UNITED STATES CIVIL SPACE POLICY

SUMMARY OF A WORKSHOP

Molly K. Macauley, Rapporteur

Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur

Space Studies Board

and

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
UNITED STATES CIVIL SPACE POLICY SUMMARY OF A WORKSHOP Molly K. Macauley, Rapporteur Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This study was supported by Contract NASW-01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and private funding from the National Research Council. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-12014-2 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-12014-4 Copies of this report are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Other Reports of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (SSB, 2008) Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2008) Workshop Series on Issues in Space Science and Technology: Summary of Space and Earth Science Issues from the Workshop on U.S. Civil Space Policy (SSB, 2008) Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (SSB, 2007) An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (SSB with the Board on Life Sciences [BLS], 2007) Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration (SSB with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2007) Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop (SSB, 2007) Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (SSB, 2007) Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (SSB with the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, 2007) Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review (SSB, 2007) The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (SSB with BLS, 2007) NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation (SSB with the Board on Physics and Astronomy [BPA], 2007) Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2007) A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program (SSB with BPA, 2007) Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers (SSB, 2007) The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (SSB, 2007) An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs (SSB, 2006) Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016 (SSB, 2006) Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions: Letter Report (SSB, 2006) Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future (ASEB, 2006) Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research: Report of a Workshop (SSB, 2006) Issues Affecting the Future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2006) Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan: Letter Report (SSB, 2006) Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate (ASEB, 2006) The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon Interim Report (SSB, 2006) Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration (SSB, 2006) Limited copies of these reports are available free of charge from Space Studies Board National Research Council The Keck Center of the National Academies 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html NOTE: These reports are listed according to the year of approval for release, which in some cases precedes the year of publication. iv

OCR for page R1
PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR WORKSHOP ON U.S. CIVIL SPACE POLICY LENNARD A. FISK, University of Michigan, Chair CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire GEORGE A. PAULIKAS, Aerospace Corporation (retired) WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) RAPPORTEUR MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future, Inc. STAFF JOSEPH K. ALEXANDER, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board KERRIE SMITH, Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Program Associate, Space Studies Board CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Assistant Editor, Space Studies Board SANDRA WILSON, Program Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board v

OCR for page R1
SPACE STUDIES BOARD LENNARD A. FISK, University of Michigan, Chair A. THOMAS YOUNG, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vice Chair SPIRO K. ANTIOCHOS, Naval Research Laboratory DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering CHARLES L. BENNETT, Johns Hopkins University ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Los Alamos National Laboratory ALAN DRESSLER, The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution JACK D. FELLOWS, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology TAMARA E. JERNIGAN, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory KLAUS KEIL, University of Hawaii MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire KENNETH H. NEALSON, University of Southern California JAMES PAWELCZYK, Pennsylvania State University SOROOSH SOROOSHIAN, University of California, Irvine RICHARD H. TRULY, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (retired) JOAN VERNIKOS, Thirdage LLC JOSEPH F. VEVERKA, Cornell University WARREN M. WASHINGTON, National Center for Atmospheric Research CHARLES E. WOODWARD, University of Minnesota GARY P. ZANK, University of California, Riverside MARCIA S. SMITH, Director AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Chair CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., Jack and Panther, LLC ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, Aviation Safety Consultant AMY L. BUHRIG, Boeing Commercial Airplanes PIERRE CHAO, Center for Strategic and International Studies INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland ROBERT L. CRIPPEN, Thiokol Propulsion (retired) DAVID GOLDSTON, Princeton University JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PRESTON HENNE, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired) RICHARD KOHRS, Independent Consultant IVETT LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory, Edwards Air Force Base EDMOND SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired) MARCIA S. SMITH, Director vi

OCR for page R1
Preface In November 2003, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Space Studies Board (SSB), in collaboration with the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), organized a workshop to encourage a continuing broad national discussion about the future direction of the U.S. civil space program.1 The workshop was intended to explore aspects of the question, What should be the principal purposes, goals, and priorities of the U.S. civil space program? Participants observed attributes of NASA’s science programs that were missing in the human exploration program and saw the opportunity to apply lessons learned from the comparison for the improvement of the human spaceflight program. A workshop report, Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy,2 was released on January 14, 2004. Also on January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced a new national Vision for Space Exploration (the Vision); its fundamental goal was “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program” that would involve human and robotic exploration of space, including sending humans back to the Moon and later to Mars.3 The Vision had several cornerstones, including retiring the space shuttle by 2010, completing the International Space Station, and establishing a broad goal for human exploration of the Moon and, eventually, Mars. Subsequently, the June 2004 report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy4 (known as the Aldridge Commission) articulated a balanced program for human and robotic space exploration and science. The NASA Authorization Act of 20055 demonstrated that Congress supports the Vision as part of a balanced program that includes science and aeronautics. Two additional NRC reports, Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration6 and An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs,7 were prepared in response to congressional interest in relationships between the Vision and NASA’s science programs. The one overarching finding of the latter report was that “NASA is being asked to accomplish too much with too little,” and that “[t]he agency does not have the necessary resources to carry out the tasks of completing the International Space 1 Participants at the 2003 workshop considered civil space to include all of NASA’s human and robotic space programs; NOAA’s meteorological and environmental satellite programs; the activities of commercial entities in support of the space programs of NASA, NOAA, and other civilian agencies; and commercial space activities. Military and national security reconnaissance space programs were not included under the rubric of civil space. Participants in the 2007 workshop took the same approach and also considered emerging entrepreneurial efforts such as space tourism to be part of civil commercial space. 2 National Research Council, Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004. 3 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, The Vision for Space Exploration, NP-2004-01-334-HQ, NASA, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. iii. 4 President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate and Discover (also known as the Aldridge Commission report), June 2004, available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/moontomars/docs/M2MReportScreenFinal.pdf. 5 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005, Public Law 109-155, 109th Congress, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 2005. 6 National Research Council, Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005. 7 National Research Council, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. vii

OCR for page R1
Station, returning humans to the Moon, maintaining vigorous space and Earth science and microgravity life and physical sciences programs, and sustaining capabilities in aeronautical research.”8 The problems of reconciling expectations for total program content and total program resources, sustaining support and momentum for human space exploration, and optimizing international cooperation and competition in space exploration have posed perennial challenges for policy makers, and they remain crucial today. Consequently, the NRC formed an ad hoc committee under the auspices of the SSB and the ASEB to organize a second public workshop to encourage national discussion about future directions of the U.S. civil space program. (See Appendix A for the statement of task.) The workshop, which was held on November 29-30, 2007, employed invited talks, panel discussions, and general discussions for reviewing developments that have occurred since the two boards held the 2003 workshop. See Appendix B for the workshop agenda. Approximately 60 workshop participants, whose expertise spanned the fields of human spaceflight, space science, commercial space, science and technology policy, economics, international relations, and the media, (see Appendix C) revisited aspects of the question, What are the principal purposes, goals, and priorities of U.S. civil space?, and they explored the following ancillary topics: Key changes and developments since 2003; How space exploration fits in a broader national and international context; Sustainability factors, including affordability, public interest, and political will; Definitions, metrics, and decision criteria for program portfolio mix and balance; Roles of government in Earth observations from space; and Requirements and gaps in capabilities and infrastructure. The goal of the workshop was not to develop definitive answers to any of these questions but to air a range of views and perspectives that would serve to inform subsequent broader discussion of such questions by policy makers and the public. This report presents a summary of the discussions at the November 2007 workshop. It is not intended to represent a consensus of the views of the workshop participants but to capture highlights of the discussions and to note major themes that emerged. In contrast, Workshop Series on Issues in Space Science and Technology: Summary of Space and Earth Science Issues from the Workshop on U.S. Civil Space Policy,9 released in February 2008 as the first in a series of SSB workshop reports on issues in space science and technology, provided a brief synopsis that was limited to issues raised at the workshop that were particularly relevant to space and Earth science. 8 National Research Council, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006, p. 2. 9 National Research Council, Workshop Series on Issues in Space Science and Technology: Summary of Space and Earth Science Issues from the Workshop on U.S. Civil Space Policy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008. viii

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers 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 the 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: Alexander H. Flax, Independent Consultant, George M. Hornberger, University of Virginia, Joan Johnson-Freese, Naval War College, Charles F. Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, and A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired). Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the statements presented in the report, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by W. Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado at Boulder. 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 the report rests entirely with the authors and the institution. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 BACKGROUND 6 2003 Space Policy Workshop, 6 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, 7 NASA Authorization Act of 2005, 8 2006 National Space Policy, 9 2 ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION 11 Robustness, 11 International Context, 13 Public Interest and Support, 14 3 STRATEGIC ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR SOLUTIONS 15 Sustainability Factors, 15 Realism About Resources, 15 Leadership, 16 Relevance and Value, 17 Balance, 18 Earth Observations, 19 Capabilities and Infrastructure, 20 4 EPILOGUE 21 Communicating about Space Exploration, 21 International Competition, Cooperation, and Leadership, 21 Ensuring Robustness Through New Approaches and Attitudes, 22 APPENDIXES A Statement of Task 25 B Workshop Agenda 26 C Workshop Participants 28 xi

OCR for page R1