Earth Sciences (formerly Office of Mission to Planet Earth) on the status of EOS. Over the next 2 days, the committee had a series of technical briefings from Mr. Bruce Wielicki, NASA Langley Research Center; Dr. William Rossow, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Dr. Compton Tucker, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC); Dr. Paul Chang, NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; Prof. Michael Freilich, Oregon State University; Dr. Richard Rood, NASA GSFC; and Dr. Dennis Chesters, NASA. In response to comments from the Board, CES also revised its interim letter report to NOAA and NASA on near-term issues related to the integration of NPOESS and EOS. The letter report will be submitted for external review in spring 1998. CES Membership Mark Abbott, Oregon State University (chair) Otis B.Brown, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science Elaine R.Hansen,* University of Colorado at Boulder Daniel J.Jacob, Harvard University Christian J.Johannsen, Purdue University Christopher O.Justice, University of Virginia Victor V.Klemas, University of Delaware

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Bruce D.Marcus, TRW M.Patrick McCormick, Hampton University Aram M.Mika, Hughes Aircraft Company Richard K.Moore, University of Kansas Peter M.P.Norris,* Santa Barbara Research Center Dallas L.Peck, U.S. Geological Survey (retired) Walter Scott, EarthWatch Kathryn D.Sullivan, Columbus, Ohio’s Center of Science & Industry Fawwaz T.Ulaby, University of Michigan Susan L.Ustin, University of California at Davis Ian M.Whillans,* Ohio State University Thomas T.Wilheit, Jr., Texas A&M University Edward F.Zalewski, University of Arizona Ina B.Alterman, Study Director Arthur Charo, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997 COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) did not meet during 1997, but it released Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space, as well as an omnibus volume, The Human Exploration of Space, which includes all three of CHEX’s reports: Scientific Prerequisites for the Human Exploration of Space, Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, and Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space. CHEX Membership* Noel W.Hinners, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (chair) William J.Merrell, Jr., H. John Heinz III Center Robert H.Moser, Nutrasweet (retired) John E.Naugle, NASA (retired) Marcia Smith, Congressional Research Service Marc S.Allen, Study Director *   all terms ended during 1997 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAMS During the first quarter, the name of the Committee on International Space Programs (CISP), formerly the Committee on International Programs, was changed to distinguish the committee from other international committees and activities within the NRC complex. A small editing team from CISP met with a like group from the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) at the Observatoire de Paris on January 23–25 for a working session on the joint study on U.S.-European collaboration in space science. Members synthesized and analyzed lessons learned and drafted the findings and recommendations for the report. In addition, members edited sections of the report and discussed the approach for the executive summary. Dr. Claudine Laurent, of the Observatoire de Paris Office of External Relations, treated the participants to a tour of the historic buildings, exhibits, and displays at the Observatoire de Paris. One of the highlights included a viewing of Cassini’s original observation notes on and drawings of Earth’s moon, Jupiter, and Saturn. Other international activities: the chair of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Publications Committee, Dr. Louis J.Lanzerotti, the editor-in-chief of COSPAR’s Advances in Space Research, Dr. Margaret

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 the Planetary Instrument Definition and Development Program, and Dr. Michael Meyer, NASA Code SR, described the Astrobiology Institute to be established at NASA’s Ames Research Center. There was a discussion of issues relating to Europa in preparation for the possible initiation of a new study to devise a science strategy for the exploration of this object in the post-Galileo era. Presentations on Europa’s geology, exobiology, and interior structure were given by Chair Ronald Greeley, Dr. Christopher McKay, NASA Ames Research Center, and member Gerald Schubert, respectively. Subsequent discussions of the three presentations were led by Dr. Jakowsky. The second day of the meeting was devoted to discussion of and drafting material for the mobility report (now entitled A Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments). Time was devoted, however, to a presentation by committee member Harry McSween on the results from Mars Pathfinder’s alpha-proton-x-ray spectrometer. In addition, Drs. Richard Terrile and Frank Carsey, JPL, reported on the latest developments in planning for a Europa orbiter mission and for future studies of Antarctica’s Lake Vostok, a terrestrial Europa analog. The final day of the meeting included a report by Dr. Vernon Pankonin, NSF, about NSF’s planetary astronomy program and additional work on reports in progress. COMPLEX Membership Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University (chair) Frances Bagenal, University of Colorado at Boulder Jeffrey R.Barnes, Oregon State University Richard P.Binzel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Wendy Calvin, U.S. Geological Survey Russell Doolittle, University of California at San Diego Heidi Hammel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Larry Haskin, Washington University Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado George McGill, University of Massachusetts Harry McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee Ted Roush,* San Francisco State University John Rummel,* Marine Biological Laboratory Gerald Schubert, University of California at Los Angeles Everett Shock, Washington University Eugene Shoemaker,** U.S. Geological Survey David H.Smith, Study Director Jacqueline D.Allen, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997 **   COMPLEX dedicated its report The Exploration of Near-Earth Objects to the memory of Dr. Shoemaker (1928–1997), who was instrumental in formulating the report. COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met February 15–17 in Washington, D.C., to hear panel presentations on a range of topics and to review and plan further development of its strategy report for space life sciences. The meeting began with a status presentation by NASA’s Deputy Director of Life Sciences Frank Sulzman. The committee was brought up to date on the biomedical institute planning as well as on issues involving the space station, where the flight hiatus continues to be a major concern. The impact of CSBM’s recently released report, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies, was described and the committee learned that the NASA microgravity program has agreed to sponsor research on radiation shielding materials. In executive session, reports on the recent international bone and muscle workshops were distributed and discussed, with agreement reached on several issues to be cited in the strategy report. The report drafts of the plant and cell biology sections were reviewed and discussed and the content of the introduction

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 was outlined. Assignments and schedules were set for most of the remaining sections of the strategy report. Plans for both the behavioral task group and the upcoming physiology workshop were also reviewed and updated. In the second half of the meeting, the committee had the opportunity to hear some extremely interesting panel presentations from invited speakers. In particular, the presentations on research on the origins of life and on behavioral issues in confined and isolated environments generated a great deal of discussion. The committee also heard from a panel on telescience and telemedicine, provided input to representatives of the Board’s Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs, and heard a presentation from committee member James Lackner on human factors. The meeting closed in executive session with a short review of planned activities. CSBM met September 6–8 in Washington, D.C., to review and revise the draft of its strategy report. The committee had received a copy of the draft report before the meeting, which contained all but three of the planned chapters and included a chapter recently revised by the Panel on Human Behavior (PHB). The meeting began with a discussion of arrangements with two members of the writing group for the committee’s recent physiology workshop to take over the writing of the remaining chapters, followed by a discussion of the new report development schedule, which the committee agreed to meet. The rest of the first day and the morning of the second day were devoted to a section-by-section review and discussion of the report, with the introduction, cell biology, and behavioral chapters receiving the most attention. The committee broke into small writing groups and worked on revisions for the remainder of the meeting, with a brief reconvening on the morning of the third day to receive a new report draft and a status update. The newly revised report was compiled and sent out again to the committee following the meeting. CSBM met December 8–10 in Washington, D.C., to consider the comments received from the Board review of the committee’s strategy report and to revise the report accordingly. The issues raised by the Board on which the committee spent the most time were the need for cross-discipline priorities and greater prioritization of the recommendations within disciplines. During the first 2 days the committee reviewed and revised the recommendations within each chapter, either dividing them into high- and low-priority areas or reducing their number. The committee also reviewed and suggested changes for the text of each chapter, with special concentration on those chapters that had not been discussed previously by the full committee. The integration of related areas in different chapters was a particular focus of discussion. After completion of the chapter reviews on the third day, the committee worked on the arrangement of overall priorities within a new cross-discipline chapter and discussed the NASA presentations requested for the next meeting. The meeting adjourned with agreement on a schedule for completing the next two rounds of revisions before the January meeting. CSBM Membership Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center (chair) Norma M.Allewell, University of Minnesota Robert E.Cleland, University of Washington Mary F.Dallman,* University of California at San Francisco Francis (Drew) Gaffney, Vanderbilt University Medical Center James R.Lackner, Brandeis University Anthony P.Mahowald, University of Chicago Elliot Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology Lawrence A.Palinkas, University of California at San Diego Kenna D.Peusner, George Washington University Medical Center Steven E.Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center Danny A.Riley, Medical College of Wisconsin Gideon A.Rodan, Merck Research Laboratories Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory Gerald Sonnenfeld, Carolinas Medical Center T.Peter Stein, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Sandra J.Graham, Study Director Catherine A.Gruber, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 COMMITTEE ON SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) met February 26–28 in Washington, D.C. Much of the meeting was devoted to briefings from various government agencies relating to a new report under preparation entitled Readiness for the Upcoming Solar Maximum. This report, requested by NASA Science Director for the Sun-Earth Connection theme George Withbroe, will assess the nation’s readiness, from both science and technology impact perspectives, for the period of solar maximum that is expected from approximately 1999 to 2002. Where appropriate, it will also provide recommendations for changes and new directions in agency plans. Speakers at the meeting included Dr. Mario Acuna, from the Goddard Space Flight Center, who described the plans for the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program after 1998, and Drs. Arthur Poland and Joseph Gurman, who discussed the science returns to date from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) and its potential contribution to observing solar maximum. Dr. Richard Behnke, from the National Science Foundation’s atmospheric science division, gave an update on the status of the National Space Weather Program (NSWP). Reports on several Department of Defense activities were presented by Drs. George Doschek, of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL); Robert McCoy, of the Office of Naval Research (ONR); Charles Holland, of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research; and Ed Weber, of the Air Force Phillips Laboratory. Committee member Michelle Thomsen represented the Department of Energy. NOAA plans were reviewed by Dr. Ernest Hildner, director of the NOAA Space Environment Center. In addition, Dr. Withbroe discussed future directions for the Sun-Earth Connection theme; he also led a discussion of the space weather event in January that captured media attention. The committee learned that solar variability and climate may be the focus of an upcoming workshop and research announcement that includes Mission to Planet Earth program involvement. Finally, the committee heard from representatives from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress on the outlook for space science funding. For the most part, the briefings gave a picture of a wide range of involvement in solar and space physics and space weather applications. However, other than a new commitment on the part of NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection theme to exploit the ISTP and supporting spacecraft “great observatory” through the solar maximum years, there do not appear to be any special preparations for this upcoming event. In particular, NOAA, which through the Space Environment Center (SEC) provides most space environment services, must alter its operations to take advantage of NSWP research developments but does not have the necessary added resources to do so. While the Navy presentations from NRL (a home of several SOHO investigations) indicated that the space weather area is included in their programs and plans, the ONR directions did not appear specifically tailored to solar maximum. The CSSP and its federated partner, the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research (CSTR), met in Irvine, California, June 4–6. The principal agenda items were preparation of the committees’ response to the Office of Space Science (OSS) strategic plan draft and revision of the solar maximum report. Videoconferences were held with representatives of NASA Headquarters’ OSS and NSF’s Atmospheric Sciences Division. The committee also received a briefing on the Air Force-U.C. San Diego Solar Mass Ejection Imager (SMEI). The committees’ report on SMEX-MIDEX is in NRC review. The report on readiness for the solar maximum was sent to NRC review in mid-July. Following new chair and committee appointments, a date for the fall meeting will be set. CSSP and CSTR met October 21–22 in Washington, D.C. Both committees have new chairs: Dr. George Siscoe succeeded Dr. Janet Luhmann as head of CSSP and Dr. Michael Kelley succeeded Dr. Marvin Geller as head of CSTR. The meeting opened with briefings on space physics issues in the Congress from three congressional staffers: Dr. Richard Obermann, House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; Mr. David Moore, Congressional Budget Office; and Dr. Peter Rooney, an American Institute of Physics Congressional Science Fellow who is working in the Office of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.). The committees also heard agency perspectives on a variety of space physics topics, including the implementation plan for the NSWP, outlook for the Polar Cap Observatory, readiness for the upcoming solar maximum (and the likelihood of ISTP program extension missions), and NASA’s roadmap for space physics. These and other issues were addressed by Dr. Richard Behnke, NSF Division of Atmospheric Sciences; Dr. Robert McCoy, ONR; Maj. Paul Bellaire, Air Force Office of Scientific Research; and Dr. George Withbroe. In addition to the congressional and agency briefings, the committees heard concerns from Dr. Joe Allen, National Geophysical Data Center, on intellectual property rights. Allen is concerned that treaties being drafted between nations to prevent piracy of computer-based material (software, cassettes, compact disks) might lead to barring free access to databases that are now free (e.g., sunspot numbers).

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 The discussion on the committees’ future actions considered carry-over projects and new projects. Carry-over projects include the CSSP’s involvement with the SSB’s Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research and CSTR’s involvement with a Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate conference that will examine solar variability and sun-climate connections. The meeting ended with discussions of potential new studies and the agenda for the next meeting. CSSP Membership Janet G.Luhmann,* University of California at Berkeley (chair) George L.Siscoe, Boston University (chair) Spiro K.Antiochos,* Naval Research Laboratory Charles W.Carlson, University of California at Berkeley Robert L.Carovillano, Boston College Tamas I.Gombosi, University of Michigan Raymond A.Greenwald, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Judith T.Karpen, Naval Research Laboratory Robert P.Lin,* University of California at Berkeley Glenn M.Mason, University of Maryland Margaret A.Shea, Air Force Phillips Laboratory Harlan E.Spence,* Boston University Keith T.Strong, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Center Michelle F.Thomsen,* Los Alamos National Laboratory Richard A.Wolf, Rice University Arthur Charo, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   term ended during 1997 TASK GROUP ON GROUND-BASED SOLAR RESEARCH The Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research (TGGSR) held its first meeting on April 28–30 in Washington, D.C. The meeting included an extensive series of background briefings from the study’s sponsoring agencies and from researchers in the solar physics community. Agency perspectives were provided by NSF’s Division of Astronomical Sciences and NASA’s Solar Physics Section. The committee also heard from representatives of the High Altitude Observatory (HAO); the National Solar Observatory (NSO); the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO); the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL); and the Air Force programs at Sacramento Peak. Scientific opportunities afforded in solar infrared astronomy at the NSO Kitt Peak facility and plans by the New Jersey Institute of Technology to operate the California Institute of Technology’s Big Bear facility were heard. Recent developments in helioseismology were discussed and a review of radio solar astronomy was presented. Members of the task group met informally at the American Astronomical Society (AAS) Solar Physics Division meeting at the end of June in Bozeman, Montana. The second meeting of the TGGSR was held July 28–30 in Washington, D.C. Guests included Dr. Hugh Van Horn, director of NSF’s Division of Astronomical Sciences; Dr. Jacques Beckers, director of NSO; and Dr. Sidney Wolff, director of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories. Presentations by Drs. Beckers, Keller, and Zirker from NSO to the task group focused on scientific opportunities of a large solar optical/infrared telescope and associated adaptive optics programs to enable high-resolution solar observations. The task group also heard from operational users of solar data from Dr. Ernest Hildner, director, NOAA/SEC; Maj. Michael Christie, Air Force Space Command; and Dr. Lawrence Weeks, deputy director of the Defense Meteorological Program Office, and opportunities in radio solar astronomy from Dr. Stephen White, University of Maryland; Dr. Timothy Bastian, NRAO; and Dr. Dale Gary, CalTech/New Jersey Institute of Technology. The task group had extensive discussions about the study with Dr. Stephen Kahler, chair of the AAS Solar Physics Division; Prof. Edward Rhodes, University of Southern California; and Dr. Miriam Forman, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Several of the presentations to the task group stressed the importance of outreach to the solar physics community. Noteworthy among the task group’s responses was the addition of a public discussion “bulletin board” on the task group’s site on the World Wide Web, which the task group hopes will facilitate communication among members of the solar physics community and the task group. The address of the site is <http://www.nas.edu/ssb/tggsrl.html>. The task group’s third meeting was held September 22–24 on the Stanford University campus in Palo Alto, California. The committee scheduled only one presentation, from Prof. Harold Zirin of the California Institute of Technology, to allow time for executive session discussions of study findings. Although still preliminary, the task group reached closure on a number of issues and began drafting the final report. Following the September meeting of the TGGSR, a first draft of the report was generated. The draft was subsequently circulated to members for comment and revision. No further meetings are planned. The task group expects to submit a final version of the report for formal review in late spring of 1998. TGGSR Membership Eugene N.Parker, University of Chicago (chair) Sallie L.Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Karen L.Harvey, Solar Physics Research Corporation Gordon J.Hurford, California Institute of Technology Judith L.Lean, Naval Research Laboratory Richard A.McCray, University of Colorado at Boulder Ronald L.Moore, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Robert Rosner, University of Chicago Philip H.Scherrer, Stanford University Carolus J.Schrijver, Stanford-Lockheed Institute for Space Research Peter A.Sturrock, Stanford University Alan M.Title, Lockheed-Martin Advanced Technology Center Arthur Charo, Study Director Carmela J.Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant TASK GROUP ON ISSUES IN SAMPLE RETURN The final report of the Task Group on Issues in Sample Return, entitled Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, was released in March. The report analyzes the likelihood of hazards arising from a Mars sample return, and, while determining this risk to be small, offers recommendations for safe handling of returned material. TGISR Membership* Kenneth H.Nealson, University of Wisconsin (chair) Michael H.Carr, U.S. Geological Survey Benton C.Clark, Lockheed Martin Astronautics Russell F.Doolittle, University of California at San Diego Bruce M.Jakosky, University of Colorado Edward L.Korwek, Partner, Law Offices of Hogan & Hartson Norman R.Pace, University of California at Berkeley Jeanne S.Poindexter, Barnard College and Columbia University Margaret S.Race, SETI Institute Anna-Louise Reysenbach, Rutgers University J.William Schopf, University of California at Los Angeles Todd O.Stevens, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Peter W.Rooney, Study Director Barbara L.Jones, Administrative Associate *   all terms ended during 1997

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 TASK GROUP ON RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS The Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs (TGRAP) did not meeting during the first quarter. Instead, several teleconferences were held to discuss preliminary text for the task group’s report. During the second quarter, the TGRAP met in Washington, D.C., on March 20–21. The group reviewed inputs to the study, including contributions received from the Board’s discipline committees, draft material from TGRAP members, and data and statistics collected by Mr. Ronald Konkel, consultant to the project. The task group synthesized the materials and identified salient points and analyses to include in the report. The second day of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of preliminary findings and recommendations for the study. In addition, members were given time during both meeting days to draft portions of the report. The session concluded with a revised outline, preliminary data analyses, a list of preliminary findings and recommendations, additional draft inputs, and post-meeting writing assignments. TGRAP also held a discussion and writing meeting on April 14–15 in Washington, D.C., where it heard presentations from Mr. Konkel on the data and statistics for the report, conducted drafting sessions, and produced preliminary findings and recommendations. In addition, the task group continued to meet with Board discipline committees to seek input to the report. Beginning in April, task group representatives started another round of visits to the discipline committee meetings to seek final comments and feedback on the draft. The task group also used teleconferences between meetings to continue work on the report. The task group met on June 24–25 in Irvine, California, to discuss feedback on the draft report from the discipline committees and to complete deliberations on the findings and recommendations for the study. The draft report, Research and Data Analysis Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, went to internal review during the last quarter and has an anticipated mid-1998 publication date. TGRAP Membership Anthony W.England, University of Michigan (chair) James G.Anderson, Harvard University Magnus Höök, Texas A&M University Juri Matisoo, IBM Research (retired) Roberta Balstad Miller, Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network Douglas D.Osheroff, Stanford University Christopher T.Russell, University of California at Los Angeles Steven W.Squyres, Cornell University Paul G.Steffes, Georgia Institute of Technology June M.Thormodsgard, U.S. Geological Survey Eugene H.Trinh, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Arthur B.C.Walker, Jr., Stanford University Patrick J.Webber, Michigan State University Pamela L.Whitney, Study Director Anne K.Simmons, Senior Program Assistant Ronald M.Konkel, Consultant TASK GROUP ON SPACE ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The final report of the Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, was approved by the NRC at the end of March. Task Group Chair Patrick Thaddeus briefed NASA officials in April, and the public release of the final report occurred on April 18. Steering Group Membership* Patrick Thaddeus, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (chair) Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Michael Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Richard G.Kron, University of Chicago Yerkes Observatory Christopher F.McKee, University of California at Berkeley Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona J.Craig Wheeler, University of Texas at Austin Planets, Star Formation, and the Interstellar Medium Panel Membership* Christopher F.McKee, University of California at Berkeley (panel chair) Charles A.Beichman, California Institute of Technology Leo Blitz, University of Maryland John E.Carlstrom, University of Chicago Suzan Edwards, Smith College David J.Hollenbach, NASA Ames Research Center Charles A.Lada, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Douglas N.C.Lin, University of California at Santa Cruz Daniel McCammon, University of Wisconsin Richard A.McCray, University of Colorado Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics Blair D.Savage, University of Wisconsin J.Michael Shull, University of Colorado Stars and Stellar Evolution Panel Membership* J.Craig Wheeler, University of Texas at Austin (panel chair) Andrea K.Dupree, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics David J.Helfand, Columbia University Steven M.Kahn, Columbia University David L.Lambert, University of Texas at Austin Robert D.Mathieu, University of Wisconsin Thomas A.Prince, California Institute of Technology Robert Rosner, University of Chicago Jean H.Swank, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Paula Szkody, University of Washington Galaxies and Stellar Systems Panel Membership* Richard G.Kron, University of Chicago (panel chair) Jill Bechtold, University of Arizona Arthur F.Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University Alan M.Dressler, Carnegie Observatories Martin Elvis, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Wendy L.Freedman, Carnegie Observatories Jacqueline N.Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John P.Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Robert C.Kennicutt, University of Arizona Jerry E.Nelson, University of California at Santa Cruz B.Thomas Soifer, California Institute of Technology James W.Truran, Jr., University of Chicago C.Megan Urry, Space Telescope Science Institute Cosmology and Fundamental Physics Panel Membership* Michael Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute (panel chair) Elihu Boldt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Kenneth I.Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Philip Lubin, University of California at Santa Barbara Richard F.Mushotsky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 Anthony C.S.Readhead, California Institute of Technology Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley David N.Spergel, Princeton University Michael S.Turner, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Rainer Weiss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Clifford M.Will, Washington University David H.Smith, Study Director Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant Stephanie A.Roy, Research Assistant *   all terms ended during 1997 TASK GROUP ON SAMPLE RETURN FROM SMALL SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES The Task Group on Sample Return from Small Solar System Bodies met on October 10–11 in Washington, D.C. The first day of the meeting included presentations by senior representatives from NASA, who described their rationale and expectations for the study. Dr. Michael Meyer, Office of Space Science (OSS), discussed issues pertaining to planetary protection policy, mission constraints, and the request made to the task group. He then gave an overview of NASA’s astrobiology program. Mr. Thomas Morgan, OSS, presented the rationale for Stardust’s unrestricted Earth return classification following its scheduled rendezvous with asteroid Wild-2 in 2004, and presented the reference mission overview for Temple 1 Sample Return. Dr. Stacy Weinstein, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, presented a brief overview of MUSES-C/MUSES-CN. Drs. Ted Roush, San Francisco State University; John Cronin, Arizona State University; Marina Fomenkova, University of California at San Diego; Christopher Chyba, University of Arizona; James Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and Ben Clark, Lockheed-Martin Astronautics, made presentations on topics relevant to the task and participated in a roundtable discussion. The discussion centered on whether NASA needs to treat samples returned from planetary satellites or primitive solar system bodies differently from samples returned from Mars. On the second day, the task group developed a report outline, set parameters for the chapters, and made writing assignments. The second meeting of the task group was held on November 20–21 in Irvine, California. The task group focused on applying the assessment criteria to small solar system bodies and on refining its report. A draft report was prepared for the task group’s third meeting on January 12–13, 1998, in Irvine. The final report will describe current understanding of the potential for contamination of Earth by samples returned from planetary satellites and small solar system bodies, make recommendations for areas of further study, and when feasible provide NASA with guidelines for decision making. TGSRSB Membership Leslie Orgel, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (chair) Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland Jeffrey Bada, Scripps Institution of Oceanography John Baross, University of Washington Clark Chapman, Southwest Research Institute Michael Drake, University of Arizona John F.Kerridge, University of California at San Diego Margaret S.Race, SETI Institute (retired) Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory Steven Squyres, Cornell University Joseph Zelibor, Study Director Jacqueline D.Allen, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 PANEL ON HUMAN BEHAVIOR The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine’s Panel on Human Behavior (PHB) held its first meeting on May 1–2 in Washington, D.C., to begin its task of developing a chapter, which would examine issues of human behavior in the confined, isolated environment of the space station or other spacecraft, for the CSBM strategy report. The first 1 1/2 days of the meeting were devoted to briefings from NASA representatives and investigators studying issues related to this study. Mr. Marc Shepanek from NASA Headquarters provided an overview of NASA’s research program in behavioral studies, and Dr. Al Holland of Johnson Space Center described the operational program, which includes astronaut selection criteria and in-flight countermeasures. The panel was interested to learn that there are numerous barriers, partly due to astronaut privacy issues, to information exchange between the operational and research programs in this area. Dr. Christine Schlicting of the Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory described Navy research findings and countermeasures for submarine crews. Dr. Norman Thagard, a former NASA astronaut, described his experiences aboard the Mir station and answered questions about his training and the effectiveness of NASA countermeasures. University investigators Drs. Peter Lang, William Dement, and Robert Bechtel were also present to provide extensive briefings on several areas of pertinent research, such as circadian rhythm disturbances. The panel used the end of the second day to develop a detailed report outline, make writing assignments, and discuss what additional briefings and sources of information would be required for the study. The panel held its second meeting on August 25–27 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to review and revise its chapter. The panel met in open session the morning of the first day to hear briefings from investigators performing behavioral research in areas relevant to this study. On the afternoon of the second day the committee was joined, via teleconference, by astronaut John Blaha for a discussion of his experiences training for, and flying aboard, the Mir space station. A number of issues were raised on training and ground-crew interactions, which were of particular interest to the panel. The rest of the meeting focused on revising the report chapter drafted by the panel before the meeting. After a discussion of those points raised in presentations that might be included in the draft, the panel reviewed and discussed each section of the report. Numerous changes were agreed upon, including some reorganization of the material to eliminate redundancies, and the addition or expansion of key topics. The panel subsequently broke into writing groups and the remainder of the meeting was spent in revising the electronic version of the report. The new chapter sections were collated after the meeting and the revised chapter sent back to the panel members for editing. The final meeting, held October 1–3 at the Beckman Center, began with a discussion of the CSBM feedback on the behavioral chapter developed at the previous panel meeting. The panel took particular note of the CSBM recommendation to considerably shorten some of the sections. After a review of the chapter and discussion of proposed changes, the panel spent the remainder of the meeting in writing groups to make the revisions agreed on by the panel. All panel members present participated in reorganizing and rewriting the psychology section, as the original author was unable to be present at the meeting. While considerable language was removed from the chapter, the panel also identified a number of gaps that required the addition of new material. All but two of the sections were rewritten to the panel’s satisfaction prior to the end of the meeting, and those two sections were completed shortly afterward. The panel has completed its work and been disbanded. PHB Membership* Lawrence A.Palinkas, University of California at San Diego (chair) Earl B.Hunt, University of Washington Nick Kamas, Veterans Affairs Medical Center Peter J.Lang, University of Florida Patricia A.Santy, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Peter Suedfeld, University of British Columbia Sandra J.Graham, Study Director Catherine Gruber, Senior Project Assistant *   all terms ended during 1997

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 WORKSHOP ON BIOLOGY-BASED TECHNOLOGY FOR SPACE EXPLORATION The steering group for the Workshop on Biology-based Technology for Space Exploration held a meeting in Washington, D.C., on June 10 to devise a structure and format for discussions to identify promising areas where additional R&D could facilitate and expedite insertion of biology-based technology into NASA space exploration programs. Members defined bionics as “the application of (1) biological systems and mechanisms and chemistry and physics to concepts for addressing requirements and engineering systems for NASA’s space exploration programs, both human and robotic; and (2) non-biological technology and engineering systems to emulate, support, back up, or enhance functions currently performed or desired to be performed by human presence.” Chair Gerard Elverum explained that the tasks before the steering group are to agree on how to establish “promising” technologies for this workshop that are not already under way at NASA, to select workshop participants or a method for selecting them, to derive a format for inviting presenters to provide focused and usable information as a basis for framing the workshop discussions, and to devise an effective method for capturing the workshop discussion for analysis by the steering group. The results of the workshop will provide findings that the steering group will use to develop a list of general topic areas that may be the subjects of future workshops. The first half of the meeting was devoted to presentations by officials from NASA Headquarters representing the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, OSS, the Office of Space Flight, and the Johnson Space Center. The second half of the meeting was devoted to planning the format of the workshop, which will include a plenary session, with presentations, followed by four breakout sessions. There will be an interim plenary session at which workshop participants can provide feedback on their findings to the individual breakout groups. The groups will then reconvene to develop the final set of findings. The theme areas selected are habitat systems, human systems, and advanced operations and teleoperations. Each theme area will serve as the basis for breakout sessions. The fourth breakout session will refine the methodology for systematically identifying the specific topic areas where NASA-envisioned needs can be “networked” into “bionic-based concepts,” and which, in turn, can be expanded to identify specific “state-of-knowledge” and where enabling research is required. Within each session, the participants will review the current “state-of-the-art” in bionics as it applies to that theme area. They will formulate the conceptual basis for new design methods in the area and determine what must be done to close the gap between the design method and the technology requirements identified by NASA. One or more NASA representatives will be available in each session to help define NASA’s needs and the work currently being pursued by NASA. The research and development needed to bridge that gap will be the topics for possible follow-on focused workshops. The workshop, which was held on October 21–22 at the Center for Advanced Space Studies in Houston, Texas, opened with a plenary session focusing on NASA’s technology needs. Twenty-nine experts from academe and industry participated in the workshop, including specialists in a variety of fields, as well as thirty-two NASA representatives. The remainder of the workshop consisted of two breakout sessions focusing on enhancing human well-being in space exploration and enhancing human function in space exploration. Within each breakout group, the participants identified promising areas in which modern biological concepts and principles could be applied to radically improve or enhance extended space exploration. The participants also discussed the present state of understanding of the identified biological concepts and principles, any gaps in knowledge that require additional R&D, and the activities needed to fill these gaps. A published report is expected in mid-April 1998. Steering Group Membership Gerard W.Elverum, TRW (retired) (chair) James P.Bagian, Environmental Protection Agency Rita R.Colwell, University of Maryland Bruce Dunn, University of California at Los Angeles Donald R.Humphrey, Emory University School of Medicine Takeo Kanade, Carnegie Mellon University Rodolfo R.Llinas, New York University Medical Center Samuel I.Stupp, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Joseph Zelibor, Study Director Amber Whipkey, Project Assistant

OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report 1997 WORKSHOP ON SUBSTELLAR MASS OBJECTS The steering group for the Board’s Workshop on Substellar Mass Objects (WSMO) met at the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) on November 10–11. The meeting was devoted to discussion of the charge given to the Board by NASA and the preparation of a guest list and draft agenda for the workshop. An outline for the workshop’s final report was developed. The meeting began with introductions by the chair and a brief summary of the charge. This was followed by a general discussion of important issues concerning substellar-mass objects (SMOs). For the purposes of this discussion, SMOs were defined as objects with masses between 1 and 80 MJupiter. Topics raised by members of the steering group and local guests included the apparent rarity of brown dwarfs, the lack of emphasis on brown dwarfs in NASA’s “Origins” program, the role of large versus small telescopes and wide-area versus pencil-beam searches, brown dwarfs in binary systems and clusters, and the availability of thermodynamic date in appropriate temperature ranges. On the second day of the meeting, the chair summarized the importance of SMO studies under four headings: (1) what they can teach us about star formation; (2) what they can teach us about the formation, evolution, and properties of planets; (3) how they can help us hone skills for eventually studying objects less massive than Jupiter; and (4) what they can teach us about dark matter. In short, SMOs form a bridge between studies of stars and planets and represent an important stepping stone to the detection and study of extrasolar planets. Having framed the scope of the workshop, the steering group broke the subject matter into topics, each of which would form one of the workshop’s six sessions. These topics were (1) detection of SMOs; (2) observational characterization of nearby SMOs; (3) theoretical models of the structures and atmospheres of SMOs; (4) formation and demise of SMOs and planetary systems; (5) connections to galactic structure; and (6) microlensing as a probe of dwarf stars and planets. Approximately 20 potential presenters (with alternates) were assigned to each session. Each presenter will be asked to prepare a 600- to 700-word abstract that will form the bulk of the resulting WSMO report. The workshop will be held January 24–25, 1998, and the steering group will meet on Monday, January 26, to draft its portions of the report. WSMO Membership Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona (chair) William D.Cochran, University of Texas at Austin Andrew Gould, Ohio State University Caitlin Griffith, Northern Arizona University Shrinivas Kulkarni, California Institute of Technology Douglas N.C.Lin, University of California at Santa Cruz Gerald Schubert, University of California at Los Angeles Michael S.Turner, University of Chicago David H.Smith, Study Director Jacqueline D.Allen, Senior Project Assistant