2
Activities and Membership

FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS

The beginning of the annual congressional budget appropriation cycle in the first quarter of 2001 featured the first airing of a budget from the new Bush administration. The budget document that was released on February 28, “A Blueprint for New Beginnings—A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities,” provided only a broad outline of federal policies and agency bottom lines. Details, and attendant information about the programmatic implications of the proposed 2002 budget, were not expected until April.

Even without the details, the blueprint shed light on what to expect in budget discussions over the next few months. To protect resources for Social Security, tax cuts, and budget reserves, and to provide resources for spending initiatives in education, Medicare, and national defense, the overall budget growth was held at 4 percent above 2001, compared with an annual 6 percent growth rate over the previous 3 years. Defense R&D would grow by $2.6 billion, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would continue on its track to double over the period 1998-2003. For most other science agencies there was little or no significant projected growth. NASA’s budget would be increased by just 2 percent over 2001, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) would be only 1 percent above FY 2000. Encouraging highlights included provisions for a “more robust” Mars exploration program at NASA, funding for follow-on EOS Earth science missions, and increased funding for the Space Launch Initiative. On the other hand, the NASA budget included no funds for the Pluto/Kuiper Express or Solar Probe missions, and one found language that suggests that there could be reductions ahead for some Earth science missions and applications programs.

The most dramatic changes, however, were in store for the International Space Station (ISS) program. To deal with a $4 billion cost increase in the ISS while staying within fixed costs ceilings—and to contain the problems within the Human Space Flight portion of the budget—the blueprint mentioned actions to delete or defer the U.S. habitation module, crew return vehicle, and propulsion module. An immediate implication of these actions appeared to be a reduction in ISS crew size from the planned seven to a full-time crew of only three. Although more information and analysis would be needed to fully assess the impact of these changes, early concerns were expressed within the research community about the likelihood of consequent reductions or limitations to the scope and character of research that could be supported on the ISS. A committee of the SSB was already preparing to begin an assessment of ISS research (see page 26).

For the NSF, recent efforts to achieve a budget doubling akin to that in progress for the NIH seemed to be in for a pause. The White House budget document highlighted funding for a variety of education-related programs, but it also indicated plans for a freeze on all new major facilities projects. As was the case for all agencies, the blueprint cited several “potential reforms” at NSF, including a call for a review of the organizational effectiveness of support for astronomical research at NSF and NASA (see page 33).



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 2001 2 Activities and Membership FIRST QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS The beginning of the annual congressional budget appropriation cycle in the first quarter of 2001 featured the first airing of a budget from the new Bush administration. The budget document that was released on February 28, “A Blueprint for New Beginnings—A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities,” provided only a broad outline of federal policies and agency bottom lines. Details, and attendant information about the programmatic implications of the proposed 2002 budget, were not expected until April. Even without the details, the blueprint shed light on what to expect in budget discussions over the next few months. To protect resources for Social Security, tax cuts, and budget reserves, and to provide resources for spending initiatives in education, Medicare, and national defense, the overall budget growth was held at 4 percent above 2001, compared with an annual 6 percent growth rate over the previous 3 years. Defense R&D would grow by $2.6 billion, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would continue on its track to double over the period 1998-2003. For most other science agencies there was little or no significant projected growth. NASA’s budget would be increased by just 2 percent over 2001, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) would be only 1 percent above FY 2000. Encouraging highlights included provisions for a “more robust” Mars exploration program at NASA, funding for follow-on EOS Earth science missions, and increased funding for the Space Launch Initiative. On the other hand, the NASA budget included no funds for the Pluto/Kuiper Express or Solar Probe missions, and one found language that suggests that there could be reductions ahead for some Earth science missions and applications programs. The most dramatic changes, however, were in store for the International Space Station (ISS) program. To deal with a $4 billion cost increase in the ISS while staying within fixed costs ceilings—and to contain the problems within the Human Space Flight portion of the budget—the blueprint mentioned actions to delete or defer the U.S. habitation module, crew return vehicle, and propulsion module. An immediate implication of these actions appeared to be a reduction in ISS crew size from the planned seven to a full-time crew of only three. Although more information and analysis would be needed to fully assess the impact of these changes, early concerns were expressed within the research community about the likelihood of consequent reductions or limitations to the scope and character of research that could be supported on the ISS. A committee of the SSB was already preparing to begin an assessment of ISS research (see page 26). For the NSF, recent efforts to achieve a budget doubling akin to that in progress for the NIH seemed to be in for a pause. The White House budget document highlighted funding for a variety of education-related programs, but it also indicated plans for a freeze on all new major facilities projects. As was the case for all agencies, the blueprint cited several “potential reforms” at NSF, including a call for a review of the organizational effectiveness of support for astronomical research at NSF and NASA (see page 33).

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 The Department of Commerce budget was slated for a 6 percent decrease, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) likely to share some portion of those reductions. One important aspect of NOAA’s program that appeared to stay on track was the joint NOAA-Department of Defense (DOD)-NASA National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) that was slated for an $83 million increase in 2002. Whether the budget would provide the resources needed to ensure that data from NPOESS could be preserved and utilized for research was not yet clear. As the first quarter ended, administration support for health and defense research appeared solid, and science across the government could be described as holding its own compared with the government as a whole. A candidate to become the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy had not yet been named, and so the process by which science policy was being formed within the executive branch was not entirely clear. The recent broadening of congressional interest and support for science and technology seemed to persist. One only needed to look at reactions on Capitol Hill to the announcement of plans to terminate NASA’s Pluto/ Kuiper Express mission, in which the Senate directed NASA to move forward with selections of the science investigator teams, to see that there were still more shoes to be dropped in the FY 2002 budget story. The Space Studies Board held its 133rd meeting in Washington, D.C., March 13-15. Although detailed budgets were not available, a main focus of the meeting was the administration’s FY 2002 budget request, with presentations from Steve Isakowitz, Office of Management and Budget; Robert Palmer, House Committee on Science; Eric Sterner, House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; and Jean Toal-Eisen, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. NASA chief scientist Kathie Olsen and associate administrators Ed Weiler and Ghassem Asrar made presentations for the Offices of Biological and Physical Research, Space Science, and Earth Sciences, respectively. The Board heard a presentation from NASA associate administrator Sam Venneri of the Office of Aerospace Technology on perspectives for that program. NOAA assistant administrator Gregory Withee also presented information on National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) programs. Norman Neureiter, science and technology adviser to the Secretary of State and former member of the SSB Committee on International Space Programs, joined the Board to exchange views on international topics, including the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) issue. Pablo Amor, counselor for science, technology, and education of the European Commission, provided an overview of the European Union’s interest in space and its role in the development of the European Strategy for Space. Frederich Nordlund, of the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Washington office, gave a more detailed presentation on ESA and the content of the strategy. William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and chair of the new National Research Council (NRC) Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS), spoke about changes in the organizational structure. The Board heard from representatives of the two NASA advisory committees relating to science: Gerard Faeth represented the former Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee (now the Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee) and Robert Schiffer, the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee. All agreed that increased interaction to promote effective communication between those groups and the Board should be a goal. SSB member Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado, gave a science presentation entitled “The Peculiar Role of Io in the Magnetosphere of Jupiter.” Chairs of the standing committees presented progress reports, and SSB staff made reports on task group activities. One topic of particular interest to the Board was scope of activity of the Committee on International Space Programs. SECOND QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS Congressional responses to the administration’s FY 2002 budget proposal for science and technology were largely bipartisan and largely a matter of voicing concerns about the adequacy of certain agency budgets. NSF, in particular, was identified as needing a more robust budget than the proposal on the table for an increase of only about 1 percent over FY 2001. Both the Senate and the House appropriations committees allocated more for their subcommittees on the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies than did the administration’s proposal, and that meant that appropriators might, indeed, find room for a bigger increase for NSF. The NOAA budget appeared to be moving through the appropriations process without significant change.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 NASA’s overall budget proposal had been treated positively to date, but there did not seem to be much pressure to increase it beyond the proposed 2 percent growth or to reverse proposed reductions. Two exceptions were that the Senate had signaled unwillingness to eliminate funds for the Pluto/Kuiper Express (P/KE) mission in space science and that the administration’s deletion of all funds from FY 2001 congressional earmark activities could find tough going in the Congress. If the NASA Earth science budget were to match the administration proposal, one would see suspension of the Triana mission, elimination of the University Earth System Science small mission program, and a reorientation of the applications program. In space science, there would be increased funds for a robust Mars exploration program and critical advanced technology investments but no funds for P/KE or the Solar Probe mission. Administration officials said that they would await the results of the on-going SSB strategy survey studies in solar system exploration and in solar and space physics to guide decisions about the future of those two missions. Like the Office of Earth Science, the Office of Space Science decided to terminate its University Explorer program, but both offices would continue to carry other small mission elements in their programs. The biggest budgetary impact in the NASA science program would be in the life and microgravity physical sciences, which were relying on the ISS as the platform for in-space research. To live within its budget ceiling for the ISS program, NASA announced plans that included removing funding for the habitation module and the crew emergency return vehicle. Consequently, unless alternative means were identified to provide these capabilities, the ISS crew size would be fixed at three persons as opposed to the six persons in earlier plans. Further, the life science centrifuge accommodation module and a number of other research facilities had been deleted from the budget. The budget for ISS research facilities was marked for a 78 percent cut over the years 2002-2006. The SSB had addressed the question of what the essential requirements are to permit high-quality research on a space station in a number of reports dating from the late 1980s until as recently as 2000. In A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s (1987), the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine cited a dedicated life sciences laboratory, adequate scientific crew, a variable-speed centrifuge, sufficient numbers of experimental subjects, and sufficient laboratory resources as being critical requirements. The need for those capabilities was reiterated in reports in the early 1990s, with particular emphasis on adequate crew size, on-orbit resources, and a variable-force centrifuge. In 2000, the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine report Review of NASA’s Biomedical Research Program called attention again to concerns about the issues of a variable-force centrifuge and other station research facilities. NASA officials emphasized that alternative plans and solutions to ISS research constraints were being analyzed and that further changes could be expected. Meanwhile, the SSB’s Task Group on Research on the ISS, working jointly with the National Academy of Public Administration, was preparing its first report to NASA and to Congress on these issues (see page 26). The Committee on Microgravity Research would address research directions for the NASA Physical Sciences Division in a parallel report, and these were likely to be highly relevant to the research plans for the ISS (see page 28). The Board followed NASA’s planning activities closely in order to be prepared to address the topic further as needed. The Space Studies Board held its 134th meeting at the NASA Ames Research Center on June 13-15. The meeting focused on updates from the NASA science offices on the FY 2002 budget, restructuring plans for the ISS, and briefings on and tours of the Ames Research Facility. The Board was welcomed to Ames by Deputy Director William Berry and heard briefings about work at the Center from members of the Astrobiology Institute, the Astrobiology and Space Research Directorate, and the Aerospace and Information Sciences and Technology Directorate. Members also toured an astrochemistry lab and an astrobiology lab. Former astronaut and Board member Norman Thagard gave a presentation entitled “Applying Experience on Mir and Spacelab to the Outlook for the ISS.” The chief scientist and acting associate administrator for the Office of Biological and Physical Research, Kathie Olsen, described the status of replanning for research on the ISS and advised members that restructuring of the ISS will be an ongoing process. Mary Cleave, deputy associate administrator of the Office of Earth Science, provided details of the program for FY 2001-2002. Edward Weiler, associate administrator of the Office of Space Science (OSS), talked about the OSS reorganization and FY 2002 plans, which included information that additional space mission operations costs are to be absorbed within the OSS budget. J. Lennard Culhane, chair of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), provided background information on the European Science Foundation, its aims, structure, and membership. He spoke of the growing expert role of the ESSC, the European Space Agency (ESA) Horizon 2000 Plan, and budget concerns due to loss of inflation

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 compensation in ESA space science. Plans for the future include implementation of a European Strategy for Space. Recent ESSC attention has focused on studies of near-Earth objects, global monitoring for environment and security, exo/astrobiology, and space weather. He reported that the ESSC has agreed to provide a liaison member to the SSB Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life. He also raised the issue of whether there is need for a follow-on study with the SSB on international collaboration, perhaps with China. Board member Steve Flajser reported on a luncheon held by the SSB to explore the role of industry in science-related activities. Several representatives from aerospace companies and professional organizations attended. Other issues and questions discussed included how the SSB might better respond to industry issues and how it might strengthen its linkage to industry (e.g., via report dissemination, use of industry experts on committees, and attention to industry aspects of topics being studied in SSB projects). DEPS Review Committee member Mary Jane Osborn discussed the SSB’s draft self-assessment that staff had provided. She asked the Board to respond to several issues of concern in the areas of commercialization and space applications, expanding the SSB sponsor base, international cooperation, and long-range planning by the SSB. The DEPS Advisory Committee planned to discuss the visiting committee’s review of the SSB in September. The U.S. representative to COSPAR, Louis J. Lanzerotti, spoke with members about the COSPAR election process and the need to consider nominations this fall for the election to be held in the fall of 2002. The Board conducted a review of Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities, a report by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (see page 17). Chairs or staff members presented committee status reports for all Board projects. Finally, as the second quarter came to a close, heartfelt thanks were in order for members of the SSB who had completed their terms and would retire from the Board at the end of June. They were Fran Bagenal (University of Colorado), Bill Green (New York Academy of Sciences and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives), John Hopps (Northwestern University), Chris Johannsen (Purdue University), Richard Kron (University of Chicago), Norman Thagard (Florida State/Florida A&M University), and Alan Title (Lockheed Martin). Each of them contributed to many reviews of proposed new projects, Board letter reports, and reviews of SSB committee reports, and they all helped influence the vigor of the space sciences. THIRD QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS For followers of the federal budget appropriations process, every year and every stage of the process seem to bring new versions of scares, odd twists, and surprises, and even the occasional happy ending. Perhaps the best perspective on the budget process was rendered more than a decade ago by a former senior Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official, who is said to have quipped, “It’s just a normal budget year—worse than last year and better than next year.” The NASA situation had been complicated by several factors. First, NASA’s projection of a $4 billion cost increase over the next 5 years for the ISS subsequently grew to $4.8 billion, even while congressional committees proposed some budget increases to moderate the impacts of the $4 billion problem. There were at least four reviews of the ISS situation under way. They included assessments by a NASA Advisory Council task force, the congressional General Accounting Office, and the House Appropriations Committee. The fourth review was that of the SSB’s Task Group on Research on the International Space Station. All of these reviews had noted or were likely to note that research on the ISS was in jeopardy if the current NASA plans under current budget limitations remained in place. However, White House spokespersons had been emphatic in saying that there was no more room to add funds to deal with ISS cost growth. The second NASA complication stemmed from the fact that while Congress had been generally supportive of NASA science budgets overall, it had also added its own budget earmarks in most of NASA’s accounts. And some of them would have to be supported at the expense of items covered in the Bush administration’s original budget proposal. The administration made a point about its opposition to earmarks when the budget was submitted to Congress in early spring, and it remained to be seen whether the earmarks added to the budget would be challenged by the White House before a final appropriations bill becomes law. The Space Studies Board’s Executive Committee met August 14-16 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The focus of the meeting was strategy, operations, the NRC visiting committee review, and future projects. Other items of discussion included plans for improving membership diversity, ideas for the November Board meeting, nominations for COSPAR offices, a draft letter to the NRC leadership on ITAR, and a review of the draft report on Space

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 Station research. In September DEPS, which oversees the activities of the SSB and other boards in the division, completed its first triennial review of the Board. In one of the final stages of the appropriations process, the House-Senate conference committee having responsibility for NASA and NSF budgets had been planning to meet by mid-September to resolve differences and prepare a single bill for approval by both houses. But in September the boundary conditions for the budget process, including the policy ground rules and the schedule for completing an appropriation bill for FY 2002, were changing dramatically. The emergency appropriation of $40 billion to deal with the nation’s immediate response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and likely follow-on actions in the FY 2002 budget reshaped the environment profoundly. Overall agency ceilings could change as the government struggled to balance old policies (e.g., the protection of Social Security funds) and new national priorities. At NASA there was talk of reshaping the agency’s priorities, for example by enhancing the agency’s contributions to technology R&D for the Federal Aviation Administration. Possible near-term congressional approaches being discussed ranged from passing a temporary spending measure to provide time for Congress and the administration to arrive at a more orderly plan for an FY 2002 budget to lumping all agency budgets into an omnibus bill for the entire fiscal year. Longer-term prospects were likewise cloudy, but they would certainly depend on how the United States responded to the fallout of the September events and on the resilience of new global alliances and economic relationships. How all of this would impact the space research community would depend on the underlying strength of space activities as an element of a new era, both in the United States and internationally. FOURTH QUARTER HIGHLIGHTS For several reasons, trying to look back and reflect on the space research scene in 2001 presented an interesting challenge. First and foremost, one had to try to place the topic in context with respect to the unprecedented national, geopolitical, and even personal impacts of September 11. While the idea of focusing on space activities in isolation from other endeavors has probably never been realistic or wise, it had become even less appropriate. Second, observers and participants could begin to contemplate the way the new Bush administration was likely to view the space program. While the changes may not be profound, they were sure to be significant and important. And third, the program itself was experiencing simultaneously robust achievements and serious internal stresses. To begin with the third point, 2001 was another great year for space research as measured by the continuing stream of new results from the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-ray Observatory, Solar Oscillations and Heliospheric Observatory, Galileo Jupiter orbiter, Mars Global Surveyor, and the Terra and SeaWiFS Earth-observing satellites, to name only some of the ongoing missions. Other highlights certainly included the soft landing of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft on the asteroid Eros and the successful orbit insertion of Mars Odyssey at Mars. Successful launches of new missions in 2001 included GOES-12, the Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Genesis, Jason-1, and TIMED. The Destiny laboratory module was delivered to the ISS, four different “expedition” crews spent time on the station, and the first phase of ISS construction was completed. Any celebrations over ISS progress had to be tempered by the news that U.S. ISS costs over the next 5 years were likely to grow by roughly $5 billion unless drastic steps were taken. Proposed cost reduction actions were immediately viewed as posing threats to the research capacity of the ISS and to agreements between the United States and its international partners. The process of resolving the details of agency research program budgets for 2002 was very much over-shadowed by attention to post-September 11 national security and economic priorities. That led to two big changes in the budget environment. First, space research would have to compete with all other discretionary activities that were not directly linked to responses to September 11 impacts. Second, and perhaps more significant for fiscal year 2002, the policy of adhering to a balanced federal budget and avoiding the prior pattern of deficit spending was promptly set aside. When the final congressional actions on the FY 2002 budget were completed, the near-term news was largely positive but with a few key exceptions. The National Science Foundation budget, after facing an early prospect of almost no growth over FY 2001, emerged with a generous overall increase of 8.4 percent. The budget for NASA’s OSS also was increased by about 8 percent compared with FY 2001. A significant portion of this increase included earmarked funds for a Pluto/Kuiper Belt mission, the Living-with-a-Star program, Solar Probe, a new propulsion research laboratory at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and five other miscellaneous items. The Office of Earth Science, on the other hand, had a net reduction in its budget of about 8 percent below the

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 previous year. This is to be absorbed by taking a $17 million general reduction to unspecified programs while providing about $75 million in earmarked funds for several EOS data activities, an Institute for Software Research, and 20 other items. The Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) received an increase of 37 percent over FY 2001, including an addition of $55 million to continue development of the ISS Fluids and Combustion Research facility. In addition, $284 million for ISS research facilities was transferred to the office from the ISS program budget managed by the Office of Space Flight. OBPR still faces major reductions in its out-year budgets as NASA grapples with the ISS program cost problem. The ESA also found itself confronted with difficult budget decisions as it looked ahead for the next 5 years. At the mid-November ESA Ministerial Council meeting, ministerial-level representatives of ESA’s member states granted a 2.5 percent annual increase for the space science program, compared to proposals by agency officials for 4-5 percent above inflation. While this arrested the decline in buying power in recent years due to inflation, it was projected to fall below inflation rates expected over the period 2002-2006. Funds approved for the Earth Observations program also fell nearly 50 percent below hoped-for levels. Reflecting European concerns over the future of the ISS program, the ministers only agreed to fund microgravity life and physical science research at about half the requested level, and they reduced or held in abeyance a portion of the funding for ISS operations and utilization activities. As one looked ahead over the next several years in the United States, a clearer sense of the Bush administration’s approach to the space program was beginning to emerge. Certainly that approach was shaped, in part, by overall changes in national priorities since September 11. Perhaps even more than before, NASA would be viewed in terms of how it provided service in the national interest. NASA centers and programs were likely to be judged by how well they enable and enhance the abilities of others outside the agency—that is, how well they serve outside customers. Further, observers predicted that NASA would be held responsible for a more businesslike approach to managing its programs effectively. Programs that were viewed as underperformers were more likely to be singled out for reductions or termination while, one might presume, effectively managed programs could stand to be rewarded. (Perhaps the best recent signal for that management approach was the selection of Sean O’Keefe, a respected business school management professor whose prior government service included stints as deputy director of OMB and chief financial officer of the DOD, to succeed Dan Goldin as NASA administrator.) In the case of the ISS, administration officials said that NASA must solve its problems without expecting additional funds and that NASA’s charge was to find innovative ways to increase the productivity of the ISS within the constraints that flow from a fixed budget. Other programs could expect similar “tough love” from the administration. The Board held its 135th meeting November 12-14, 2002, at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. John McElroy, chair, welcomed six new members and summarized highlights of major activities and developments since the Board’s June meeting. McElroy noted that an important outcome of the August Executive Committee meeting was a decision to ask each standing committee chair to report to the Board on at least an annual basis (usually at the November meeting) on potential future study projects. Director Joseph Alexander summarized the status of current SSB projects, recommendations of the DEPS Visiting Committee review of the SSB, and highlights of the November Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) meeting. He also reported on NRC activities regarding counterterrorism and presented a staff analysis of trends in the SSB’s portfolio of sponsors. A major agenda item for the meeting was discussion of recent changes in NASA’s plans and provisions for research on the ISS. The SSB chair summarized the recent NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting at which the report of the International Space Station Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force was presented. The Board also held discussions with Kenneth Baldwin and Alex MacPherson, chair and member, respectively, of NAC’s Biological and Physical Research Advisory Committee. A second major theme for the meeting was discussion of a number of international topics, including an overview of international activities and goals across the National Academies presented by National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Foreign Secretary Sherry Rowland and NRC Director of International Relations John Boright; a NASA perspective from Associate Administrator for External Relations John Schumacher; and a report on activities in Japan by Takeo Kosugi, chair of the Space Research Committee, Science Council of Japan. Barry Geldzaher, space operations program executive in NASA’s OSS, spoke about current issues surrounding the Space Operations Management Office. He presented the current management structure and responsibilities, budget and budget issues for FY 2002 and beyond, operating missions and MO&DA resources, future plans and possible solutions, and the outlook for the Deep Space Network in the coming years.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 The Board reviewed and gave preliminary approval to the report Toward New Partnerships: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, by the Steering Committee for Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC). Steering Committee Chair Roberta Balstad Miller led a discussion on future directions in the areas of space applications. SSB member Richard McCray gave a science presentation on his work on Supernova 1987A. Committee chairs and SSB staff members reported on ongoing studies and ideas for possible future studies. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A summary of all reports released by the Space Studies Board during 2001 is presented in Table 2.1. Included in that collection were reports of interest to all three NASA science offices and to NSF, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The reports covered a wide range of types, including a full-length science strategy, six short reports of under 100 pages, and a letter report. Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report—2000, 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 from four to seven 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 2001 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year a total of 274 individuals from 78 different colleges and universities and 60 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. More than 380 individuals participated in SSB activities either as briefers or as invited participants at approximately 75 separate meetings. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during the period there were 53 different external reviewers who contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, we counted 712 individuals from 95 academic institutions, 86 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 38 government agencies or offices who participated in SSB activities. That number included 41 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and/or Institute of Medicine (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 chart in Figure 2.1 shows the total number of peer-reviewed reports published by the SSB from 1988 to 2001. “Broad” reports include classical scientific strategies (long-range goals and 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 from 1995 through 2001. NASA-wide reports were addressed to multiple NASA

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 TABLE 2.1 Space Studies Board Reports Published in 2001   Principal Agency Audienceb Report Title Authoring Committeea OSS OBPR OES NOAA NSF OTHER Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities COMPLEX X   WH CONG. “Scientific Assessment of the Descoped Mission Concept for the Next Generation Space Telescope” (letter report) CAA X   Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques COEL X X   U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program TG X   X OMB The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples COMPLEX X X   Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station TG   X The Mission of Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA CMGR X Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications SAPPSC   X X   DOT, USGS, EPA, Corps of Eng. Space Studies Board Annual Report—2000 SSB   All aAuthoring Committee CAA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics CMGR Committee on Microgravity Research COMPLEX Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration SAPPSCX Space Applications and Commercialization Steering Commitee SSB Space Studies Board TG Task Group bPrincipal agency audience CONG. Congress NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation OES NASA Office of Earth Science OMB Office of Management and Budget OBPR NASA Office of Biological and Physical Research OSS NASA Office of Space Science WH White House offices or the whole agency; OES reports, to the Office of Earth Science; OBPR reports, to the Office of Biological and Physical Research (formerly OLMSA, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications); and OSS reports, to the Office of Space Science. The “government agencies” 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, OSS has been the most frequent report recipient, with the OBPR also appearing as a major audience.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 TABLE 2.2 Experts Involved in the SSB and Its Subunits, January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001   Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 178 78 Government and national facilitiesa 39 22 Private industry 36 24 Nonprofit and other 21 14 Totalb, c 274 138 aHarvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (H-S CfA), NASA, USGS, and national facilities (NRL, NOAO, NRAO, STScI) bIncludes 41 NAS, NAE, and IOM members. c3 SSB members, 241 committee and task group members. TABLE 2.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001   Academia Government and National Facilitiesa Private Industry Nonprofit and Others Total Volunteer Committee members 178 39 36 21 274 Guest experts 89 167 30 29 315 Reviewers 31 8 9 5 53 Workshop participants 14 32 17 7 70 Totala 312 246 92 62 712 NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of ±2 due to possible miscategorization. aIncludes 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 41 Total number of non-U.S. participants 12 Total number of countries represented, incl. United States 8 Total number of participants by gender 522(M); 94(F) Total number of different institutions represented: Academia 95 Government and national facilities 38 Industry 52 Nonprofit and other 34 U.S. government agencies represented: NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIH, NIST, USGS, DOE, DOD, DOT, EPA, OMB, U.S. Congress. 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 258 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 Division on Earth and Life Studies; the Board on Physics and Astronomy; the National Academy Press; the Office of News and Public Information; the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; and the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel) to take exhibits to the national meetings of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Astronomical Society (AAS). As a consequence of these activities, roughly 1,267 additional SSB reports were distributed and more than 93 addresses were added to mailing lists for future SSB reports.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 FIGURE 2.1 Number and type of peer-reviewed Space Studies Board reports published from 1988 through 2001. FIGURE 2.2 Principal federal agency audiences for the 87 Space Studies Board reports published from 1995 through 2001. Membership of the Space Studies Board John H. McElroy,§ University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (chair) Mark Abbott,* Oregon State University Roger P. Angel, University of Arizona James L. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration James L. Burch, Southwest Research Center Radford Byerly, Jr., University of Colorado Robert E. Cleland,§ University of Washington Howard M. Einspahr, Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute Steven H. Flajser, Loral Space and Communications Ltd.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 Michael H. Freilich, Oregon State University Don P. Giddens, Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University Bill Green,* former member, U.S. House of Representatives John H. Hopps, Jr.,* Northwestern University Ralph H. Jacobson, President Emeritus, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory 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 Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee Gary J. Olsen, § University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign George A. Paulikas,§ The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Joyce E. Penner,* University of Michigan Robert Rosner, University of Chicago Robert J. Serafin,§ National Center for Atmospheric Research 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 Telescope Science Institute 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, Ecole nationale supérieure de physique de Strasbourg (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 2001. §   Member of the Executive Committee. COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) met April 9-10 in Washington, D.C. A focus of the meeting was the rescoping of NASA’s Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST). The committee heard a presentation from Alan Dressler, Carnegie Observatory, on the original plans for NGST as well as the Origins Subcommittee’s current views on the rescoping. Steve Beckwith, STScI, presented the views of the Astronomy Survey’s UVOIR-Space Panel on the rescoping of the mission, and Anne Kinney, NASA headquarters, summarized the current state of the Origins theme at NASA and various mission problems that she is facing. Further presentations were heard from John Mather, Goddard Space Flight Center and NGST project scientist, on the technical details of the NGST rescoped design. NGST project manager Bernie Seery was present for the question-and-answer period. Presentations were also given by Matt Mountain, Gemimi Observatory, and Mike Bolte, University of California at Santa Clara, on the capabilities of future large ground-based telescopes as they apply to the science that could be done by the rescoped NGST. The committee discussed the new NSF-NASA Blue Ribbon Panel, including ways for the committee to provide input to this panel. The committee heard from G. Wayne Van Citters and Eileen Friel from the NSF Astronomy Division on the FY 2002 budget as well as on NSF plans for implementing the recommendations of the Astronomy Survey Committee. The remainder of the discussion focused on the Telescope Instrumentation System Program (TSIP).

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 The committee met in Washington, D.C., July 30-August 1. The main purpose of the meeting was to continue to hear presentations and hold discussions on Signs of Life. In addition, at NASA’s request, the committee discussed the advisability of providing astrobiological input to the Steering Group of the SSE Survey. Following discussions between the committee, the SSE Survey’s chair, and the astrobiology representative on the Steering Committee, COEL agreed to become the Survey’s Astrobiology Panel. COEL held its final meeting of 2001 at the SETI Institute, October 31-November 2. The report Signs of Life was approved for release on October 22 and proceeded to final editing. The committee’s assessment of NASA’s programs to determine “the extent of life in the universe” remains on track. Plans to hold a splinter-group meeting to discuss the prospects for a study on non-terrestrial-type life were postponed until early 2002. The committee’s draft astrobiology panel report for the SSE Survey report was forwarded to the Survey’s Steering Group in early November. COEL Membership Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona (co-chair) John Baross, University of Washington (co-chair) Luann Baker, University of Hawaii Wendy M. Calvin, Stanford University David Deamer, University of California at Santa Cruz Marilyn Fogel, Carnegie Institution of Washington Katherine H. Freeman, Pennsylvania State University Johann P. Gogarten, University of Connecticut Norman Pace, University of Colorado Sandra Pizzarello, Arizona State University David A. Stahl, Northwestern University Lucy M. Ziurys, University of Arizona Joan Esnayra, Study Director, Board on Life Sciences David H. Smith, Study Director, Space Studies Board Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) did not meet during the first quarter, but it continued to acquire background information for its new study, Building the Capacity of University-Based Space Research: Steps to Facilitate PI-Led Earth Science Missions. This study, which was requested by NASA’s Office of Earth Science, is examining recent experiences in university-based PI-led missions and will attempt to identify steps that might increase the likelihood of future success of small Earth science missions such as those organized under the Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program. Issues to be considered will include, but not be limited to, the role of advanced technology development, the proposal solicitation and evaluation process, basic infrastructure needs and capabilities at universities, teaming arrangements and alternative frameworks for partnerships between universities and NASA centers and other organizations, and cost and schedule estimation. The committee met April 25-27 at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in Boulder, Colorado. Speakers from LASP included Daniel Baker (lessons learned from small-mission development), Charles Barth (SNOE and STEDI programs), Michael McGrath (engineering aspects of developing small missions), and Gary Rottman (SORCE and experiences with balloon and rocket campaigns). In addition, the committee heard presentations by Graeme Stephens, Colorado State University (Cloudsat and the ESSP experience); Nick Chrissotimos, project manager for the ESSP program at NASA Goddard; Byron Tapley, University of Texas (development of GRACE); Ben Clark, Lockheed Martin (development of small space science missions); and William Gail, Ball Aerospace (development of small Earth and space science missions). The new chair of the committee is Michael Freilich, from Oregon State University. During the third and fourth quarters, CES members worked on the draft report for this study. The committee met in Washington, D.C., October 16-18. Highlights of the meeting included briefings from Michael Luther,

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 deputy associate administrator in NASA’s Office of Earth Science, and from Gregory Withee, assistant administrator for satellite and information services at NOAA’s NESDIS. The committee also discussed potential future studies with Luther and Withee. Most of the rest of the meeting was devoted to revisions of the draft report. CES Membership Michael H. Freilich, Oregon State University (chair) John R. Christy,* University of Alabama in Huntsville Catherine Gautier,* Institute for Computational Earth System Science Sarah Gille, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Eugenia Kalnay,** University of Maryland Ralph F. Milliff, Colorado Research Associates 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 William Stoney, Mitretek Corporation Kurt Thome, University of Arizona John Townshend, University of Maryland Frank J. Wentz,* Remote Sensing Systems Arthur Charo, Study Director Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant *   Term ended during 2001. **   Resigned during 2001. PI-Led Missions Task Group Membership Michael H. Freilich, Oregon State University (chair) John R. Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace Technologies Corporation Catherine Gautier, University of California at Santa Barbara William Gibson, Southwest Research Institute Bruce D. Marcus, TRW (retired) Ralph F. Milliff, Colorado Research Associates Michael J. Prather, University of California at Irvine Lawrence C. Scholz, Lockheed Martin (retired) Carl F. Schueler, Raytheon Santa Barbara Remote Sensing William Stoney, Mitretek Corporation Kurt Thome, University of Arizona John Townshend, University of Maryland Arthur Charo, Study Director Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant TASK GROUP ON RESEARCH ON THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION The Task Group on Research on the International Space Station (TGRISS) study to examine the desirability of additional shuttle flights dedicated to science was approved by the NRC in this period. The current membership of the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) was shifted to the new task group, and additional members in the microgravity sciences were selected and recruited. The TGRISS roster was completed. The study is being conducted jointly between the NRC and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA).

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 The task group met April 2-4, in Washington, D.C. The meeting was devoted to beginning work on a study to assess the need for interim shuttle flights dedicated to science prior to full utilization of the ISS. The meeting began with a discussion of the task, led by chair Jim Bagian. The remainder of the day was devoted to NASA presentations on the areas of science supported by the Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) and the ISS schedule and science support capabilities. The following morning featured a presentation by SPACEHAB, Inc. on the science support capabilities provided by its laboratory modules, which are designed to fly in the shuttle payload bay. After entering closed session, the task group held a bias discussion and then spent the remainder of the meeting discussing the task and planning the remainder of the study. TGRISS met in closed session May 23-24, in Washington, D.C., to continue its assessment of the need for interim shuttle flights dedicated to science prior to full utilization of ISS. The uncertainties surrounding the final research capabilities of ISS in the face of current station restructuring by NASA were much discussed and were cited as a major stumbling block to the development of the report’s conclusions. A key aspect of the meeting was a presentation from NAPA regarding shuttle flight cost trade-offs. The committee developed preliminary conclusions and recommendations for the phase I study and wrote a first draft of the report. There was extensive discussion about the possibility of accelerating the study schedule in order to provide input to Congress that would be useful in its current ISS deliberations. The task group held a closed session teleconference on July 20 to revise its report Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station. The report was reviewed and delivered to NASA in prepublication form on September 10. The report was publicly released on September 12 and briefed to congressional staff on October 3. The task group met November 27-28 to begin work on phase II of its study to examine the factors limiting the ability of investigators to utilize the ISS. During the meeting, the committee received an update from NASA on ISS planning and discussed the report of the ISS Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force (Tom Young, chair) with Kathie Olsen, acting head of OBPR. There was considerable discussion of NASA research priorities for ISS. During the remainder of the meeting the committee developed a list of detailed questions on ISS resources; the list was subsequently provided to NASA as a request for data. The committee also discussed a possible expansion of its task in response to recent congressional language and agreed that it would attempt to identify discipline priorities. A preliminary report outline was developed during the meeting and writing assignments were made. The committee identified two areas where some additional expertise would be needed in the phase II study and agreed to add members in the areas of plant biology and radiation biology. TGRISS Membership James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration (chair) Noel D. Jones, Molecular Structure Corporation (retired) (vice chair) Rena Bizios, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Adele L. Boskey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University John F. Brady, California Institute of Technology Jay C. Buckey, Jr., Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center Meredith B. Colket III, United Technologies Research Center Herman Z. Cummins, City College of the City of New York John H. Hopps, Jr.,* Northwestern University Lynette Jones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alan Lawley, Drexel University Steven E. Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center David Pine, NAPA Liaison Tom Utsman, NAPA Liaison Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Lisa Taylor, Senior Program Assistant *   Resigned during 2001.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 COMMITTEE ON MICROGRAVITY RESEARCH During the first quarter new members were selected and recruited to the Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR). The committee met on April 18-20 in Washington, D.C., to begin work on its task to examine the role of the reorganized microgravity research division, now the Division of Physical Sciences (DPS), at NASA. Committee Chair Peter Voorhees welcomed the new members and briefly discussed the background for the new task, after which the committee heard a number of NASA briefings on the current microgravity programs and the new research areas into which DPS is expanding. Two committee members also presented briefings on the general research trends in both nanomaterials and biomaterials research. The briefings concluded at mid-morning on the second day, after which the committee entered closed session for the remainder of the meeting. A balance and composition discussion was held, during which the committee concluded that its present membership was adequate for the phase I task but that additional expertise in atomic physics and combustion would be added for the phase II study. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion and planning for the task. A preliminary report outline was developed and writing assignments were made. CMGR met August 8-10 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to revise its phase I report and to begin work on its phase II report, both of which examine the role of DPS in NASA’s OBPR. During open sessions, the committee received briefings directed at answering the questions previously posed by the committee on the status, goals, and accomplishments of DPS discipline programs. Division director Gene Trinh briefed the committee on the current status of the division and on research replanning for ISS. The committee was particularly concerned about the ISS research facility and module deletions (due to cost overruns) and the large number of PIs who would be down-selected from the ISS flight program. The committee also received a non-NASA briefing on general research directions in the new field of nanotechnology. The remainder of the meeting was held in closed session and was devoted to revising the phase I report in preparation for Space Studies Board review and planning for the next meeting. CMGR delivered its phase I report, The Mission of Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, to NASA on December 7 and released it to the public on December 12. The committee met October 22-24 in Washington, D.C., to continue work on its phase II study to advise on future research directions for NASA’s DPS. The committee heard key briefings from the microgravity program’s discipline working group chairs for the fluids, combustion, and materials science disciplines, on the accomplishments and future prospects for each discipline. The committee also heard talks on the status of the ISS and the status of DPS. During the remainder of the meeting, the committee developed an overall outline for the report and outlines for the individual discipline chapters, made writing assignments, and discussed possible speakers for the February meeting. On December 7, a splinter group of the committee held a teleconference to identify and select experts in emerging research areas to brief the committee at its February meeting. CMGR Membership Peter W. Voorhees, Northwestern University (chair) J. Iwan D. Alexander, Case Western Reserve University Cristina H. Amon, Carnegie Institute of Technology Howard R. Baum, National Institute of Standards and Technology John L. Brash, McMaster University Moses H.W. Chan, Pennsylvania State University Richard H. Hopkins, Hopkins Inc. Consulting Michael Jaffee, Medical Device Concept Laboratory Bernard H. Kear, Rutgers University Jan D. Miller, University of Utah G.P. Peterson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Peter Staudhammer, TRW, Inc. Viola Vogel, University of Washington, Seattle Sandra J. Graham, Study Director Lisa Taylor, Senior Program Assistant

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAMS The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) did not meet during the first quarter. Staff continued to monitor issues associated with ITAR and its effect on international space science cooperation and communication. NRC Office of International Affairs (OIA) staff indicated interest in a possible joint OIA-SSB activity concerning such issues as ITAR deemed exports (discussions on technical matters that require a license), and they discussed possible joint OIA-SSB activities that could address these issues. CISP staff and chair met with Ronglan Xu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in San Jose, California, on January 30 to discuss the possibility of a joint workshop that would address the structure and decision-making processes for space science in the United States and China. Representatives of the SSB and CISP participated in the ESSC meeting April 2-3 in Florence, Italy. The committee collaborated with the OIA on a symposium entitled “Intangible Technology and Deemed Exports—Next Steps for National Security,” held May 4. Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (former chair, SSB), spoke on the impact of current regulations on American university space research, in particular the ITAR. In addition, Adam Scheinman of the Export Control Office, National Nuclear Security Administration, spoke on intangible technology regulations and the DOE National Labs; William E. Nay, Office of Science, Department of Energy, spoke on the impact of current regulations on the science environment; and Sam Armstrong, NASA headquarters, provided an update on NASA and ITAR. A general discussion followed. CISP met May 14-15 at the NRC’s Georgetown facility in Washington, D.C., to hear briefings on several issues from NASA’s Office of External Relations (Lynn Cline) and to discuss what the NRC might do to address implications of the ITAR for international cooperation in space. For the latter, several invited guests participated in the discussion at the meeting: John Steinbrunner (NRC Committee on International Security and Arms Control and University of Maryland); Robert Tucker (NASA headquarters); John Hall (NASA headquarters), Marc Allen (NASA headquarters), Norman Neureiter (Department of State), Vic Tepliz (Office of Science and Technology Policy), Richard Obermann (staff, House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics), Richard Bissell (NRC Division on Policy and Global Affairs), Patricia Wrightson (OIA), and others. The committee discussed several options that the NRC might pursue for addressing ITAR. In addition to ITAR, the committee also heard briefings from John Kelmelis of USGS on USGS activities with China and from John Boright, director of OIA, on NRC/OIA activities with China and India, among other international issues. CISP chair Eugene Skolnikoff discussed the committee’s suggestions for NRC activities on ITAR with the SSB at its meeting June 13-15 at Ames Research Center. The SSB staff is exploring options for addressing ITAR with other units in the NRC. Following discussions with NASA officials pursuant to initiation of a new 5-year contract, CISP was disbanded in July and its responsibilities for oversight of international topics were assumed by the Board. 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 Louis J. Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (ex officio) Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   All terms ended during 2001.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 STEERING COMMITTEE ON SPACE APPLICATIONS AND COMMERCIALIZATION The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) met March 27-28 in Washington, D.C., for its second workshop, “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Changing Environment.” The workshop explored the changes in the technical and institutional environment for conducting Earth science research. These include the advent of new sources of remote sensing data with higher spatial and spectral resolution and the increasingly central role of the private sector as a data provider. SAPPSC investigated the implications of this changing environment and the opportunities and challenges it presents for Earth science research. The workshop was held at the National Academy of Sciences and included keynote speeches entitled “Fostering the Development of Commercial Remote Sensing for Science” and “Future Directions for Remote Sensing Regulations and Licensing,” as well as panels entitled “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Perspective of Data Producers,” “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Perspective of Basic Research,” and “Lessons Learned from Government, Commercial, and Science Interactions.” The workshop also included breakout sessions on data rights, data management, and commercial-research relationships in which attendees and speakers discussed issues and challenges and solutions for overcoming them. Approximately 26 scientists and government and private sector officials participated as speakers, panelists, and moderators at the workshop, and approximately 80 individuals attended. Also during the first quarter, SAPPSC completed a draft report based on the May 2000 workshop. During the second quarter, Staff Officer Pamela Whitney attended a meeting of the Transportation Research Board’s remote sensing steering committee, which is planning several conferences related to remote sensing applications for transportation. Ms. Whitney presented the status of the SAPPSC workshop series and invited ideas for SAPPSC’s third workshop. SAPPSC met June 28-29 at the J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of Sciences. The purpose of the meeting was to revise a draft of the report on the workshop “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Changing Environment.” The committee also began planning for its third workshop. The report Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Applications and Information, based on the committee’s first workshop on the remote sensing technology transfer process, went to external review during the second quarter. SAPPSC met August 8-9, in Washington, D.C., to begin planning for its third workshop, “Facilitating Public Sector Uses of Remote Sensing Data.” Agency sponsors—USGS, DOT, NOAA NESDIS, NOAA National Ocean Service, NASA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—provided written input as well as briefings on the subject. John McGee, from the Virginia Geographic Information Network, Leslie Wollack, from the National States Geographic Information Council, and David Chase, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, also provided insights on the use of remote sensing at the state and local levels. In addition, SAPPSC will seek input on potential themes for the workshop from state and local government organizations. It also met in closed session to deliberate on the draft of its report from the second workshop, “Remote Sensing and Basic Research: The Changing Environment.” SAPPSC did not meet during the fourth quarter but continued work on several activities. The steering committee completed work on the draft report Toward New Partnerships: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, which is based, in part, on the second workshop. The report began NRC review during the fourth quarter. In addition, planning for the SAPPSC’s third workshop, “Facilitating Public Sector Uses of Remote Sensing Data,” was well under way. The workshop will be held at the University of Colorado, Boulder, January 23-24, 2002, and will focus on the opportunities for and impediments to using remote sensing data at the state, local, city, county, and regional government levels. Finally, the report based on the first workshop, Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications, was released on December 20. SAPPSC Membership Roberta Balstad Miller, Columbia University (chair) Mark R. Abbott,* Oregon State University Alexander F.H. Goetz, University of Colorado Lawrence W. Harding, Jr., University of Maryland

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 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 Jay S. Pearlman, TRW Inc. Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Dan Walker, Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board Julie Esanu, Program Officer Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant *   Resigned during 2001. COMMITTEE ON NASA-NOAA TRANSITION FROM RESEARCH TO OPERATIONS The Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO), a new committee initiated by the Space Studies Board in collaboration with the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, will explore the need for a systematic approach for transitioning from research to operations at NOAA’s NESDIS. Its study will consider, among other issues, approaches for streamlining the process of introducing new sensor and satellite technologies into the NESDIS satellite system and potential new users for NESDIS data and their needs. The study will be chaired by Richard Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). The committee plans to hold its first meeting January 29-30, 2002, in Washington, D.C. CONNTRO Membership Richard A. Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (chair) Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University Grant C. Aufderhaar, The Aerospace Corporation Susan K. Avery, University of Colorado George L. Frederick, Vaisala Meteorological Systems, Inc. Russell Koffler, NOAA (retired) Peter R. Leavitt, University of Regina, Canada William L. Smith, NASA Langley Research Center Richard W. Spinrad, U.S. Naval Observatory Paul Try, Science and Technology Corporation Christopher S. Velden, University of Wisconsin-Madison Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director Richard Leshner, Research Associate Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) did not meet during the first quarter. The World Space Congress (WSC), to be held in Houston, Texas, October 10-19, 2002, is a joint activity of COSPAR and the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). Planning efforts for WSC 2002 continued, and the National Organizing Committee (NOC) met three times during the first quarter of 2001—on February 2 and March 5 at the NRC and on March 22 at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA). COSPAR’s Program Committee met on April 25-26 at COSPAR headquarters in Paris, France. The Program Committee is composed of the chairs of COSPAR scientific commissions; the committee meets to plan the scientific sessions for COSPAR’s biennial scientific assemblies. The Program Committee discussed planning for the next Assembly, which will be held under the umbrella of WSC 2002.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 Also in April, the COSPAR Publications Committee met to discuss several policy issues surrounding COSPAR publications. The committee also met with a representative of its publisher, Elsevier Sciences Ltd., who presented several new Elsevier online services for accessing its publications and for accessing news in science and physics. The COSPAR Bureau, composed of six elected officials who make decisions on COSPAR operations, programs, and finances, met April 27-28. Planning for WSC 2002 continued on the national level. Members of the NOC, which included representatives from the AIAA (the logistical organizer of the WSC), COSPAR, the IAF, and the National Academy of Sciences, met on June 5 to discuss plans for the call for papers and logistics and to coordinate planning between the IAF and COSPAR. The NOC for WSC 2002 met on July 31 at the NRC’s Georgetown facility to discuss several planning items: abstracts; plenary events; associated events to be co-located at the WSC; the World Space Summit; publications; and the Houston Organizing Committee, among other issues. The NOC met via teleconference with the Houston Organizing Committee on September 17. The Joint Program Committee for the WSC held a meeting on October 4 at the IAF meeting in Toulouse, France. In addition, the NOC held meetings on October 26 and December 18. Pamela L. Whitney, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant TASK GROUP ON THE AVAILABILITY AND USEFULNESS OF NASA’S SPACE MISSION DATA The Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA’s Space Mission Data is charged with answering the following questions: How available and accessible are data from science missions (after expiration of processing and proprietary analysis periods, if any) from the point of view of both scientists in the larger U.S. research community, as well as U.S. education, public outreach and policy specialists, and private industry? What, if anything, should be changed to improve accessibility? How useful are current data collections and archives from NASA’s science missions as resources in support of high-priority scientific studies in each enterprise? How well are areas such as data preservation, documentation, validation, and quality control being addressed? Are there significant obstacles to appropriately broad scientific use of the data? Are there impediments to the distribution of derived data sets? Are there any changes in data handling and data dissemination that would improve usefulness? Keeping in mind that NASA receives appropriated funds for both mission development and analysis of data from earlier or currently operating missions, is the balance between attention to mission planning and implementation versus data utilization appropriate in terms of achieving the objective of the enterprises? Should the fraction of a mission’s life-cycle cost devoted to data analysis, processing, storage, and accessibility be changed? The task group met with NASA managers on January 31 and February 1 to discuss the goals of the study and obtain an overview of the Earth science, space science, and education/outreach programs at NASA. Speakers included Guenter Riegler and Joseph Bredekamp (space science), Jack Kaye (Earth science), and Cassandra Runyon, Terry Teays, and Blanche Meeson (education and outreach). The task group also developed a study plan and determined what additional information should be gathered. The task group met in Washington, D.C., April 30-May 1, to continue work on the scope of its report. The task group’s consultant, Edmond Reeves, presented information collected from NASA on space mission data holdings and major data centers, and he summarized the major findings of several recent relevant NASA advisory committee reports. Study director Anne Linn summarized the recommendations of several relevant prior NRC reports. Task group members discussed their individual views about the principal issues to be addressed during the study and synthesized them into a set of themes to be used in preparing a first draft report. The task group met in Washington, D.C., July 30-31, to discuss federated data systems and to continue work on its report. Individuals from NASA and academia made presentations on the National Virtual Observatory (Ethan Schreier), Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) (Dolly Perkins), prototype Earth Science Enterprise Federation (John Townshend), and NewDISS (Steve Wharton), which is the information system that will eventually replace EOSDIS. In addition, Lee Holcolm described the functions and activities of NASA’s

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 chief information officer. The remainder of the meeting was closed and was devoted to identifying themes of the report and formulating preliminary conclusions and recommendations. The task group held a conference call on October 26 to finalize its draft report. The review draft was submitted to the Space Studies Board on December 19 in anticipation of going to external NRC review in January and publication in March 2002. Data Mining 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 James Purdom, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere 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 (through January 2001) Anne Linn, Study Director (from February 2001) Monica Lipscomb, Research Assistant Claudette Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant Edmond M. Reeves, Consultant *   Resigned during 2001. COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Organization and Management of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (COMRAA), supported jointly by the SSB and the Board on Physics and Astronomy, was approved and appointed during the second quarter. The committee of 12 experts, including the chair, Norman Augustine, is charged with the following task: Assess the organizational effectiveness of federal support of astronomical sciences. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of transferring NSF’s astronomy responsibilities to NASA. Consider other options for addressing the management and organizational issues identified by the committee and by recent NRC reports. An organizational meeting of the committee was held by telephone conference call on May 18. The committee met in Washington, D.C., June 13-14, and heard presentations from senior officials at NASA and NSF about their management philosophy and organizational arrangements for astronomy and astrophysics research programs. The committee also heard presentations from a broad array of astronomical organizations focused on concerns about past, present, and future arrangements and prospects for managing and funding research in astronomy and astrophysics. The committee outlined its study and plans for future meetings. The committee met July 12-13 in Palo Alto, California, and July 31-August 1 in Washington, D.C., to complete the report. During the third quarter, the committee delivered its report, U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program.

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 COMRAA Membership Norman R. Augustine, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (chair) Lewis M. Branscomb, Harvard University Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sandra M. Faber, University of California, Santa Cruz Robert D. Gehrz, University of Minnesota Philip R. Goode, New Jersey Institute of Technology Burton Richter, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Anneila I. Sargent, California Institute of Technology Frank H. Shu, University of California, Berkeley Maxine F. Singer, Carnegie Institution of Washington Robert E. Williams, Space Telescope Science Institute Joel R. Parriott, Study Director Susan Garbini, Staff Officer Nelson Quiñones, Project Assistant Brian Dewhurst, Research Assistant Elizabeth Yale, Intern COMMITTEE ON PRECURSOR MEASUREMENTS TO SUPPORT OPERATIONS ON MARS The Committee on Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars, known as the HEDS-MARS Committee, is a joint project between the SSB and ASEB, with ASEB playing the lead role. The first meeting of the study was held May 30-31 in Washington, D.C. Numerous NASA briefings were presented on the current Mars program and what is known about certain environmental risks such as dust penetration and dust storms, electrical phenomena, and radiation. The committee met August 1-3 at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas. Sessions were held on surface operations, space suits and equipment, detection of life on Mars, radiation health effects, lunar dust, Martian soil, and instrumentation capability versus sample return. The committee established preliminary findings and recommendations. The report outline was finalized and writing responsibilities were assigned. The committee determined that a side trip would be required to gather more information on the Mars robot program. Three robotics experts from the committee met at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, August 27-28, to gather information on the rover capabilities being developed in the Mars robotics program. The focus of the meeting was on rovers with the ability to transport humans and other large payloads and on issues such as dust intrusion, electrostatic discharge, rover speed, traction and mobility, and general mechanical wear. The committee met September 5-7 in Washington, D.C., to review with NASA the purpose and scope of the task and to finalize its findings and recommendations. The committee also set the timeline for final report completion. A series of splinter group meetings was held via telecon to revise specific report sections. The committee held a conference call on December 11, to finalize the review draft of its report Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface. The report was sent to NRC review in December, and delivery is planned for March 2002. HEDS-MARS Committee Membership Frederick H. Hauck, AXA Space (chair) Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee (vice chair) Cynthia Breazeal, MIT Media Laboratory Benton C. Clark, Lockheed Martin Astronautics Von R. Eshleman, Stanford University (emeritus) John Haas, Applied Research Associates Jon B. Reid, University of Cincinnati Jonathan Richmond, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

OCR for page 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2001 Ronald E. Turner, ANSER Corporation William L. Whittaker, Carnegie Mellon University John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (ex officio member) Douglas H. Bennett, Study Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board Bridget R. Edmonds, Senior Project Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board