2 Activities and Membership

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

In January 1998, one could look back on what had been a watershed year and look forward to an even more exciting year to come. NASA 's Office of Space Science, for example, was celebrating the successful launches of four new missions in 1997 and anticipating a robust launch manifest of nine more missions planned for 1998. A January launch opened the way for the successful orbital operations of Lunar Prospector, which have yielded remarkable new data about water in the polar regions of the Moon. One other first-quarter mission deserves special attention —the University of Colorado Student Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE), successfully launched on February 25. This was the first project conducted via the University Space Research Association as a means to engage significant numbers of students in all phases of a spaceflight mission.

The year also promised to be an extraordinary one for the Space Studies Board. No fewer than 14 reports were in various stages of final preparation, peer review, or printing leading to planned publication before year 's end. They touched on all the disciplinary areas covered by the Board, and they ranged from short letter reports on very focused topics to major “decadal” strategy documents. A number of major studies were in progress through the Board's standing committees, and several new projects were under consideration for initiation later in the year.

New SSB Director Joseph Alexander opened the year with three major near-term priorities. First, was the need to ensure that the wave of new reports cited above was actually completed and delivered as promised and to continue to provide the same level of timely, high-quality, independent advice about space programs. Second, was the need to look at where and how the SSB should broaden the scope of its work from both a topical and a client perspective. Board discussions about studies related to space applications and to technology infusion are examples of the former. Opportunities to consider the activities of NOAA, DOD, and other agencies are examples of the latter. And third was the need to redouble efforts to communicate with the full range of stakeholders who may have an interest in the directions taken or work produced by the SSB. Such entities go beyond the agencies where space research is conducted or sponsored to include decision makers in both the Executive and Legislative branches who can benefit from the work of the Board. They also include the broader public, both scientific and general, where activities of the SSB can contribute to a more informed community.

The Space Studies Board held its 124th meeting on March 2-4 in Washington, D.C. Two major topics for consideration during the meeting were (1) implications of the FY99 NASA budget request and (2) infusion of DOD and commercial technologies into NASA programs. To help understand FY99 budget issues, the Board heard first from Mr. Steve Isakowitz of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Robert Hunt of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Richard Obermann of the House Science Committee, and Mr. James Jensen of the NRC Office of Congressional and Government Affairs. The Board then had presentations from and discussions with the three



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 9
Space Studies Board 2 Activities and Membership FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS In January 1998, one could look back on what had been a watershed year and look forward to an even more exciting year to come. NASA 's Office of Space Science, for example, was celebrating the successful launches of four new missions in 1997 and anticipating a robust launch manifest of nine more missions planned for 1998. A January launch opened the way for the successful orbital operations of Lunar Prospector, which have yielded remarkable new data about water in the polar regions of the Moon. One other first-quarter mission deserves special attention —the University of Colorado Student Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE), successfully launched on February 25. This was the first project conducted via the University Space Research Association as a means to engage significant numbers of students in all phases of a spaceflight mission. The year also promised to be an extraordinary one for the Space Studies Board. No fewer than 14 reports were in various stages of final preparation, peer review, or printing leading to planned publication before year 's end. They touched on all the disciplinary areas covered by the Board, and they ranged from short letter reports on very focused topics to major “decadal” strategy documents. A number of major studies were in progress through the Board's standing committees, and several new projects were under consideration for initiation later in the year. New SSB Director Joseph Alexander opened the year with three major near-term priorities. First, was the need to ensure that the wave of new reports cited above was actually completed and delivered as promised and to continue to provide the same level of timely, high-quality, independent advice about space programs. Second, was the need to look at where and how the SSB should broaden the scope of its work from both a topical and a client perspective. Board discussions about studies related to space applications and to technology infusion are examples of the former. Opportunities to consider the activities of NOAA, DOD, and other agencies are examples of the latter. And third was the need to redouble efforts to communicate with the full range of stakeholders who may have an interest in the directions taken or work produced by the SSB. Such entities go beyond the agencies where space research is conducted or sponsored to include decision makers in both the Executive and Legislative branches who can benefit from the work of the Board. They also include the broader public, both scientific and general, where activities of the SSB can contribute to a more informed community. The Space Studies Board held its 124th meeting on March 2-4 in Washington, D.C. Two major topics for consideration during the meeting were (1) implications of the FY99 NASA budget request and (2) infusion of DOD and commercial technologies into NASA programs. To help understand FY99 budget issues, the Board heard first from Mr. Steve Isakowitz of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Robert Hunt of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. Richard Obermann of the House Science Committee, and Mr. James Jensen of the NRC Office of Congressional and Government Affairs. The Board then had presentations from and discussions with the three

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board NASA science associate administrators: Drs. Wesley Huntress of the Office of Space Science, Arnauld Nicogossian of the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences, and Ghassem Asrar of the Office of Earth Science. The Board also heard about the status of NOAA programs from Mr. Gregory Withee of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and from Mr. James Mannen of the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System Program Office. The Board's discussion of opportunities for technology cooperation between NASA and DOD benefited from discussion with Drs. Daniel Hastings, chief scientist of the Air Force, Bruce Wald, Center for Naval Analyses, Paul Kaminski, Technovation, Inc., and Pedro Rustan, co-chair of the Board's Joint Committee on Technology with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. During the meeting the Board also granted approval (subject to completion of requested changes) for new reports titled A Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments, by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs, by the Committee on Earth Studies, and Ground-based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future, by the Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research. Approval was given for a proposed workshop on the size limits of very small microorganisms (under the auspices of the SSB Astrobiology Steering Group), and several potential new Board projects were discussed in the areas of space applications, space technology, NASA-university relations, and U.S.-European-Japanese cooperation in space research. The Board also reviewed the status of other ongoing projects and committee activities. Board member Daniel Baker presented a summary of the Student Nitric Oxide Explorer (SNOE) program, a University of Colorado project to develop and launch a small research satellite almost entirely through the efforts of students from both undergraduate and high school levels. SECOND QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS At mid-year the Board celebrated the 40th anniversary of the formation of the Space Science Board. On June 27, 1958, some 3 months before the formation of NASA, a group of 17 scientists assembled in New York for the first meeting of the Space Science Board. Over the next 4 months, the new Board initiated the process of open solicitation and competitive peer review for selection of research investigations in space science and defined the role of the principal investigator in such investigations. They also established the first set of discipline committees to carry out the work of the Board and sketched out the first “decadal strategy” for the space sciences. Forty years later, we can appreciate how profoundly that first Space Science Board influenced the processes that underlie today's vigorous international space research activities. A sampling of highlights from the second quarter of 1998 attests to the contemporary vigor of the space sciences. In astronomy, researchers using data from the Italian/Dutch BeppoSAX satellite, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), plus the 2.4-meter Kitt Peak telescope and the Keck II telescope, reported evidence in a very distant galaxy of an explosion so powerful that for a few seconds it was more luminous than any known phenomenon in the universe. Other researchers used the new Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) on HST to detect evidence of a massive black hole in Centaurus-A where a smaller galaxy is colliding with a larger galaxy and is being consumed in its core. Demonstrating that nature creates extreme environments in our own Milky Way galaxy as well, a team of observers used data from RXTE and the Japanese-U.S. Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics to confirm the existence of a class of neutron stars called “magnestars.” These stars appear to possess the most intense magnetic fields yet observed in the universe. Studies of our own star, the sun, are enjoying an extraordinary period of discovery. For example, data from the European Space Agency-NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) revealed the seismic signature of a solar quake generated by a moderate-sized solar flare and containing about 40,000 times the energy released in the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Complementing the suite of measurements provided by SOHO, the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) satellite was launched on April 1 to begin producing breathtaking new measurements. The renaissance in solar observations was abruptly threatened on June 24 when ground controllers lost contact with SOHO, although hope remained that the problem could be overcome later in the year when the spacecraft moved to a more favorable orientation with respect to the sun. In the study of planetary systems, observations from Hubble's NICMOS provided what may be the first image of a planet in another solar system, in this case a planet 2 to 3 times the mass of Jupiter, apparently ejected by its parent star. Closer to home, Mars Global Surveyor yielded evidence that Mars once had abundant water and

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board thermal activity at or near the surface, and tantalizing new data from the Galileo spacecraft suggested there may be water oceans below the icy crust of Jupiter's moon Europa. The space life sciences marked two major milestones during the second quarter. The first was the successful flight of Neurolab, launched in April on STS-90, which focused specifically on the neurological system and how it responds to the challenges of spaceflight. The second was the final Shuttle-Mir rendezvous, which brought to a close a series of long-duration flights of U.S. astronauts aboard the Russian Mir space station between 1995 and 1998. A disquieting note for the prospects of the next stages of research in the life and microgravity sciences was the release of the Chabrow report, Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force on the International Space Station (NASA Advisory Council, April 21). The report raised the possibility of further significant cost growth and schedule delays in the International Space Station (ISS) program. As measured by the release of new reports, the pace of work by the Board to provide useful, forward-looking advice on space research was intense during the second quarter. The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration released a pair of science strategy reports on near-Earth objects and on the trans-Neptunian solar system. The Committee on Earth Studies issued a report on the use of synthetic aperture radar on small satellites, plus a letter report to NOAA and NASA on the use of the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) for collection of climate change research data. The federated Committee on Solar and Space Physics and Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research released their report advising NASA, NOAA, NSF, DOD, and DOE on scientific and operational issues related to the upcoming period of maximum solar activity. The Steering Group for the Workshop on Biology-based Technology for Enhanced Space Exploration completed its report on biology-based technology and its applications in the human exploration of space. The Committee on International Space Programs, in collaboration with the European Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation, released a report on lessons learned from case studies of past U.S.-European collaborations in space research. Summaries of these reports appear in Chapter 3. During the quarter, several new projects were initiated. The Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science began a review of NASA's response to recommendations made in the 1995 report of the SSB's Committee on the Future of Space Science, Managing the Space Sciences, regarding the development of technologies for space research. Of relevance to NASA's astrobiology program, a new steering group was at work planning the October Workshop on the Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms. The Committee on Solar and Space Physics began a study of operational issues relevant to space radiation risk during construction of the ISS. The Space Studies Board held its 125th meeting on June 24-26 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. Two major topics for consideration during the meeting were presentations and tours of JPL and a forum on future directions for the Board. The meeting also marked the 40th anniversary of the Board. (Chair Claude Canizares noted at the anniversary celebration dinner that retiring member John Simpson, University of Chicago, was a member of the first Board.) Videoconferences were held with NASA Associate Administrators Wesley Huntress of the Office of Space Science, Arnauld Nicogossian of the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, and Dr. Granville Paules representing Associate Administrator Ghassem Asrar of the Office of Earth Science. Presentations by JPL included Drs. Edward Stone on the current challenges and strategies of JPL, Charles Elachi on space and Earth science programs, Frank Jordan on Mars exploration, Gael Squibb on telecommunications and mission operations, William Spuck on technology and application programs, and Kenneth Nealson on astrobiology. Tours included the Center for Space Microelectronics Technology, and QuikSCAT and the Shuttle Radar Topography Mapper Project in the Spacecraft Assembly Facility. Members also spoke with Dr. Guenter Riegler in NASA's Office of Space Science on plans for the Space Operations Management Office and Science Information Systems. The forum included discussions of results of staff visits with government stakeholders; preparations for the Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science; plans for the Joint Committee on Technology; issues relating to small missions; and NASA-university relations. Also discussed were a potential project proposal on space applications; Committee on International Space Programs-European Space Science Committee contacts with Japan; the workshop on the size limits of very small microorganisms; plans of the Committee on Human Exploration; and a potential astrobiology strategy study.

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Other discussion items included issues related to pending legislation in Congress on intellectual property rights and databases and election of COSPAR officers. THIRD QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The third quarter was notable both for the continued flow of new scientific developments and for its share of drama and suspense, some of which was unique and some of which was recurring. In space science, Galileo yielded new insights about the origin of Jupiter 's rings and new hot volcanic vents on Io. Mars Global Surveyor produced new data on a deep layer of dust on Phobos, and analysis of Lunar Prospector data led to improved estimates of substantial water ice deposits at the Moon's poles. The European Space Agency's (ESA's) Infrared Space Observatory detected a new population of primeval galaxies in the early universe; HST provided evidence of the most distant clusters of galaxies yet detected; and the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer detected a remarkable 2.5-millisecond x-ray pulsar. The drama was highlighted, literally, by the detection on August 27 (by the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and a host of other spacecraft as well as ground-based radio telescopes) of a burst of gamma rays so intense that they enhanced the ionization of Earth 's nighttime ionosphere. The source of the gamma rays is thought to be a “magnestar”—a type of aging neutron star with extraordinarily intense magnetic fields. The suspense was provided by the errant SOHO spacecraft, which was slowly yielding to ground control and providing cause for optimism that this extraordinary mission might return to scientific operation after apparently being lost in late June. An important programmatic milestone for space science was announcement of selection of the first two University-class Explorers—the Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer from the University of California at Berkeley and the Inner Magnetosphere Explorer from the University of Minnesota. With launches planned for 2001, each mission is to be developed at a total cost not to exceed $13 million. In the Earth sciences, where drama often accompanies science close to home, two notable hurricanes were examined. The Japanese-U.S. Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) provided radar data on cloud structures reaching a height of 59,000 feet near the eye of Bonnie, and the ER-2 aircraft-based Convection and Moisture Experiment captured puzzling lightning flashes called “sprites” that appeared to connect hurricane Georges to the upper atmosphere. Another important science highlight was the observation by TRMM of sea-surface temperatures relevant to studying the La Niña phenomenon that tends to exhibit oceanic cooling, opposite to the El Niño warming. Several events occurred that accentuated the growing commercial role in space remote sensing. The SeaWIFS mission, which implements the first NASA Earth science data purchase, marked its first full year of operation. NASA announced selection of five firms for continuation into NASA's purchase of science data products, and ten new projects were selected for funding to support technology development leading to new commercial applications of advanced airborne or spaceborne sensors. In the life and microgravity sciences, eyes were directed toward the end of October and the upcoming STS-95 flight of Senator, and former Mercury astronaut, John Glenn. Also on the crew for the mission were ESA mission specialist, Pedro Duque, and NASDA payload specialist, Chaiki Mukai. The mission, carrying a Spacehab laboratory module, would feature a number of life science experiments focusing both on human health and on neurovestibular effects in fish, plant biology, and cellular biology. The cargo bay of the orbiter also contained the SPARTAN-201 solar coronagraph, several technology validation investigations in support of the next HST servicing mission, and an extreme ultraviolet astronomy experiment. Rounding out the third quarter, concerns over the development of the International Space Station (ISS), particularly the ability of the Russians to finance and complete their commitments for ISS systems and the attendant cost and schedule uncertainties in the United States, provided continuing drama and suspense. In late September NASA indicated that it expected to need an additional $660 million over the next 5 years to cover Russian shortfalls; $60 million was to be provided immediately from funds in NASA's FY98 budget, but the Congress did not say how, or whether, the remaining amounts would be covered. Russia remained on schedule for a November launch of the first Russian ISS element aboard a Proton rocket, and the first U.S. ISS node was set for a space shuttle launch in December. Two new reports were published during the quarter, bringing the total number of SSB reports for the year to 11. The report Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies was delivered to NASA's planetary protection officer in time for use in discussions at the July COSPAR General Assembly. It addresses an important set of issues that are relevant to the growing number of plans in the international space research community for missions to return samples from the interplanetary medium,

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board comets, asteroids, and the satellites of Jupiter. The second new report, A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century, represents a major event in several ways. First, it qualifies as a classical NRC decadal science strategy, succeeding the Board 's 1987 report, A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s. Second, it is a solidly grounded scientific work drawn over a 3-year period from discussions at three broadly attended workshops, two specialized task groups, and five international consensus conferences and documented through over 1200 references to the refereed literature. Also in the “recurring drama” department, the Congress made progress toward approving a budget for FY99. Like all other agencies of the federal government, NASA, NOAA, and NSF began the new fiscal year on October 1 under a continuing resolution that provided funding fixed at FY98 levels. A final FY99 VA/HUD/Independent Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 4194) was ultimately approved in mid-October. Under the bill, NSF received $3.67 billion, for an increase of $243 million or 7.1% over the previous year. A final budget for NOAA was included in the massive “omnibus” appropriations bill completed in late October. In FY99 NOAA received $2.166 billion, representing an 8.2% increase over the previous year. A significant portion of the growth from 1998 to 1999 was committed to specific congressional earmarks. The total budget for NASA was $13.66 billion, representing an increase of $200 million over the Administration's request. Within the NASA science accounts, Space Science received $2.12 billion, a 6.8% increase over FY98; Earth Science received $1.41 billion, a 3.4% increase; and Life and Microgravity Sciences received $263.5 million, an 8.9% increase. That overall growth was offset by earmarks, so there still needed to be cuts in the requested levels of $21.2 million in space science and $11.2 million in Earth science to be taken at NASA's discretion. The bill also transferred administrative responsibility for the space station research program from the Office of Space Flight to the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications. Senate report language directed NASA to contract with the NRC for a study to identify missions that cannot be accomplished within the smaller-faster-cheaper paradigm. Specific budget increases included $20 million for the Mars 2001 program; $10.5 million for cross-enterprise advanced technology development; $12 million for the Next Generation Space Telescope; $10 million for space solar power; and $1 million for the Near Earth Asteroid Tracking program. Also, $11 million was added for Sun-Earth Connections advanced technology development to provide full funding for Solar-B, continue microsatellite technology, and support launch of solar stereo by 2002. Also added were $25 million for support of the EOS AM-1 mission; $15 million to finance research payloads for a shuttle mission to fill the gap in life and microgravity sciences missions; and $6.5 million for space radiation research. Additional earmarks for funding directed to specific institutions totaled at least $15 million in space science and $29 million in Earth science. The Space Studies Board's Executive Committee met on September 9-10 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and approved the Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science and the Europa reports. They reviewed progress on the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System study, discussed possible new projects on space applications and astrobiology, and planned for the coming year's activities. The NRC and the larger scientific community suffered a terrible loss when Dr. Joseph L. Zelibor, Jr., Space Studies Board Senior Staff Officer, died on October 16, 1998, as a result of injuries sustained in a traffic accident a week earlier. He had been a member of the SSB staff for 1 1/2 years and of the NRC for 6 years, having served also with the Marine Board and the Board on Biology. He was study director for the Workshop on Biology-based Technology to Enhance the Human Presence in Extended Space Exploration and for the study on evaluating the biological potential in samples returned from small solar system bodies, both of which led to reports published earlier in the year. He was program officer for the Committee on Human Exploration of Space, and he played a major role in organizing the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms held just a week after his death. His colleagues will remember fondly his love of science, his entrepreneurial spirit, his vigorous sense of humor, and his zest for life. They will also benefit from his work for many years to come. FOURTH QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The fourth quarter of 1998 was marked by a number of milestone events for the space sciences. Among them was the launch of Deep Space-1, the first of the New Millennium program series of missions to validate advanced flight mission technologies. DS-1 will serve as a test bed for a dozen new technologies, including solar electric ion

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board propulsion, autonomous optical navigation and spacecraft operations systems, and miniaturized instrument systems for use during an asteroid flyby in July 1999. On December 5, the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS), one of the first three Small Explorers selected in 1989, was launched to begin its mission to exploit the 0.5-to 0.6-mm wavelength band to study star formation regions in our galaxy. The SWAS team involves investigators from seven different institutions led by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO), the first of two missions constituting the Mars Surveyor '98 campaign, was successfully launched on December 11. MCO will arrive in Mars orbit in September 1999 in advance of the Mars Polar Lander scheduled for launch in January 1999. Also advancing toward Mars was the Japanese Nozomi spacecraft. Developed by the Institute of Space and Astronautical Sciences, Nozomi was launched into a lunar-swing-by Earth orbit on July 4 and then on a trajectory to Mars on December 20. Much of the news about the space program during the fourth quarter involved the long-awaited on-orbit assembly of the first elements of the International Space Station. The Russian-built, U.S.-owned, Zarya control module was launched aboard a Russian rocket on November 20. That was followed on December 4 by the flight of the space shuttle Endeavour carrying the U.S. Unity module for docking and extravehicular activities during which the two units were joined and checked out. The Endeavour flight was the first of some 45 U.S. and Russian flights planned during the next 5 years to assemble the station. In other major NASA developments, astronomer and NASA headquarters veteran Dr. Edward Weiler was named to succeed Dr. Wesley Huntress as associate administrator for the Office of Space Science. He had to contend almost immediately with a difficult situation, namely the need to delay the launch of the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF). As of early October, AXAF had been slated for a January 1999 launch, but delays in check-out of some spacecraft subsystems and in readiness of flight software made it impossible to complete all systems testing on schedule. Because AXAF was to be shipped from TRW in California to the Kennedy Space Center in a special USAF shipping container that was committed to other users during the winter, NASA officials decided to keep the spacecraft at TRW until all testing was completed. The new plan called for shipment to the launch site in January and launch in April, subject to a go-ahead by an independent review board reporting to Weiler. Among the impacts of the delay to be evaluated were unplanned budget requirements in FY99 and a likely delay in the planned HST servicing mission slated to use the same space shuttle orbiter Columbia as AXAF. In an important step for European space programs, the third Ariene-5 qualification flight occurred on October 21. It successfully demonstrated the performance of the new heavy launcher capable of placing payloads in geostationary transfer orbits. The Space Studies Board rounded out the year with five new reports released during the quarter. The reports, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis; Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science; Ground-based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future; Failed Stars and Super Planets: A Report Based on the January 1998 Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects; and a letter report, “Assessment of NASA's Mars Exploration Architecture,” are summarized in Chapter 3. Another major highlight for the Board, also summarized in this report, was the Workshop on the Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms in October that brought together a group of some 3 dozen researchers for a particularly exciting discussion of how small a living organism can be. Finally, the SSB welcomed two new members, Dr. John Hopps, Jr., Provost of Morehouse College, and Dr. Richard Kron, director of the University of Chicago's Yerkes Observatory. The Space Studies Board (SSB) held its 126th meeting on November 2-4 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Gen. William Hoover, new chair of the NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, participated in the meeting. Two major topics for consideration during the meeting were a mini-symposium on the topic “The Future of Space” and an update on plans for the International Space Station (ISS). The purpose of the symposium was to hear from people in other organizations about whether and how they are addressing questions pertaining to long-term directions and challenges in space science and applications and to stimulate thinking within the SSB about what efforts it should undertake on these topics. The session began with a brief presentation from Marc Allen of NASA regarding some thinking within the Office of Space Science about “grand challenges” for the new century. Then the Board heard from Mike Cornwall, a member of the JASONs, Bill Hoover and Dwight Abbott from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, and Len Culhane and Jean-Claude Worms of the European Space Science Committee. Members then formed splinter groups to think about (a) whether this is an effort that the SSB should pursue, (b) what organizing principles or themes might serve to frame such discussions and also frame the

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board way we'll look at space 20 years hence, and (c) what topics might be timely for SSB attention now to prepare for that future. Dr. Kathryn Clark, Space Station senior scientist, and Mr. Mark Uhran, manager, Space Station Utilization Planning/U.S., discussed the schedule for the soon-to-be-launched first stage of the ISS as well as plans for experiment facilities and the utilization schedule. Uhran invited the Board to assist NASA in evaluating alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating research on the ISS. Videoconferences were held with Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, NASA associate administrator of the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Ed Weiler, acting associate administrator of the Office of Space Science, and Michael Luther, acting deputy associate administrator of the Office of Earth Science. Dr. Marc Allen briefed members on strategic planning schedules of the Office of Space Science and its plans for responding to requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act. Dr. Fuk Li, New Millennium program manager at JPL, presented an overview of his program. Dr. Lennard Culhane, chair of the European Space Science Committee, reviewed the committee's activities and plans for the future. Dr. William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, spoke briefly about three topics: (1) plans for a study of the organizational effectiveness of the NRC, (2) concerns of the NRC Governing Board that reports should be more broadly available to and informative for opinion makers, and (3) the need for the NRC to more directly address issues of interest to state and local governments. Other discussion items included updates on ongoing studies by CAA, COMPLEX, and CSSP and new studies being undertaken by CSBM and CISP. Board Director Joseph Alexander provided information about requested studies on (1) an assessment of NASA plans for post-2002 Earth observing missions, (2) an evaluation of NASA's biotechnology facility for the ISS, and (3) preventing the forward contamination of Europa by spaceflight missions. Dr. Chris Johannsen gave a science briefing on precision agriculture. Preliminary approval was given for the Committee on Earth Studies NPOESS report. Approval was given for revised statements of tasks for workshops on remote sensing data and applications. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A summary of all reports published by the Space Studies Board during 1998 is presented in Table 2.1. While quality is always more important than quantity, the 16 reports completed during the year still represent a remarkable output. Included in that collection were reports directed to all three agencies from which the Board received funding—NASA, NOAA, and NSF—and to DOE and DOD as well. The 16 reports presented the results of projects that ranged in length from only 3 months to about 3 years; the median project duration was about 18 months. And the scope of the reports covered the full range of report types, including full-length long-range science strategies, short reports of under 100 pages, and letter reports. Except for the 1997 annual report, all reports were subjected to full peer review. The first step for SSB reports is an internal review by the Board itself. When the authoring committee or task group is ready to send its draft report to review, it goes first to an ad hoc review panel composed of four to six Board members. They review and critique the report and present their comments to the chair of the authoring group, either at a meeting of the Board or via a teleconference. All Board members are invited to provide comments to the ad hoc review panel. After the comments are handled by the authors, as certified by the Board chair, the report is ready for external review under oversight by the NRC Report Review Committee (RRC). Typically 4 to 7 reviewers (occasionally as many as 12) are selected, based on recommendations by NAS and NAE section liaisons and SSB members and staff and approval by the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA). The identities of external reviewers are not known to the report's authors until after the review has been completed and the report has been approved by the RRC. The report authors, with the assistance of SSB staff, must provide some response to every specific comment from every external reviewer. The response-to-review process is overseen and refereed by an independent coordinator appointed by the CPSMA, to ensure that appropriate technical revisions are made to the report, and by a monitor appointed by the RRC, to ensure that the revised report complies with NRC policy and standards. All the reviews place an emphasis on scientific and technical clarity and accuracy and on proper substantiation of the findings and recommendations presented in the report. Names of the external reviewers, including the coordinator and monitor, are published in the final report, but their individual comments are not released.

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board TABLE 2.1 Space Studies Board Reports Published in 1998 Principal Agency Audiencea Report Title Authoring Committee OSS OLMSA OES NOAA NSF OTHER “Assessment of NASA's Mars Exploration Architecture” (Letter Report) COMPLEX X Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science. 54pp. Ad Hoc X X X Development and Application of Small Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radars. 55pp. CES X Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies. 100pp. Ad Hoc X The Exploration of Near-Earth Objects. 32pp. COMPLEX X Exploring the Trans-Neptunian Solar System. 48pp. COMPLEX X Failed Stars and Super Planets: A Report Based on the January 1998 Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects. 61pp. Ad Hoc X X Ground-based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future. 116pp. Ad Hoc X X “On Climate Change Research Measurements from NPOESS” (Letter Report) CES X X “On ESA's FIRST and Planck Missions” (Letter Report) CAA X ESA Readiness for the Upcoming Solar Maximum. 52pp. CSSP X X X DOE DOD Report of the Workshop on Biology-based Technology to Enhance Human Well-being and Function in Extended Space Exploration. 69pp. Ad Hoc X Space Studies Board Annual Report—1997 SSB X X X X X X A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century. 276pp. CSBM X Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis. 101 pp. Ad Hoc X X X U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science. 161pp. CISP X X X X a Principal Agency Audience DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy ESA European Space Agency NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation OES NASA Office of Earth Science OLMSA NASA Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications OSS NASA Office of Space Science Another important measure of the capacity of the Board to produce high-quality work derives from the size, breadth, and depth of the cadre of experts who serve on SSB committees and task groups or who participate in other ways in the activities of the Board. Some highlights of the demographics of the SSB in 1998 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year a total of 189 individuals from 63 different colleges and universities and 32 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. More than 250 individuals participated in SSB activities either as briefers or invited workshop participants.

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board TABLE 2.2 Experts Involved in the Space Studies Board and Its Subunits, January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998 Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 141 63 Government and National Facilitiesa 21 12 Private Industry 19 13 Non-Profit and Other 8 7 Totalb ,c 189 95 a Battelle, Brookhaven, DOD, NASA, NOAO, USGS. b Includes 32 NAS, NAE, IOM members. c 26 SSB members, 163 committee and task group members. TABLE 2.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 1998, to December 31, 1998 Academia Government and Nat'l Facilitiesa Private Industry Non-Profit and Others Total Individuals Committee Members 141 21 19 8 189 Workshop Participants 38 20 9 5 72 Reviewers 67 11 7 9 94 Guest Experts 48 96 14 22 180 Totalb 270 139 53 39 501 a Includes government agencies, NASA and DOE labs, and national facilities (NOAO, NRAO, STScI). b Columns do not add due to service of some individuals in more than one capacity. Total number of NAS, NAE, and IOM members 56 Total number of non-U.S. participants 15 Total number of countries represented, incl. U.S. 10 Total number of participants by gender 440 (M); 61 (F) Total number of different institutions represented: Academia 96 Industry 38 Non-profit and other 21 U.S. government agencies represented: NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIST, USGS, DOE, DOD, OMB, U.S. Congress. NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of ± 2 due to possible miscategorization. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during the period there were 94 different external reviewers who contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, we counted 501 individuals from 96 academic institutions, 59 industry or non-profit organizations, and 9 government agencies or offices who participated in SSB activities. That number included 56 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and IOM. Being able to draw on such a broad base of expertise is a unique strength of the NRC advisory process.

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Membership of the Space Studies Board Claude R. Canizares,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Mark Abbott, Oregon State University Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado Daniel N. Baker,§ University of Colorado Lawrence Bogorad,§ * Harvard University Donald E. Brownlee,* University of Washington Robert E. Cleland, University of Washington Gerard W. Elverum, Jr., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) Anthony W. England,* University of Michigan Marilyn L. Fogel,§ Carnegie Institution of Washington Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives John H. Hopps, Jr., Morehouse College Chris Johannsen,§ Purdue University Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University Richard G. Kron, University of Chicago Jonathan I. Lunine, University of Arizona Roberta Balstad Miller,§ Columbia University Berrien Moore III,* University of New Hampshire Kenneth H. Nealson,* University of Wisconsin Gary J. Olsen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 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 Thomas A. Prince, California Institute of Technology Pedro L. Rustan,§ Jr., U.S. Air Force (retired) John A. Simpson,* University of Chicago George L. Siscoe, Boston University Eugene B. Skolnikoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Edward M. Stolper,* California Institute of Technology Norman E. Thagard, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Florida State University Alan M. Title, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center Raymond Viskanta, Purdue University Peter W. Voorhees,§ Northwestern University Robert E. Williams,* Space Telescope Science Institute John A. Wood, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Louis J. Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio, U.S. representative and vice president of COSPAR) J. Leonard Culhane, ENSPS, (ex officio, chair of the European Space Science Committee) William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired) (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) 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) Joseph K. Alexander, Director (from February 17, 1998) Norman Metzger, Acting Director (through February 16, 1998) Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer Barbara S. Akinwole, Information Management Associate Erin C. Hatch, Research Associate Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant (from September 1998) Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant (through August 1998) Amy Paige Snyder, Summer Intern * term ended during 1998 § member of the Executive Committee

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) did not meet during the first quarter. In February, a CAA letter report on NASA's technology support for the European Space Agency's (ESA) Far-Infrared and Submillimeter Telescope (FIRST) mission and the Planck Cosmic-Microwave Background Survey mission was submitted to NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress. NASA is contributing its expertise in optics, detectors, and antenna technology to ESA for these missions. To justify its argument for technology support on these two specific missions, the CAA in its letter referred to the top priorities for space astrophysics identified in the 1997 report of the CAA's Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics. The committee met in Washington, D.C., on April 27-28. It heard progress reports on the work of the Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research and on the Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects from CAA members acting as liaisons to those projects. The CAA heard presentations from agency representatives Drs. Ed Weiler, director of NASA's Office of Space Science's (OSS's) Origins Program; Alan Bunner, director of the OSS Structure and Evolution of the Universe Program; Peter Ulrich, OSS technology program director; and Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation's Division of Astronomical Sciences. The CAA also held a teleconference with Dr. Richard Obermann, professional staff member of the House Science Committee's (HSC's) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, concerning the CAA's study on federal support for astronomical research, which was requested in mid-1997 by HSC staff. The CAA expects to have the study completed by the end of the year, given the large amount of data collection and analysis, and Dr. Obermann agreed that the timing was acceptable for the study to be done properly. The committee was joined in closed session by consultant Ronald Konkel for analysis of the data collected so far. The CAA is developing a categorization for the astronomical research listed in tables of grants and will continue work on the study through e-mail, teleconferences, and meetings. The CAA also heard that the new astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey is about to begin and discussed the role of the CAA in providing input to the survey committee. The committee met on August 12-13 in Washington, D.C., with a video conference link to CAA members meeting at Caltech in Pasadena, California. The CAA continued work for its study on the federal funding of astronomical research. In a teleconference with Christopher McKee, co-chair of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee, the CAA discussed (1) possible issues with which the CAA might assist the survey committee, (2) issues that the CAA might need to address while the survey is under way, and (3) candidates for chairs and members of the survey committee panels. The CAA heard from Hugh Van Horn of NSF and Ethan Schreier, acting deputy director of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). Van Horn mentioned interest in a revision of the NSF's Facilities Instrumentation Program as originally recommended in the 1995 report of the CAA's Panel on Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy, A Strategy for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy. The committee met next on November 10-11 in Washington, D.C. Presentations on astronomy in the Antarctic were made by Drs. Al Harper, CARA; Antony Stark, CfA, and John Lynch, director, NSF Polar Programs. Presentations on the NASA OSS program were made by Drs. Alan Bunner, science program director, Structure and Evolution of the Universe; Harley Thronson, acting science program director, Astronomical Search for Origins and Planetary Systems; and Guenter Riegler, senior scientist for Space Science Research (via telephone). A discussion of a 1998 SSB report, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs, was held with Dr. Anthony W. England, task group chair (via telephone). Drafts of two letter reports were produced, one on the antarctic program and one on revision of the Facilities Instrumentation program. Members of the committee worked on updates to the statistical analyses done by consultant Ronald Konkel and on completion of the draft report on federal support for astronomical research. Agenda items for the next meeting at the Beckman Center in April 1999 were discussed. CAA Membership John P. Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (co-chair) Thomas A. Prince, California Institute of Technology (co-chair) Eric E. Becklin, University of California, Los Angeles Todd A. Boroson, National Optical Astronomy Observatories Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia Arthur F. Davidsen,* Johns Hopkins University

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board The draft report, The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs , was submitted to external review in September and work to make revisions in response to review began in October. The CES met next on November 4-6 in Irvine, California. The committee attended the SSB meeting the first morning of its meeting to hear Board reviewers' comments on the draft of the CES NPOESS Phase-I report. The committee spent much of the rest of the first day discussing the comments and strategy for revising the report to address them. The report was being readied for external review. CES Membership Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University (chair) Otis B. Brown, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville Catherine Gautier, University of California, Santa Barbara Daniel J. Jacob, Harvard University Christian J. Johannsen,* Purdue University Christopher O. Justice, University of Virginia Victor V. Klemas,* University of Delaware Bruce D. Marcus, TRW M. Patrick McCormick, Hampton University Aram M. Mika,* Hughes Aircraft Company Richard K. Moore,* University of Kansas Dallas L. Peck, U.S. Geological Survey (retired) R. Keith Raney, Johns Hopkins University David T. Sandwell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Lawrence C. Scholz, Lockheed Martin Walter S. Scott,* Earth Watch, Inc. Graeme L. Stephens, Colorado State University Kathryn D. Sullivan,* Center of Science and Industry (Columbus, Ohio) Fawwaz T. Ulaby, University of Michigan Susan L. Ustin, University of California, Davis Frank J. Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems 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 1998 COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met on March 30-31 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to revise its life sciences strategy report according to comments received from external reviewers. Overall, the reviewers responded favorably to the report; there remained, however, a large number of comments that required committee consideration. The committee separated into small groups to address individual sections, and the remainder of the meeting was devoted to report revisions and development of responses to the reviewers' comments. The meeting concluded on the afternoon of the second day, and the copies of the reviewers' comments were collected again from the committee. The committee did not meet during the second quarter. The committee completed the report revisions begun at its March meeting, and a response-to-review package was prepared and submitted to the NRC 's Report Review Committee. The committee's strategy report, A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century, was published in mid-September. The committee met on July 29-30 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to discuss potential new tasks and membership categories. Dr. Joan Vernikos, director of NASA's Life Sciences Division, and Dr. Frank Sulzman, deputy director, were present to brief the committee on NASA program activities

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board and to discuss potential CSBM studies of interest to NASA. Dr. Joshua Zimmerberg of NIH also gave a well-received presentation on the joint NASA-NIH cell-culturing program. Dr. Leonard Dawidowicz, director of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Space Life Sciences at the Marine Biological Laboratory, presented an overview of workshop activities and fellowship research sponsored by his center. The committee agreed on a prospectus to be submitted for NRC approval in October, for a new study to review NASA's biomedical research program. The committee met on December 7-8 in Washington, D.C., to begin work on its new task of reviewing NASA biomedical programs. The meeting began with opening comments by the chair, Dr. Mary Osborn, and introduction of the new committee members. On the first day of the meeting the committee heard a number of background briefings relevant to its task, including presentations on the organization of life sciences programs at NASA and on the various life sciences and biomedical programs within the Space and Life Sciences Directorate at Johnson Space Center. Dr. Richard S. Williams, the new director of the Office of Health Affairs within OLMSA, was present to describe the overall aerospace medicine program. The committee also received a detailed briefing on the National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI). Dr. Bobby Alford, chairman of the NSBRI board, noted that the goals and aims of the institute were very similar to those outlined in the recent CSBM strategy report and praised the report's research plan, saying that it would be of great help to the NSBRI. The committee began planning for its meetings at Johnson Space Center (JSC) and Ames Research Center. Questions related to the collection of and access to astronaut biomedical data had come up frequently during the previous day's discussions, and the committee agreed that this topic would be a priority during its JSC visit. A set of issues was compiled for the JSC visit, as well as a list of information that the committee would need prior to the meeting. A team was designated to make the Ames visit. The committee reviewed and discussed the overall report development strategy and developed a set of tentative meeting dates. The committee's next meeting was scheduled for March 3-5, 1999, at the Johnson Space Center. CSBM Membership Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center (chair) Norma M. Allewell, Harvard University Jay C. Buckey, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Robert E. Cleland,* University of Washington 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, 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, Morehouse School of Medicine T. Peter Stein, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey Judith L. Swain, Stanford University School of Medicine Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Catherine A. Gruber, Senior Program Assistant (through March 1998) Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant (from September 1998) * term ended during 1998 COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) met on February 4-6 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to continue work on its phase II study of microgravity science relevant to future Human Exploration and Development of Space (HEDS) technologies. Much of this meeting was devoted to furthering the committee's

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board understanding of the wide range of relevant technologies. The committee heard from eight invited speakers on topics ranging from micro-chemical processing to clean room technologies. Individual members gave presentations to the committee on their analyses of technology topics assigned to them at the previous meeting. These presentations varied significantly in their level of detail, depending in part on the availability of actual system designs for the technologies. Reconvening in closed session, the committee identified remaining gaps in its information and agreed to topics for which speakers would be invited to the next meeting. The committee also developed a preliminary list of technology systems for each of the identified HEDS functions and agreed to a schedule for breaking the systems down to the component level prior to the next meeting. The committee met on May 27-29 in Washington, D.C., to begin report development for its phase II study on science research in support of NASA's HEDS technologies. Briefings were held on a number of topics pertinent to the study, such as granular materials behavior and prototyping technologies. Dr. Brad Carpenter, chief scientist of NASA's Microgravity Research Division, gave a presentation on the status of HEDS activities. The committee was particularly interested in hearing about the NASA interpretation of and response to the recommendations contained in its phase I report. Dr. Carpenter pointed out that the HEDS initiative represented an opportunity for the Microgravity Research Division to step forward and become the NASA office responsible for research in the physical sciences and related engineering issues. The general session concluded with presentations on HEDS technology topics from those committee members who had not given talks at the previous meeting. The committee held a preliminary discussion of the organization of the report and then broke into working groups in order to review the large volume of reference material on loan during the meeting, and to work on process and subsystem lists for the various identified HEDS functions. The committee reconvened at intervals to provide group inputs to the evolution of the report outline and development schedule. One working group agreed to an additional meeting in July to complete its analysis of the materials processing functions. The meeting concluded with a presentation by one of the working groups on a fluid phenomena classification scheme, and the committee agreed to a writing schedule and draft outline. During this reporting period three members of CMGR and the staff officer attended a conference (Space 98) and workshop (ISRU Resources for Construction of Planetary Outposts) co-located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on April 27 to May 1, 1998, in order to gather information on HEDS technology development and planning. The committee met on August 11-13 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to review and continue writing its draft report on microgravity science in support of HEDS technology development. The extensive collection of reference material developed for the study was made available at the meeting. The meeting included a review of the first integrated draft of the technology chapter. There were detailed discussions of specific report sections to look at issues such as coverage of major points, completeness of descriptions, approach and organization within sections, and additional material needed to lay the groundwork for later chapters, work on report revisions, and new material. There was discussion of a proposed new outline for the chapter on phenomena, which the committee revised considerably. The overall schedule and project strategy were reviewed and adjusted, with an additional meeting of an integration sub-group scheduled for October. Writing assignments and deadlines were also set for the remaining sections of the report. A subset of the committee met again on October 6-7 in Washington, D.C., to review and integrate the new report sections developed since the August meeting. The integrated draft report was then returned to the committee for additional revisions prior to the next full meeting, November 11-13 in Washington, D.C. The committee met on November 11-13 in Washington, D.C., to review and revise its draft report on microgravity science in support of HEDS technology development. The majority of the meeting was spent discussing and revising the chapters on HEDS technologies and microgravity phenomena, which formed the bulk of the report. SSB Director Joe Alexander addressed the committee regarding a new study requested by NASA that would consider the concept of a space station institute. The committee was asked to suggest names for possible study participants. CMGR Membership Raymond Viskanta, Purdue University (chair) Robert A. Altenkirch, Washington State University Robert L. Ash, Old Dominion University Robert J. Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University Charles W. Carter, Jr., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Gretchen Darlington,* Texas Children's Hospital Robert B. Hallock,* University of Massachusetts Richard T. Lahey, Jr., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Ralph A. Logan, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired) Franklin K. Moore, Cornell University (emeritus) William W. Mullins, Carnegie Mellon University Rosalia Scripa,* University of Alabama at Birmingham Forman A. Williams, University of California, San Diego Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Anne Simmons, Senior Program Assistant * term ended during 1998 COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX), an eight-member committee chaired by Norman Thagard, was appointed. The reconstituted committee with members with expertise in biology/bioengineering, human factors, planetary science, policy, radiation effects, robotics, and space systems engineering, held a planning meeting on August 26-27 in Washington, D.C. Several senior NASA representatives made presentations to the committee on topics relevant to the human exploration of space. Presentations were made by Alan Ladwig, special assistant (communications) to the administrator; Lori Garver, associate administrator (acting), Office of Policy and Plans; Arnauld Nicogossian, associate administrator, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA); Beth McCormick, deputy associate administrator, OLMSA; Minoo Dastoor, chief technologist, OLMSA; and Carl B. Pilcher, assistant associate administrator, Strategic and International Planning, Office of Space Science (OSS). Also briefing the committee were Peter Ulrich, director of Advanced Technology and Mission Studies Division, OSS; John Rummel, planetary protection officer, OSS (by teleconference); Joseph Rothenberg, associate administrator, Office of Space Flight (OSF); Darrell Branscome, deputy associate administrator for enterprise development, OSF; and James Muncy, majority key staff aide, House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. CHEX members outlined topics for future studies. During the fall, the CHEX chair, Norman Thagard, and SSB staff held informal discussions with NASA officials about future directions for the committee. CHEX Membership Norman Thagard, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Florida State University (chair) Gerard W. Elverum, Jr., TRW Steven Jacobsen, University of Utah Michael Ladisch, Purdue University John Logsdon, George Washington University Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee Patricia Santy, University of Texas Medical Branch Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory Joseph K. Alexander, Study Director (from October 16, 1998) Joseph Zelibor, Study Director (through October 15, 1998) Erin C. Hatch, Research Associate Jacqueline D. Allen, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAMS A small group convened on February 3 at the National Academy of Sciences ' building in Washington, D.C., to discuss a strategy and plan for the Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) to establish relations with Japan that could eventually lead to a joint study activity. CISP Chair Berrien Moore conveyed the Board's interest

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board in seeking a joint study activity with Japan. In addition, Board Chair Claude Canizares provided background on the Board's history of international relations activities and the need to find a parallel body with which to cooperate in Japan. Dr. Joan Johnson-Freese of the Air War College gave a presentation titled “Japan: Culture, Space Organization, and an Approach for Cooperation.” U.S. COSPAR Representative Louis Lanzerotti discussed the COSPAR perspective on Japan, and Ms. Amy Jackson of NASA's Office of External Relations presented an overview on NASA's activities and directions with Japan. Other participants included European Space Science Committee (ESSC) Chair J. Leonard Culhane, who provided a summary on ESSC relations and contacts with Japan, and Dr. John Boright, executive director of the NRC's Office of International Affairs (OIA), who discussed the activities of the OIA with Japan. Following the presentations, the group discussed several issues, including the organization, changing internal structure, and budgetary outlooks for Japanese space science. The group decided on a preliminary action plan for CISP and the ESSC, which is also interested in conducting a study with Japan. New appointments for the CISP membership were finalized and the committee met on February 22-23 in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the meeting was to identify the issues that should be on the agenda for the next few years and to gather information and perspectives for CISP's next activity, a workshop on U.S.-European-Japanese cooperation in space. The workshop, scheduled for May 19-21, 1999, in Japan, will be conducted jointly with the European Space Science Committee and the Space Research Committee of the Japan Science Council. SSB Chair Claude Canizares, SSB Director Joseph Alexander, and CISP Staff Officer Pamela Whitney attended the meeting of the ESSC held at the European Space Agency (ESA) headquarters in Paris, France, in early April. Dr. Canizares presented the status of SSB activities and programs. A potential NASA-ESA-SSB-ESSC space summit on international cooperation was proposed to ESA representatives. In addition, the agenda included discussions on a joint public release of the SSB-ESSC report U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science. Internal agency briefings of the report were held with NASA on June 16 and with ESA on June 26. The report was released in both the United States and Europe on June 30. In other CISP-related matters, the SSB and ESSC chairs sent a jointly signed letter to Prof. Atsuhiro Nishida, chair of the Space Research Committee (SRC) of the Japan Science Council, to suggest U.S.-European-Japanese discussions on cooperation in space research. In response, Prof. Nishida agreed to set up a joint discussion to take place during the July COSPAR 32nd Scientific Assembly in Nagoya, Japan. A small delegation of CISP and SSB members attended. On July 16, the first consultative meeting on U.S.-European-Japanese cooperation in space was held with delegates from the SRC, the ESSC, and the SSB/CISP. Dr. Eugene Skolnikoff, CISP chair, outlined the approach for the meeting, which was to begin discussions on cooperation between Japan, Europe, and the United States in space-oriented activities. The objective was to consider a joint activity such as a workshop to illuminate success factors, problem areas, and other issues concerning cooperation in space between the United States, Japan, and Europe. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to (1) background presentations on the role and function of the SRC, ESSC, and SSB in terms of organizational structure, selection of members, and purpose and charter, (2) a brief presentation on the SSB-ESSC report, U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, and (3) discussion of a potential joint SRC-ESSC-SSB activity on space cooperation. Participants agreed that a project of the size and scope of the U.S.-European report would not be suitable for a joint activity with Japan. Instead, a workshop convened to review past lessons of Japanese cooperative space activities and, more importantly, current problems and future opportunities for international space cooperation and coordination would be timely. The participants agreed to select a subset of Japanese collaborative missions, develop a template of questions to analyze the missions, and request papers on themes for future space cooperation. They would also identify who should participate in a workshop/conference, ask industry and government to present perspectives, and consider having two to three meetings for this activity. The SRC, ESSC, and SSB discussed potential dates for a workshop in 1999. CISP Chair Eugene Skolnikoff and Staff Officer Pamela Whitney attended the 17th meeting of the European Space Science Committee on November 23-25 at the European Science Foundation in Strasbourg, France. The ESSC members heard from E. Banda, director general of the ESF; J.F. Minster, director of the Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS); R. Bonneville from the Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales (CNES); R. Counet from EUMETSAT; S. Camacho from the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs; and representatives from the European Space Agency. In addition, Dr. Skolnikoff presented the status and an overview of the SSB and CISP.

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Regarding COSPAR matters, the U.S. COSPAR Representative Louis Lanzerotti and COSPAR Executive Secretary Pamela Whitney attended the Bureau meeting held at COSPAR headquarters in Paris in April. The COSPAR budget, plans for the upcoming COSPAR Assembly in Nagoya, publications issues, nominations, COSPAR awards, and other COSPAR business matters were discussed. The 32nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, held July 12-19 in Nagoya, Japan, was a successful event in terms of attendance and abstracts submitted. Over 1700 people attended, the most participants at a COSPAR Assembly aside from the World Space Congress held in 1992, and more than 2500 abstracts were submitted. The meeting was held at the modern, spacious, and well-equipped Nagoya Conference Center. The logistics were well organized. COSPAR awards were issued at the opening ceremony. The recipients were as follows: COSPAR Space Science Award, C. Cesarsky (France) and M. Neugebauer (USA); The International Cooperation Medal, R. Luest (Germany); The Nordberg Medal, A.M. Thompson (USA); The Massey Award, R.A. Sunyaev (Russia/Germany); and The Vikram Sarabhai Medal, D.J. Baker (USA). Professor Minoru Oda, former director of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science and the Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, presented the inaugural lecture, which focused on the past 40 years in astronomy and physics. The 32nd COSPAR Assembly marked the reintroduction of interdisciplinary lectures, which were a tradition at past assemblies. The interdisciplinary lectures, held each morning before the beginning of the scientific sessions, were “Space Weather—A Focus for Solar-Terrestrial Research” by T.G. Onsager; “Life in the Solar System,” by A. Brack; “International GPS Service for Geodynamics (IGS): An Interdisciplinary Service in Support of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences,” by G. Beutler, J. Kouba, and R.E. Nielan; and “A Gigantic Radio Telescope for Revealing the Radio Universe, ” by H. Hirabayashi. For the public, general lectures on the theme “Recent Discoveries About Life in the Universe: Earth, Mars, and Beyond” were presented on the topics “Earth's Earliest Biosphere,” by M. Walter (Australia); “The Possible Origin of Life on Mars,” by C. McKay (USA); and “The Biopotential of Extrasolar Planets,” by T. Owen (USA). The interdisciplinary and public lectures were well attended and very successful. A pictorial account of the Assembly can be found at < http://www.satio.phys.nagoya-u.ac.jp/cospar.98/index.html >. COSPAR‘s Publications Committee met on November 3-4 in Paris, France, to review publication matters and to prepare a request for proposals for a COSPAR publisher. The contract with the current publisher expires at the end of 2000. Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, U.S. representative, vice president of COSPAR and chair of its Publications Committee, attended the meeting. In addition to discussing publications matters, COSPAR attending officers also met with officers from the International Astronautical Federation (IAF) to decide on a Joint Publications Committee (JPC) for the COSPAR-IAF World Space Congress, to be held in Houston, Texas, in 2002. CISP Membership Eugene Skolnikoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Berrien Moore III,* University of New Hampshire (past chair) Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado Robert J. Bayuzick,* Vanderbilt University Robert E. Cleland,* University of Washington Lennard Fisk, University of Michigan Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives Jonathan E. Grindlay,* Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics John Hughes, Rutgers University Joan Johnson-Freese,* Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base Victor V. Klemas,* University of Delaware Adrian LeBlanc, Baylor College of Medicine Thomas R. Loveland, U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center Donald G. Mitchell,* Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory James R. Morrison,* BDM, Inc. (retired) Norman P. Neureiter, Texas Instruments (retired)

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board S. Ichtiaque Rasool,* University of New Hampshire; International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, Paris John A. Simpson,* University of Chicago Darrell F. Strobel,* Johns Hopkins University Louis J. Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant * term ended during 1998 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY On February 24 in Washington, D.C., the Joint Committee on Technology of the Space Studies Board (SSB) and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) convened a steering group composed of ASEB and SSB members. They discussed a draft proposal for a task on infusion of DOD and commercial technology into NASA science programs. Dr. Pedro Rustan (SSB) and Ms. Barbara Corn (ASEB) co-chaired the meeting. Representatives from DOD, industry, and NASA provided perspectives on infusion of commercial and DOD technologies into NASA. The co-chairs then conducted a roundtable discussion to consider the issues presented and a series of questions provided in advance to the participants: how NASA programs currently take advantage of DOD and commercial technologies and the extent to which technology transfer from DOD and industry is part of the development process; examples of successful efforts, and why they were successful; barriers (statutory, regulatory, and cultural) to more effective use of DOD and commercial technologies; how NASA, industry, and DOD identify new technologies for transfer; how issues and processes vary from technology to technology; how industry and DOD view the above issues, especially barriers to use of outside technology; and DOD experience with infusion of outside technology, including commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies and the impact of changes in the use of military specifications (MIL-SPECS). Following the discussion period, the steering group and co-chairs decided on modifications to the proposed task and determined that a full study would be required to address the topic. The revised statement of task was considered for approval by the ASEB and SSB, followed by formal discussions with a sponsor or sponsoring agencies. The Joint Committee on Technology (JCT) did not meet during the second, third, and fourth quarters. During the second quarter, the SSB and the ASEB approved a proposed statement of task on infusion of outside technologies into NASA space science and technology programs. SSB Director Joseph Alexander, ASEB Director George Levin, and Staff Officer Pamela Whitney met with several NASA officials to explore support for the task. Lacking a clear positive response, the SSB and ASEB planned to explore other ideas, including a possible update of the 1993 JCT report Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science. During the third quarter, the JCT's SSB Co-chair Pedro Rustan began discussing the proposed study on infusion of outside technologies into NASA space science and technology programs with agencies such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). SSB Director Joseph Alexander, ASEB Director George Levine, and Staff Officer Pamela Whitney met with NRO representatives to discuss potential interest in a study on the topic “Infusion of New Technologies for Manufacturing, Operations, and Processing into the Intelligence Command Space Programs.” Planning for future activities continued informally during the fourth quarter. JCT Membership Barbara C. Corn, B.C. Consulting, Inc. (ASEB co-chair) Pedro L. Rustan, Jr., Ellipso, Inc. (SSB co-chair) Alan Angleman, Study Director (ASEB) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director (SSB)

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board TASK GROUP ON GROUND-BASED SOLAR RESEARCH The Task Group on Ground-based Solar Research (TGGSR) submitted its draft report, Ground-based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future, for review by the Board at its March meeting. The draft report was revised and resubmitted to the Board. It was approved in May and entered external review. The revised report received final NRC approval and was published in mid-December. TGGSR Membership* Eugene N. Parker, University of Chicago (chair) 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 * all terms ended during 1998 TASK GROUP ON SAMPLE RETURN FROM SMALL SOLAR SYSTEM BODIES The Task Group on Sample Return from Small Solar System Bodies (TGSRSSSB) met on January 12-13 in Irvine, California, to develop the draft report's conclusions and recommendations. The report, Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making, was presented at the COSPAR meeting in July and was published in September. TGSRSSSB Membership* Leslie Orgel, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (chair) Michael A'Hearn, University of Maryland Jeffrey Bada, University of California, San Diego John Baross, University of Washington Clark Chapman, Southwest Research Institute Michael Drake, University of Arizona John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego Margaret S. Race, SETI Institute Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole Steven Squyres, Cornell University Joseph L. Zelibor, Jr., Study Director Jacqueline D. Allen, Senior Program Assistant Amber Whipkey, Program Assistant (through July 1998) * all terms ended during 1998 TASK GROUP ON RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS Board Chair Claude Canizares and Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs (TGRAP) Chair Anthony England met, along with Board staff member Pamela Whitney, on February 4 at the National Research Council in

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Washington, D.C., for an editing session on the task group's report. The report entered external review in April, was submitted for NRC approval in mid-May, and was approved in June. TGRAP Chair Anthony England briefed NASA on the results of the study on August 4. The report, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, was edited and prepared for publication. The printed report was released on October 16. Board Chair Claude Canizares presented the results of the study to the NASA Advisory Committee at its meeting on September 29-30. 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, CIESIN-Columbia University 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 * all terms ended during 1998 TASK GROUP ON TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NASA'S OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE In response to a March 24, 1998, request from Dr. Wesley Huntress, NASA associate administrator for space science, the Board formed the Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science (TGTOSS). The charge to the task group was to conduct an independent assessment of the current approaches and processes for technology development in OSS, with special attention being given to how NASA has responded to recommendations on technology planning and implementation presented in the 1995 SSB report Managing the Space Sciences. A seven-member task group was organized jointly by the SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. Chaired by Mr. Daniel J. Fink, the task group held its first meeting on June 29-July 1 and heard from Mr. Sam Venneri, NASA chief technologist, Dr. Huntress and members of his staff, and representatives of seven NASA field centers. A second meeting was held on July 13-14 to collect additional information from NASA and to have discussions with representatives of industry and academia. A draft report was completed for review by the SSB in early September and was submitted to external review in mid-September. Delivery of the report occurred on October 30, and senior OSS executives were briefed by the chair on November 17. TGTOSS Membership Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. (chair) Robert S. Cooper, Atlantic Aerospace Electronic Corporation Anthony W. England, University of Michigan Donald C. Fraser, Boston University Aram M. Mika, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space Irwin I. Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Oswald Siegmund, University of California at Berkeley

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Joseph K. Alexander, Study Director Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer (ASEB) Denis F. Cioffi, Program Officer (CPSMA) Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant WORKSHOP ON BIOLOGY-BASED TECHNOLOGY FOR ENHANCED SPACE EXPLORATION The Report of the Workshop on Biology-based Technology to Enhance Human Well-being and Function in Extended Space Exploration was published and disseminated in mid-April. 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, 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, Jr., Study Director Amber Whipkey, Program Assistant Laura Ost, Consultant * all terms ended during 1998 WORKSHOP ON SUBSTELLAR-MASS OBJECTS The Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects (WSMO) was held on January 24-25 in Irvine, California. A total of 22 presentations were made in six sessions dealing with the detection, observation, theoretical modeling, and formation of substellar-mass objects, together with their connection to galactic structure and microlensing events. The presentations, given by representatives of some 10 U.S. (16 participants), one Canadian (one participant), one French (two participants), and one Spanish (one participant) universities and/or research institutes, were supplemented by comments made by program managers from NASA and NSF. Each presenter was asked to prepare a 600- to 700-word abstract that would form the bulk of the resulting WSMO report. On January 26, following the completion of the workshop, the steering group met to determine the structure of the final report and to allocate writing assignments. A draft of the report Failed Stars and Super Planets, prepared by WSMO's steering group, was approved by the SSB in June and sent to external reviewers in early July. Revision of the report in response to comments was completed in late August and the revised report was approved for release in early October. Dr. Jonathan Lunine, chair of the workshop's steering group, presented the report's results, together with advanced copies of the report's executive summary, to officials from NASA and the National Science Foundation during a videoconference held on November 3. Distribution of printed copies of the report began on December 24. Steering Group for WSMO Membership* Jonathan I. Lunine, University of Arizona (chair) William D. Cochran, University of Texas, Austin Andrew Gould, Ohio State University Caitlin Griffith, Northern Arizona University Shrinivas Kulkarni, California Institute of Technology Douglas N.C. Lin, University of California, Santa Cruz Gerald Schubert, University of California, Los Angeles Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago

OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board David H. Smith, Study Director Jacqueline D. Allen, Senior Program Assistant Sharon S. Seaward, Program Assistant * all terms ended during 1998 WORKSHOP ON SIZE LIMITS OF VERY SMALL MICROORGANISMS A six-member steering group (with expertise in cell biology, geochemistry/geology, and microbiology) was appointed to hold the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms. The steering group held several teleconferences to plan the workshop. The workshop was held on October 22-23 at the National Academy of Sciences' building in Washington, D.C. The workshop brought together expertise from diverse fields and viewpoints, stimulating in-depth discussion on the questions posed to the workshop and revealing consensus on a number of key issues. The workshop, co-chaired by Dr. Andrew Knoll of Harvard University and Dr. Mary Jane Osborn of the University of Connecticut Health Center, addressed the issue of minimal microbial size, which has been a subject of considerable debate within the scientific community, especially when viewed through the lens of planetary exploration. The workshop was divided into four panels, with each invited speaker giving a talk in one of the panels and then participating in a formal discussion at the end of that panel. The panels were moderated by Drs. Christian de Duve of the Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology, Ken Nealson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Andrew Knoll, and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute. Many of the talks addressed very different aspects of the question of size limits, resulting in quite novel approaches in some cases. Two talks in particular generated a great deal of discussion. Dr. Jeffrey Lawrence of the University of Pittsburgh proposed a model for a gene-sharing cell colony that would require as few as one or two genes per individual cell. This would dramatically lower the potential size limit for cells. Dr. Olavi Kajander of the University of Kupio gave a critical talk that presented experimental evidence for bacteria on Earth that were smaller than what was currently believed to be possible. By the end of the workshop, a general consensus had emerged on a number of issues, and participants agreed that the workshop had not only been successful in reaching its goals but had also been an extremely valuable exercise for the cell biology community. The most important point on which most participants were in general agreement was that a cell operating by known rules with DNA or possibly RNA, ribosomes, protein catalysts, and other conventional machinery would have a lower size limit of 200 to 250 nm in diameter. Proceedings from the workshop are in preparation. Steering Group on Astrobiology Membership Andrew Knoll, Harvard University (co-chair) Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center (co-chair) John Baross, University of Washington Howard C. Berg, Harvard University Norman R. Pace, University of California, Berkeley Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory Sandra Graham, Study Director (from October 16, 1998) Joseph Zelibor, Study Director (through October 15, 1998) Erin Hatch, Research Associate Jacqueline D. Allen, Senior Program Assistant Sharon S. Seaward, Program Assistant * all terms ended during 1998