National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Clarity and Readability
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"NOTES." National Research Council. 2003. Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10765.
×
Page 21

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

NOTES 14 NOTES 1National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Space Science Enterprise, “2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” Draft 2, February 6, 2003, Review Draft. 2Space Studies Board, National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003—in press; Space Studies Board, National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003—in press. Board on Physics and Astronomy, Space Studies Board, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001; Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. 3Senior managers from the Office of Space Science (OSS) subsequently briefed the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration and the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life on related aspects of the strategic planning process. 4 This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Baross, University of Washington, Joseph A.Burns, Cornell University, John Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Louis J.Lanzerotti, Lucent Technologies, Norman H.Sleep, Stanford University, and Alar Toomre, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Wesley T.Huntress, Jr., Carnegie Institution of Washington, Geophysical Laboratory. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. 5See Letter from Dr. Claude R.Canizares, Space Studies Board Chair, to Dr. Edward J.Weiler, NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science, “A Review of NASA’s Office of Space Science Strategic Plan 2000,” May 26, 2000. 6 A recent NRC review of the Administration’s Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan listed the following elements that should be included in any strategic plan: • A clear and ambitious guiding vision of the desired outcome; • A set of unambiguous and executable goals that address the vision and broadly describe what the program is designed to accomplish; • A clear timetable for accomplishing the goals and criteria for measuring progress; • An assessment of whether existing programs are capable of meeting these goals, thereby identifying required program changes and unmet needs that must be addressed in subsequent implementation planning; • A set of explicit prioritization criteria to facilitate program design and resource allocation; and • A management plan that provides mechanisms for ensuring that the goals are met and for coordinating, integrating, and balancing individual program elements and participating agencies.

NOTES 15 See National Research Council, Planning Climate and Global Change Research: A Review of the Draft U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 1–5. 7National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, “2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” Draft 2, February 6, 2003, p. 37. 8National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, “2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” Draft 2, February 6, 2003, p. 37. 9 National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, Executive Summary, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 6. 10 See National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, Chapter 5 “Solar and Space Environment Effects on Technology and Society,” prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002. For more information on the transition of research to operations, see also National Research Council, Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment—Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. 11 National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, Chapter 5, “Solar and Space Environment Effects on Technology and Society,” prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002. 12National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, Executive Summary, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 6. 13National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 222. 14 Presentation on Space Science by Dr. Andrew Christensen to the NASA Advisory Council, March 20, 2003. 15 See National Research Council, Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 36. The report recommends that: “NASA should foster more extensive links between the Astrobiology and the Astronomical Search for Origins programs. In the short term, these linkages require cooperation between the NAI and major astronomical institutions, such as the Space Telescope Science Institute and universities with extensive astronomical programs, in creating joint workshops and focus groups to educate researchers in both areas and to initiate more extensive and novel research endeavors.” 16 For more information on national climate change initiatives and programs, see Our Changing Planet: The Fiscal Year 2003 U.S. Global Change Research Program and Climate Change Research Initiative, A Report of the Climate Change Research Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. A Supplement to the President’s Fiscal Year 2003 Budget. Available online at <http:// www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2003.pdf>. Accessed on April 10, 2003. Also see the NRC report The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublication copy, pp. 2–6 and 5–6, for discussion on the Coupling Complexity Research Initiative, a space physics program proposed to handle nonlinearity, multiprocess coupling, and multiscale and multiregional feedback, which are useful for integrating data on the near-Earth space domain, including the solar wind, magnetosphere, radiation belts, ionosphere, and thermosphere.

NOTES 16 17See National Research Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 2. 18National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Science, “2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” Draft 2, February 6, 2003, Review Draft, p. 26. 19 See, for example, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. 20 National Research Council, Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1988, pp. 3–4, 63–64. 21 Although theory is mentioned in passing in the section on R&A in the OSS strategy document, it is not given the same prominence as, for example, laboratory astrophysics or suborbital programs. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee’s decadal report recommended significant changes in NASA support for theory and modeling. The specific NRC recommendations were that (i) 2 to 3 percent of the cost of flight projects be devoted to theory (for a $2 billion program like the James Webb Space Telescope, this would mean $40 million to $60 million in theory support over a ~10-year period); (ii) a National Astrophysics Theory postdoctoral program be established (10 3-year postdoctoral positions each year, or ~$2.25 million per year); and (iii) the Astrophysics Theory Program be significantly augmented (+$3 million per year). The NRC committee believed strongly that the ensuing theoretical activities would materially improve NASA’s return on investments in space. See National Research Council, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 132–135. 22 National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. 297. The report states the following on research and analysis programs: “It is largely through the work supported by research and analysis (R&A) programs within the Office of Space Science that the data returned by flight missions is converted into new understanding, advancing the boundaries of what is known. The research supported by these programs also creates the knowledge necessary to plan the scientific scope of future missions. Covered under this line item are basic theory, modeling studies, laboratory experiments, ground-based observations, long-term data analysis, and comparative investigations. The funds distributed by these programs support investigators at academic institutions, federal laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and industrial corporations. R&A furnishes the context in which the results from missions can be correctly interpreted. Furthermore, active R&A programs are a prime breeding ground for principal investigators and team members of forthcoming flight missions. “Healthy R&A programs are of paramount importance and a necessary precondition for effective missions. This conclusion has been stated repeatedly and forcefully before,…and is shared by NASA’s Office of Space Science itself. The three R&A “clusters” (i.e., Origin and Evolution of Solar System Bodies, Planetary Systems Science, and Astrobiology and Planetary Instrumentation) most closely associated with solar system exploration were supported at the level of $96 million in FY 1999. This level is now expected to rise at about 3 percent per year above the underlying inflation rate for several years. This proposed rise is included in the President’s FY 2003 budget. Nevertheless, serious problems remain with these programs. The proposal oversubscription is typically 3:1, which—we believe—is too high since then new proposals can rarely be funded. Also, the availability of authorized funds is often subject to delays and, in recent times, the value of the median grant has fallen to below $50,000 per annum, a level generally too small to support a researcher or a tuition-paid graduate student…. “We agree with the Space Studies Board recommendation that NASA should routinely examine the size and number of grants to ensure that the grant sizes are adequate to achieve the proposed research…. We support the budgetary proposals that would steadily grow solar system exploration R&A programs. The SSE Survey recommends an increase over the decade in the funding for fundamental Research and Analysis programs at a rate above inflation to a level that is consistent with the augmented number of missions, amount of data, and diversity of objects studied.

NOTES 17 “R&A programs are not presently—and, in our opinion, should not be—tied to specific mission goals. Thus, individual research projects do not correspond to particular missions. Nevertheless, as the breadth and depth of the space exploration missions increase, the R&A programs should expand and be redirected correspondingly. Therefore, in a broadest sense, R&A programs must be responsive to the current mission opportunities even if they are not rigidly coupled to them. “Previous NRC studies have shown that after a serious decline in the early- to mid-1990s…the overall funding for R&A programs in NASA’s Office of Space Science has, in recent years, climbed to approximately 20 percent of the overall flight mission budget…. Figures supplied by NASA’s Solar System Exploration program show that the corresponding value for planetary activities is closer to 25 percent and is projected to stay at about this level for the next several years. The SSE Survey believes that this is an appropriate allocation of resources. “Finally, to maintain and enhance the scientific productivity of the entire solar system exploration enterprise and to ensure the creation of new intellectual capital of the highest quality in the field, the SSE Survey recommends the initiation of a program of Planetary Fellows, i.e., a postdoctoral program analogous to the Hubble and Chandra fellowships which have done so much to nurture the next generation of astronomers and astrophysicists. The purpose of this program would be to allow the brightest young investigators the opportunity to develop independent research programs during their most creative years. These would be prestigious, multiyear fellowships, based solely on highly competitive research proposals and tenable at any U.S. institution.” 23 National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 2–5, 2–6. The report states: “Over the past decade and more, theory and modeling have played an increasingly important role both in defining satellite missions and other programs and in interpreting data through the development of new physical models. The enhanced role of theory and modeling is a consequence of the development of powerful computational tools that have facilitated the exploration of the dynamics of complex nonlinear plasma systems at both large MHD spatial scales and kinetic microscales. Before the advent of these tools it was not possible to study these dynamical processes through analytic techniques alone. “In the coming decade, the deployment of clusters of satellites and large arrays of ground-based instruments will provide a wealth of data over a very broad range of spatial scales. Theory and computational models will play a central role, hand in hand with data analysis, in integrating these data into first-principles models of plasma behavior. Examples of the catalyzing influence of theory and computation on the interpretation of data from observational assets are many. A case in point is recent research in the area of magnetic reconnection, where new theoretical developments have spurred the successful search for signatures of kinetic reconnection in satellite data. “Theory and modeling activities have further importance in the application of the results from solar and space physics to allied fields such as astrophysics and fusion energy sciences. The solar-heliosphere system is the space physicist’s laboratory wherein a wide variety of plasma processes, parameters, and boundary conditions are encountered (cf. Chapter 4). Many of these phenomena can be sampled directly and the results applied to systems where direct measurements are either very difficult or altogether infeasible. The identification of the critical dimensionless parameters controlling plasma dynamics through analysis combined with state-of-the-art computation is central to the successful extrapolation to differing environments, where absolute parameters may be very different from those in the solar-heliosphere system. “NASA’s Sun-Earth Connection Theory program has been very successful in focusing critical-mass theory and modeling efforts on specific topics in space physics. The NSF has long encouraged and supported theoretical and modeling investigators through its grants program. Theoretical work provides the community with state-of-the-art computational models that are developed and utilized with support from all the funding agencies. This theoretical understanding is used extensively for interpreting individual measurements as well as for developing physics-based data assimilation procedures for diverse but coupled parameters. “In view of the strongly coupled nature of the solar-heliosphere system and the complementary objectives of the solar and space physics programs of the different federal agencies, two interagency initiatives are being proposed by the committee. One of these—the Virtual Sun— will incorporate a systems-oriented approach to theory, modeling, and simulation that will ultimately provide continuous

NOTES 18 models from the solar interior to the outer heliosphere…. The Virtual Sun will be developed in a modular fashion by focused attacks on various physical components of the solar-heliosphere system and on cross-cutting physical problems. The solar dynamo and three-dimensional reconnection are areas ripe for near-term concentration because they complement the planned ground- and space-based measurement programs. “The Coupling Complexity Research Initiative…will address multiprocess coupling, nonlinearity, and multiscale and multiregional feedback in space physics. The program advocates both the development of coupled global models and the synergistic investigation of well-chosen, distinct theoretical problems. For major advances to be made in understanding coupling complexity in space physics, sophisticated computational tools, fundamental theoretical analysis, and state-of-the-art data analysis must all be integrated under a single umbrella program. Again, this initiative is motivated by the anticipated ground-and space-based measurements that will provide spatially distributed data that must be incorporated into a single understanding of the physical processes at work in different volumes of geospace.” 24National Research Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 172. 25 See National Research Council, Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA’s Earth and Space Science Mission Data, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 7, 76. 26 NASA town meeting presentation at the American Astronomical Society, January 8, 2003. 27National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, p. ES-12. 28National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 7–9 and 7–10. 29Letter from the Association of American Universities and the Council on Governmental Relations to Dr. Gerald Epstein, Assistant Director for National Security, Office of Science and Technology Policy, July 17, 2000; Letter from the Association of American Universities and the Council on Governmental Relations to the Honorable John H.Marburger, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, July 11, 2002; Statement by Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences, Wm.A.Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, and Harvey Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, “Current Visa Restrictions Interfere with U.S. Science and Engineering Contributions to Important National Needs,” December 13, 2002. 30Other technology areas that will need early attention include thermal protection system (TPS) technologies and associated structural materials used for atmospheric entry missions, aerocapture technology development, and developments needed to meet the anticipated future Deep Space Network (DSN) demand. 31 There is some discussion on p. 52 of how mission technology needs for the anticipated mission set will be used to decide which technologies to develop, but there is no mention of metrics for prioritization or funding levels. No time lines are given in any of the technology discussions, even though this should be relatively easy to do for the Mars program. Some time lines are needed for critical technologies to show that those technologies will be ready when needed for missions. The Mars objective “…determine if life exists…” (p. 32) fails to mention that there are numerous complex issues related to biohazards and Mars sample quarantine associated with eventual Mars sample return. These issues will take time to clarify, and adequate quarantine and analysis facilities must be developed in parallel with technologies for sample return. It will require 7 years or more to develop and construct a suitable facility, effectively a clean room inside a BSL-4 containment laboratory. See Space Studies Board, National Research Council, The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002.

NOTES 19 Mechanisms for importing technologies from outside NASA appear to be oriented primarily toward requiring potential technology providers to actively approach NASA. Significant advantages may accrue from having NASA actively identify and approach potential technology providers outside NASA and the aerospace industry. 32 Some comments that may guide revision of the Education and Public Outreach section: 1. The proposed plan (p. 20, line 14) discusses that the goal is to meet the needs of educators, but the means by which the needs of the educators will be assessed are not specified; 2. Items in the Future Efforts List are still too vague; 3. In general, there is no specific plan on how any of the EPO activities will be accomplished. 33National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, prepublication copy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 6–3, 6–5. 34 Space Studies Board, National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003—in press; Space Studies Board, National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003—in press. Board on Physics and Astronomy, Space Studies Board, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2001; Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research Council, Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

NOTES 20 Attachment 1 National Aeronautics and Space Headquarters Washington, DC20546–0001 January 7, 2003 Reply to Attn of: S Dr. John McElroy Chair, Space Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC20418 Dear Dr. McElroy: The Office of Space Science is currently working to update the Space Science Enterprise strategic plan, with the objective of issuing a new version in September 2003. Subcommittees of the Space Science Advisory Committee (SScAC) have prepared new mission roadmaps and we held a workshop to discuss an updated strawman science and mission program in November. We are now assembling a draft revised plan and will circulate it for community comment. I would like to request that, as for the 2000 plan 3 years ago, the Space Studies Board review the new draft plan and provide us with comments in the following areas: Responsiveness to the Board’s guidance on key science issues and opportunities in recent Board reports; Attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance; Identification and exposition of important opportunities for education and public outreach; Integration of technology development with the science program; and General readability and clarity of presentation. Helpful suggestions in other areas would also be welcome. According to our present schedule, a draft of the plan should be available for your review by the end of January 2003. We also expect to be able to brief the plan to the Board and relevant committees at your request. Because we plan to present a final draft to the SScAC at their meeting in June 2003, leading to production of the report beginning in July 2003, we would need to have a formal report from the Board expressing its findings and suggestions no later than mid-to late-May 2003.

NOTES 21 We look forward to having the Board’s inputs to this vital activity. Please contact Dr. Marc Allen at (202) 358–0733 if you have any questions about this request. Sincerely, Edward J.Weiler Associate Administrator Space Science

Next: SPACE STUDIES BOARD »
Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!