2

Activities and Membership

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

The first quarter of the year 2000 was a time to reflect on the lessons from recent space mission failures and to look forward with new optimism toward prospects for future programs and budgets.

During the first quarter at least six reports were released that examined aspects of recent NASA mission problems and their implications for the agency's efforts to achieve increased flight frequencies, streamlined project management, and lower mission costs (the “faster, better, cheaper” paradigm). The first was from the NASA Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team, chaired by Henry McDonald, released March 7. Two more were made public March 13: the reports of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board, led by Arthur Stephenson, and the Faster, Better, Cheaper Review, led by Tony Spear. The last two, and most anticipated, were the reports of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team, headed by A. Thomas Young, and the Mars Polar Lander Failure Review Board, directed by John Casani, both released on March 28. In addition, the SSB released Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space Science in prepublication form on March 15.

Several common themes emerged from these investigations and evaluations. For example, the reports often suggested that there has been too much emphasis on meeting schedule and cost, that problems weren' t communicated, and that fundamental management and engineering principles were not always followed. Further, an inadequate system of checks and balances meant that attention was not drawn to the signals of trouble, when mistakes could have been fixed. Young's assessment team's recipe for success was experienced oversight, sufficient testing, and independent analysis.

The SSB report looked more broadly at criteria for making decisions about mission size. A major finding of the study was that a mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the research objectives of those programs. The report viewed the faster, better, cheaper paradigm as a set of principles (including but not limited to streamlined management, flexibility, and technology infusion) that are independent of the size or scope of a mission. In short, the faster, better, cheaper approach need not be applied solely to “smaller” missions. With appropriate care, those principles can be matched to the science objectives and requirements of any mission. The report also commented that the technology cornerstone of the faster, better, cheaper paradigm has often been confused with science-based mission objectives.

NASA had not yet fully evaluated the recommendations and made changes in the programs and their management. For this reason, the Mars 2001 lander was canceled and the instruments were scheduled to be flown in 2003. In addition, a new architecture for the Mars program was being planned.

On the annual budget front, members of the space research community could not help but react enthusiastically to news about the administration 's FY2001 budget proposals. Overall federal R&D budgets were slated for a 7% increase, with NASA, NSF, and NOAA looking at requests for growth over FY2000 of 6%, 17%, and 19%,



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 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 2 Activities and Membership FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The first quarter of the year 2000 was a time to reflect on the lessons from recent space mission failures and to look forward with new optimism toward prospects for future programs and budgets. During the first quarter at least six reports were released that examined aspects of recent NASA mission problems and their implications for the agency's efforts to achieve increased flight frequencies, streamlined project management, and lower mission costs (the “faster, better, cheaper” paradigm). The first was from the NASA Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team, chaired by Henry McDonald, released March 7. Two more were made public March 13: the reports of the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board, led by Arthur Stephenson, and the Faster, Better, Cheaper Review, led by Tony Spear. The last two, and most anticipated, were the reports of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team, headed by A. Thomas Young, and the Mars Polar Lander Failure Review Board, directed by John Casani, both released on March 28. In addition, the SSB released Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space Science in prepublication form on March 15. Several common themes emerged from these investigations and evaluations. For example, the reports often suggested that there has been too much emphasis on meeting schedule and cost, that problems weren' t communicated, and that fundamental management and engineering principles were not always followed. Further, an inadequate system of checks and balances meant that attention was not drawn to the signals of trouble, when mistakes could have been fixed. Young's assessment team's recipe for success was experienced oversight, sufficient testing, and independent analysis. The SSB report looked more broadly at criteria for making decisions about mission size. A major finding of the study was that a mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the research objectives of those programs. The report viewed the faster, better, cheaper paradigm as a set of principles (including but not limited to streamlined management, flexibility, and technology infusion) that are independent of the size or scope of a mission. In short, the faster, better, cheaper approach need not be applied solely to “smaller” missions. With appropriate care, those principles can be matched to the science objectives and requirements of any mission. The report also commented that the technology cornerstone of the faster, better, cheaper paradigm has often been confused with science-based mission objectives. NASA had not yet fully evaluated the recommendations and made changes in the programs and their management. For this reason, the Mars 2001 lander was canceled and the instruments were scheduled to be flown in 2003. In addition, a new architecture for the Mars program was being planned. On the annual budget front, members of the space research community could not help but react enthusiastically to news about the administration 's FY2001 budget proposals. Overall federal R&D budgets were slated for a 7% increase, with NASA, NSF, and NOAA looking at requests for growth over FY2000 of 6%, 17%, and 19%,

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 respectively. Within the NASA totals, the science, aeronautics, and technology account was targeted for growth of $348 million over FY2000, with major portions of that growth allocated to solar system exploration missions including the Mars Surveyor program, a “Living with a Star ” initiative in solar and space physics, restoration of the New Millennium technology validation program, and enhancements in life and microgravity sciences. To be sure, submission of the budget request to the Congress was only the first step in a long and often unpredictable process, but early congressional reactions were generally supportive. Major hurdles that remained to be resolved included the questions of whether Congress would seek to move funds from domestic discretionary accounts, where the most science budgets sit, to increase defense allocations and whether efforts to provide larger tax reductions would reduce the sums available for spending by federal agencies. The European Space Agency (ESA) was to have a budget of $2.6 billion for the year 2000. The budget was allocated primarily to launch vehicles, Earth observation programs, and human spaceflight (55.7%), while scientific programs would receive 13.2% of the total budget. As in previous years, France provided the largest membernation contribution to the ESA budget (29.4%); Germany (25.7%) and Italy (14%) were also large contributors. Twelve other countries—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—provided the remainder of ESA 's budget. In recent ESA science news, the agency was evaluating six proposals for the second and third of its Flex missions. These missions were introduced in 1997 to incorporate smaller missions and more flexibility into the ESA program, which had focused in the past on larger, cornerstone missions. The Mars Express mission, scheduled for launch in 2003, is the first such Flex mission. The candidates for the next Flex missions (at a budget of no more than $168 million) included ESA participation in the Next Generation Space Telescope, a planned follow-on to the Hubble Space Telescope. Other proposals included a three-spacecraft mission to explore the magnetospheric “ring current” left after solar eruptions and a solar orbiter that will travel to within approximately 30 million kilometers from the Sun, allowing detailed views of the surface and atmosphere and direct sensing of solar wind effects and energized particles. Other proposed projects included an asteroid belt mission, a test of precise atomic gyroscopes and motion sensors, a test of fundamental predictions of quantum theory, and a telescope to study stars for oscillations and passing planets. The selection process was expected to take place in the fall of 2000. The Space Studies Board held its 130th meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 6-8. A main focus of the meeting was the administration 's FY2001 budget request, with presentations from Steve Isakowitz, Office of Management and Budget, Tim Peterson, House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, and Shana Dale and Richard Obermann, House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. NASA Associate Administrators Edward Weiler, Arnauld Nicogossian, and Ghassem Asrar and NOAA Assistant Administrator Gregory Withee also presented information on the budget and about their specific programs. The Board heard a presentation from NASA Associate Administrator Joseph Rothenberg on the International Space Station and the Human Exploration and Development for Space Enterprise. NASA Special Advisor Spence Armstrong spoke with the Board about his thoughts on a new initiative for NASA-university partnerships. He planned to produce a white paper on the topic for the NASA Administrator within a few weeks. Robert Cassanova from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts spoke on the goals and activities of his program. Jean-Claude Worms, executive secretary of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), provided an update on the ESSC's programs. The ESSC was planning an April workshop on international collaboration for large-scale space science objectives, and several SSB observers will be present. The meeting included splinter sessions on the review of the Office of Space Science strategic plan and possible new studies on data mining and on NASA-university partnerships. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin spoke to Board members about his goals for NASA, particularly in the new areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology. He also expressed enthusiasm for a new study under the Board on Physics and Astronomy regarding research opportunities at the intersections of fundamental physics and astrophysics. The Board heard from representatives of the three NASA advisory committees relating to science: Megan Urry represented the Space Science Advisory Committee, Gerard Faeth the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee, and Robert Schiffer the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee. Increased interaction to promote effective communication between those groups and the Board is a goal. The Board approved a statement of task for a new study on solar connections by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics. It gave preliminary approval for a letter report assessing NASA's Solar System Exploration

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Roadmap and a regular report on the certification and quarantine of martian samples, both by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. The Board heard an update on progress from SSB member Mary Jane Osborn, a member of the NRC Task Force on Goals and Organization. Chairs of the standing committees presented progress reports, and SSB staff made presentations on task group activities. SECOND QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The end of the second quarter of 2000 represented much more than any minor calendar milestone for the year. Indeed, it marked the conclusion of a remarkable period of service to space research by retiring SSB chair Claude R. Canizares. During the past 6 years Claude provided extraordinary leadership for the Board during a time when NASA was undergoing dramatic changes, the research community was adjusting to new ways of doing business, and the science itself experienced both breakthroughs and setbacks. A look at the breadth and depth of SSB activities during Claude's tenure gives one measure of his impact. From July 1994 to June 2000, the Board published more than 50 regular reports, covering the full range of scientific and programmatic issues in space science and technology, plus two dozen quick-response letter reports to provide guidance on specific questions from NASA, NSF, and NOAA. Included in these reports were five major science strategies—for space physics, space astronomy and astrophysics, space biology and medicine, microgravity for human space exploration technologies, and ground-based solar research. One important highlight of his term as SSB chair was the 1995 report Managing the Space Sciences, a major congressionally mandated study of the roles and responsibilities of NASA headquarters and the field centers, alternative organizational structures, research prioritization, and technology development for the space sciences. Other highlights included Review of Gravity Probe-B, an in-depth scientific review of a controversial space mission conducted in record time, and Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs, a broad-ranging assessment of strategic and programmatic aspects of NASA research grant programs. His leadership also had an impact on issues of international cooperation in space research through the publication of an in-depth assessment of U.S.-European cooperation in space science (U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, the report of a study conducted jointly with the European Space Science Committee) and initiation of trilateral interactions between the SSB and counterparts in Europe and Japan. Perhaps the most notable effort of the SSB during the Canizares years was the 1996 workshop on “Origins.” Following the announcement of possible evidence of fossil microorganisms in the martian meteorite ALH84001, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA asked the Board to help convene a diverse group of scholars to consider major questions and future directions for space science. Participants at that workshop converged on the theme of “origins” as an organizing conceptual framework for much of space science. The workshop findings were presented to Vice President Gore in a symposium at the White House, and he described the event as “exhilarating and thought-provoking.” In addition to possessing scientific and policy expertise, serving as SSB chair—or in any other role as a volunteer on NRC boards and committees for that matter—requires a major commitment of time and energy. Claude chaired all Board meetings during his 6-year tenure, participated actively as a liaison member of the NASA Advisory Council, testified several times at congressional hearings, and made countless trips to Washington to meet with agency, congressional, and NRC officials about SSB business. Members of the SSB, its committees and staff, and colleagues across the space research community share an enormous debt of gratitude to Claude Canizares for his solid leadership, expert judgment, and tireless service as chair of the SSB. The Space Studies Board held its 131st meeting in Washington, D.C., on June 16-18. One major focus of the meeting was the recent Mars mission failure assessments and NASA's plans for the future. A. Thomas Young, chair of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team, discussed his panel's report, and Associate Administrator for Space Science Edward Weiler spoke about NASA's response. A second major topic for the meeting involved the implementation of export control regulations, especially the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and the impact of those regulations on international scientific cooperation. The Board heard from representatives of NASA (the Office of the Administrator and the Office of External Relations), the Department of State (the Bureau of Oceans, International Environment, and Scientific Affairs and the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (the Technology Directorate and the Science Directorate) on these subjects. During the discussions suggestions

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 emerged regarding ways to reduce uncertainties and possibly even provide relief from some of what seem to be the most troubling impacts of the current situation. The government officials agreed to continue work with each other and with the university community to examine the issues. Members of the Board and the NASA Administrator's Special Advisor Spence Armstrong discussed plans for the agency 's new initiative for university partnerships. NASA Chief Scientist Kathie Olsen presented an overview of NASA activities and plans in the biological sciences. Sharon Hays of the House Science Committee staff shared her views about important issues and directions for space research as seen from Capitol Hill. The Board heard from Dennis Smith of Marshall Space Flight Center about NASA's Integrated Space Transportation Plan. Yoram Kauffman of the Goddard Space Flight Center gave a science presentation on the Terra mission, its scientific objectives, and its early results. Mihail C. Roco of the National Science Foundation briefed the Board on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and Martha Haynes briefed the Board on the new report of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee. The Board also reviewed ongoing work by its standing committees and task groups and approved a new project prospectus for the Committee on International Space Programs. During the meeting, SSB Chair Claude Canizares saluted eight retiring members of the Board. Individuals who completed terms at the end of June were Dan Baker, Marilyn Fogel, Roberta Balstad Miller, Mary Jane Osborn, Tom Prince, Pedro Rustan, George Siscoe, and Ray Viskanta. THIRD QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS Contemporary space research is very much a multi-institutional enterprise that cuts across academia, industry, and the federal government, and it often has an international character as well. Consequently, the membership of the Space Studies Board is constructed with careful attention to bring competencies from all these perspectives to the Board. One might find it practically impossible to ever find such a range of expertise in any single individual, but that is precisely what the Space Studies Board's new chair, John H. McElroy, brought to the job. He retired in May 2000 from the University of Texas at Arlington where he served from 1987 in a number of positions, including professor of electrical and industrial engineering, dean of engineering, and provost for research and graduate studies. Prior to joining UTA, he was vice president for technology, Hughes Communications, Inc. McElroy's past government service has included tours as NOAA assistant administrator for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information System (where his responsibilities often involved international efforts) and as deputy director of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the IEEE, the AIAA, and the Washington Academy of Sciences. The Space Studies Board's executive committee and standing committee chairs met together on August 16-18, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to be briefed by the NASA Office of Space Science, and then to draft the Board's short interim assessment of the response to the 1998 SSB report Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion of a number of strategic planning issues for the Board, including future projects, committee structure, and membership. The month of September is always a critical time in the budget season. Federal agencies are waiting to see what funding levels will be available in the new fiscal year, and they are watching to see whether the fiscal year will begin October 1st with clear direction or with temporary budget allotments. This year seemed to a promising one with respect to likely science funding levels but there remained government maneuvers through another round of temporary spending measures and last-minute budget negotiations. Spurred on, perhaps, by the desire to finish their work and return home for election campaigns, both houses of Congress completed their work on the NASA budget and treated the science programs positively. For the first time in 8 years the passage of an authorization bill for NASA seemed likely. Appropriations bills for NASA and for NSF had worked their way through each house and were awaiting resolution of differences in a conference committee. Both the House and the Senate bills proposed a funding level that was above the FY2000 level but below the level requested by the President. NASA's budget also appeared to be burdened with record-level earmarks. Congressional funding levels for NOAA, including the environmental satellite program, did not allow for significant growth over FY2000. As FY2000 came to an end, final agreement between the White House and Congress was still pending, and the agencies were operating once again under a continuing resolution. As the third quarter of 2000 drew to a close the space research community mourned the loss of two of its true pioneers. John A. Simpson of the University of Chicago passed away on August 31 at the age of 83, and Herbert

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Friedman, formerly at the Naval Research Laboratory, died on September 9 at the age of 84. Simpson served on the very first Space Science Board from 1958 to 1967. He served again from 1986 to 1988, and then he was a member of the Space Studies Board from 1995 until the Board 's 40th anniversary in 1998. During his career he was a major leader in cosmic-ray physics, a principal investigator on more than 30 space missions, a mentor to a remarkable number of contemporary leaders in space research, and a respected advisor on science policy issues. Friedman served on the SSB from 1989 to 1994 and was the U.S. representative to COSPAR from 1986 to 1994. He was one of the first scientists to explore the x-ray portion of the spectrum from above the atmosphere and he helped to found the field of x-ray astronomy. Among his research accomplishments were studies of solar x rays in the 1950s and the discovery of x rays from the Crab Nebula in the 1960s. Both Simpson and Friedman will be remembered for their gracious style and demeanor, their scientific accomplishments, and their leadership. FOURTH QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The Space Studies Board held its 132nd meeting at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on November 13-15, 2000. One major focus of the meeting was the International Space Station (ISS). John-David Bartoe, research manager for the ISS program office at Johnson Space Center, made presentations to the Board concerning the research capabilities and early research opportunities on the ISS. Julie Swain, acting deputy associate administrator of the new NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research, discussed the ISS research plans for the office (the former Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications). Ghassem Asrar, associate administrator for the Office of Earth Science, discussed opportunities for research utilization of the ISS and the role of a non-government organization in managing Earth science missions. Marc Allen, assistant associate administrator for strategic and international planning in the Office of Space Science, summarized the plans of that office for research on the ISS. In a series of presentations on international space research topics Allen discussed the Inter-Agency Consultative Group for space science, and Swain described the process for international research planning in the life and microgravity sciences. Len Culhane and Jean-Claude Worms, chair and executive secretary, respectively, of the European Space Science Committee, provided an update on activities of the ESSC. Allen also spoke with SSB members about the need for synchronization of Board strategy and assessment reports and NASA's advisory committee reports leading to development of strategic plans by NASA, and NASA submissions in response to the Government Performance and Results Act. Members of the Board discussed with Spence Armstrong, senior advisor to the NASA administrator, the implementation of export control regulations, especially the ITAR, and the impact of those regulations on international scientific cooperation. Armstrong had held a series of teleconferences with university representatives on this topic. He promised to keep the Board and the Committee on International Space Programs cognizant with ongoing discussions. The Board reviewed the report Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, by the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL). Gary Olsen, chair of the SSB Report Action Panel, reported on views of the panel members; other Board members offered comments as well. The report will be returned to the full Board after revisions are made. Splinter group discussions were held on commercial space and on a study to develop an ISS research strategy, and reports to the full Board were made. Responses to congressional language on studies on research on the ISS and life in the universe were also discussed. James Jensen of the NRC Office of Congressional and Government Affairs offered some reflections on the implications of election results for science and technology. The Board approved a number of statements of task for new projects: Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP), “A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future”; Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), “Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities”; Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR), “The Role of Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA”; and “The Role of Remote Sensing in Foreign Affairs,” to be undertaken jointly with the NRC Office of International Affairs. The statement of task for a review titled “Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science” will be sent to the Executive Committee for action. There was discussion about the role of standing committees and the NRC position on those. Members favored continuing the role of standing committees with appropriate membership to carry out studies in the relevant areas. Members also heard about two new studies: Committee on Earth Studies (CES), “Building the Capacity of University-based Space Research: Steps to Facilities PI-led Earth Science Missions,” and Committee on Human

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Exploration (CHEX) to be undertaken jointly with ASEB, “Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars.” The chairs or staff members of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM), Committee on International Space Programs (CISP), Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA's Space Mission Data, and the Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) presented progress reports. As the year 2000 drew to a close, the space research community could look back on a period that produced much to celebrate as well as a number of issues that call for careful thought and attention in the year to come. On the plus side was the continuing flow of dramatic scientific results from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory, Solar Oscillations and Heliospheric Observatory, Transition Region and Coronal Explorer, Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous, Mars Global Surveyor, Galileo and Cassini outer planets missions, Shuttle Radar Topography and Terra Earth Observing System missions, and other scientific spacecraft. Major milestones were reached in the assembly, outfitting, and population of the International Space Station (ISS). NASA created a fifth strategic enterprise to be managed by a reorganized Office of Biological and Physical Research (formerly the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications), thereby formally recognizing the agency's elevation of the biological sciences to a level comparable to the physical sciences in space research. Furthermore, the space research community could take heart in news of a generally robust, albeit belatedly enacted, federal R&D budget for fiscal year 2001. Tempering the climate of celebration of those events were such issues as continuing concerns about the costs and capacity of U.S. space launch systems and growing concerns about the technical feasibility and likely costs of science projects now in development or on the drawing boards for future initiation. Examples of the latter include uncertainties about the fate of such planetary science missions as the Europa Orbiter and Pluto-Kuiper Express and space astronomy missions such as the Space Interferometry Mission. For the Space Studies Board, 2000 saw the largest number of study reports published in the Board's history—12 full-length reports and 6 letter reports. The audiences for those reports included all three NASA science offices plus the Office of Space Flight, NSF, NOAA, and the DOD-NOAA-NASA Integrated Program Office for the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System. As the year ended there were 10 more projects in various stages of progress under the Board 's auspices. They include major science strategy studies or assessments regarding Mars exploration, solar and space physics, microgravity research, and research utilization of the ISS. As has always been the case, many of the projects completed in 2000 and continuing in 2001 represent collaborative efforts between the SSB and other units of the NRC. These include the Boards on Aeronautics and Space Engineering, Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Biology, Chemical Sciences and Technology, Earth Sciences and Resources, Ocean Studies, and Physics and Astronomy. These joint activities permit the SSB to leverage expertise from across the NRC and bring a more comprehensive set of skills and experience to the Board's projects. At the start of a new year the SSB would begin to operate within a new organizational structure within the NRC. For more than a decade the Board was one of seven boards under the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA). And CPSMA, in turn, was one of a dozen major program units through which the NRC has carried out its various roles. Acting in response to recommendations from the blue-ribbon Task Force on Goals and Operations, the NRC Governing Board called for a reorganization that would consolidate those 12 units into six new “divisions.” CPSMA merged with the former Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems to form the new Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. The transition to the new organization should be largely invisible to government sponsors and members of the community. However, one can hope that the reorganization, along with other concurrent responses to the task force report, will become evident in streamlined operations, improvements in project management, and enhanced interactions between the NRC and its various stakeholders. In the space arena, one can expect to see even closer collaboration between the SSB and its space partner, the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A summary of all reports published by the Space Studies Board during 2000 is presented in Table 2.1. Included in that collection were reports of interest to all three NASA science offices and to NOAA, NSF, and DOD as well. The reports covered a wide range of types, including full-length science strategies, short reports of under 100 pages, and letter reports.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 TABLE 2.1 Space Studies Board Reports Published in 2000 Principal Agency Audienceb Report Title Authoring Committeea OSS OBPR OES NOAA NSF OTHER Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for NASA's Earth and Space Science Missions TG X X WH CONG. Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium AASC X X “Continuing Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science” TG X Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPP and NPOESS Meteorological Satellites CES X X Federal Funding of Astronomical Research CAA X X Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station TG X Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: I. Science and Design CES X X DOD Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: II. Implementation CES X X DOD Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies CMGR X OSF “On Scientific Assessment of Options for the Disposition of the Galileo Spacecraft” COMPLEX X Preventing the Forward Contamination of Europa TG X “Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Office of Space Science” TG X Review of NASA's Biomedical Research Program CSBM X Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010 TG   X “Review of NASA's Office of Space Science Strategic Plan 2000” SSB X “Review of Scientific Aspects of the NASA Triana Mission” TG X WH CONG. The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs CES X X “Scientific Assessment of Exploration of the Solar System—Science and Mission Strategy” COMPLEX X Space Studies Board Annual Report-1999 SSB ALL

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 a Authoring Committee AASC Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee CAA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics CES Committee on Earth Studies CMGR Committee on Microgravity Research COMPLEX Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration CSBM Committee on Space Biology and Medicine SSB Space Studies Board TG Ad hoc Task Group b Principal Agency Audience CONG. Congress DOD Department of Defense NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation OES NASA Office of Earth Science OBPR NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research OSF NASA Office of Space Flight OSS NASA Office of Space Science WH White House Except for the 1999 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 committee 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 subject to approval by the NRC. The identities of external reviewers are not known to the report's authors until after the review has been completed and the report has been approved by the RRC. The report authors, with the assistance of SSB staff, must provide some response to every specific comment from every external reviewer. The response-to-review process is overseen and refereed by an independent coordinator, to ensure that appropriate technical revisions are made to the report, and by a monitor appointed by the RRC, to ensure that the revised report complies with NRC policy and standards. All 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. 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 2000 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year a total of 189 individuals from 80 different colleges and universities and 41 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. More than 350 individuals participated in SSB activities either as briefers or as invited workshop participants. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during the period there were 84 different external reviewers who contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, we counted 528 individuals from 102 academic institutions, 61 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 58 government agencies or offices who participated in SSB activities. That number included 48 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and/or IOM. Being able to draw on such a broad base of expertise is a unique strength of the NRC advisory process. A different way to assess the performance of the SSB is to examine its productivity with respect to study reports. The histogram in Figure 2.1 shows the total number of peer-reviewed reports published by the SSB over the period from 1988 through 2000. “Broad” reports include classical scientific strategies (long-range goals and

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 TABLE 2.2 Experts Involved in the SSB and Its Subunits, January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000 Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 139 80 Government and National Facilitiesa 17 12 Private Industry 18 15 Nonprofit and Other 15 14 Totalb,c 189 121 aH-S CfA; NASA, DOD, DOE labs; USGS; and national facilities (NRL, NOAO, NRAO, PNL, STScI) bIncludes 30 NAS, NAE, IOM members c34 SSB members, 155 committee and task group members TABLE 2.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000 Academia Government and National Facilitiesa Private Industry Nonprofit and Others Total Individuals Committee Members 139 17 18 15 189 Guest Experts 66 101 11 29 207 Reviewers 58 11 8 7 84 Workshop Participants 44 73 16 28 161 Totalb 307 202 53 79 641 aIncludes government agencies: H-S CfA; NASA, DOD, DOE labs; USGS; and national facilities (NRL, NOAO, NRAO, PNL, STScI) bColumns do not add due to service of some individuals in more than one capacity. Total number of NAS, NAE, and/or IOM members 48 Total number of non-U. S. participants 9 Total number of countries represented, incl. United States 5 Total number of participants by gender 446(M); 82(F) Total number of different institutions represented: Academia 102 Government and National Facilities 58 Industry 32 Nonprofit and Other 29 U.S. government agencies represented: NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIH, NIST, USGS, DOE, DOD, DOT, EPA, OMB, U.S. Congress. NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of ± 2 due to possible miscategorization. priorities in a particular discipline or set of disciplines) and programmatic strategies or analyses that cross all of an agency office or even several agencies. “Focused” reports include more narrowly directed topical studies, assessments, and letter reports. One sees that the volume of work, as measured by the number of reports, has grown over the decade while the mix has continued to show somewhat more effort on focused studies than on broad strategic and policy reports, particularly in the past year. Finally, one can also examine the extent to which the Board's efforts have been relevant to the full range of government interests in civilian space research. Figure 2.2 summarizes the principal federal agency audiences to which SSB reports were directed for the period from 1996 through 2000. “NASA-wide ” reports were addressed to multiple NASA offices or the whole agency; “OES,” to the Office of Earth Science; “OBPR,” to the Office of Biological and Physical Research (formerly “OLMSA,” Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications); and “OSS,” to the Office of Space Science. The “multiple” category covers reports that were directed to more than one agency in addition to NASA, e.g., NOAA, NSF, DOE, and/or DOD. One also sees a few reports prepared specifically for NSF. Within NASA, the Office of Space Science has been the most frequent report recipient, with the Office of Biological and Physical Research also appearing as a major audience.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 FIGURE 2.1 Number and type of peer-reviewed Space Studies Board reports published from 1988 through 2000. FIGURE 2.2 Principal federal agency audiences for the 78 Space Studies Board reports published from 1996 through 2000. SSB Outreach and Dissemination Enhancing outreach to a variety of interested communities and improving dissemination of Board reports was a special priority for the SSB during the year. The quarterly newsletter's print distribution list was expanded and supplemented with an electronic version that had about 200 subscribers at year's end. Several kinds of report announcements, fliers, and mailing list sign-up cards were designed and used at SSB committee meetings and at a number of national and international scientific society meetings. The Board teamed with other NRC units (including the Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources; the Board on Physics and Astronomy; the National Academy Press; the Office of News and Public Information; the Proceedings of the National Academy

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 of Sciences; and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel) to take exhibits to the national meetings of the American Geophysical Union and the American Astronomical Society. As a consequence of these activities, roughly 1,800 additional SSB reports were distributed and more than 150 addresses were added to mailing lists for future SSB reports. Membership of the Space Studies Board John H. McElroy,§ University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (chair) Claude R. Canizares,*§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Mark Abbott, Oregon State University Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado James L. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration Daniel N. Baker,*§ University of Colorado James L. Burch, Southwest Research Center Robert E. Cleland, University of Washington Steven H. Flajser, Loral Space and Communications Ltd. Marilyn L. Fogel,*§ Carnegie Institution of Washington Don P. Giddens, Georgia Tech/Emory University Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives John H. Hopps, Jr., Northwestern University Chris J. Johannsen,§ Purdue University Richard G. Kron, University of Chicago Conway Leovy, University of Washington Jonathan I. Lunine,§ University of Arizona Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired) Richard A. McCray, University of Colorado Roberta Balstad Miller,* Columbia University Gary J. Olsen, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Mary Jane Osborn,* University of Connecticut Health Center George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Joyce E. Penner, University of Michigan Thomas A. Prince,* California Institute of Technology Pedro L. Rustan, Jr.,*§ U.S. Air Force (retired) George L. Siscoe,* Boston University Eugene B. Skolnikoff,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory Norman E. Thagard, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, Florida State University Alan M. Title, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center C. Megan Urry, Space Teleschope Science Institute Raymond Viskanta,* Purdue University Peter Voorhees,§ Northwestern University 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 (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Joseph K. Alexander, Director Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant *term ended during 2000 §member of the Executive Committee

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 CES Membership Mark Abbott, Oregon State University (chair) John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation Catherine Gautier, Institute for Computational Earth System Science William Gibson, Southwest Research Institute Sarah Gille, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Christopher O. Justice,* University of Virginia Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired) Ralph F. Milliff, Colorado Research Associates Scott Pace, Rand Michael J. Prather, University of California at Irvine R. Keith Raney, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory David T. Sandwell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Lawrence C. Scholz, Lockheed Martin (retired) Carl F. Schueler, Raytheon Santa Barbara Remote Sensing Graeme L. Stephens,* Colorado State University William Stoney, Mitretek Corporation Kurt Thome, University of Arizona John Townshend, University of Maryland Fawwaz T. Ulaby,* University of Maryland Susan L. Ustin,* University of California at Davis Frank J. Wentz, Remote Sensing Systems Edward F. Zalewski,* University of Arizona Arthur Charo, Study Director Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant *term ended during 2000 COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met on March 27-28, in Washington, D.C., to revise its report on the NASA biomedical program in response to external review comments. During the meeting, a discussion of biology/microgravity interfaces was held to generate topic areas for a possible future workshop. The committee completed work during the second quarter on its report Review of NASA's Biomedical Research Program, a follow-up to the committee's 1998 strategy report. Committee Chair Mary Osborn briefed NASA Chief Scientist Kathie Olsen and Life Sciences Director Joan Vernikos on the report findings on June 21. Discussions began with NASA on potential new projects. During the third quarter, dissemination began for the committee's report Review of NASA's Biomedical Research Program. The report was delivered to NASA on August 11. James Bagian, former astronaut and current director of the Veterans Health Administration 's National Center for Patient Safety, joined the committee as its new chair. The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine did not meet during the fourth quarter. The NASA Authorization Act of 2000 that was signed into law in this quarter called for the NRC and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to perform a review of space station science. The task, in which CSBM would play a major role, was negotiated with NASA and NAPA and with congressional staff. The task called for a two-phase study of the issues outlined in the bill language, with recommendations due within a year on the desirability of additional shuttle flights dedicated to science during the period of space station assembly.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 CSBM Membership James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration (chair) Mary Jane Osborn,* University of Connecticut Health Center (chair) Norma M. Allewell,* Harvard University Jay C. Buckey, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Lynette Jones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert Marcus, VA Palo Alto Health Care System Lawrence A. Palinkas,* University of California at San Diego Kenna D. Peusner,* George Washington University Medical Center Steven E. Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center Danny A. Riley,* Medical College of Wisconsin 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 Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *term ended during 2000 COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) did not meet during the first quarter. Editorial revisions began on the report Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies. The committee completed editorial revisions on its report Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies during the second quarter. The final published report was delivered on June 30. SSB member Peter Voorhees of Northwestern University succeeded Ray Viskanta as the committee's chair and will be involved in selecting the committee 's next task. Potential new studies that focus on interfaces between microgravity and biology were discussed. The committee did not meet during the third quarter. Dissemination activities for the committee's report on microgravity research continued, with presentations of the report's findings given at the Workshop on Space Thermal Systems and Processes in July and at the Fifth Microgravity Fluid Physics and Transport Phenomena Conference in August. Both presentations generated a large number of requests for copies of the report. Study Director Sandra Graham also attended the First International Symposium on Microgravity Research and Applications in Physical Sciences and Biotechnology in Sorrento, Italy, in September and heard presentations on the most recent experimental work in each microgravity discipline. While the committee did not meet during the fourth quarter, discussions were held with CMGR's chair, Peter Voorhees, and Eugene Trinh, director of NASA's Division of Physical Sciences Research, to select the committee 's next study. The resulting task called for CMGR to examine the role and research priorities of NASA's newly reorganized microgravity program. The NRC subsequently approved the study plan and a broad search for appropriate committee candidates began. CMGR Membership Raymond Viskanta,* Purdue University (chair) Peter Voorhees, Northwestern University (chair) Robert A. Altenkirch,* Washington State University Robert L. Ash,* Old Dominion University

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Robert J. Bayuzick,* Vanderbilt University Charles W. Carter, Jr., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 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 Forman A. Williams,* University of California at San Diego Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Anne Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *term ended during 1999 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAMS The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) met on January 24-25 in Washington, D.C. The committee heard updates from the NASA science program offices (Office of Space Science, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA), and Office of Earth Science). In addition, the committee heard from OLMSA's Space Utilization and Product Development Division on commerce and cooperation on the International Space Station and from the Life Sciences Division on the International Space Life Sciences Strategic Planning Group. In response to the Space Studies Board's interest and issues emerging from a U.S.-European-Japanese trilateral workshop on space cooperation, the committee held a panel discussion on the potential implications of U.S. export control policies for space research such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Representatives from NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the law offices of Covington and Burling participated, along with John Gibbons, former director of OSTP, and staff from various units across the NRC. The panel members and the committee noted several areas where the policies are having or will have a detrimental effect on research, including the role of foreign graduate students working at university space laboratories. Following the meeting, CISP Chair Eugene Skolnikoff and SSB Chair Claude Canizares authored a letter to NRC Chair Bruce Alberts urging the Academies to explore the impact of export control policies on research. The committee also spent time reviewing NASA's Office of Space Science draft strategic plan, discussing dissemination of its workshop summary on U.S.-European-Japanese space cooperation, and considering potential new activities. During the second quarter, the committee met on June 12-13 in Washington, D.C. The main purpose of the meeting was to continue to explore the possibility of conducting a workshop involving U.S., European, and Chinese scientists to look at future promising areas of space cooperation between China and the United States and Europe. The workshop would be conducted with the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) of the European Science Foundation and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The committee heard about several ongoing activities between U.S. government agencies (NSF, NOAA, and USGS) and Chinese institutions. In addition, the committee reviewed a draft statement of task for submission to the Space Studies Board for review and approval. The committee also continued to track key topics related to international space programs. Representatives from NASA's Office of External Relations and Office of Space Flight briefed the committee on cooperation on the International Space Station, which represents the largest international collaborative space activity to date. In addition, the committee heard from representatives of NASA's Office of Space Science and Office of External Relations on an international programs initiative, which gathered officials from 20 space agencies to discuss strategic plans and common interests such as education and outreach. NASA also presented the preliminary results of a comprehensive review of international space science cooperation at headquarters and the field centers. Presentations by committee members included a summary of a report, “An Agenda for Future U.S.-Japan Scientific and Technical Cooperation, ” and an update on the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) and the World Space Congress 2002.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 The committee continued to monitor issues related to the ITAR and their implications for international cooperation in space research. On that subject, NRC staff from the Committee on International Security and Arms Control, Office of International Affairs, updated the committee on an NRC workshop, “Scientific Communication and National Security, ” held September 27-28, 2000, in Washington, D.C. The workshop explored how efforts to prevent proliferation potentially affect fundamental aspects of the international enterprise of science. It addressed problems related to the balance between scientific openness and national security, such as the ITAR and international cooperation in space, security regulations and enforcement within government laboratories, and visa regulations as they pertain to technical communication. The CISP provided one of its members, Lennard Fisk, to the oversight committee for the workshop, which was led by the NRC Office of International Affairs. The committee did not meet during the third quarter. At the COSPAR Scientific Assembly in Warsaw on July 20, a representative of the CISP, members of the Space Studies Board, and representatives for the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) met with Chinese space scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and from Chinese universities to discuss the possibility of holding a joint activity. The CISP/SSB and ESSC representatives presented overviews of the NRC and the National Academies and of the ESSC and European Science Foundation, respectively, while the CAS representatives presented the organization and activities of the Chinese National Committee for COSPAR. Chinese scientists were very interested in a joint activity, and CISP considered holding a workshop on the processes for conducting space science in each of the two countries (e.g., policy formulation, decision making, strategic planning, space mission selection, funding allocation, key institutional roles). During the fourth quarter, the committee met on December 12 in Washington, D.C. The objectives for the meeting were to begin planning a workshop to be held with the European Space Science Committee and the Chinese Academy of Sciences that will explore the process of conducting space science in each of the three regions. The meeting also focused on recent efforts within OSTP and NASA to identify the problems that universities are confronting with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The committee also discussed the results of the NRC workshop “National Security and Scientific Communication,” held in September. In addition, the committee heard about the status of NASA's international relations with China, Brazil, India, Spain, and other nations and about the Inter-Agency Consultative Group, a forum for space agencies to coordinate and share space science plans. Lastly, the committee continued to learn about U.S. agency activities with China and heard about DOE's collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences on climate change research. Speakers at the meeting were John Schumacher, Office of External Relations, NASA; Lennard Fisk, CISP member; Gerry Epstein, OSTP; Patricia Wrightson, NRC Office of International Affairs; Marc Allen, Office of Space Science, NASA; and Mike Riches, Department of Energy. CISP Membership Eugene Skolnikoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado Lennard Fisk, University of Michigan Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives John Hughes, Rutgers University Adrian LeBlanc, Baylor College of Medicine Thomas R. Loveland, U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center Norman P. Neureiter,* Texas Instruments (retired) Louis J. Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *resigned in 2000

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) held its Scientific Program Committee, Publications Committee, and Bureau meetings on March 29 through April 2 in Paris, France. Key issues discussed were the scientific program for the 33rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly to be held in Warsaw during July, negotiations on a new publications contract, and general COSPAR business. In addition, the Joint Program Committee (JPC) for the World Space Congress (WSC) 2002, a joint activity of COSPAR and the International Astronautical Federation (IAF), met to discuss a site visit in late January to the WSC conference center (George Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas) and plans and preparations for the WSC program. The JPC may include in the WSC program events on space medical research, space station research, and space applications, among other possible themes. These events would focus on current or future space research, technology, and applications and would include field visits to local institutions such as science museums, the Houston Medical Center, and the Johnson Space Center. Other issues discussed at the March JPC meeting were potential joint science-engineering sessions, plenary lectures, and possible joint publications for the WSC. Planning for the WSC 2002 continued during the second quarter. At the national level, a national organizing committee (NOC), composed of representatives from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), NRC, COSPAR, and IAF, meets regularly to orchestrate activities and plans for the World Space Congress within the United States. The NOC includes the COSPAR U.S. representative, the COSPAR scientific program chair for the WSC 2002, the U.S. executive secretary to COSPAR, the IAF program chair, and several representatives from the AIAA who are managing the logistics, fund raising, and national organization for the event. The NOC met June 1 at the AIAA headquarters. The 33rd Scientific Assembly was held at the Warsaw University of Technology, Poland, on July 16-23. Approximately 1,700 individuals attended the meeting, which was held largely in the University's Main Building, an historic and classic building left untouched by the extensive bombing of Warsaw during World War II. Good news on the launch of the first Cluster II pair, Salsa and Samba, sounded a positive note that continued throughout the week. The assembly focused on scientific sessions in Earth sciences, microgravity and life sciences, planetary sciences, solar and space physics, fundamental physics in space, and other technical areas of space research. In addition, the Assembly included a series of interdisciplinary lectures and public lectures, which attracted strong interest in Poland. Interdisciplinary lectures included the following: “New Insights on the Mars Interior Structure” (M. Acuna, USA); “Extrasolar Planetary Systems” (M. Mayor, Switzerland); “Fundamental Physics in Space” (C.W.F. Everitt, USA); and “Space Debris—A Space Environment Issue?” (N.L. Johnson, USA). Presented by Polish and non-Polish scientists, the public lectures for the local audience were “Galileo Explores Jupiter's System” (T. Johnson, USA); “Discovering the Universe” (M. Demianski, Poland); “Returning to the Moon” (J. Heidmann, France); “Expeditions to Small Islands in the Solar System ” (M. Banaszkiewicz, Poland); “Storms in Space Weather” (L.J. Lanzerotti, USA); and “Satellites and Navigation” (J. Sledzinski, Poland). Another highlight of the assembly was the awards ceremony, which took place during the opening ceremony for the assembly. Awards were presented to the following individuals: COSPAR Space Science Award, R. Bonnet (ESA) and D.M. Hunten (USA); COSPAR International Cooperation Medal, J.H. Carver (Australia); COSPAR William Nordberg Medal, K. Ijiri (Japan); COSPAR/Royal Society Massey Award, S.C. Bowyer (USA); COSPAR/ ISRO Vikram Sarabhai Medal, Z.-X. Liu (China); and COSPAR/Russian Academy of Sciences Zeldovich Medals, Scientific Commission A: S. Gille (USA) (Space Studies of the Earth's Surface, Meteorology, and Climate), Scientific Commission B: R. Meier (Switzerland/USA) (Space Studies of the Earth-Moon System, Planets, and Small Bodies of the Solar System), Scientific Commission C: S.D. Eckermann (Australia/USA) (Space Studies of the Upper Atmosphere of the Earth and Planets, Including Reference Atmospheres), Scientific Commission D: V. Angelopoulos (Greece/USA) (Space Plasmas in the Solar System, Including Planetary Magnetosphere), Scientific Commission E: T. Tsuru (Japan) (Research in Astrophysics from Space), Scientific Commission F: M. Bernstein (USA) (Life Sciences as Related to Space), Scientific Commission G: J. Leypoldt (Germany) (Materials Sciences in Space), and Scientific Commission H: A. Vecchio (Italy/Germany) (Fundamental Physics in Space). The JPC met on October 5 at the IAF General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro. Members of the JPC decided to add a fourth special theme, “A Vision for Space Science in the Next 25 Years,” for the World Space Congress. The themes, which will exist in addition to the COSPAR and IAF technical programs, may include plenary sessions, relevant tours or site visits in the Houston area, and linkages to related technical sessions during the World Space Congress. The other three themes will focus on the International Space Station, commercial space applications, and

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 life sciences and biomedicine. Another key decision was to adopt an overall theme to promote the World Space Congress. The AIAA proposed “The New Face of Space,” which was accepted as the general theme. The NOC met on October 27 and on December 1 at the National Academies ' facilities in Washington, D.C. The group reviewed promotional materials and is organizing a schedule for the call for papers. The NOC is also overseeing the creation of a Houston-based local organizing committee (LOC), is beginning plans for education and outreach for the LOC, and is considering procedures associated with joint publications for the WSC. TASK GROUP FOR THE EVALUATION OF NASA'S BIOTECHNOLOGY FACILITY FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION During the first quarter, the Task Group for the Evaluation of NASA 's Biotechnology Facility (TGBTF) for the International Space Station delivered its report, Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station, to NASA on February 29. The findings and recommendations detailed in the report are aimed at helping NASA perform biotechnology research (protein crystal growth and cell science) effectively on the International Space Station. Dissemination activities continued into March and April, including briefings to NASA advisory committees and the Office of Management and Budget. TGBTF Membership Paul B. Sigler,* Yale University (chair) Adele L. Boskey, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York Noel D. Jones, Molecular Structure Corp. and Eli Lilly (retired) John Kuriyan, Rockefeller University William M. Miller, Northwestern University Michael L. Shuler, Cornell University Gary S. Stein,** University of Massachusetts Medical School Bi-Cheng Wang, University of Georgia Elizabeth L. Grossman, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Project Assistant *deceased, January 11, 2000 **acting chair as of January 12, 2000 TASK GROUP ON THE FORWARD CONTAMINATION OF EUROPA The Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa completed work on the report Preventing the Forward Contamination of Europa. The SSB approved the entry of the report into the NRC's external review process in March and the report was sent out to reviewers later that month. A revised draft of the report, responding to reviewers' comments, was completed in early May and was approved for release later that month. Advanced copies of the text were sent to NASA on June 1 and the printed report was released on June 30. Approximately 75 percent of the available copies were distributed on the day of release and the remaining stock was depleted soon thereafter. Given the popularity of the report, compounded by the near-simultaneous release of COMPLEX's letter report on the disposal of Galileo, NRC funds were made available to enable a second printing of the report later in the year. Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa Membership* Larry W. Esposito, University of Colorado (chair) Andrew F. Cheng, Johns Hopkins University Benton C. Clark, Lockheed Martin Astronautics Michael Daly, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences E. Imre Friedmann, Florida State University

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Bruce M. Jakosky, University of Colorado Richard Y. Morita, Oregon State University Anne-Louise Reysenback, Portland State University David A. Stahl, Northwestern University David H. Smith, Study Director Sharon Seaward, Senior Program Assistant *all terms ended during 2000 TASK GROUP ON TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN NASA'S OFFICE OF SPACE SCIENCE The Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science met on October 18-19, 1999, in Washington, D.C., to gather information for a review of NASA's response to the task group report Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science published in November 1998. The letter report resulting from that meeting was delivered to NASA on March 16. TGTOSS Membership* Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. (chair) Robert S. Cooper, Atlantic Aerospace Electronic Corp. Anthony W. England, University of Michigan Donald C. Fraser, Boston University Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired) Irwin I. Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Oswald Siegmund, University of California at Berkeley Tamara L. Dickinson, Study Director Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant *all terms ended during 2000 TASK GROUP ON THE REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF THE NASA TRIANA MISSION The Space Studies Board, in cooperation with the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, undertook a review of the scientific aspects of NASA's Triana mission. The task group met in Washington, D.C., on January 12-13 and heard presentations from the Triana science team, among others. The letter report completed review and was delivered to NASA on March 3. Task Group Chair James Duderstadt briefed staff members from Congress, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Vice President 's Office when the report was released. TRIANA Membership* James J. Duderstadt, University of Michigan (chair) William L. Chameides, Georgia Institute of Technology Catherine Gautier, University of California at Santa Barbara George Gloeckler, University of Maryland William E. Gordon, Rice University (retired) Judith Lean, Naval Research Laboratory Noboru Nakamura, University of Chicago Alan Strahler, Boston University

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Tamara L. Dickinson, Study Director Rebecca Shapack, Research Assistant Sharon Seaward, Senior Program Assistant *all terms ended in 2000 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF MISSION SIZE TRADE-OFFS FOR EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS The Ad Hoc Committee on the Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space Science Missions was created to respond to a congressionally mandated study to explore issues related to the mix of mission sizes in the NASA space and Earth science enterprises. The committee's report was sent to external review in early January, and the report was approved and released in March. Committee Membership Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado (chair) Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado Robert L. Carovillano, Boston College Richard G. Kron, University of Chicago George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) R. Keith Raney, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Pedro L. Rustan, Jr., U.S. Air Force (retired) Pamela Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant STEERING COMMITTEE ON SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COMMERCIALIZATION The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) continued, during the first quarter, to prepare for its May workshop, “Moving Remote Sensing from Research to Applications: Case Studies of the Knowledge Transfer Process.” The committee selected speakers, completed work on the agenda, and disseminated a workshop announcement. In cooperation with the Ocean Studies Board, SAPPSC held the workshop on May 3-4 in the National Academies' auditorium in Washington, D.C. Approximately 75 people from government agencies, academia, private industry, state governments, and other institutions attended. Plenary speakers gave presentations titled “Technology Transfer Process; Emerging Technologies for Remote Sensing and Geospatial Data,” “Science and Policy Issues in the Coastal Zone,” and “Comparative Perspectives on Technology Transfer, GIS and GPS. ” Case studies to illustrate the knowledge transfer process focused on topics relevant to the coastal zone. The cases presented were “EPA Advanced Monitoring Program: Applications of the SeaWIFS for Coastal Monitoring of Harmful Algal Blooms” by Eugene Meier, EPA; “U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SHOALS Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Program ” by Jeff Lillycrop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and “Satellite and Aerial Remote Sensing for Coastal Sewage Discharge and Run-off Monitoring Project” by Jan Svejkovsky, Ocean Imaging Corp. In addition, the workshop included a panel discussion on remote sensing for coastal zone science and applications with individuals from federal and state agencies, industry, and academia. The workshop attendees participated in splinter sessions to discuss issues on technology transfer, focusing on policy, technical matters, education and training, institutional issues, and user awareness. The steering committee met following the workshop on May 4 and 5 to discuss a preliminary outline for a workshop report. The committee met on August 1-3 in Washington, D.C., to (1) discuss the draft report for the May 2000 workshop, “Moving Remote Sensing from Research to Applications: Case Studies of the Knowledge Transfer

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Process,” and (2) hold a planning meeting for a second workshop, “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Changing Environment,” to be held March 27-28, 2001, in Washington, D.C. The committee's work on the draft report involved deliberations on the report's content, structure, and preliminary recommendations and findings. The planning meeting for the second workshop opened with perspectives from two working scientists and SAPPSC members, Chris Johannsen (Purdue University) and Larry Harding, Jr. (Horn Point Environmental Laboratory, University of Maryland), on an environment in which commercial producers are providing an increasing source of remote sensing data. The meeting also included brief presentations from agency sponsors for the remote sensing workshop series: NOAA, NASA Headquarters, NASA Stennis, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of Transportation representative was not present but provided information in advance to the committee. Because the second workshop will focus on the commercial remote sensing environment and issues for conducting basic research within that changing climate, the planning session included a panel discussion with three remote sensing industry representatives: Jay Pearlman (TRW), John Dykstra (Earth Satellite Corporation), and John McIver (Boeing/Resource 21). The planning session was followed by discussions among SAPPSC members, industry and agency representatives, and interested outsiders to obtain input for the committee on key issues to include in the second workshop, the workshop structure, possible speakers, and possible individuals and groups to invite. The committee completed its draft report of the May 2000 workshop on remote sensing and technology transfer. The report, Bridging the Gap: Moving Remote Sensing from Data to Information and Applications, is scheduled to go into external review in April 2001. SAPPSC Membership Roberta Balstad Miller, Columbia University (chair) Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University Lawrence W. Harding, Jr., Horn Point Environmental Laboratory, University of Maryland John R. Jensen, University of South Carolina Chris J. Johannsen, Purdue University Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future John S. MacDonald, Institute for Pacific Ocean Science and Technology Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant COMMITTEE TO REVIEW NASA'S EARTH SCIENCE ENTERPRISE SCIENCE PLAN NASA's Earth Science Enterprise is developing a strategy for guiding future research and selecting space missions. The strategy document, “NASA Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010,” was reviewed by the ad hoc Committee to Review NASA's ESE Science Plan under the joint auspices of the Space Studies Board, the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, the Ocean Studies Board, and the Policy Division. The committee was charged to examine (1) the characterization of the issues and primary questions the plan proposes to address; (2) the criteria and prioritization process described for both the science questions and the definition of mission concepts; and (3) the soundness of the selection of detailed questions to be pursued, particularly in light of existing NRC reports. The committee met on May 17-18 to discuss the history of the plan with NASA and OMB representatives, analyze background materials, including comments on the research strategy from nine NRC boards, and begin drafting its report. A small writing team met in Boulder, Colorado, on June 12 to refine the report. The report was vetted by the SSB at its 132nd meeting on June 14-16, 2000. The final report, Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, was delivered to NASA in early August 2000.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Committee Membership* Susan K. Avery, University of Colorado (chair) John R. Christy, University of Alabama, Huntsville Bradford H. Hager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Kenneth C. Jezek, Ohio State University Joyce E. Penner, University of Michigan Steven W. Running, University of Montana Edward S. Sarachik, University of Washington Robert J. Serafin, National Center for Atmospheric Research Sharon L. Smith, University of Miami Soroosh Sorooshian, University of Arizona John R.G. Townshend, University of Maryland Carl Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Anne M. Linn, Study Director, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Joseph K. Alexander, Director, Space Studies Board Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Director, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Morgan Gopnik, Director, Ocean Studies Board Sherburne B. Abbott, Policy Division Barbara W. Wright, Senior Project Assistant, Board on Mathematical Sciences *all terms ended in 2000 TASK GROUP ON EXPLORING ORGANIC ENVIRONMENTS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM The Task Group on Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (TGOESS) held its first meeting in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on October 2-4. The task group conducted preliminary discussions regarding the scope of the study and received presentations on various aspects of the search for and identification of organic materials in different solar system environments. In his presentation on the asteroid-meteorite connection, Richard Binzel (MIT) discussed the current theories and controversies regarding the possible relationship between asteroids and meteorites. Scott Messenger (Washington University) spoke on organics in interplanetary dust grains and covered the process of isolating these grains using collectors on high-altitude aircraft. George Flynn (SUNY/ Plattsburgh) also spoke on the topic of organics in interplanetary dust grains and concentrated on the process for, and difficulties inherent in, identifying organic compounds found on these grains. The remainder of the meeting was dedicated to preparing an outline for the task group's report, determining writing assignments, and working on an initial draft of the report. TGOESS decided that there was still information gathering necessary for this report, primarily in the area of protoplanetary disks. Therefore, the task group will receive a briefing on this topic at its next meeting, scheduled to be held in Tucson, Arizona, in January 2001. Following the meeting, an initial, but incomplete, draft of the report was distributed to TGOESS members for comment. TGOESS Membership James P. Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (chair) Luann Becker, University of Hawaii Kristie A. Boering, University of California, Berkeley George D. Cody, Carnegie Institution of Washington G. Barney Ellison, University of Colorado John M. Hayes, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Robert E. Johnson, University of Virginia William Klemperer, Harvard University Karen J. Meech, University of Hawaii

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2000 Keith S. Noll, Space Telescope Science Institute Martin Saunders, Yale University David H. Smith, Study Director, Space Studies Board Christopher K. Murphy, Study Director, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Sharon Seaward, Senior Program Assistant TASK GROUP ON THE AVAILABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF NASA'S SPACE MISSION DATA During the fourth quarter, the new Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA's Space Mission Data was established under the joint auspices of the SSB and the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources. In response to congressional direction in the FY2000 NASA Appropriations bill, the task group will examine the usefulness of current data collections and archives as resources in support of high-priority scientific studies in Earth and space science. The study also will look at the balance between resources for mission development and for analysis of data. Release of the report is planned for March 2002. Task Group Membership Sidney C. Wolff, National Optical Astronomy Observatories (chair) Thomas A. Herring, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (vice chair) Joel Bregman, University of Michigan David J. DeWitt, University of Wisconsin Michael J. Folk, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Richard G. Kron, University of Chicago Donna Shirley, Managing Creativity Walter H.F. Smith, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Roger M. Wakimoto, University of California at Los Angeles Donald J. Williams, Johns Hopkins University Roger V. Yelle, Northern Arizona University James R. Zimbelman, Smithsonian Institution Tamara L. Dickinson, Study Director Claudette Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant DISTINGUISHED LEADERS IN SCIENCE LECTURE SERIES 1999-2000 The “Distinguished Leaders in Science” lecture series continued during 2000 with a space science presentation by Claude Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, titled “Exploring the Violent Universe with the Chandra X-ray Observatory, ” on March 23; Christopher Chyba, SETI Institution, “Europa and the Rebirth of Exobiology,” on April 18; and Richard Canfield, Montana State University, “The Sun-Earth Connection in the Space Age,” on May 11. As with past lectures in this series, the presentations were videotaped for later distribution on public access television channels in the Washington, D.C., area. Arrangements were made for more extensive broadcast dissemination of the lectures via the Research Channel associated with the University of Washington.