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 R1
s New Frontiers in th Solar System An integrates] Exploration Strategy Solar System Exploration Survey Space Stuclies Boarcl Division on Engineering ancl Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF IF NALlONAt CACAO THE NATIONAL ACADEhfI ES PRESS Woshington, D.~. www~nap~edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street' N+W+ ~ W=hin~on' DC 20001 NOTICE: The project ~~ is the subject of this report was approved by ~e Governing Board of ~e Nations Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of ~e National Academy of Sciences' the Nations Academy of Engineering, arid ~e Institute of Medicine. The members of ~e commi~e responsible for the report were chomn for their special compe~nces arid with regard for appropriate baler. Support for this project was provided by Contracts NASW 96013 arid 01001 between the N~iona1 Academy of Sciences md He N~iona1 Aeronautics arid Space Adminish~ion. Any opinions' findings' conclusions' or recom- mendations expressed in this material are Hose of He Humors arid do nof necessarily reflect the views of He sponsor. In~rn~iona1 Standard Book Number 0-309-084954 (Book) In~rn~iona1 Standard Book Number 0-309-50836-3 (POF) Cover design by Permy E. Margolskee Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board N~iona1 lleseareh Council The Keek Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Sheet N.W. Washington' DC 20001 Copyright 2003 by He Nations Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in He United States of America
OCR for page R3
- ~ ~ - ~ v The National Acailemy of Science is ~ privates r~oE~profit self-perpetu~ir~g society of distinguished scholars edged ire seieE~tifie arid eE~gir~eeriE~g research' dedicated to Me furtherance of alienee md teehr~olo gy arid to their use for Me general welfare. Upon the authority of the Sharer grand to it by the Sorceress in IS63' the Academy has ~ madam ~~ requires it to advise the federal goverr~meE~t ore seieE~tifie md ~ehr~iea1 maters. Dr. Pruee M. Albert is president of the N~ioE~1 Academy of Seier~ees. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964' ureter the echoer of the N~ioE~1 Academy of Seier~ees~ as ~ parallel orgar~iz~ior~ of outs~dir~g er~giE~eers. It is autonomous ire its ~miE~istr~ioE~ arid in Me selection of its members' sharing with the N~ioE~1 Academy of Seier~ees the respoE~sibili~ for advising Me federal goverr~meE~t. The N~ior~1 Academy of EE~gir~eerir~g also sponsors eE~giE~eeriE~g programs aimed ~ meeting n~ior~1 needs encourages education arid researeh~ arid recognizes Me superior achievements of er~giE~eers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the N~ioE~1 Academy of Engineering. The Institute of l~licine was established in 1970 by Me Nations Academy of SeieE~ees to secure Me services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of Me public. The Institute ace under Me responsibility given to the Nations Academy of Sciences by its congressional Sharer to be art adviser to Me federal government Grids upon its own initiative' to identify issues of medical eare' research' arid education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was orgar~ized by the Nations Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science arid ethnology win Me Aeademy~s purposes of furthering knowledge arid advising the federal government. Functioning in aceordar~ee win general policies determined by Me Academy' the Council has become Me prineip~ operating agency of bow Me National Academy of Sciences arid the Nations Academy of Engineering in providing services to Me government' the public' arid the seientif~e md engineering eommuni- ties. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies arid the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Albert arid Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair arid vice chair' respectively' of the National Research Council. www.~atio~l-academies~org
OCR for page R4
SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION SURVEY Strong Coup MICHAEL A. BELTON' Belton Space Exploration ~iti~ives, Came CAROLYN PORCO' Southwest Research ~stitu~' V'ce Cams MICHAEL A,HEARN' University of M - lurid JOSEPH A. BURNS' Cornell University RONALD GREELEY' Arizona Saw University JAMES W. HEAD III' Brown University WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, At., Carnegie Institution of Washington ANDREW INGERSOLL' California Institute of Technology DAVID JEWITT' University of Hawaii JOHN F. MUSTANG Brown University ANDREW NACY' University of Michigan DIh~TRI A. PAPANASTASSIOU, ki Propulsion L~or~ory ROBERT T. PAPPALA~O, University of Colorado MITCHELL SOGIN' Marine Biological Laboratory THOMAS YOUNG' Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Inner Planets Panel CABLE PETER Brown Universily' Char RONALD C1lEELEY' Arizona Saw University' ~~e Calm MARK BULLOCK, Southwest llesearch ~stitu~ BRADLEY JOLLIFF' Washington University ANN SPRAGUE, University of Arizona ELLEN STOFAN, Proxemy llesearch Mars Panel JOHN A. WOOD' Harvard-Smithsonim Or for Astrophysics, Caky JOHN F. Ml5STAl~, Brown University, ~~e Calm WILLIAM BOYNTON' Universily of Arizona W. llOCEll BUCK, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory JOHN HAYES, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution KAREN MEECH' Universily of Hawaii ANDREW NACY' University of Michigan KEITH NOLL, Space Telescope Science ~stitu~ llOREllT T. PAPPALAl~O, University of Colorado ANNA-LOUISE 1lEYSENDACH, Portland Stan Universily J. WILLIAM SCHOPF, University of California, Los Angeles ANN SPRAGUE, University of Arizona
OCR for page R5
Giant Planets Panel RETA BEEBE' New Mexico Sew Universily' Calm ANDREW INGERSOLL' California Institute of Techr~ology' V'ce Calm AMANDA BOSH, Lowell Observatory THOMAS HILL, Rice University VALIANCE MOSES' Lunar arid PA In~itu~ GERALD SCHUPERT' University of California' Los Angeles Large Satellites Panel ALFRED hkEWEN' University of Arizona, Came ROBERT T. PAPPALA~O, University of Colorado' ~ce Char CAITLIN GRIFFITH' University of Arizona TO1?RENCE V. JOHNSON' k~ Propulsion L~or~ory KRISHAN KHURANA, University of California, Los Angeles WILLIAM MOORE, University of California' Los Angeles Primitive Bodies Panel DALE C1lUIKSHANK, NASA-Ames llesearch Center, Calm MICHAEL A,HEA1lN' University of M~l~d, Vice Came STANLEY DE1?MOTT' Universily of Florida ALAN STERN, Southwest llesearch Institute JOSEPH VEVERKA, Cornell Universily MICHAEL ZOLENSKY, NASA-Johnson Space Center Astrobiology Panel JONATHAN LUNINE' University of Arizona, Co- JOHN BA1lOSS, University of Washington' Co- LUANN BECKER, Universily of California' Saw Barbara STEVEN A. BENNETT' Universily of Florida JOSEPH A. BERRY' Carnegie ~~itutior~t~ford University WENDY M. CALVIN, University of Nevada, lleno DAVID DEAME1~, Universily of California' Saw Cruz MARILYN FOCEL' Carnegie Institution of Washington KATHERINE H. FREEMAN' Permsylv~ia Stan University J. PETER COCA1lTEN, University of Corme~ieut NORMAN PACE' University of Colorado SANDRA PIZAlkELLO' Arizona Sate Universily DAVID A. STAHL, University of Washington LUCY M. ZIURYS, University of Arizona Staff DAVID H. Sh~TH' Study Director llOREllT L. lklEMER, Senior Staff Officer BRIAN DEWHU1lST' lleseareh Associate SHARON S. SEAWARD, Senior Projeet Assistant (through December 2001) RODNEY HOWARD, Senior Projeet Assistant Over January 2002 1
OCR for page R6
SPACE STI5DIES BOARD JOHN H. McELROY' University of Texas ~ Arlington (retired)' Came ROGER P. ANCEL' University of Arizona JAMES P. BAGIAN' Veterans Health Administr~ion~s Nations Tenor for Patient Safely ANA P. BAROSS, Harvard University RETA F. BEERE, New Mexico Saw University ROGER D. BLANDFORD, California Institute of Technology JAMES L. BENCH, Sounded Research Inanity RADFO~ BYERLY' Hi., University of Colorado HOWARD M. EINSPAHR' Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Coitus STEVEN H. FLAJSER, Lora1 Space md Communications Ltd. MICHAEL FREILICH' Oregon Same University DON P. GIDDENS, Georgia In~itu~ of TechnologylEmory University RALPH H. JACOBSON' The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) MARGARET G. KIVELS ON, University of California, Los Angeles CONWAY LEOVY' Universily of Washington BRUCE D. MARCUS' TRW (retired) HARRY Y. Mc8WEEN, At.' Universily of Tennessee GEORGE A. PAULIKAS' The Aerospace Corporation (retired) ANNA-LOUISE 1lEYSENDACH, Portland Stay Universily COULD S. SACDEEV, University of h~ryl~d CA1lOLUS J. SCHlkl]VER, Lockheed Martin llOREllT J. SE1lAFIN' N~iona1 Tenor for Atmospheric llesearch MITCHELL SOGIN' Marine Biological Laboratory C. MEGAN UGLY, Yale University PETER VOO1lHEES' Nor~wes~rn Universily J. CRAIG WHEELER' University of Texas' Austin JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Director
OCR for page R7
Foreword In 1957, on ~ dark hillside in Lineolr~shire not far from the place where the young Isaac Newton grew up' I washed Sputnik leave} inexorably across the twilight sky md was moved by He magnificence of it all. In Be United S~tes' He drama of He subitems launch quickly led to He formation of He National Aeronautics md Space Adminis~ion (NASA) md the start of He exploration of the solar system. Forty-five years la~r' win millions of others, we have vicariously traveled to nearly every corner of the solar system md have learned how much more there is to disc over md how imperfectly we underfed He massive findings of put md current plme~ry missions md ground-based observations. Exploration, discovery, md preside seientif~e research are He keys to new knowledge, md if we wish to know our origins md our destiny, whether we are unique or commonplace' md how nature governs our lives, we have no al~rn~ive but to explore the Sun~s system of planets' satellites, comets' md asteroids to discover their secrets md undersold He processes that make them what Hey are. The exploration of the solar system is ~ technically challenging md expensive endeavor. Success is not always guaranteed, md tenacity md perseverance are required. Yet in the United Shyest as in some other countries' this challenge has been met win resoNe. Today we are plying space missions that may ~~l us whether over life exists or he ever existed in places beyond Earn. We are engaged in research that probes from the very cores of plmets to the atomic processes ~~ occur in He highest regions of their atmospheres md plasma environments' md we are carrying out surveys to find po~nti~ly hazardous obeyed in near-Earth orbits ~~ coup affect He future of us all. Answers to some of the mod profound questions Are we alone: Where did we come from: What is our destiny: may be within our grasp. To continue this exploration in the most productive way' ~ effective strategy is needed thy will produce He mod signif~e~t result for the least time md resources spent. This is the purpose of the present survey' which was commissioned by NASA in 2001. It is to provide the scientific rationale for ~ ranked set of exploratory missions that could be launched in the coming decade. It mud also integrate the wide rime of interest~from Ionospheric physics to geology md from eosmoehemis~y to astrobiology of Hose engaged in this exploration. The survey is nof ~ implementation plm; it is ~ durable strategy on which sound implementation plans em be securely based. In February 2002' while the survey was in progress' ~ significant' if not pivotal' event occurred win He publication of He Presidents proposed budget for fiscal year 2003. The proposals in ~~ budget for NASA,s . .
OCR for page R8
FoREwoTD Solar System Exploration program have excited perry scientists for severe reasons. These include ~e following: . . mlsslons; Strong support for continued Mars exploration arid the line of small, competitively selected Discovery Cre~ion of ~ continuing line of competed, medium-class missions, to be called New Frontiers; Major new support for research md analysis programs; md ~ Initiation of new in-space power arid propulsion Ethnology programs to lay the basis for adverted exploration missions in the more disco future. As ~e reader will discover, this survey builds on ~e marry positive aspects of the Presidents proposals. This report is nof intended to ~ read straight through. For thom who seek ~ broad overview arid ~ synopsis of the mission priorities arid other recommendations' Bare is ~e Executive Summ - . For ease of reading' ~e main text is presented in two pare ~~ are ~lf~ontained arid cart be read separately. Part ~e contains ~ broad survey of the subject indicting what is known about ~e various classes of objects' current research directions arid key scientific questions, arid recommendations from the supporting pmels to ~e Sharing Group on appropriate mission strategies for the near future. Six survey panels, consisting of ~ total of about 50 leading scienti~s~ con~ibu~d this extensive Muriel which is arranged in five Shapers. These chapters should provide excellent reference material for readers who are inbreed in specific issues. Part Two presents ~ integrated stringy for future exploration that was devised by ~e Leering Group using the myriad from Me panels' together win direct inputs from the scientific community, NASA persormel' govern- ment md priced laboratories, professional societies, md We inbreed public. This stringy is expressed in ~ short list of key scientific questions' ~ ranked lid of conceptual missions thy derive from these questions, md ~ series of recommendations for ~e decade 2003-2013. It is hoped ~~ ~e reader will find the scope of this strategy as exciting md relevant as I do. The Sharing Group mticipa~s that the cost of carrying it out is commensurate win the resources that are proposed in the Presidents 2003 budget. With unity of purpose' the mission plan that is pressed in this document cm be replied to We benefit of all. Michael J.S. Belton, Care Tucson, Arizona April 4, 2002
OCR for page R9
preface NASA's Office of Space Science (OSS) employs ~ relatively mature strategic plying process ~~ relies heavily on input from Me scientific community to establish the scientific basis md direction for its space- md ground-bamd research programs. The primary sources of this guidance are We in~pen~nt scientific malyses md recommendations provided by reports of the National Academies, particularly Nose from the Space Studies Board (SSB). Using those independently developed science strategies as input OSS then employs ~ roadmapping process that is carried out by NASA's internal eommit~es, especially Me Space Science Advisory Committee md id assoeia~d subcommittees. This romping process builds on Me results of National lleseareh Council (Nigh) science strategies to define more detailed scientific objectives md investigations, as well as specific missions to Ogress them. The roadmapping process factors in budget md technical aspens to refine the ageney~s portfolio of development options for the decade. The roadmaps constitute ~ major element of the hier~E~ial OSS strategic plying process' which in turn feeds into Me overall NASA strategic plm that is revised every ~ years in eomplimee win Me Government Performance md llesul~ Act. The let stringy for solar system exploration' He so-called Burns reports was produced by the Space Studies Board in 1994. Since ~en' ~ number of impor~t development have led to He need for ~ new or substantially revised science strategy. These developments include significant ehm~es in the way that NASA selects md mmages its planets exploration missions' win increasing emphasis on the <`faster-bet~r-eheaper,, paradigm' md major new seientif~e results from ~ variely of spacecraft' including Lunar Prospector, Mars Pathfinder' Mars Global Surveyor' Galileo' Near Earth Asteroid llendewous' md Cassini. Moreover, since the publication of He Burns report' He SSP has produced more ~m ~ dozen relevant, focused' topical report whose conclusions' in~gra~d into ~ single, comprehensive strategy, would inform solar system exploration for the next decade. Against this background, Edward I. Weiler, NASA,s associate administrator for the Office of Space Science' requested ~~ He SSE undertake ~ study designed to survey the current status of' md research strategies for, solar system exploration (see AppendixA). The study, oullinedin letters sent to He SSH in J~u~ md April of 2001' ~Spam Studies Board' N~ior~1 Research Councils An cram Sir for ~e P~ry SO 1995-2010' Natior~1 Academy Press' Wa~ir~or~' D.~.' 1994.
OCR for page R10
PREFA~ was to ~ modeled on ~e traditional astronomy arid astrophysics decada1 surveys.& In particular' the report resulting from ~e r~ues~d study should include ~e following components: ~ A ``big picture', of solar system exploration what it is' how it fin into over scientific endeavors' arid why it is ~ compelling goal today; A broad survey of ~e current ~~ of knowledge about our solar system today; ~ An inventory of top-leve1 scientific questions ~~ should provide the focus for solar system exploration today; arid ~ A prioritized list of the most promising avenues for flight investigations arid supporting ground-based activities. NASA's request pro contained several imports cavea~ regarding the ongoing Mars exploration arid Dis- covery programs md suggested ~~ the time Bale to ~ covered should be approximately ~ decade. Further clarification from NASA indited thy the ranked list of ground- arid space-based initiatives should ~ subdivided into ~ small number of cost categories. The NRC subsequently appointed the Solar System Exploration Survey (SSE Survey), consisting of IS-member Steering Group md supporting parcels, to perform the study. Because of the wide Urge of scientific disciplines arid the varied nature of Be targets of solar system exploration' four ad hoe panels were established to advise the steering group on issues involved in the exploration of particular target. These panels concerned themselves with issues relating to the irmer planets' the gist planets, large satellites' md primitive bodies. Moreover' given He relative timing of this study md mother study for NASA on hears science md mission priorities being undertaken by Be NllC's Committee on Planets md Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX)' it was decided to recruit Be later as Be SSE Surveys Mars Panel md to limit the Beer Planets Purely deliberations to Mercury, Venus, md the Moon. To provide ~ clear eommunie~ion path between Be various components of Be SSE Survey' Be panel vice chairs were also appointed to the Veering Group. Soon after Be begirming of the SSE Surveys work' it became clear that specie arrangement were needed to undersold my issues involving astrobiology, which is already ~ sub~mtia1 element of supporting research NASA. Since ~ existing N1~C group' the Committee on the Origins md Evolution of Life (COEL), already had the nearest expertise' it was decided to recruit COEL as the SSE Surveys Astrobiology Panel. The four ad hoe md two preexisting panels were asked by the Steering Group to prepare ~ broad survey of Be current sate of knowledge of those element of solar system exploration within their purview. In addition, Hey were asked to list the key seientif~e questions md measurement objectives that they deemed appropriate for exploration in the period 2003-2013 md the foreseeable future. The panels were also invited to bring to He Steering Group ~ ranked list of possible flightmissions md supporting ground-based activities ~~ were appropriate for addressing He measurement objectives they had identified. The report of the panels, suitably edited for consistent presentation, are included in Part One (Chapters ~ Trough S) of this report. The various lisp of key seientif~e questions md ranked lisp of flight missions md supporting ground-based facilities from the panels were considered by the Steering Group md were used to formulae He SSE Surveys top-level, integrated lid of seientif~e questions md recommendations for privily flight missions md supporting ground-based facilities. These are contained in Chapters 7 md ~ of Part Two. Finally' ~ analysis of the solar system exploration program' id sheng~s md weaknesses, md why it is ~ compelling endeavor today ~~ is, He "big picture" was under- taken by He Steering Group itself md is confined in Chapter ~ of Part Two. Solar system exploration has ~ broad professional eommuni~ with diverse scientific interests; it is also incarnations endeavor involving mission, research, md instrument activities in mmy countries. In view of this diversify, it quickly became clear to the Steering Group md id panels that to successfully reflect the interests of this community md to achieve ~ broad consensus of opinion in support of He SSE Surveys recommendations, it ~See' forexample' Board on Physics ~dA~rorlomy ~dSpa~Studies Board' N~iorla1 Research Oourloil> Astro~ ~~Astr~ N~ ME N~ior~1 Academy Press' Washin~or~> ~ .C .' 200 ~ .
OCR for page R11
PREFACE X] would ~ necessary to stimulus md consider ~ wide variety of inputs from ~e scientific community' from NASA arid id advisory committees, from other government agencies (principally ~e Office of Management arid Budget arid the N~iona1 Science Foundation), from major laboratories arid research institutes (particularly ~e ~t Propulsion Laboratory' Johns Hopkins UniversiW,s Applied Physics Laboratory' arid NASAL Astrobiology ~~ti- tutor' arid from the inbreed public through the Ply SocieW. That these inputs should ~ treated win exceptional care arid appropriate seriousness was obvious arid became ~e consistent policy of the SSE Survey. Such inputs were solicited Trough oral presentations to the Sharing Group arid id parcels, Trough teleconferences' through numerous public forums arid town hall sessions ~ major community meetings, arid by stimulating' through the good offices of professional societies, ~ series of 24 community-draf~d whim papers (listed in Appendix B) on ~ wide rar~ge of scientific subjects thy covered essentially all aspects of solar system exploration. Mark Sykes' ~m the chair of ~e Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) of ~e Americar~ Astronomical Sociely' undertook the responsibility of coordinating the timely generation of Case papers arid worked win ~e DPS' ~e Plar~ry Sciences Section of the Americar~ Geophysics Union, the Me~oritica1 Society, arid ~e ~ologica1 SocieW of America to accomplish this. This project was formally initiated at ~ meeting of the Steering Group held in Washington, D.~., on July ~ 9-20' 2001. Work continued at meetings held in Irvine, California (November 14-l 6~, arid Tucson' Arizona (February 26-Mareh I' 2002~. In parallel with these meetings, the SSE Surveys four ad hoe arid two preexisting panels held their own information-ga~ering md deliberative meetings ~ N1~C facilities md major centers for research in He planets sciences (em.' Boulder, Colorado; Tucson md Flagstaff' Arizona; Mountain View md Pasadena' California; md Providence' lkhode Island). The Steering Group md He panels made extensive use of teleconferences, e-mail, md p~sword-pro~ted Web site to facilitate Heir work. Final draft of the panel reports were eomple~d in February 2002. The Steering Group assembled the first full dray of this report in March md held its Anal meeting in Washington, He., on March 26-28' 2002. The text was sent to external md internal reviewers in 1~ April, was revised during May md June' md was formally approved for release by He N1~C on July 2' 2002. This report was publicly released in ~ unedited' prepublie~ion forms on July 9. This, the edited text of the report of He Solar System Exploration Survey' was prepared during He latter half of 2002 md finalized in February 2003. This version supersedes all other versions. The work of the SSE Survey was made easier Woks to He impor~t help given by numerous individuals ~ variely of public md priced org~iz~ions. These include, in no particular order' Mark Sykes' Steven Larson' md members of He Committee of the Division for Planetary Seienees (American Ashonomiea1 Society); James Head III (American Geophysical Union' Planetary Seienees Section); Gero Kurd md Ed Peon (Me~oritiea1 Soeiely); lymph P. Harvey (Geological Soeiely of Americas Plenary Geology Division); Charles Elachi, Firouz Naderi' Daniel MeCleese' Maria Hanker, md Douglas Stetson (Jet Propulsion Laboratory); John Appleby, Andrew Cheng, Stam~ios Krimigis' md llalph MeNuR (Applied Physics Laboratory); Bruce Beds md Louis Friedman (Plenary Soeiely); Mare Allen' James Carvin, Colleen Harming, Orlando Figueroa, Michael Meyer' Carl Pileher' Guenter llie gler, md Jeffrey loo sendha1 (N ationa1 Aer onautie s md Space Administr~i on ); Vernon P=konin (National Science Foundation); md Steven Isakowi~ md Brmt Sponberg (Office of Mm~ement md Budget). In addition, He following individuals "really assisted He work of the Steering Group: John Br~dt (Universily of New Mexico), Michael Drake (Universily of Arizonan Harold Hiesinger Grown Universily)' Bruce Jakosky (University of Colorado), Tim McCoy (Smithsonian Institution)' Michael Mendillo (Boston University}' llobert Millis (Lowell Observatory)' Allm Tokunaga ~niversi~ of Hawaii)' md lloger Yelle (University of Arizon0. Finally, the SSE Survey acknowledges He impor~t contributions made by persons too numerous to mention who contributed to the community whim papers listed in Appendix B. who made presentations ~ the SSE Surveys numerous meetings md public forums, md who assisted the Surveys work in other ways. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives md ~ehniea1 expertise' in ~eordmee with procedures approved by the N~iona1 lleseareh Couneilts lleportlleview Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid md critical comments that will assist the institution in making id published report as sound ~ possible md to ensure ~~ He report meek institutions standards for O ~ ~ . .
OCR for page R12
x`] PREFA~ objectivity' evidence, md responsiveness to the study charge. The review commmis arid draft mar~uscript remain confidential to prompt the integrity of ~e deliberative process. We wish to therm the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: James Arnold (University of California' Sari Diego)' Raymond Arvidson (Washington University)' Radford Byerly, Jr. (Univer- sity of Colorado)' Acid Cochrm ~niversi~ of Texas)' Riccardo Giacconi (Associated Universities, ~~.~' Bruce Jakosky ~niversi~ of Colorado), Melissa McOrath (Space Telescope Science Situp William McKirmon (Washington University), Juan Perez-Mbrcader (~ntro de Astrobiologist Madrid)' Mark Richardson (California Institute of Technology)' Frederic Taylor (Oxford University)' Alar Toomre (Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology), arid James Vm Allen University of Iow0. Although the reviewers listed above have provided Marty constructive comments arid suggestions' they were nof asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations' nor did they me ~e final draft of the report before id release. The review of this report was over men by Thomas M. Donahue (University of Michigan) md Richard Goody (Harvard University). Appointed by ~e National Research Council, they were responsible for making vermin thy art independent examination of this report was carried out in accordar~e win institutional procedures arid thy all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibilily for the final coning of this report rosy entirely with the authoring committee arid the institution.
OCR for page R13
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART ONE Current Knowledge of the Solar System and Its Implications for Future Solar System Exploration PllIhUTIVE BODIES: BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM Unifying Themes for Studies of Primitive Bodies, 14 Primitive Bodies As Building Blocks of the Solar System, 14 Primitive Bodies As lleservoirs of Organic Moor: flaw Materials for the Origin of Life' 20 Space Missions for ~e Exploration of Primitive Bodies' 23 Key Enabling Technologies for Primitive Body Exploration, 28 Key Supporting llesearch md Facilities, 29 Key Questions md Mbasurement Objectives' 32 llecommend~ions of the Primitive Bodies Pme} to the Steering Group, 35 lleferenees, 35 INNER SOLAR SYSTEM: KEY TO HABITABLE WORLDS Unifying Themes for Studies of He Wer Planets, 39 What Led to the Unique Character of Our Home Planets, 40 What Common D~amie Processes Shape Earth-like Plowed' 46 What Fate Awaits Earths Environment md Those of the Over Terrestrial Plowed, 48 In~reormeetions' 52 Key Technologies, Supporting lleseareh, md Facilities' 53 llecommend~ions of the Doer Planets Pme} to He Steering Group, 54 lleferenees, 64 ~3 39
OCR for page R14
x`V 3 MARS: THE EVOLUTION OF AN EARTH-LIKE PLANET Unifying Themes for Studies of Mars, 68 Mars As ~ Po~ntia1 Abode of Life, 68 Wa~r' Atmosphere' md Climax on Mars, 71 Structure arid Evolution of Mars, 76 In~rcormections arid Crosscutting Themes, 79 Current NASA arid ~~rnationa1 Plar~s for Mars Exploration, 80 Key Measurement Objectives' 80 Suggested Missions, 82 Impact of Sample Return on the Mars Exploration Program' 84 Recomm~d~ions of the Mars Pared to ~e Jeering Group' 85 References, 90 4 GIANT PLANETS: KEYS TO SOLAR SYSTEM FORMATION Unifying Themes for Studies of the Giant Plar~ets' 94 Origin arid Evolution, 94 Interiors arid Atmospheres, 97 Rings arid Plasmas, 101 Key Measurement Objectives for Gimt Planet Exploration' 106 Space Missions for Gimt Planet Exploration' ~10 llecommend~ions of the Gist Plmets Panel to the Steering Group' ~ IS lleferenees, Ilb LARGE SATELLITES: ACTIVE WORLDS AND EXTREME ENVIRONMENTS Why Do We Care About Large Satellites9' 120 Space Missions for Large Satellite Exploration' 130 Unifying Themes md Key Scientific Questions for Large Satellite Exploration' 137 llecommend~ions of the Large Satellites Panel to He Steering Group' ~ 39 lleferenees, 147 PART TWO An Integrated Strategy for Solar System Exploration SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION TODAY: A MULTIFACETED ENDEAVOR Motivations: Why Solar System Exploration Compels Us Today' ISS Solar System Exploration: An ~ternationa1 Enterprise' ISS Modifying He Coals of Solar System Exploration' ISh lament Achievements in Solar System Exploration md Loveland Fields, 159 The llelationship of Solar System Exploration to Science md Engineering Disciplines' I61 The Solar System Exploration Program ~ NASA: Interrelationships, I61 Issues llegarding the Infrastructure of He Solar System Exploration Program' I63 Telescope Facilities: An Essential Element of ~ Integrated Solar System Strategy' Ib4 D~a Archiving, I66 -Analysis Programs' I67 Sample-lleturnFacilities, 169 Public llelationships: Outreach md Education' 172 lleferenees, 173 come ~7 ~3 ~3
OCR for page R15
come 7 PRIORITY QUESTIONS FOR SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION, 2003-2013: THE BASIS FOR AN INTEGRATED EXPLORATION STRATEGY Setting Priorities, 175 Twelve Key Scientific Questions That Underpin ~e Overall Exploration Strategy' 177 Recommended Missions to Answer Key Questions, 178 Reference, 188 RECOMMENDED FLIGHT INVESTIGATIONS AND SUPPORTING GROUND-BASED ACTIVITIES: 2003-2013 Judging Mission arid Relend Priorities, 189 Underlying Programmatic Requirements, 189 Mission Lines arid Competition, 190 Definition of Mission Cost Classes' I91 Small Missions, I91 Prioritized Flight Missions for the Dee ade 2003-2013' I92 Priorities for the Mars Exploration Program' I98 Adverted Technology, 202 Earth-~ased Telescopes' 206 lleferenees, 209 EPILOGUE: A GLIMPSE AT THE FUME OF SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION The Complexity of He Initial Vector Toward He Future, 211 Anticipation of New Discoveries, 21 Change' 212 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task List of Plenary Community White Papers llesul~ of Plme~ry Community Survey ~ Summary of the Plenary Soeiety~s Public Opinion Survey E Blossom Abbreviations, md Acronyms 175 211 215 217 221 223 225
OCR for page R16