Space Studies Board Annual Report 2002 (2003)

Space research activities got off to a strong start in 2002 with numerous early launch successes and new scientific results. As the year began, a high-altitude scientific balloon was setting a new flight-duration record— nearly 32 days. The balloon, carrying the Trans-Iron Galactic Element Recorder cosmic-ray experiment, was launched from McMurdo Station, Antarctica, on December 20, 2001, and it landed on January 21, 2002, after making two circumpolar trips around the continent. The Reuven Ramaty High-Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager spacecraft was launched on February 5, to begin a 2-year mission to study x rays and gamma rays from solar flares. On March 1, an astronaut crew aboard the space shuttle Columbia began a remarkably successful mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

In the solar system exploration arena, the Galileo spacecraft performed its final encounter with Io on January 17, passing within 100 km of the satellite. After a close flyby of Almethea in November 2002, Galileo’s trajectory will take a terminal dive into Jupiter itself in 2003. As Galileo approached the end of its extraordinarily successful lifetime, a new planetary spacecraft, Mars Odyssey, began its science mission. On March 1 the science team presented early findings on the detection of signatures of large amounts of hydrogen near the surface of the Martian southern polar cap, thereby bolstering expectations of significant amounts of water ice at Mars.

Several new spacecraft went into operation in support of Earth science and applications programs. A highlight was the launch on March 1 of the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite aboard an Ariane 5 rocket. The Ice, Clouds, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) was launched on March 15 to begin studies of the role of the polar regions in Earth’s climate and sea-level variations. Then on March 17, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission was launched to begin accurate global and high-resolution determinations of both the static and time-variable components of Earth’s gravity field. GRACE, a cooperative mission between NASA and the German space agency, DLR, was launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome aboard a Russian rocket.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) NOAA-M was launched on March 6 to provide global coverage for weather forecasting and meteorological research, as well as space environment monitors and an aircraft and maritime emergency beacon system. Older spacecraft were also making news by taking on new roles. In February NASA and NOAA announced that QuikSCAT, a research mission launched in 1999 to measure vector winds over the oceans, had begun to provide operational data for use in weather forecasting by the National Weather Service and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

While the action continued at a heavy pace on the research front, the public phase of the annual federal budget process began in earnest in early February with the formal submission of President Bush’s fiscal year 2003 budget request to Congress. In a year when White House priorities were sharply focused on counterterrorism, homeland

defense, and domestic economic recovery, budgetary enhancements for science and technology programs were limited and selective. The R&D budgets of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) fared best, with proposed increases over FY 2002 of 17 percent and 9 percent, respectively, while the rest of the R&D establishment could look forward to an essentially flat budget. At the National Science Foundation (NSF), after correcting for proposed transfers of programs from other agencies, the proposed budget increase was only 3.4 percent. NASA’s total budget was proposed to grow by only 0.7 percent.

On the other hand, after correcting for several accounting structure transfers, the “science, aeronautics, and technology” portion of the NASA budget aimed for a net increase of 7 percent. Space science, in particular, would receive a net increase of 13 percent. Included would be new funds for a space nuclear systems initiative that would support new radioisotope thermal generator power systems for the Mars 2009 mission and later planetary missions as well as advanced technology development for nuclear fission power and propulsion systems for future planetary programs. On the other hand, no funds were provided for the Europa Orbiter mission or for the Pluto-Kuiper Belt mission that was funded at congressional direction in 2002. Instead, both were to be replaced by a new element of the planetary program—New Frontiers—that would be structured like the Discovery program, with competitively selected missions having total project costs caps of $650 million.

NASA’s Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR) was slated for a net increase of 2.7 percent, which included new funds for a (ground-based) space radiation initiative and a (space- and ground-based) initiative in developmental biology. The proposed Earth science budget stayed essentially flat in 2003 compared with 2002. Funds were to be provided to cover the Ocean Topography Mission, the Landsat Continuity Mission data buy, and NASA participation with NOAA in the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Program, but a number of other missions in development would experience some launch delays. Furthermore, the budget provided for no new starts of follow-on missions in 2003 pending an administration assessment of goals for a multiagency climate change research initiative.

There were several important developments that would influence the ways in which NASA deals with planning for research on the troubled International Space Station (ISS). First, the FY 2003 budget proposal moved the funds and management responsibility for research facilities for the ISS from the ISS program office to OBPR. Second, NASA named Shannon Lucid as the new NASA chief scientist. Dr. Lucid, who is a shuttle and Mir astronaut with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, succeeded Kathie Olsen, who became associate director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). In another key senior management appointment, former Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) associate director for science Mary Kicza was named associate administrator for OBPR, thereby filling a long-standing vacancy. Finally, NASA named the blue-ribbon Research Maximization and Prioritization (ReMaP) Task Force that was charged with recommending a set of research priorities for the ISS. The ReMaP report was due to be delivered to Kicza by the beginning of June 2002, and it would also be available to the SSB’s Task Group on Research on the ISS.

The Space Studies Board held its 136th meeting in Washington, D.C., on March 18, 2002. A main focus of the meeting was the administration’s FY 2003 budget request, with presentations from Brant Sponberg, Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Scott Pace, OSTP; Bill Adkins, majority chief of staff of the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics; and Richard Obermann, Democratic professional staff member on the House Committee on Science, with primary oversight responsibility for all civil space and aeronautics programs.

NASA associate administrator Ed Weiler discussed the budget for the Office of Space Science (OSS) as well as the Nuclear Systems Initiative, Mars exploration, and the status of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Next Generation Space Telescope (subsequently renamed the James Webb Space Telescope). In FY 2003 the OSS will be responsible for the Space Operations and Management Office (SOMO) and the Deep Space Network (DSN). He noted that the New Frontiers program had replaced the Outer Planets program. He also spoke about the impact of SSB reports that addressed Mars research, decadal surveys, and research and analysis. Mary Kicza, newly appointed associate administrator of OBPR, spoke of plans for the ReMaP Task Force, which would perform an independent external review and assessment of the Biological and Physical Research Enterprise and make recommendations on how to achieve progress in high-priority research. Mike Luther, deputy associate administrator of the Office of Earth Science (OES), said that the FY 2003 budget fully funded the near-term priorities, and he discussed the budget changes from FY 2002 to FY 2003. NOAA-National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) assistant administrator Gregory Withee discussed the FY 2003 budget and presented information on NESDIS programs: GOES (Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite), POES,

NPOESS, satellite operations and satellite data processing and distribution, environmental data management, and applications research and development.

Courtney Stadd, NASA chief of staff and White House liaison, spoke with the Board about challenges facing NASA. Topics included filling senior leadership vacancies, the ISS ReMaP, NASA’s integrated financial management system, the space nuclear power and propulsion initiative, and the administration’s expectations for NASA.

Sue Hegg, acting team leader of the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, and Neil Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium and member of the commission, presented an overview and summarized the commission’s activities. The Board also heard presentations from Raphael Bras, chair of NASA’s Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee and from Marc Allen, executive secretary of the NASA Space Science Advisory Committee, who discussed the OSS 2003 strategic planning process and the Board’s role. Wm. Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering and chair of the DEPS Committee on Engineering and Physical Sciences, spoke about NRC efforts in counterterrorism studies and about plans for the new building for the National Academies. SSB member Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona, gave a science presentation entitled “The Origin of Water on Earth and Mars, and the Search for Habitable Planets Elsewhere.”

Chairs of the standing committees presented progress reports, and SSB staff made reports on task group activities. Members also discussed and reached agreement on the following items:

• Board policy on review of reports: It was agreed that in most cases Board review would precede external NRC review, but exceptions could be made if needed.

• Schedule for review of upcoming reports.

• Standing committee chairs will continue to serve concurrently as Board members.

• New members appointments to be effective July 1, 2002.

• Plans for international speakers at future meetings.

• Plans for the World Space Congress to be held in October in Houston and for a concurrent informal session with European Space Science Committee and Chinese Academy of Science representatives.

• Plans for the June SSB meeting.

Also in the first quarter, SSB member Eugene Skolnikoff and director Joseph Alexander participated in the 23rd meeting of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) in Brussels, Belgium, on February 21-22. They presented a summary of current SSB activities and of the outlook for U.S. space research in FY 2003, gathered complementary information about space research in Europe, and discussed plans for future joint activities between the SSB and the ESSC.

Alan M. Title, former SSB member and principal scientist at the Lockheed Martin Space Systems Advanced Technology Center (ATC) in Palo Alto, presented a public lecture, “The Science of the Sun,” at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on February 19. Dr. Title’s lecture was held in conjunction with an exhibition he prepared entitled “Sunscapes: Images of our Magnetic Star.” The exhibit included images from the NASA Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE); the Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (EIT); the Large Area Solar Coronal Observatory (LASCO); and the Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) telescopes on the European Space Agency (ESA)/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO).

A highlight of the Board’s 137th meeting at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland, on June 25-27 was a set of briefings and tours about scientific programs at Goddard. Briefings topics included examples of GSFC space and Earth science research, and facilities toured included the Detector Development Laboratory, the SOHO experimenter data center, the Hubble Space Telescope clean room, and the Scientific Visualization Laboratory.

Stephen Briggs of ESA’s Earth Observation Applications Department spoke about the ESA Earth observation program and described the newly launched Envisat. J. Leonard Culhane and Jean-Claude Worms, chair and executive secretary, respectively, of the ESSC, discussed activities of the committee and developments of interest in

Europe. Chris Scolese, NASA deputy associate administrator for space science, briefed the Board on plans for the Nuclear Systems Initiative.

During the meeting, the SSB had an opportunity to discuss the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) amendments and their implications and implementation with representatives from OSTP, the State Department, and NASA. The Board heard Vigdor Teplitz from OSTP and David Trimble, chief of the Compliance Division, Department of State, discuss the recent amendments to the ITAR. Robert Tucker, NASA’s export control chief, and John Hall, NASA’s manager of international technology transfer policy, also spoke on the subject. What many hoped would be a potential breakthrough for international scientific cooperation occurred in the spring. Following months of discussions between the State Department, OSTP, DOD, and NASA, a new ITAR rule was published on March 29. This new rule applies only to university-based space research. The Interim Final Rule attempts both to clarify these regulations and to remove obstacles to the conduct of university-based fundamental research in space.

The amendments appear to improve the situation for universities, especially their preamble, which reiterates an earlier policy that states that fundamental research is not subject to controls unless security classification is invoked as the means of control. That clarification may help as conflicts arise, in particular in relations with working levels of the government. The amendments will also ease relations with the ESA, one of our most important collaborators in the space sciences.

Upon examining the specifics, one sees that the exemption applies to fundamental research on scientific or experimental satellites and transfer of articles and information that are or will be placed in the public domain and to which all parties have free access without restriction. However, it applies only to transfers to certain countries, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, ESA members, and others designated as “major non-NATO allies,” and to “an accredited institution of higher learning, a government research center, or an established government funded private research center.” Furthermore, the exemption from ITAR licensing requirements does not apply to the transfer of information regarding integration of instruments or spacecraft onto a launch vehicle or to information about launch operations. Transfers to countries not included in the list above or to nationals from countries that are not covered are not exempted. These exceptions present a number of problems.

Among the points that the government officials emphasized were the following three: (1) the policy that the State Department does not regulate fundamental research remains unchanged, (2) the amendments, which were developed over a roughly 2-year process, are intended to make ITAR less onerous for university researchers, and (3) providing government feedback or advice about the applicability of ITAR needs to be done in the context of specific cases rather than hypothetical ones. NASA officials acknowledged that the new amendments have limitations and that there are desirable ways in which they could be broadened in the future. Perhaps the most notable point from the June SSB meeting was the news that the Department of State had received relatively few comments and little response from universities regarding the amendments.

Other meeting agenda items included an update on the status and plans for the Next Generation [James Webb] Space Telescope from John Mather and Bernard Seery of GSFC. SSB director Joseph Alexander and SSB staff officers Sandra Graham, David Smith, and Pam Whitney briefed the Board on major reports that would be in review or released during the summer. The Board also reviewed prospective statements of task for new studies. Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) co-chairs Wendy Freedman and Roger Blandford joined the meeting via teleconference to review the draft letter report on the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). Louis J. Lanzerotti, chair of the Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee, participated via teleconference to discuss the committee’s draft report.

Richard Kline of Klintech LLC summarized plans for the World Space Congress, to be held in Houston, Texas, in October. George Levin, director of the NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), discussed a new project to review the Pioneering Revolutionary Technologies program of NASA’s Office of Aerospace Technology and presented ideas for a joint ASEB-SSB study on NASA’s Nuclear Systems Initiative.

Throughout its history the Space Studies Board has supported three general types of advisory studies—long-range scientific strategies, program assessments, and focused topical studies. During this quarter, SSB issued reports that were notable examples of all three types.

The reports of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) and of the Committee to Review NASA’s Earth Science Applications Plan address very specific questions and are examples of focused topical studies. The “Review of the Redesigned Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)” letter report responded to a request from NASA to consider whether the redesigned SIM will be able to meet the science goals that provided the rationale for SIM’s high priority in earlier NRC strategy reports. Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan evaluated NASA’s Earth science applications program plan and provided specific recommendations for how NASA might strengthen the plan and the program’s strategy, which the plan was intended to articulate.

The reports of the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL) and the Task Group on Research on the International Space Station (TGRISS) are good examples of program assessments. Coincidently, both were prepared in response to requests from Congress. Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology reviews NASA’s young but flowering astrobiology program and makes recommendations about how NASA might build on the successes to date and how the program might benefit from linkages with other relevant programs inside and outside the agency. Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences completes a two-phase assessment of factors limiting the utilization of the ISS for research and suggests how it needs to be improved to become a meaningful research facility. This report was timely, particularly because NASA was weighing decisions about how to complete the ISS within a strained budget envelope. The report represents the SSB’s most incisive commentary to date about the ISS program.

Especially notable examples of long-range scientific strategies are the reports of the Solar System Exploration Survey Steering Committee and the Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy and The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, respectively. They are broadly based in the sense that their conclusions and recommendations are drawn from a large number of study participants from all across the respective research communities. They set explicit scientific goals and program priorities that look forward for at least a decade. And they address their respective fields in a government-wide sense, with recommendations for both NASA and NSF and, in the case of solar and space physics, for NOAA and DOD.

These new strategies for solar system exploration and for solar and space physics, combined with the report of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee, released in 2000, and the report of the Committee on the Physics of the Universe, released in 2002, provide a set of decadal strategies that cover the full range of NASA’s OSS programs. That such a wide range of research communities are all developing consensus strategies at the same time is a unique milestone. The extraordinary effort that so many scientists brought to bear to complete these studies in such a short time is an indication of the importance the communities place on the effort and on the eventual implementation of the strategies.

The SSB Executive Committee met on September 24-26 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Discussion items included highlights of the September 9-10 NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting, activities of ASEB, strategic planning for the SSB and the NRC Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS), Board and committee membership issues, and planning for the November SSB meeting. There were also briefings from Harley Thronsen, NASA OSS, on the NASA Exploration Team (NExT) effort; Mary Kizca, associate administrator for biological and physical research, via teleconference, on NASA’s response to the NAC and SSB reports on the International Space Station; and John Williams of Booz Allen Hamilton on its Space R&D Industrial Base study.

As the year 2002 came to a close there was much to savor regarding accomplishments during the year and much to contemplate with respect to where space research might be headed in the future. Certainly we could all salute and celebrate the successful launches of an international string of Earth observation missions such as ADEOS-II, the British-Algerian AlSat-1, Aqua, Envisat, China’s Fengyun-1D, GRACE, India’s METSAT, MSG-1, and NOAA-M. Other highlights included the launches of INTEGRAL and RHESSI, a highly successful fourth HST servicing mission, and the completion of the fourth and fifth increments on the ISS. Literally scores of operating spacecraft continued to produce streams of new scientific data and discoveries across all disciplines. The failure of the CONTOUR cometary mission and another delay in the flight of the STS-107 space shuttle research mission were among the few disappointments during the year.

On the policy front, NASA’s new Administrator, Sean O’Keefe, was making his mark and receiving positive reviews from both inside and outside the agency. His new mission statement for NASA—“To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the Universe and search for life, to inspire the next generation of explorers . . . as only NASA can”—connoted a sense of priorities that included a clear role for science and scientists. There was reason to be hopeful about NASA’s most vexing problem in supporting science—the ISS—as news from the early December meeting of heads of the five international partner space agencies indicated that a plan was being drafted to resolve the obstacles to having an adequate number of crew members aboard the ISS. Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress had proposed a significant increase in NASA’s science budget for FY 2003 and had acted very positively in support of science in general, including passing legislation that allows for a doubling of the National Science Foundation budget over the next 5 years.

The Space Studies Board played its part in the advancement of a strong space research environment by releasing 10 study reports during the year. Two constituted first-ever, decadal-style science strategy surveys for solar system exploration and for solar and space physics, while a third presented the first complete set of research priorities for the microgravity physical sciences. Three reports addressed the applications of Earth remote sensing. Other topics that were covered included space mission data management, astrobiology, the planned SIM, and research utilization of the ISS.

Both the recent accomplishments and the positive signs for the future are tempered by issues that are sure to challenge space agencies and researchers in the coming year, and probably beyond. Three issues would be on the SSB director’s short list. The first pertains to an uncertain and potentially unstable budget environment. Congress failed to translate the positive views about strong NASA funding (or science funding of any kind) into final legislation before adjourning in December, leaving a decision on a budget for FY 2003 until January at the earliest, more than 3 months into the fiscal year. Under the most favorable scenarios, for which there were reasons to be hopeful, new initiatives such as NASA’s Nuclear Systems Initiative and its New Frontiers program stood to experience some delays. A less favorable prospect was the possibility of a protracted extension of the “continuing resolution” under which the government would be constrained to operate at FY 2002 levels. Such an outcome could force the cancellation of one or more NASA missions in order to free up funds to cover other critical needs.

The 2002 congressional elections left both houses almost exactly divided between the two political parties and vulnerable to continuing political gridlock. On the other hand, the elections did not seem to dampen congressional enthusiasm for science and technology. More important, though, government decision makers are likely to be increasingly constrained by competing national priorities that could make sustained strong support for space programs impossible. The competing priorities include counterterrorism activities, initiatives to address the weak economy, and a need to reverse the recent return to deficit spending in the United States. Sooner or later these forces will converge to put new pressures on discretionary budgets, including those of NASA, NOAA, and NSF. Such budgetary challenges to space program budgets are not unique to the United States—in the last year there were similar expressions of concern in Europe, Japan, and Russia.

The second big challenge is a long-standing one—providing affordable access to space for a range of sizes and types of payloads. The space shuttle has already passed its originally planned operational lifetime. It is costly to operate, and no successor is expected to be available for at least a decade. As commercial satellite users move to a strategy that relies on a smaller number of larger satellites, providers of expendable launch vehicles are responding by focusing on large rockets such as the Delta-4, Atlas-5, and Ariane-5. Although a number of private companies seek to gain a foothold in the small-vehicle business, there are serious questions about whether the market for commercial providers of smaller vehicles, which are appropriate for many scientific satellites, will be viable. The combination of continuing high launch costs and a limited portfolio of launch vehicle sizes poses real problems, especially for the space sciences.

The third issue stems from the impact of export controls on both international scientific cooperation and the international competitiveness of the U.S. aerospace industry. While there is wide agreement that the proliferation of weapons technologies must be controlled, concerns remain about whether the present approaches meet that need for control in a productive way. In March, the Department of State issued proposed revisions to the ITAR that provided limited exemptions for scientists at U.S. universities. Based on discussions with government officials at the June SSB meeting and other reactions from university groups, the changes to ITAR are likely to provide very little clarification or relief. In particular, the roles of private industry when working in partnership with university scientists on projects with overseas collaborators, the ability of U.S. university researchers to enforce compliance of prescribed constraints on foreign collaborators, and the implications of having U.S. universities screen their students for approved versus proscribed nationalities all remain highly problematic.

The impact of the current implementation of ITAR on U.S. aerospace firms has been even worse. According to the recent report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, “the current export control regime provides too little security and is choking American companies and preventing effective technology collaboration with others.” It is uncertain how much attention this issue might receive in either branch of government.

So as the year ended there were reasons to celebrate, reasons to be hopeful that the environment for space research would remain sound, and also many reasons to confront the persistent concerns and challenges that lurk ahead. The new science strategies from SSB committees appear to be winning community acceptance and agency support. The latter should become clearer as NASA updates its strategic plan in 2003. Whether the problems surrounding the research capacity of the ISS will be resolved will not be known for a couple of years, but signs have become encouraging. The outcome of budget uncertainty, which seems to be a fixture in Washington, will depend on how Congress’s growing enthusiasm for science and technology stands up against what many observers see as an inevitable confrontation with a need to curtail federal spending. A new White House space policy document regarding space transportation is due to be issued in 2003, and it will be analyzed for insights into how the government will address the issues of cost and capability for space launch vehicles. And, finally, there is evidence that the unintended consequences of the current export control regime are becoming understood, so that, just maybe, there will be efforts to resolve the issue. In all of these areas there is a need for the research community to communicate clearly and objectively and to offer constructive input. The SSB is committed to doing its part as an independent, authoritative forum for information and advice on space science and applications.

The Board met on November 12-14 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The meeting had four themes: planning for reviews of the strategic plans of the NASA OSS and OES; advanced technology development; Mars exploration science; and the ISS, with an emphasis on international aspects.

NASA associate administrator Ghassem Asrar of OES presented the schedule for the Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) strategic plan, which the SSB will be asked to review early in 2003, and how it fits into the NASA strategic plan. He also provided information about the ESE technology program and collaboration with the Office of Aerospace Technology. Andrew Christensen, chair of the NASA Space Science Advisory Committee, reported on the November 6-8 strategic planning workshop that had been organized by OSS. The workshop served as a forum for discussion of the OSS theme roadmaps and a number of crosscutting topics, all of which will feed into the revised OSS strategic plan in 2003, which the Board will review early in 2003.

Harley Thronson of OSS and Gary Martin, newly designated NASA space architect, discussed NASA’s long-term space strategy. The NASA Exploration Team (NExT) program was tasked with building on the planning of the 1999 Decadal Planning Team to create an integrated strategy for science-driven, technology-enabled space exploration; coordinate an expanded team involving the entire agency; focus on revolutionary approaches; develop alternative scenarios, architectures, and mission concepts to achieve NASA science goals with a horizon of more than 10 years; and initiate technology roadmaps, investment priorities, and new programs.

Mary Kicza, associate administrator of the OBPR, together with Howard Ross, deputy associate administrator for science, described the OPBR organization, the response to the NASA Advisory Council ReMaP report, development of a research plan to be finalized by January 2003, strategic planning, and ISS utilization management plans. Marcia Smith, Congressional Research Service, briefed the Board on the international aspects of the ISS, describing intergovernmental, bilateral, and U.S.-Russian “balance” agreements, and the impact of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. Issues involve crew return, flight opportunities for non-U.S., non-Russian astronauts, U.S. commitment to the core complete design for the ISS, and offsetting common operations costs.

The new chair of the ESSC, Gerhard Haerendel, provided an update on ESSC activities and described the organization, composition, and funding structure of the ESSC and its parent body, the European Science Foundation. He also described several ongoing activities of the ESSC and noted that the ESSC is interested in further collaborations with the SSB.

Ray Arvidson, Washington University, and SSB member Hap McSween, University of Tennessee, each made presentations on scientific studies of Mars.

John Mather, NASA GSFC, described the plans for the James Webb Space Telescope, now that TRW has been selected as the prime contractor for the program. The spacecraft will have a 5-year lifetime in a halo orbit at the Sun-Earth Lagrangian-2 point. The Space Telescope Science Institute remains the operations center. Chuck Lillie, TRW, discussed specific design elements of the spacecraft. In addition to TRW other contractor partners include Ball, Kodak, and Alliant Techsystems.

Committee chairs and SSB staff members reported on the status of ongoing projects and on future work to be undertaken. Rick Anthes, chair of the Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations, joined the Board to discuss the draft report Satellite Observations of the Earth: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations. The Board discussed and approved statements of task for potential new studies on Mars planetary protection, limits of organic life in planetary systems, and the astrophysical context of life, as well as plans for a workshop by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics on exploration of the outer heliosphere. The SSB also discussed a one-day project scoping workshop to consider the idea of multiagency uses of and interests in large deployable space telescopes and a possible workshop on needs for and gaps in access to a range of launch vehicles for research and training. SSB members expressed interest in publication of a paper synthesizing the results of recent decadal surveys.

A summary of all reports published by the Space Studies Board during 2002 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 as well. The reports were of many types, including three full-length science strategies, seven topical reports of under 100 pages each, and a letter report.

Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report—2001, 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 2002 are presented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. During the year, a total of 284 individuals from 83 colleges and universities and 74 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. Approximately 140 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 110 different external reviewers contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, approximately 540 individuals from 88 academic institutions, 63 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 43 government agencies or offices participated in SSB activities. That number included 41 elected members of the NAS, NAE, and/or the 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 1993 to 2002. “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 there have been somewhat more focused studies than 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 1996 through 2002. Reports on NASA-wide issues were addressed to multiple NASA 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 “multiple government agencies” category covers reports that were directed to one or more agencies besides 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 leading sponsor of reports, with the OBPR in second place.

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 290 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

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 Academies 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 national meetings of the World Space Congress 2002, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Astronomical Society (AAS). As a consequence of these activities, roughly 3,900 additional SSB reports were distributed and more than 75 addresses were added to mailing lists for future SSB reports.

John H. McElroy,§ University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (chair)

J. Roger P. Angel,§ University of Arizona

James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration

Ana P. Barros, Harvard University

Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University

Roger D. Blandford, California Institute of Technology

James L. Burch, Southwest Research Institute

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.

Michael Freilich, Oregon State University

Don P. Giddens,§ Georgia Institute of Technology/Emory University

Ralph H. Jacobson, President Emeritus, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory

Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California, Los Angeles

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)

Anna-Louise Reysenbach, Portland State University

Roald S. Sagdeev, University of Maryland, College Park

Carolus J. Schrijver, Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory

Robert J. Serafin,§ National Center for Atmospheric Research

Eugene B. Skolnikoff,* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mitchell Sogin,§ Marine Biological Laboratory

C. Megan Urry, Yale University

Peter Voorhees, Northwestern University

J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas, Austin

Louis J. Lanzerotti,* Lucent Technologies (ex officio, U.S. representative to COSPAR)

Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (ex officio, U.S. representative to COSPAR)

J. Leonard Culhane,* ENSPS (ex officio, chair of the European Space Science Committee)

Gerhard Haerendel, International University Bremen (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

The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) did not meet during the first quarter. Planning for a review of the rescoped SIM mission continued.

During the second quarter, the committee met in Washington, D.C., on May 1-2. Eileen Friel, NSF, summarized the status of the astronomy division at NSF, the FY 2003 budget request, the status of the decadal survey ground-based recommendations, and the NSF/NASA response to last year’s Committee on the Organization and Management of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (COMRAA) study. Guenter Riegler and Anne Kinney from NASA discussed the FY 2003 NASA budget request, trends in funding for research and data analysis, and the status of the decadal survey space-related recommendations. David Radzanowski and Brant Sponberg from OMB discussed the response of the agencies to the COMRAA study and the funding priorities for the administration as they affect astronomy funding at NSF and NASA. A major portion of the meeting was dedicated to a NASA-requested review of the scientific capabilities of the descoped SIM. Mike Shao, Bob Laskin, and Jim Marr from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) presented the redesigned SIM mission and compared it to the mission concept first proposed as AIM in the 1991 decadal survey and as a more powerful concept as presented in the recent McKee-Taylor decadal survey, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, 2001. The group discussed the impact of the rescoping on the scientific capabilities of the mission, recent progress made in technology development, and the future milestones for development. Hal McAlister, Georgia State, presented the views of the NASA external review board on the rescoped SIM, and Alan Dressler, Carnegie Observatories, discussed the NASA Origins Subcommittee views. Steve Beckwith, Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), phoned in to discuss the views and findings of the UV-Optical-IR (UVOIR) panel of the McKee-Taylor study that led to the endorsement of the more powerful SIM concept and how the rescoping might affect those views within the current climate of other ground- and space-based efforts. Other agenda items included a presentation by Kathy Turner, DOE, about the Department’s astrophysics program, and specifically the status of the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) and plans for the Supernova Acceleration Probe (SNAP). Michael Turner, University of Chicago, phoned in to brief the CAA on the final report of the “Quarks to the Cosmos” study. The rest of the meeting was spent in closed session drafting the committee’s letter report to NASA on the SIM rescoping and discussing the status of many of the decadal survey’s recommendations, including the health of astrophysical theory and possible HST successors.

Drafting, review, and editing of the letter report “Scientific Assessment of the Redesigned Space Interferometry Mission” took place over the summer. The letter report was delivered to NASA on September 12 and released to the public the following week.

CAA met in Irvine, California, on December 2-3. The main topic of the meeting was a discussion of adaptive optics technologies, their value, and their implementation on telescopes around the world. The committee also heard a presentation from John Mather of the GSFC on the James Webb Space Telescope. Other presentations were made by Wayne Van Citters, director of astronomy at NSF; Bob Gehrz, chair of the National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (NAAAC), a joint NSF/NASA advisory committee that was created in response to the COMRAA report; and Ann Kinney from NASA Headquarters. They discussed programmatics and the roles of the CAA and NAAAC in implementing the recommendations of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey report.

Roger D. Blandford, California Institute of Technology (co-chair)

Wendy L. Freedman, Observatories of the Carnegie Institute (co-chair)

Richard A. McCray,* University of Colorado (co-chair)

Charles Alcock, University of Pennsylvania

Lars Bildsten, University of California, Santa Barbara

John E. Carlstrom, University of Chicago

Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia

Richard S. Ellis, California Institute of Technology

Andrea Ghez, University of California at Los Angeles

Alyssa Goodman, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

David J. Hollenbach, NASA Ames Research Center

Richard F. Mushotzky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Philip Nicholson, Cornell University

Frazer N. Owen, National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Judith L. Pipher, University of Rochester

Paul Steinhardt, Princeton University

Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota

Joel R. Parriott, Study Director (through September 2002)

Robert L. Riemer (from October 2002)

Brian Dewhurst, Research Associate (from December 2002))

Lisa Taylor, Senior Program Assistant (through March 2002)

Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant (from March 2002)

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) did not meet during 2002. In the third quarter, Reta Beebe of New Mexico State University was appointed chair to succeed John Wood. In an effort to identify significant tasks that COMPLEX should address in the near future, the Board used internal NRC funds to host an informal planning session in Washington, D.C., on October 3. The goal was to identify follow-up activities to facilitate implementation of the Solar System Exploration (SSE) Survey report. The attendees were selected so as to include some members of COMPLEX, the Survey Committees for both the SSE and the Solar and Space Physics reports, and the NASA Solar System Exploration Subcommittee, plus representatives from NASA/OSS, NSF, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Applied Physics Laboratory. Discussion topics included technical challenges in implementing a new line of medium-cost NASA missions, planning advanced technology studies for future flagship missions, surveying near-Earth objects, Mars exploration, and the study of extrasolar planets. The committee will follow up on these discussions when it meets in the first half of 2003.

The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples was distributed in the first quarter, and Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities remained in editorial preparation.

Reta Beebe, New Mexico State University (chair)

W. Roger Buck,* Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Karen J. Meech, University of Hawaii

Andrew F. Nagy, University of Michigan

Keith S. Noll,* Space Telescope Science Institute

Robert T. Pappalardo, University of Colorado

Ann L. Sprague,* University of Arizona

Phillippe Masson, Laboratoire de Géologie Dynamique, European Space Science Committee Liaison

David H. Smith, Study Director

Brian Dewhurst, Research Assistant

Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant

The Solar System Exploration (SSE) Survey Committee’s steering committee, operating under the oversight of COMPLEX, held its penultimate meeting in Tucson, Arizona, on February 26-March 1. At this meeting, the chairs of the SSE panels—Primitive Bodies, Giant Planets, Inner Planets, Large Satellites, Mars, and Astrobiology— presented their final reports. The steering committee also received summaries of input from the scientific community and the public via the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences and the Planetary Society. The final meeting of the

steering committee took place in Washington, D.C., on March 26-29, at which time plans for the survey report were completed.

The report, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, was sent to external reviewers in late April. Work on response to review and revision of the report occurred in June.

The report received NRC approval and was delivered to NASA in prepublication format on July 9 and released to the public 2 days later. Subsequently, the chair and other members of the steering committee briefed officials from OMB and OSTP, congressional staff, internal NASA advisory groups, and members of the planetary science community. Committee members also held special sessions at the October 6-11 meeting of the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, Alabama, to discuss the report’s scientific priorities.

The survey committee did not meet during the fourth quarter.

Michael J.S. Belton, Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC (chair)

Carolyn C. Porco, Southwest Research Institute (vice chair)

Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland, College Park

Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University

Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University

James W. Head III, Brown University

Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., Carnegie Institution of Washington

Andrew P. Ingersoll, California Institute of Technology

David C. Jewitt, University of Hawaii, Honolulu

John F. Mustard, Brown University

Andrew F. Nagy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Dimitri A. Papanastassiou, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Robert T. Pappalardo, University of Colorado

Mitchell Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory

A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)

David H. Smith, Study Director

Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer

Brian Dewhurst, Research Assistant

Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant

Reta Beebe, New Mexico State University (chair)

Amanda S. Bosh, Lowell Observatory

Thomas W. Hill, Rice University

Andrew P. Ingersoll, California Institute of Technology

Julianne I. Moses, USRA Center for Advanced Space Studies

Gerald Schubert, University of California, Los Angeles

Carlé M. Pieters, Brown University (chair)

Mark A. Bullock, Southwest Research Institute

Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University

Bradley Jolliff, Washington University

Ann L. Sprague, University of Arizona

Ellen Stofan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Alfred S. McEwen, University of Arizona (chair)

Caitlin A. Griffith, University of Arizona

Torrence V. Johnson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Krishan Khurana, University of California, Los Angeles

William B. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles

Robert T. Pappalardo, University of Colorado

Dale Cruikshank, NASA Ames Research Center (chair)

Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland, College Park

Stanley Dermott, University of Florida, Gainesville

S. Alan Stern, Southwest Research Institute

Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University

Michael Zolensky, Johnson Space Center

The Task Group on Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (TGOESS), a joint committee under the auspices of COMPLEX, COEL, and the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, continued to refine the review draft of its study report.

James P. Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (chair)

Luann Becker, University of California, Santa Barbara

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, Honolulu

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

Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant

The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) stood down during the first half of 2002 to allow committee members to work full-time on the Solar and Space Physics Survey. CSSP resumed operations during the third quarter as work on the decadal survey neared completion. The committee met on July 9-11 at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, and made plans to complete a NASA-sponsored study on solar connections that had been under way prior to the decadal survey. The committee also spoke with Richard Fisher, director of the Sun-Earth Connection (SEC) Division at NASA, and Richard Behnke, from NSF’s Atmospheric Sciences Division, and explored studies that could be of interest to both NASA and NSF. During the meeting, the committee continued to write and revise its SEC report and discussed follow-on activities related to the decadal survey, which will include a workshop on mission options to explore the outer heliosphere.

The Solar and Space Physics (SSP) Survey Committee, which is operating under the aegis of CSSP, met in Washington, D.C., on February 18-20 to continue work on its decadal strategy study. During this meeting, the committee reviewed second drafts of all of the panel reports, revised its draft main report, and began discussions on how to prioritize candidate programs and missions for the period 2003-2013.

The survey committee met again in Washington, D.C., on May 6-8 to complete the prioritization of missions and research program activities and to complete the report draft. The report was submitted for review by external reviewers in early June. The survey committee then met on July 12-13 for final revisions in response to external report review. The report was subsequently approved by the NRC and prepublication copies were delivered to the study’s sponsors, NASA, NOAA, NSF, and DOD (Air Force Research Laboratory and Naval Research Laboratory). The report was subsequently briefed to NASA’s Space Science Advisory Committee (SScAC) on August 6 and to officials within the OMB. The five panel reports were also submitted for external review during the third quarter.

On September 30, survey committee chair Louis Lanzerotti briefed the contents of the committee’s report to Ed Weiler and members of the NASA OSS. On October 23, Dr. Lanzerotti spoke to NSF officials about aspects of the survey related to solar and space physics education.

CSSP met on October 1-3 in Washington, D.C. Jim Burch, CSSP chair, presented and discussed his briefing to the SScAC on the decadal survey. At this meeting, CSSP also received updates on activities within NASA’s Sun-Earth Connections and NSF’s Atmospheric Science Program from Dr. Fisher and Dr. Behnke, respectively. In addition, committee member Barry Mauk led a discussion on options for separate or joint missions to explore the magnetosphere and atmosphere of Jupiter. Both the SSP Survey and the SSE Survey advocated such missions. Most of the committee’s time at the meeting was devoted to revising its report on Sun-Earth connections. The committee also made further plans for a workshop on the scientific rationale and technical options for exploring the outer heliosphere.

The Executive Summary of The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics was published in early December and made available to participants at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The entire report is expected to be published in late spring 2003. The reports from the five panels that supported the survey received final approval in December and are expected to be released in the first quarter of 2003 and published somewhat later in 2003. Dr. Burch and Dr. Lanzerotti also participated in Agency Night at the fall AGU meeting, and Dr. Lanzerotti briefed the report to a large audience of scientists attending the meeting.

James L. Burch, Southwest Research Institute (chair)

Vassilis Angelopoulos, University of California at Berkeley

James F. Drake, University of Maryland, College Park

John C. Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Stephen A. Fuselier, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center

Sarah Gibson, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Mary K. Hudson,* Dartmouth College

Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California at Los Angeles

Craig Kletzing, University of Iowa

Barry H. Mauk, Johns Hopkins University

Frank B. McDonald, University of Maryland, College Park

Eugene N. Parker, University of Chicago (professor emeritus)

Robert W. Schunk, Utah State University

Gary P. Zank, University of California at Riverside

Arthur Charo, Study Director

Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant

Louis J. Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies (chair)

Roger L. Arnoldy, University of New Hampshire

Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado

Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado

James L. Burch, Southwest Research Institute

John C. Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Philip R. Goode, Big Bear Solar Observatory

Roderick A. Heelis, University of Texas, Dallas

Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California at Los Angeles

William H. Matthaeus, University of Delaware

Frank B. McDonald, University of Maryland, College Park

Eugene N. Parker, University of Chicago (professor emeritus)

George C. Reid, University of Colorado

Robert W. Schunk, Utah State University

Alan M. Title, Lockheed Martin Corporation

William S. Lewis, Consultant

Arthur Charo, Study Director

Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Program Assistant

Michael C. Kelley, Cornell University (chair)

Mary K. Hudson, Dartmouth College (vice chair)

Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado

Thomas E. Cravens, Kansas University

Timothy J. Fuller-Rowell, University of Colorado

Maura E. Hagan, Boston University Center for Space Physics

Umran S. Inan, Stanford University

Timothy L. Killeen, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Craig Kletzing, University of Iowa

Janet U. Kozyra, University of Michigan

Robert Lysak, University of Minnesota

George C. Reid, University of Colorado

Howard J. Singer, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Roger W. Smith, University of Alaska

Ramon E. Lopez, University of Texas, El Paso (chair)

Mark Engebretson, Augsburg College (vice chair)

Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado

Craig DeForest, Southwest Research Institute

Priscilla Frisch, University of Chicago

Dale E. Gary, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Maureen Harrigan, Agilent Technologies

Roberta M. Johnson, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Stephen P. Maran, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Terrance Onsager, NOAA Space Environment Center

Christopher T. Russell, University of California at Los Angeles (chair)

Joachim Birn, Los Alamos National Laboratory (vice chair)

Brian J. Anderson, Johns Hopkins University

James L. Burch, Southwest Research Institute

Joseph F. Fennell, Aerospace Corporation

Stephen A. Fuselier, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory

Michael Hesse, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

William S. Kurth, University of Iowa

Janet G. Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley

Mark Moldwin, University of California at Los Angeles

Harlan E. Spence, Boston University

Michelle F. Thomsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory

John T. Gosling, Los Alamos National Laboratory (chair)

Alan M. Title, Lockheed Martin Corporation (vice chair)

Timothy S. Bastian, National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Edward W. Cliver, Phillips Laboratory

Judith T. Karpen, Naval Research Laboratory

Jeffrey R. Kuhn, Institute for Astronomy

Martin A. Lee, University of New Hampshire

Richard A. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology

Victor Pizzo, NOAA Space Environment Center

Juri Toomre, University of Colorado

Thomas H. Zurbuchen, University of Michigan

Gary P. Zank, University of California at Riverside (chair)

David G. Sibeck, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (vice chair)

Spiro K. Antiochos, Naval Research Laboratory

Richard S. Bogart, Stanford University

James F. Drake, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park

Robert E. Ergun, University of Colorado, Boulder

Jack R. Jokipii, University of Arizona

Jon A. Linker, Science Applications International Corporation

William Lotko, Dartmouth College

Joachim Raeder, University of California at Los Angeles

Robert W. Schunk, Utah State University

The Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL), a joint activity between the Space Studies Board and the Board on Life Sciences, met February 20-22 at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona. The committee’s first report, Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, was released in prepublication format in late December 2001. COEL’s second report, Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology, an assessment of NASA’s programs to determine the extent of life in the universe, entered review during the first quarter.

COEL co-chair John Baross organized and hosted a preproject planning meeting relating to scientific questions about life different from life as we know it on Earth (“weird life”) on April 25, in Washington, D.C. Speakers and discussion leaders included Chris Chyba, SETI Institute and Stanford University; George Cody, Carnegie Institu-

tion of Washington; Steve Benner, University of Florida; Robert Shapiro, New York University; Mitch Sogin, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory; and Jack Szostak, Harvard University. Other participants at this meeting included members of COEL and representatives from several government agencies, including NASA Headquarters, the NASA Astrobiology Institute, and the NSF. Topics discussed included possible definitions of life, alternative biochemistries to support life, the role of mineral catalysts in the origin of life, possible mechanisms and key factors for the early stages of the development of life, and potential forms of life entirely distinct from the models we know now. Key points of debates included the pros and cons of different definitions of life, what characteristics of Earth’s version of life (e.g., information-storing macromolecules) have the potential to be universal, and how defining life and understanding the origins of life might impact our search for other forms of life in space and on Earth.

COEL continued the planning process at its meeting on May 23-25, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, with discussions about whether it might productively perform a study in the area of “weird life.” A statement of task for a new study, “The Limits of Organic Life in the Solar System,” was subsequently drafted and forwarded to the SSB for consideration at its June meeting. The committee also drafted a charge for another new study, “The Astrophysical Context for Life,” which was forwarded to the SSB for consideration at its June meeting. Craig Wheeler (University of Texas) took over from Jonathan Lunine as committee co-chair during the meeting.

During the second quarter, Signs of Life was in page proofs and Life in the Universe was sent to external review in April, revised at the May meeting, and approved by the NRC in late June.

COEL did not meet during the third quarter. Signs of Life was in the final stages of production. Life in the Universe was approved for release on June 28 and was briefed to NASA and congressional staff groups beginning on July 18. Statements of task for two new studies, see above, were approved by the SSB’s Executive Committee.

During the fourth quarter, COEL met in Washington, D.C., on October 9-11. Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, was released in final, printed form in early October. In addition to a committee-drafted introduction, commentary, and conclusions and recommendations, the report contains the full text of all of the papers presented at the workshop. Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology, released in prepublication form in June, was in the final stages of production during the fourth quarter.

Statements of task for the two new studies, “The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems” and “The Astrophysical Context for Life,” were awaiting approval by the executive committee of the NRC’s governing board.

John Baross, University of Washington (co-chair)

J. Craig Wheeler, University of Texas, Austin (co-chair)

Jonathan Lunine,* University of Arizona (co-chair)

Luann Becker, University of California at Santa Barbara

Steven A. Benner, University of Florida

Wendy M. Calvin, University of Nevada, Reno

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, University of Washington

Lucy M. Ziurys, University of Arizona

Gerda Horneck, European Space Science Committee Liaison

David H. Smith, Study Director, Space Studies Board

Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board

Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board

The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) did not meet during the first quarter. Committee members continued to work on the draft of the report Steps to Facilitate PI-Led Earth Science Missions.

CES met April 2-4 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, devoting most of the meeting to writing and revision of the report on PI-led missions. During the meeting, the committee also refined a proposed statement of task for a new study that would examine issues related to extension of Earth observation mission operations. Also at that meeting, CES chair Mike Freilich and member Bill Gail reported on the study being conducted by the Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO). CES members also reviewed their potential involvement in other SSB studies, including a review of the NASA Earth science applications strategy and a study that would focus on NOAA-NESDIS data utilization and future data users.

The committee met in Washington, D.C., on September 9-11 to complete the final draft of its report and to acquire background information for its new study on extending the effective lifetimes of Earth-observing research missions. This study will examine the suite of multiagency issues associated with (1) criteria for identifying missions that should be extended and (2) principles for allocating multi-agency mission operations and mission support for extended missions. The committee also heard presentations on these issues from Ghassem Asrar, NASA ESE; Greg Withee, NOAA/NESDIS; Roger Pielke, Jr., University of Colorado/CIRES; Pat McCormick, Hampton University; Chet Koblinsky, NASA GSFC; Guenter Riegler, NASA OSS; Gary Rottman, University of Colorado; Gene Feldman, NASA GSFC; Darrel Williams, NASA GSFC; Ray Byrnes, USGS; and Tom Karl, NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Drs. Asrar, Karl, Riegler, and Withee provided agency perspectives on the new study; the other speakers discussed specific missions, including TRMM, SAGE, Topex, SORCE, SeaWiFS, and Landsat.

CES did not meet during the fourth quarter. The committee continued to revise its report on PI-led missions and worked on the new extended missions study. Other committee activities included the continuing participation by the CES chair, Mike Freilich, and committee member William Gail in the SSB CONNTRO study.

Michael Freilich, Oregon State University (chair)

Sarah Gille, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Ralph F. Milliff, Colorado Research Associates

Michael J. Prather, University of California at Irvine

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

Michael Freilich, Oregon State University (chair)

John R. Christy, University of Alabama at Huntsville

William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace and 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

The Task Group on Research on the International Space Station (TGRISS) met March 5-7 in Washington, D.C., to continue work on its phase II study to examine the factors limiting the ability of investigators to utilize the International Space Station (ISS). TGRISS received an update on the ISS facilities and science plans from NASA, heard a briefing on the activities of the ISS reprioritization task group (ReMaP), and discussed with a NASA representative the status of NASA’s response to the concerns of the ISS partners regarding the ISS downsizing. TGRISS also held a discussion with Chris Shank, a staff member of the House Science Committee, on the expanded task language in the 2002 NASA Appropriations bill. Some clarification of the cost-benefit question in that language was provided, and TGRISS agreed that after the meeting NRC, NASA, and congressional staff would discuss coming to closure on this item. The documents provided by NASA in response to the questions developed at the November meeting were reviewed in closed session and a follow-up question list was created. The report outline, draft report sections, and the development schedule were reviewed and revised.

During the second quarter TGRISS continued to develop and revise its phase II report and met July 9-11 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to finalize the report prior to external review. The report was sent to SSB and external review on August 1 and responses to external reviews were completed in the first week of September. Following NRC approval, Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences was delivered to NASA on September 13 in prepublication form to meet an accelerated schedule requested by congressional staff; TGRISS chair James Bagian briefed staff members of the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee on September 16 and the report was released on September 18. Final editing and publication of the report will be carried out in early 2003.

The task group did not meet during the fourth quarter.

James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration (chair)

Noel D. Jones,* Molecular Structure Corporation (retired) (vice chair)

Adele L. Boskey, Weill Medical College of Cornell University

John F. Brady, California Institute of Technology

Jay C. Buckey, Jr., Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center

Robert Cleland, University of Washington

Meredith B. Colket III, United Technologies Research Center

Herman Z. Cummins, City College of New York

Lynette Jones, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alan Lawley, Drexel University

Steven E. Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Medical Center

Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory

David Pine, National Academy of Public Administration Liaison

Tom Utsman, National Academy of Public Administration Liaison

Sandra J. Graham, Study Director

Lisa Taylor, Senior Program Assistant (through March 2002)

Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant (from March 2002)

During the first quarter, new members were selected and recruited to the Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR). The committee met February 11-13, in Irvine, California, to hear briefings and continue work on its phase II study to advise on future research directions for NASA’s Physical Sciences Division. Activities at the meeting were split between work on the phase II draft report and a minisymposium on innovative research being performed in biomimetics and nanoscience.

The first day of the minisymposium was devoted to a session of presentations from, and discussion with, six leading investigators selected by the committee’s nano/bio splinter group. On the second morning a videoconference was held with Gene Trinh, director of NASA’s Physical Sciences Division, on the status and research plans of that division. Dr. Trinh noted that the phase I report had been very useful in terms of confirming his division’s mission and areas of interest, as well as assessing the quality of past research. Of particular interest was the schedule for NASA’s task force on ISS research prioritization (ReMaP). It was agreed that Peter Voorhees, committee chair, would offer to make a presentation to that task force in March or April of the committee’s phase I findings and phase II data. In response to committee concerns about the timeliness of the phase II report given the schedule of the NASA task force, Dr. Trinh indicated that the report would be used to determine the detailed content for the physical sciences program and to implement that program. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to review of the draft report and expansion of the report outline. Content for the chapter on emerging research areas was also discussed.

From May 8 to 10, CMGR met in Washington, D.C., to revise the draft discipline chapters of its report and discuss overall research priorities. The committee also received a comprehensive briefing from Robert Shull of NIST on the state of nanomagnetism research. The meeting closed with a discussion of the report review schedule and planning for the next meeting.

The committee met July 1-3 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to finalize its draft report prior to SSB review. The meeting included a brief discussion of the status of the NASA ReMaP task group’s research prioritization work and of the recent cuts in ESA’s microgravity program. After an extensive discussion of overall research prioritization in the CMGR report, the committee reviewed the individual discipline chapters, discussed the treatment of emerging areas, and devised plans for completing the external review draft of the report.

CMGR met October 9-10 in Irvine, California, to revise its phase II report, Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, in response to external review. The report received final NRC approval on October 30 and was delivered in prepublication form to NASA on the same day, approximately 5 months ahead of the original schedule. The study schedule was accelerated to meet NASA’s timetable for developing research plans and priorities for the OBPR. The report was released to the public in the first week of November and briefed to NASA officials on November 21. Final editorial review of the report is ongoing, and publication is expected in the first half of 2003.

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

Jayavant P. Gore, Purdue University

John L. Hall, University of Colorado

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 (through March 2002)

Celeste Naylor, Senior Program Assistant (from March 2002)

The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) met January 23 and 24 at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, to hold its third and final remote-sensing workshop, “Facilitating Public Sector Uses of Remote Sensing Data.” Approximately 60 people from state and local government, the private sector, academia, and federal government agencies attended the workshop. The agenda included three panels—“Opportunities and Impediments in Using Remote Sensing Data for State and Local Governments,” “Doing Business with State and Local Governments: The Private Sector Perspective,” and “Perspectives on Federal Support for Public Sector Applications.” There were three keynote presentations—“Emerging Application Area: Transportation,” “Adaptors and Adopters of Remote Sensing Data,” and “The Use of Lidar in State and Local Applications.” In addition, the workshop included case studies in applications theme areas on land use and land planning and emergency and disaster response. The two land use cases were “Washington State Land Trust/Management” and “Monitoring Regional Land Use/Land Planning in the Portland, Oregon, Regional Area.” In emergency and disaster response, the cases were “The North Dakota Red River Valley Flood of 1997” and “Responding to Hurricane Floyd: The North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.” The steering committee met following the workshop to discuss issues raised during the presentations and a preliminary outline for the report.

Dissemination of SAPPSC’s first report, Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications, continued during the first quarter. SAPPSC’s second report, Toward New Partnerships: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, was in review.

During the second quarter, SAPPSC met May 1-3 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to write sections of the committee’s third report, which is based, in large part, on the January 2002 workshop “Facilitating Public Sector Uses of Remote Sensing Data.” SAPPSC’s second report, Toward New Partnerships, was approved by the NRC and entered the editing process.

During the third quarter, SAPPSC held teleconferences on July 16 and 23 to discuss recommendations for its third report. The report underwent internal SSB review and was prepared for external review.

SAPPSC did not meet during the fourth quarter. The committee’s second report, Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, was published in September. Staff officer Pamela Whitney briefed the sponsors on the report results on November 7 in Washington, D.C., and the chair, Roberta Balstad Miller, presented the results of the first two reports at the Pecora Land Remote Sensing Conference, held in Denver in the middle of November. Following NRC approval, a prepublication copy of the third and final report, Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making, was released in late December 2002. A final published version will be available in the first quarter of 2003.

Roberta Balstad Miller, Columbia University (chair)

Alexander F.H. Goetz, University of Colorado

Lawrence W. Harding, Jr., 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

Jay S. Pearlman, The Boeing Company*

Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director

Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant

The Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO), initiated by the Space Studies Board in collaboration with the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, explores the need for a systematic approach to transitioning from research to operations at NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) and considers, 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. CONNTRO held its first meeting January 29 and 30 in Washington, D.C. The agenda included presentations by Greg Withee, associate administrator for NESDIS, and Ghassem Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science. In addition, the committee also heard from a NOAA panel including representatives from the National Weather Service, the Office of the Chief Scientist, and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. A NASA panel included representatives from NASA’s Office of Earth Science and the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). The meeting focused on clarifying the statement of task and beginning to explore questions on the transition from research to operations. Following the open session, the committee met to discuss issues raised during the meeting and to draft a preliminary outline.

CONNTRO held its second meeting in Washington, D.C., April 9-11. Most of the meeting was devoted to data gathering. The meeting opened with a teleconference to hear perspectives on research-to-operations and lessons learned from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. The committee also heard from NOAA’s Office of Research and Applications and NASA’s Office of Earth Sciences, Research Division. There was a panel on end users’ perspectives on research-to-operations, including representatives from NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Prediction, the NASA-NOAA Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation, Earth Satellite Corporation, and StormCenter Communications, Inc. The committee also heard views on research-to-operations at two aerospace companies, TRW and ITT Industries. In addition, two case studies on the transition from research to operations were highlighted: A representative from NASA presented information on the Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer (GIFTS), and representatives from NASA and the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Integrated Program Office presented material on the NPOESS Preparatory Project. The committee also held a discussion with the NASA (Earth Science) and NOAA/NESDIS budget examiners from OMB and heard from the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force on their experiences with transferring research into operational service. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to closed discussions of the report outline and study approach.

CONNTRO met June 10 and 11 in Washington, D.C., to hear additional briefings and to discuss a preliminary version of the draft report. Speakers included Ron Birk, director of Applications in NASA’s Office of Earth Science, who discussed NASA’s Earth science applications strategy, and Michael Crison, director of Requirements, Planning and Systems Integration, NOAA/NESDIS, who discussed NESDIS future space architecture plans. The committee also heard from Max Mayfield, director of the National Hurricane Center of the National Weather Service, who participated via teleconference and discussed the center’s experience as a satellite data user. The remainder of the meeting was spent discussing a preliminary draft and developing an initial set of findings and recommendations.

CONNTRO held its fourth meeting August 28-30 at the Woods Hole Study Center. The entire meeting was dedicated to closed discussions of the draft report, as the committee carefully reviewed the draft and analyzed how well it addressed the issue of transitioning research to operations and how well the committee had addressed its charge. The committee reviewed and revised the overall outline and structure of the draft, as well as each chapter individually. It drafted a preliminary set of recommendations and established a schedule for completing revisions and delivering a draft report for review by the SSB. A follow-up teleconference was held on September 19 to discuss final revisions to that draft report.

CONNTRO did not meet during the fourth quarter but held a teleconference to obtain consensus on the findings and recommendations for its draft report Satellite Observations of the Earth: Accelerating the Transition from Research to Operations. A prepublication version is expected to be available during the first quarter of 2003.

Richard A. Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (chair)

Susan K. Avery, University of Colorado (vice chair)

Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University

Grant C. Aufderhaar, The Aerospace Corporation

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

Michael Freilich, Oregon State University (CES Liaison)

William B. Gail, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation (CES Liaison)

Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director

Richard B. Leshner, Research Associate

Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant

During the first quarter, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) focused on planning for the World Space Congress (WSC), to be held in October in Houston, Texas. The WSC is a joint meeting of the COSPAR 34th Scientific Assembly and the 53rd International Astronautical Congress (IAC). The WSC features 44 parallel scientific and technical sessions, joint COSPAR-IAC plenary sessions, COSPAR distinguished lectures, IAC plenaries, and the largest international space exhibition ever held. A WSC National Organizing Committee (NOC) met in January, February, and March to handle issues on the national level and to coordinate planning with the general sponsor, the Boeing Company; the logistical host, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA); the hosting organization, NAS; and others from NASA, COSPAR, and the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). The NOC also prepared for the meeting of the COSPAR-IAF Joint Program Committee on March 21 in Paris, which reviewed information on the scientific and technical program, logistics, plenary events, publications, and other issues for the WSC.

COSPAR also held annual meetings of its Publications Committee on March 21 and of the Bureau on March 22 and 23. The Bureau addressed several issues related to the ongoing operations of the organization, including a review of COSPAR budgets, COSPAR awards and medals to be issued in 2002 at the WSC in Houston, the status of COSPAR publications, COSPAR officers and upcoming elections, and future COSPAR scientific assemblies in 2004 and 2006. In addition, COSPAR held a reception at the French space agency, CNES, to present the International Cooperation Medal, awarded to Reimar Lüst, who had not been present to receive the award at the COSPAR 2000 scientific assembly in Warsaw. At the same time, COSPAR gave special recognition to Gerhard Haerendel, COSPAR president, who has led the organization for the last 8 years and who will turn over the post to a new president, to be elected at the WSC in October.

The NOC met in Washington, D.C., in April and with the Houston Organizing Committee in Houston, Texas, in May. The Houston meeting focused on preparations at the local level, in Houston.

Planning for the WSC continued in full force during the second quarter. The COSPAR Program Committee met in June to make final decisions about the COSPAR scientific program. COSPAR reported that more than 3,500 abstracts had been submitted for its scientific sessions. Members of the AIAA briefed the program committee on the status of plans for the WSC. The program committee also discussed a preliminary process for identifying topics of potential interest to the press in advance of the WSC and a process for disseminating newsworthy scientific information that may be presented during the sessions to the press and other media.

The NOC held additional meetings in July, August, September, and October to address issues pertaining to logistics, sponsorship, the media and public relations, and other organizational matters. The COSPAR Scientific Program Committee met June 13 and 14 at COSPAR headquarters in Paris to finalize COSPAR’s scientific program at the WSC.

The WSC was held October 10-19 at the George R. Brown Conference Center, in Houston, Texas. Over 16,000 scientists, engineers, business representatives, policy officials, students, educators, media representatives, and the

lay public participated. The WSC hosts were the AIAA and the National Academies. The purpose of the congress was to draw representatives from the space science, engineering, technology, commercial business, policy, and educational institutions together to explore future opportunities and synergies. To that end, COSPAR and the IAC collaborated on joint technical sessions and plenary events held at the WSC. The joint plenary events featured a number of panels: “The ISS,” “An Integrated Approach to Monitoring Planet Earth,” “Life Sciences Research in Space,” “A Vision for the Next 25 Years of Space Science,” and “New Technologies for Space Applications.”

Another impressive dimension of the WSC was the large array of educational outreach activities, including the Mars Rover Competition, FIRST/BEST robotics demonstrations, and a Space Rocks Kids Festival, all of which were designed to get children excited about math, science, and technology and to provide educators with the tools students need to explore their interest in science and technology. Over 10,000 students and educators participated in the events hosted, in large part, by the University of Houston.

The WSC included the largest exhibition ever held for the space industry—a total of 3,150 exhibitors from 350 companies and organizations. The exhibits included pavilions from Austria, China, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, among other countries, and attracted more than 7,000 people. The exhibition featured what may have been the largest-ever NASA exhibit, which included representation from several NASA field centers. The SSB exhibit, mounted in cooperation with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, succeeded in distributing and/or receiving requests for approximately 1,300 reports on topics such as Earth science, life and microgravity sciences, data management, astrobiology, and international space science.

On the COSPAR side, Louis J. Lanzerotti completed his second and final 4-year term (1994-2002) as U.S. representative and vice president of COSPAR. Dr. Lanzerotti was co-chair of the NOC for the planning of the WSC. As chair of the Publications Committee, he guided COSPAR in implementing new standards for more rigorous refereeing of its scientific journal, in developing a new publications contract, and in efforts to streamline the process of producing COSPAR publications and improving their timeliness. Ed Stone, former director of JPL and the David Morrisroe Professor of Physics at Caltech, was appointed U.S. representative to COSPAR for the 2002-2006 term and was elected vice president for the same period by the COSPAR Council. COSPAR also elected Roger Bonnet, former director of space science at ESA, as its next president following Gerhard Haerendel, and Wilhem Hermsenn of the SRON National Institute for Space Research in the Netherlands as vice president (COSPAR has two vice presidents).

Pamela L. Whitney, Executive Secretary

Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant

The Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA’s Space Mission Data completed its report and submitted it for SSB review in January and NRC review in March. Altogether, 18 reviewers provided comments. Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA’s Earth and Space Science Mission Data was delivered to NASA on April 30. Task group chair Sidney Wolff briefed NASA.

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

Nick Van Driel, U.S. Geological Survey

Donald J. Williams, Johns Hopkins University

Roger V. Yelle, University of Arizona

James R. Zimbelman, Smithsonian Institution

Anne Linn, Study Director

Monica Lipscomb, Assistant Project Director

Claudette Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant

The Committee on Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars, known as the HEDS-MARS committee, was a joint project between the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, with ASEB playing the lead role. The committee report, Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface, was delivered in April.

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

Ronald E. Turner, ANSER Corporation

William L. Whittaker, Carnegie Mellon University

John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington (retired) (ex officio member)

George M. Levin, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Anna L. Farrar, Financial Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Douglas H. Bennett, Study Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Bridget R. Edmonds, Senior Project Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Joseph K. Alexander, Director, Space Studies Board

Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board

In response to a request from NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise, the Space Studies Board, in consultation with other appropriate units of the National Research Council, organized the Committee to Review NASA’s Earth Science Applications Program Strategic Plan. The committee met July 30-August 1 in Washington, D.C., to hear briefings from NASA; to hold discussions with representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, congressional staff, and two of NASA’s collaborating agencies, FEMA and NOAA; and to develop preliminary findings and recommendations. The review examined the overall goals, strategy, and approach for the program, as well as the planning and prioritization process, operations concept, expected program results or deliverables, and performance measures. The committee’s draft report went to external review in early September, and following NRC approval, a final report was delivered on September 27.

Michael J. Armstrong, ICF Consulting (chair)

William W. Hoover, U.S. Air Force (retired)

Dorothy E. Patton, Environmental Protection Agency (retired)

Robert J. Plante, Raytheon Systems Company

Heidi M. Sosik, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Mark L. Wilson, University of Michigan

Milton A. Wiltse, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Robert S. Winokur, Earth Satellite Corporation

Eric F. Wood, Princeton University

Martin C. Offutt, Study Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Joseph K. Alexander, Director, Space Studies Board

Richard Leshner, Research Associate, Space Studies Board

Panola Golson, Project Assistant, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

The Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization (CESDU) was appointed to conduct an end-to-end review of issues pertaining to the utilization of NOAA environmental satellite data for 2010 and beyond. Topics considered include the likely multiplicity of uses of environmental data collected by NOAA and NASA satellites, the likely interfaces between the data provider and the range of data users, the implications of these interfaces for data management activities, and approaches to engaging the science and applications community in dealing with these issues.

The task was approved by the Governing Board of the NRC on September 19. A committee of approximately 12 experts will hold three fact-finding meetings and two writing and report review meetings over an 18-month period. The committee’s findings and recommendations will be presented in a report to be delivered in the first quarter of 2004.

CESDU held a conference call on November 8 to discuss organization of the new study and agenda items and speakers to invite to its first meeting. The committee’s first full meeting will be in the first quarter of 2003.

H.-L. Allen Huang, University of Wisconsin-Madison (chair)

Philip E. Ardanuy, Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services

John R. Christy, University of Alabama

James Frew, University of California, Santa Barbara

Susan B. Fruchter, Smithsonian Institution

Aris P. Georgakakos, Georgia Institute of Technology

Ying-Hwa (Bill) Kuo, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

David S. Linden, DSL Consulting Inc.

Kevin P. Price, University of Kansas

Steven W. Running, University of Montana

Marijean T. Seelbach, QuakeFinder

Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Colorado State University

Robert A. Weller, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Robert L. Riemer, Study Director

Richard Leshner, Research Associate

Brian Osborne, Assistant to the Chair, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Claudette K. Baylor-Fleming, Senior Program Assistant