Click for next page ( 19


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



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

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

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Space Studies Board Annual Report—1994 2 Activities and Membership During 1994, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task groups gathered for a total of 31 meetings. Four full-length reports were issued, including a second report on scientific opportunities by the Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) (Section 3.1) and a first integrated research strategy for solar system exploration by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) (3.3). The remaining two reports (3.2 and 3.4) were prepared by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) working in collaboration with the NRC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research; one of these reports, dealing with research opportunities in upper atmospheric sciences, was produced at the request of and under the sponsorship of the Office of Naval Research. Four short reports were released, two on topics in space station science utilization (4.1 and 4.4), one on the scientific value of two restructured infrared astrophysics REPORT MENU programs (4.2), and one summarizing previous Board findings regarding the NOTICE Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility and the Cassini Saturn probe (4.3). The FROM THE CHAIR Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR), COMPLEX, and CSSP were CHAPTER 1 heavily engaged in developing or updating research strategies. The Committee CHAPTER 2 on Earth Studies (CES) devoted most of its energy to completion of a sweeping CHAPTER 3 status assessment of fields within its scope, but heard from NOAA/NESDIS CHAPTER 4 officials on several occasions about changes being made in the operational CHAPTER 5 environmental satellite program. The CMGR spent much of its time developing APPENDIX A.1 the two space station letter reports it coauthored with the Committee on Space APPENDIX A.2 Biology and Medicine (CSBM) and responding to reviews of its research APPENDIX A.3 opportunities report. The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics' (CAA) Task Group on SIRTF and SOFIA assessed those missions, and the CAA initiated another task group on ground observatory policies under the sponsorship of the NSF. The new steering group of the Board's major project on the Future of Space Science (FOSS) began intensive planning for that study, and initial membership work was done for the high-visibility Task Group on Gravity Probe B. The Defense Department-sponsored Task Group on the BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory conducted three meetings and began preparation of its final report. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (1 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:31 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) The following sections present highlights of the meetings of the Board and its committees during 1994. Formal reports and letter reports developed and approved during these meetings are represented in this annual report either by their executive summaries (for full-length reports) or by reproduction in full (for short reports). SPACE STUDIES BOARD As 1994 began, the post-Cold War evolution of the national policy and budget environment first heralded a year before began to emerge more clearly. With the health care debate simmering in the background and President Clinton's Whitewater problems providing foreground political clutter, the dynamics of deficit control became ever more inexorable, and not least in the civilian space program. The President's FY95 budget proposal for NASA dropped by $251 million from the actual FY94 appropriation, to $14.3 billion in budget authority, while creeping up by a comparable amount in projected outlays. By contrast, the picture for space science was relatively benign for FY95. R&A levels in the budget were disappointing, but the administration was able to continue both the imaging component of the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF-I) and Cassini, and to increase the Earth Observing System (EOS) program significantly. The budget even included a new line for Mars Surveyor, a new, small-satellite program oriented toward orbital and landed Mars science that would help recover some of the aspirations lost with Mars Observer. At the same time, NASA concluded some momentous business of 1993 by pronouncing December's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) repair mission a complete success, and closed out the old Space Station Freedom program in favor of a leaner management approach based on a single prime contract with the Boeing company. The major concerns over the proposed budget were in the out-year projections, where the total space research funding essentially tracked the drop- off in Cassini and AXAF development funding; even forecasted continued growth in EOS did not appear to arrest the overall decline, which thus reflected a real progressive stagnation of research funding rather than a simple rebalancing of the program in favor of the Mission to Planet Earth. Perhaps a more serious threat was that NASA's comparatively favorable FY95 request might not survive the subcommittee allocation process or competition for that allocation with needy social programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. And the questionable stability of the space station program, now joined to the destiny of the Russian program, raised an additional uncertainty for the observer trying to imagine what the ultimate outcome of its cancellation might be for space research. Against this uncertain backdrop, the Space Studies Board began 1994 with a pair of Executive Committee teleconferences. On January 20, the committee conferred on planning for the next meeting of the full Board. A second teleconference was held on February 9 to follow up on the January conversation and to discuss a future study on the goals and rationale for space science. The committee also gave tentative approval for exploration of a new activity, file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (2 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:31 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) "Horizons in Aerospace Research and Technology," contemplated as a joint activity with the NRC's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and directed toward radical innovation in these fields. The Space Studies Board held its first plenary meeting of the year (its 112th) in Washington, D.C., on February 28 through March 2. Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, chair, introduced Dr. Claude Canizares, director of the MIT Center for Space Research, scheduled to assume the chair of the Board on July 1. A short Board report on the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Forum on Science in the National Interest was followed by a panel presentation and discussion on the President's FY95 budget submission. Short presentations on the budget were provided by Dr. Jack Fellows, Office of Management and Budget, Mr. David Moore, Congressional Budget Office, and Messrs. Kevin Kelly and Stephen Kohashi of the staff of NASA's Senate appropriations subcommittee. In the afternoon, NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova gave the agency's perspective on the budget and presented a draft of NASA's new Strategic Plan. Associate Administrators Wesley Huntress, Harry Holloway, and Charles Kennel discussed the status of their programs and implications of the budget. Dr. Herbert Schnopper, deputy chair of the European Space Science Committee, presented plans for reorganizing that committee into a structure closely resembling that of the Board and its committees. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin later joined the Board for dinner and shared his views in after- dinner remarks; he also challenged the Board with ten broad questions relating to science, particularly space science. On the meeting's second day, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator D. James Baker briefed the Board on the status and plans of his agency, including such topics as interagency convergence, use of real-time data from non-U.S. satellites, and NASA/NOAA cooperation on EOS. Dr. Baker was accompanied by Deputy Undersecretary Diana Josephson, and National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) Director Robert Winokur. Dr. Richard Obermann, of the staff of the House Space Subcommittee, presented a discussion of the legislative and policy environment facing the FY95 budget proposal. The Board viewed a video of the briefing by Dr. Timothy Coffey of the Mars Observer Investigation Board review, and a video of a recent ABC News Day 1 editorial on NASA. Dr. John McElroy, chair of the Committee on Earth Studies, presented a status report on the committee's survey of recommendations and progress in Earth observations. The research strategy being assembled by the Committees on Solar and Space Physics and on Solar-Terrestrial Research was presented for approval; it was decided that an updated draft would be distributed to the Board for a second review and approval by mail ballot. A briefing on the Clementine mission was presented by Lt. Col. Pedro Rustan of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and Dr. Eugene Shoemaker. Following this talk, which included striking images of the Moon returned by the BMDO spacecraft, Dr. Anneila Sargent presented a draft report by the Task Group on the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA). The Board file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (3 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:31 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) provisionally approved the draft report, with final approval delegated to the Executive Committee pending minor revisions. The Executive Committee met on March 29 via teleconference to approve the Future of Space Science project and give final concurrence to the report of the Task Group on SIRTF and SOFIA. During the second quarter of the year, the space research community continued to focus on grappling with the consequences of the Administration's FY95 budget proposal and out-year projections. On March 24, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chair George Brown released the CBO study, Reinventing NASA. The major conclusion of the study was that NASA probably would not be able to successfully maintain its full portfolio of activities on the projected budgets, and the report suggested three representative scenarios in which different elements of today's space program would be eliminated to ensure health for the remaining ones. As usual, the $2.1 billion allocated to the space station program drew both envy and a stout defense. NASA continued to vigorously defend the program, which seemed certain to come under attack again in the Congress. At an April 15 hearing, Administrator Goldin stressed the need for the station as the centerpiece of the U.S. space program and provided a firm cost of $17.9 billion for the project. Negotiations continued with Boeing, the prime contractor, and Russia, now assuming increasing importance as a partner. At a second hearing before the House Subcommittee on Space a few days later, reservations about dependence on the Russians were forcefully expressed by several members, led by ranking minority member James Sensenbrenner. At the same time, full committee Chair Brown attempted to influence the allocation of spending authority within the appropriations committees by threatening to withdraw his support for the station if total NASA funding dropped below $14.3 billion. At the same time, the total House allocation to NASA's appropriating subcommittee came in slightly below the $73.3 billion needed, leaving NASA's outlook uncertain. On May 19, Brown set his limit at $14.15 billion, but left a little flexibility. He also unveiled an authorization bill for FY95 that retained the space station but deleted the Mars Surveyor new start, one of eight yearly planned shuttle flights, and the MSL-1 Spacelab flight. Deletion of the latter was an especially bitter pill, because MSL-1 remanifested some of the science previously planned for the SLS-3 flight just canceled in the course of laying out the U.S.-Russian Shuttle-Mir flight sequence. A still more serious threat to the NASA budget subsequently emerged in the Senate, where NASA's subcommittee allocation for outlays fell more than $300 million below the House's figure. In a June 7 hearing, appropriations subcommittee Chair Barbara Mikulski suggested that either AXAF or Cassini might need to be cut, in addition to reductions in the space station. This threat was clearly an appeal to the Administration for help in obtaining "additional sources of revenue," as the high-stakes game of chicken continued. Space science advocates were greatly relieved, then, when the President's space science budget survived the House appropriations file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (4 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:31 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) subcommittee vote on June 9. Science programs escaped unscathed in the resulting $14.0 billion budget, in which reductions from the Administration proposal were taken in the Human Space Flight and Mission Support accounts. Rep. Brown concluded in a public announcement on June 15 that this funding level, while "substantially below" what was needed, was "adequate to continue the space station program" for another year. This left Rep. Sensenbrenner to be convinced of the viability of the space station program's collaboration with the Russians. These concerns were resolved to his satisfaction by a letter from President Clinton, received on the evening of June 22, that promised the retention of "in-line autonomous U.S. flight and life support capability during all phases of station assembly." So, on the 23rd, Rep. Sensenbrenner fell into line behind the station, whose prospects were now looking much improved. Also on June 23, Administrator Goldin and Russian Space Agency Director General Juri Koptev signed both an "Interim Agreement for the Conduct of Activities Leading to a Russian Partnership in Permanently Manned Civil Space Station" and a $400 million agreement for Russian space hardware and services. A House amendment, offered by Rep. Richard Zimmer, to kill the station and distribute the liberated resources among space science, the shuttle, advanced launch systems, and aeronautics, began to appear much less threatening. Indeed, the amendment failed by 123 votes when the House appropriations bill went to the floor and was passed on the evening of June 29. The budget action for U.S. space and space science moved next onto the uncertain terrain of the Senate, where a lower appropriations allocation still threatened the need for hard measures. Actually, space researchers had reason to be grateful: up to this point, the President's FY95 budget for space science, which was generally viewed as adequate and certainly much better than the projections for the out-years, had survived. Indeed, compared to defense research in the universities, which experienced a 50% cut in its House appropriations bill passed in subcommittee at the end of June, civil space research looked good. There was other good news, too. Placed into lunar orbit on February 19, the Defense Department's Clementine spacecraft successfully completed its mapping mission on May 3 and left for its rendezvous with the minor planet 1620 Geographos. Although the craft subsequently suffered a severe system failure that eliminated this second phase of its science mission, it had succeeded in returning multispectral maps of essentially the entire Moon, the first major advance in lunar exploration since the end of Apollo 20 years before. NASA's strong interest in smaller, faster, and cheaper flight missions guaranteed that this joint NASA-DoD program would be closely studied in times ahead. In a delightful surprise, analysis of downlink image data from the Jupiter-bound Galileo spacecraft revealed that it had observed a tiny moon, later named Dactyl, in orbit around the asteroid Ida. The agency also launched and successfully activated the much-delayed GOES-NEXT (GOES-8) geostationary environmental satellite, significantly upgrading NOAA's ability to detect and track severe mesoscale weather. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (5 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Based on an Executive Committee agenda planning teleconference on May 13, the Space Studies Board held its 113th meeting at the Goddard Space Flight Center and at the National Academy of Sciences on June 29-July 1. The sessions at Goddard continued the Board's long-standing tradition of meeting once per year at a NASA field center. Members took advantage of the opportunity to hear presentations on space and Earth science programs by Goddard investigators. The meeting also featured program status briefings by Associate Administrators Huntress, Kennel, and Holloway. Assistant Administrator for Strategic Planning Peggy Finarelli presented the new NASA Strategic Plan, and Chief Scientist Cordova briefed the Board on activities of the new NASA Science Council and on a number of far-reaching strategic science policy questions under current study. A number of moving moments marked the end of Louis Lanzerotti's six years as chair of the Board: the NRC's Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications gave him an NRC watch, and the National Academy of Sciences presented him with an etched crystal bowl. Later, at dinner, Board staff gave Dr. Lanzerotti a plaque celebrating the naming of minor planet 5504 Lanzerotti, and NASA bestowed on him its highest honor, the Distinguished Public Service Medal. Dr. Claude Canizares assumed the gavel the next morning, beginning a three-year term as the Board's new chair. The big space science news during the latter part of July was the dramatic collision of the fragments of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter. The impact, which offered a unique opportunity to study both the dynamics and composition of the comet and the structure of the Jovian atmosphere, was observed by observatories around the world, as well as by Galileo and the HST above it. A significant innovation occasioned by the event was the first worldwide use of the internet to coordinate observing plans and preliminary results almost in real time. On the budget side, space science had a quiet summer after initial amazement during July at Senator Barbara Mikulski's success in maintaining NASA's appropriation in the Senate bill. Earlier prognoses had been darkened by an outlay deficiency, compared to the House, of $316 million for FY95. In spite of this shortfall, NASA emerged from the Senate Committee on Appropriations with $85 million less than its FY94 total, but $201 million more than the Administration's request, and a whopping $441 million more than the House figure. Both the space station and space science were fully funded, with only relatively minor adjustments made among space science accounts. Just before passage of the bill in the Senate, the space station survived a new Bumpers cancellation amendment, whose 36 votes on August 4 were 4 fewer than it had garnered the year before. This promise of a satisfactory denouement to the FY95 space science budget cycle had to share the policy spotlight with the release on August 3 of the long-awaited OSTP report Science in the National Interest. Based in part on a high-level symposium held the preceding February, this report promised to articulate the Clinton Administration's policy on science in much the same way that an earlier document had spoken to national goals in technology. The new policy's five goals seemed to address the major areas of concern: it committed file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (6 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) the nation to leadership in research and excellence in training both specialists and the general citizenry, and promised to improve the connections between research and national goals and between the major participants in the scientific enterprise. The statement was generally favorably received by the scientific community; for example, in a statement on behalf of the American Institute of Physics, Dr. Roland Schmitt described the document as modernizing national policy "constructively, comprehensively, and sensitively." The only missing element was a mechanism for increasing science's share of the GDP from 2.7 to 3.0% as OSTP recommended. This reservation clouded an otherwise positive reaction by Rep. George Brown and spokespersons from academia and industry the day after the report's release at a hearing on the new policy by the House Subcommittee on Science. In a footnote, the space research community got a glimpse of the dark side of the new information age. In a series of abrupt events, the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) appeared to be canceled outright and then partly restored. On September 8, email suddenly announced that FUSE had been "canceled," in a "major violation of the peer review process." Another message announced that "the process stinks," and that "we should scream." By the 13th, a calm and carefully reasoned letter was being circulated over NASA Associate Administrator Huntress' signature that budget pressure had ordained the end of the Delta-class Explorers, so that FUSE would be restructured as a MIDEX (mid- class explorer) mission that would retain as much science content as possible. On September 14, FUSE Principal Investigator Warren Moos was soberly, but gamely, presenting his initial planning for restructuring the mission to NASA's internal Space Science Advisory Committee. By the 16th, when an official NASA press release explaining the situation and ongoing planning was circulated on the internet, recognition appeared to be spreading that the highly rated far ultraviolet astronomy objectives addressed by FUSE were not, in fact, being abandoned, but instead were being rescoped for survival, a process already undergone by AXAF and Cassini (not to mention the space station). The network was thereby proved as effective at spreading rumor and alarm as for enhancing valuable scientific cooperation and distributing Shoemaker-Levy 9 images. During the last days of the fiscal year, the Senate followed suit on the House's approval of the NASA appropriations conference report, leaving the agency about 1% better off than the Administration had proposed and only a comparable amount short of its FY94 budget. The Space Studies Board did not meet during the third quarter of 1994. Its Executive Committee did, however, assemble on August 1-3 at the NRC Woods Hole study center to complete several action items deferred from the Board's June 29-July 1 meeting at the Goddard Space Flight Center and to work with an initial steering group of the Board's new Future of Space Science (FOSS) project. (The FOSS project will be a set of studies responding to FY94 Senate appropriations report language and a subsequent request by NASA Administrator Goldin. The project, which focuses on science organization, prioritization, and technology utilization, is discussed in a separate section below.) The Executive Committee accepted a new version of the final report of the Task Group on file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (7 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Priorities in Space Research, chaired by Prof. John Dutton, subject to a few issues in format and presentation. The committee also decided that the third report of the Committee on Human Exploration, dealing with science management issues, should be reconsidered for possible release. The Discovery program report by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration was approved for submission to external review, and a draft statement of task for an assessment and "lessons-learned" study on the BMDO Clementine mission was also approved. The Executive Committee decided to draw up a possible statement of task on Research and Analysis issues for future consideration. The Executive Committee met again via teleconference on September 30 to plan activities for the November meeting of the full Board. On October 12, Magellan fell silent as it slipped into the Venusian atmosphere. This spectacularly successful radar mission, which left only a few percent of the cloud-covered surface of the planet unmapped, also provided an extremely valuable gravity map of Venus during the final phase of its mission. The contrast between the Mars Observer and Magellan poignantly highlighted the stark extremes of failure and success in the exacting realm of interplanetary spacecraft. Late in the year, the astronomical sciences saw a profound example of applying the most modern instrumentation to a classical technique in astronomy. The repaired HST was used to make accurate observations of Cepheid variables in the galaxy M100. The resulting measurement of the distance to this galaxy, 56 million light-years, implies that the universe is only about half as old as previously estimated and raises numerous questions in cosmology and stellar evolution. The Board's last meeting of 1994 was on November 7-9 at the Beckman Center, in Irvine, California. Chair Claude Canizares welcomed new members Drs. Martin Glicksman (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Marcia Rieke (University of Arizona), Janet Luhmann (University of California at Berkeley), Mary Jane Osborn (University of Connecticut), and John Donegan (USN, retired) to the Board. Dr. Canizares also reported that the Board would be setting up a panel to perform a science reassessment of the Gravity Probe B mission, at the request of NASA Administrator Goldin. The top priority for this meeting, the Board's 114th, was planning and approval for committee activities, since many Board committees were completing major projects and were in a position to start new ones. Because a number of NASA science office strategic plans were either in circulation or nearing finalization, however, the Board took advantage of videoconferencing capabilities to discuss these efforts and plans with agency science officials. Conversations on program status and planning were held with NASA Chief Scientist Cordova, Associate Administrator Kennel and Dr. Robert Harriss of the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, and Associate Administrators Huntress and Holloway. A videoconference briefing was also presented by Mr. Robert Winokur and Mr. John Hussey of NOAA/NESDIS on the status of the new Integrated Program Office for the polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites. After these important program updates, the Board reviewed the activities file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (8 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) of its committees. Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics representative Jeremiah Ostriker described preliminary findings of that committee's study on optical and infrared astronomy from ground-based observatories. The committee is funded jointly by NASA and NSF, and this study was intended to provide guidance to NSF on managing the conflicting budget demands of major new observatories under development and routine operations and maintenance of its existing inventory of ground observatories. The Board heard about planning for the Future of Space Science project from Chair John Armstrong. Key members of the steering group of the project conferred on these plans via videoconference over lunch on the first day of the meeting. During the second day, Board Director Marc Allen informed the Board that the final report of the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research would shortly be sent out for review. This report, which describes the mixed success of the prioritization methodology developed by that task group, should be released by mid-year. Committee on Earth Studies Chair John McElroy reviewed the status of the committee's large survey report, which was just about to enter institutional review; Dr. McElroy obtained the Board's approval for the committee's next project, a two-part assessment of synthetic aperture radar applications in the context of U.S. and foreign systems, both those flying and those in planning. Committee on Microgravity Research Chair Martin Glicksman reported that his committee's research opportunities report had been returned to the NRC's Report Review Committee for final sign-off, with release expected in January 1995. There was general discussion of new tasks for that committee. Dr. Mary Jane Osborn, new chair of the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, described the meeting of her committee in October, held concurrently with the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology; several topics for a study had been discussed, but it was decided that further clarification of agency interests was needed before a final topic could be selected. New Committee on Solar and Space Physics Chair Janet Luhmann reported that her committee's research strategy was out for institutional review; Board approval was obtained for two new studies, one a research briefing on space weather and the other an assessment of solar and space physics aspects of the new Office of Space Science strategic plan. Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Chair Joseph Burns told the Board about the status of three reports: the integrated strategy was in final edit; the assessment of the role of small planetary missions in planetary science was in review; and the study on lessons learned from the Clementine mission was in progress. The Board approved the committee's plans for a new study comparing current NASA Mars mission planning to recommendations in the new integrated strategy. Board staff member David Smith reported that the Task Group on the BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory would hold its last meeting in December, with a final report to be submitted to the Board in mid-year. On the last day of the meeting, the Board discussed several new Board- level projects, including one on international collaborations in space science, a second on the role of Research and Analysis (R&A) and Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) programs, and a third on mission cost and quality. The latter would be conducted jointly with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. Chair Canizares requested members' comments on the international task and said that he would work on a draft study proposal for the mission cost and file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (9 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) quality activity. He concluded the meeting by welcoming suggestions by members for new Board appointments. On the whole, space research had a good year in 1994; numerous discoveries resulted from the repaired HST, and Ulysses continued its successful out-of-the-ecliptic mission. The Cassini and AXAF development programs remained on track. And granting certain new risks from the incorporation of a major new international partner, the space station seemed somewhat stabilized under a more realistic management structure. At the same time, space research faced a new world as 1995 began. With the end of 40 years of Democratic control in the House of Representatives and a corresponding turnover of leadership in the Senate, NASA and NOAA would be dealing with new committee chairs and members, and indeed even new committees. Rep. Bob Walker, the new head of the new House Committee on Science replacing Rep. Brown's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, revealed the outlines of the future in a briefing on December 14. Rep. Walker indicated strong support for the space station and university research. He stated an intention to continue Rep. Brown's war against earmarking, as well as an interest in pursuing the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Science. In a divergence from previous policy, Rep. Walker questioned whether aspects of the Mission to Planet Earth and related programs might not be more political than scientific, and also expressed the preference for a stronger emphasis on basic science at NSF in place of the current trend toward applied science. The overall science funding picture remained unclear. Various tax-cut proposals were in the air, as well as the Republican "Contract with America" and President Clinton's "middle-class bill of rights." The final outcome of many of these proposals could dramatically affect not only funding levels for individual programs in the discretionary portions of the budget, but even the existence of some performing entities themselves. One example of the latter was the suggested elimination of the U.S. Geological Survey. While Rep. Walker has said that he favors inflationary increases for the space agency, the effects of political turmoil as the Congress reinvents itself over the next few months appeared unfathomable. Membership of the Space Studies Board Claude R. Canizares,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Louis J. Lanzerotti,* AT&T Bell Laboratories (former chair; U.S. representative to COSPAR) John A. Armstrong, IBM Corporation (retired) Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University John J. Donegan, U.S. Navy (retired) Anthony W. England, University of Michigan James P. Ferris,* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. Herbert Friedman,* Naval Research Laboratory Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (10 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Harold J. Guy,§ University of California at San Diego Noel W. Hinners,§ Martin Marietta Astronautics Robert A. Laudise, AT&T Bell Laboratories Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Janet G. Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington William J. Merrell, Jr.,* Texas A&M University Norman F. Ness,* University of Delaware Marcia Neugebauer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University Jeremiah P. Ostriker,§ Princeton University Carlé M. Pieters,§ Brown University Judith Pipher, University of Rochester Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona Roland W. Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired) William A. Sirignano,* University of California at Irvine John W. Townsend, Jr.,* NASA (retired) Fred W. Turek,* Northwestern University Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University François Becker, École Nationale Supérieure de Physique (liaison from the European Space Science Committee) Marvin A. Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook (ex officio, chair of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research) Jack L. Kerrebrock, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Vincent Vitto, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio, chair of the Naval Studies Board Space Panel) Marc S. Allen, Director Richard C. Hart, Deputy Director Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer Anne K. Simmons, Administrative Assistant _____________________ §member of the Executive Committee *term expired during 1994 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council of Scientific Unions held a plenary meeting on July 10-22 in Hamburg, Germany. During the plenary meeting, COSPAR conducted its first completely open election of new officers, for the period 1994-1998. Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, former chair of the Space Studies Board and currently the U.S. National file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (11 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) science missions are now planned to be launched by NASA after 1997 at this time. In addition, it is deeply troubled by reports that a so-called wedge of funding in the 1996 budget for any new science flight projects may require one- half of the funds to come from existing science budgets. Neither condition is acceptable, and the Committee will expect whatever pool of funds to be used for future new starts to come outside of the existing base of space science funds. The Committee expects the National Academy of Sciences to factor this funding and mission vacuum into its assessment for the need for a national institute for space science. FOSS Steering Group At an initial FOSS Steering Group (FOSS-SG) meeting on August 1-3 at Woods Hole, the group discussed the organization of the study as well as membership for its own expansion and for several supporting task groups. Statements of task for all elements of the study were approved, as well as a master schedule for the activity. The next activity of the steering group was set for early January 1995. FOSS-SG Membership John A. Armstrong, IBM Corporation (retired) (chair) Anthony W. England, University of Michigan Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. Ursula W. Goodenough, Washington University John M. Hedgepeth, Digisim, Inc. Jeanne E. Pemberton, University of Arizona William Press, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics P. Buford Price, University of California at Berkeley Roland W. Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired) Guyford Stever (retired) James Wyngaarden, National Institutes of Health (retired) Marc S. Allen, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant FOSS Task Group on Alternative Organizations The FOSS Task Group on Alternative Organizations (FOSS-AO) met in Washington, D.C., on December 8-9. After a discussion by Chair Daniel Fink on the history and background of the study and the overall structure of the FOSS effort, members heard a series of orientation briefings. NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova described the present NASA organizational structure with emphasis on the science organizations, strategic planning, the role of the chief file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (29 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) scientist, and NASA's relations with other federal agencies engaged in scientific programs. Subsequently, task group member Thomas Malone described the background, organization, infrastructure, and procedures of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Each of the 24 institutes comprising NIH develops its own budget submission and has a significant advocacy community. The group next met with Mr. Kevin Kelly, outgoing clerk of the Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies (VA-HUD-IA), who explained that the appropriations subcommittee's request for the FOSS study stemmed from the breakup of NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) into the three present science offices, and from concern that no senior science official at NASA was fully empowered to coordinate and establish priorities among these three science programs. Anticipating great competition among the science programs in FY96, including a planned Mission to Planet Earth program increase within a roughly constant (at best) total science budget, Mr. Kelly stated the possibility that the Congress would be forced to set science priorities itself. He insisted that scientists should set science priorities, and not politicians or general managers. He was also concerned with an apparent loss in planning continuity—a reference to former Associate Administrator Lennard Fisk's strategic and program planning approach that relied heavily on research community advisory committees in a consensus "Woods Hole process." He felt that at present the position of NASA's chief scientist, a staff position without a budget or line authority, has no institutional authority, independence, or control over field center activities. At the end of the first day, the task group hosted a panel session of the three key science associate administrators: Dr. Wesley Huntress (Office of Space Science), Dr. Harry Holloway (Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications), and Dr. Charles Kennel (Office of Mission to Planet Earth). These officials discussed their respective organizations, how each developed strategic plans, and how they interacted with each other to evolve an overall NASA strategic science plan. This was followed by members' discussion of a number of issues, including how to structure their final report and with whom they needed to talk at future meetings. It was suggested that the report would need an "environmental" section that would describe external forces on the agency. Some other themes that also emerged for consideration were: space science budgets are decreasing; the infrastructure is too large; the balance among universities, NASA, industry, other government agencies is not obviously optimum; "faster-better-cheaper" is driving change, with effects on the role of technology, risk, and infrastructure; the rationale for space science is changing; science is not always driving priorities (e.g., the proposed Pluto Fast Flyby is linked to technology motivation); and international cooperation (especially with Russia) is based on political considerations. The group concluded by setting a meeting schedule to complete its work. FOSS-AO Membership file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (30 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. (chair) Martin Blume, Brookhaven National Laboratory John F. Cassidy, United Technologies Research Center Robert S. Cooper, Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corporation Gerald P. Dinneen, National Academy of Engineering Harold B. Finger, General Electric Company (retired) Hanna H. Gray, University of Chicago Noel Hinners, Martin Marietta Astronautics Company Thomas E. Malone, Association of American Medical Colleges (retired) Norine E. Noonan, Florida Institute of Technology James R. Thompson, Jr., Orbital Sciences Corporation Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University Sidney C. Wolff, National Optical Astronomy Observatories Richard C. Hart, Executive Secretary Nathaniel B. Cohen, Consultant Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant FOSS Task Group on Research Prioritization The FOSS Task Group on Research Prioritization (FOSS-RP) held its first meeting on November 28-30 in Washington, D.C. After committee orientation, task group Chair Roland Schmitt welcomed Mr. Kevin Kelly, outgoing clerk of NASA's Senate appropriations subcommittee. Mr. Kelly explained the origin of the congressional request for the study and expressed Sen. Barbara Mikulski's desire that the conclusions of the report be clear and definitive, particularly with respect to institutional issues and ways of identifying programs for support. Subsequently, the task group heard from a series of federal officials about priority setting at their agencies. Ms. Diana Josephson, Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheres, briefed the task group on the NOAA Strategic Plan. She explained that the process of establishing priorities was part of the annual budget cycle. The first strategic plan was developed in ten weeks, employing a number of program teams aimed at building a consensus. Next, Ms. Judy Sunley, NSF Assistant to the Director for Science Policy and Planning, briefed the task group on NSF's strategic planning process, which was begun in January 1994 and involved three groups: a committee on strategic program planning (made up of the seven assistant directors and two office heads), a working group to outline and develop some of the details of the plan, and a task force of the National Science Board to follow the development of the plan. The essence of the approach was for the high-level leaders to establish priorities through a consensus process. The last speaker on agency planning processes was NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova. Dr. Cordova explained that the Board science strategies (and other NRC reports) served as the basis for NASA science planning. Science division implementation plans were developed with the help of internal advisory committees and were then integrated into science office file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (31 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) strategic plans (in the case of the OSS, with the help of the Space Science Advisory Committee). The office strategic plans were incorporated into NASA's overall strategic plan. The conceptual framework for the NASA Strategic Plan was based on a number of "enterprises" (Mission to Planet Earth, aeronautics, human exploration and development of space, scientific research, and space technology), functions (transportation, space communications, human resources, and physical resources), and their interactions together and with primary customers, decision makers, and resource providers. Dr. Cordova stated a belief that the external scientific community could be helpful in setting priorities among different disciplines and in determining the proper balance between science and infrastructure. While science should be the most important criteria for setting priorities, there are some constraints such as the health of particular communities and infrastructure needs, for example. Mr. Joseph Alexander, currently Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, but previously NASA Assistant Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, described how strategic planning was done within the former Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA). He explained that there were three steps in the process: (1) individual disciplinary scientific goals and priorities were set by NRC committees; (2) internal NASA committees (the NASA Advisory Council and its subcommittees) then addressed operational and programmatic aspects to develop a priority list from criteria that included scientific merit as well as other measures such as technical feasibility and societal benefits; and (3) science managers at NASA Headquarters balanced these factors and responded to budget opportunities in structuring the final program. Since several task group members had been involved in other NRC studies that addressed priorities, Chair Schmitt asked each member to comment on past experiences. A discussion arose about a possible approach of fixed allocations for different scientific disciplines in an analogy to an investment strategy where a portfolio is structured with consideration to characteristics such as risk versus reward, asset allocation, and diversification. The meeting ended with scheduling the date for the task group's final meeting, and with a teleconference with Board Chair Claude Canizares. Dr. Canizares thanked the members for serving and invited any questions. He also noted that the Board's disciplinary committees have been asked to provide input from their communities to the FOSS study. FOSS-RP Membership Roland W. Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired) (chair) William F. Brinkman, AT&T Bell Laboratories Larry W. Esposito, University of Colorado at Boulder Robert A. Frosch, Harvard University David J. McComas, Los Alamos National Laboratory Christopher F. McKee, University of California at Berkeley Morton B. Panish, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired) file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (32 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Carlé M. Pieters, Brown University Rudi Schmid, University of California at San Francisco Eugene B. Skolnikoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard C. Hart, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant FOSS Task Group on Technology The FOSS Task Group on Technology (FOSS-T; formerly the Joint Committee on Technology), operated jointly with the NRC's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, met on August 23-24 in Washington, D.C. Ms. Mary Kicza, assistant associate administrator (Technology) for the Office of Space Science (OSS), delivered a detailed presentation on that office's April 1994 Integrated Technology Strategy. The committee members were very interested, and it was decided that the plan and its implementation would be a major focus of the next meeting, scheduled for November 14-16. The two other NASA science offices, the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications and the Office of Mission to Planet Earth, briefly discussed their planning in advanced technology development. Dr. Giulio Varsi of OSS described the Discovery Technology Program and the Discovery Technology Fair planned for August 25 in Crystal City, Virginia. The program was designed to promote the development of less expensive spacecraft for space science missions. NASA Chief Engineer Wayne Littles also met with the committee. He stated that his role is compatible with the first general recommendation of the NRC report Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (National Academy Press 1993): "The NASA Administrator . . . should act to establish a coordinating position with the clear responsibility to ensure cooperation between technology development efforts within different parts of NASA . . . " (p. 3). Mr. Littles believed that the impetus for using new or advanced technology in missions should be to reduce their cost and to enable things that would not otherwise be affordable. NASA Chief Scientist Cordova was scheduled to attend but was unable to be present. The task group met again in Washington, D.C., on November 14-16 to receive comprehensive briefings from each of the NASA offices involved with technology for space science and to discuss future plans. The committee heard briefings from the following individuals and organizations: Chief Scientist Cordova, Ms. Mary Kicza of the Office of Space Science, Mr. Michael Kaplan of the Astrophysics Division, Dr. Miriam Forman of the Space Physics Division, Mr. Giulio Varsi of the Solar System Exploration Division, Messrs. Granville Paules and Mike Luther of the Mission to Planet Earth, Mr. Sam Venneri of the Office of Space Access and Technology, Dr. Bert Hansen of the Office of Life and file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (33 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Microgravity Sciences and Applications, Mr. Gary Martin of the Microgravity Sciences and Applications Division, and Dr. Guy Fogleman of the Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications Division. The meeting was attended also by an invited technical advisor to the committee, Dr. Henry Plotkin, recently retired from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The members agreed to prepare write-ups on the NASA briefings and related discussions. During an executive session, the committee reviewed the overall schedule for the FOSS study and agreed to develop a committee report to be delivered to the FOSS Steering Group in July 1995. A tentative calendar of 1995 meetings to meet this schedule was set. FOSS-T Membership Anthony W. England, University of Michigan (co-chair) John M. Hedgepeth, Digisim, Inc. (co-chair) Joseph P. Allen, Space Industries International, Inc. Robert P. Caren, Lockheed Corporate Headquarters John J. Donegan, U.S. Navy (retired) James W. Head III, Brown University John M. Logsdon, George Washington University Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University Judith Pipher, University of Rochester Alfred Schock, Orbital Sciences Corporation Noel E. Eldridge, Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant TASK GROUP ON PRIORITIES IN SPACE RESEARCH Revision of the final report of the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research (TGPSR) continued during 1994. After a series of discussions during 1993 when it was determined by the Board that the instrument developed by the task group would not be adopted for operational use, it was decided to recast the final report simply as a summary of the instrument's two trial applications, but without recommendations. This rewritten version of the report was submitted for NRC review in late 1994 and is expected to be released in 1995. TGPSR Membership* John A. Dutton, Pennsylvania State University (chair) William P. Bishop, Desert Research Institute Lawson Crowe, University of Colorado at Boulder Peter Dews, Harvard Medical School Angelo Guastaferro, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (34 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future Thomas A. Potemra, Johns Hopkins University Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University Marc S. Allen, Executive Secretary Joyce M. Purcell, former Executive Secretary Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant ____________________ *task group disbanded during 1993 TASK GROUP ON SIRTF AND SOFIA The Task Group on SIRTF and SOFIA (TGSS) met at NASA Ames Research Center on February 17-18. In connection with plans to redesign and/or rescope the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), NASA had requested that the NRC assess the potential impact of proposed changes to these programs on their abilities to achieve their respective scientific goals. The Committee for Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), operated jointly by the Space Studies Board and the Board on Physics and Astronomy, established the task group to carry out this review. The task group's charge was to determine whether the rescoped missions remained responsive to the principal infrared astronomy scientific objectives identified in the NRC report The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics (National Academy Press 1991), in previous recommendations of the Space Studies Board's Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, and in earlier astronomy and astrophysics survey committee reports. At the meeting, the task group heard a series of presentations by Drs. Michael Werner, Edwin Erickson, George Rieke, David Hollenbach, Theodore Dunham, and Lawrence Simmons. A draft report was prepared and submitted to the Space Studies Board for approval at its February-March meeting. This report was approved and issued in final form in April. TGSS Membership* Doyal A. Harper, Yerkes Observatory (chair) Anneila I. Sargent, California Institute of Technology (vice-chair) Frederick Gillett, National Optical Astronomy Observatories Daniel McCammon, University of Wisconsin Philip D. Nicholson, Cornell University Alan Tokunaga, University of Hawaii Charles Townes, University of California at Berkeley file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (35 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) James Houck, Cornell University, liaison from the NASA Astrophysics Mission Operations Working Group Robert L. Riemer, Executive Secretary Anne K. Simmons, Administrative Assistant ____________________ *task group disbanded during 1994 TASK GROUP ON THE BMDO NEW TECHNOLOGY ORBITAL OBSERVATORY The Task Group on the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) New Technology Orbital Observatory (TGBNTOO) met three times during the final quarter of 1994. Its first meeting was held at Itek Optical Systems in Lexington, Massachusetts, on October 6-7, to begin work assessing the astronomical potential of BMDO's proposed 4-meter space telescope. In addition to presentations on the project from Lockheed and Itek officials, the task group toured Itek's facilities for the production and testing of large optics. The committee viewed the 4-meter Adaptive Large Optics Technologies (ALOT) telescope in Itek's large, thermal vacuum chamber and saw elements of the 11- meter Large Optical Segment (LOS) project being figured and tested. During the course of the meeting, the committee composed a list of questions about the optical and spacecraft components of the proposed telescope. In addition, members were assigned individual tasks to be completed in time for the next meeting at Lockheed. These tasks included assessments of minimum requirements for a Kuiper belt survey; minimum requirements for an occultation project; an optical layout for instruments with fewer surfaces and components; a parametric study of the optics error budget; minimum requirements for a 2-micron survey; comments on optical design issues; and information on reliability and lifetime of closed-cycle coolers. The task group's second meeting took place at the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company in Sunnyvale, California, on November 17-18 (and November 19 at the committee hotel) to continue its assessment of the astronomical potential of BMDO's proposed 4-meter space telescope. In addition to presentations (many in response to questions submitted by the committee following the October meeting at Itek), the committee toured Lockheed facilities relevant to a possible 4-meter telescope flight project. These facilities included the DELTA thermal vacuum chamber, a large acoustic test chamber, the assembly line for MILSTAR, Mir, and Space Station solar arrays, and the F- Sat/Iridium assembly area. On the final morning of the meeting the committee drafted a detailed outline of portions of the report and distributed new writing assignments. file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (36 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) The task group held its final in Washington, D.C., on December 19-20 to complete its assessment of the proposed 4-meter space telescope. Members learned of Dr. Holland Ford's resignation from formal membership and welcomed Dr. Roger Angel to full membership on the task group. There was a brief discussion of Col. Gary Payton's letter of October 24 stating BMDO's termination of all support for space experiments within the Directed Energy Program. The task group statement of task was subsequently slightly revised to reflect this. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussions, drafting of sections of the report, and formulating final conclusions. The task group's near-term goal was to circulate a new draft, incorporating material written during or soon after the meeting in order to expedite Board and NRC review. TGBNTOO Membership Michael F. A'Hearn, University of Maryland (chair) Roger Angel, University of Arizona Anita Cochran, University of Texas at Austin James L. Elliot, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Christ Ftaclas, Hughes Danbury Optical Garth D. Illingworth, University of California at Santa Cruz Holland C. Ford, Johns Hopkins University, liaison from Space Telescope Science Institute David H. Smith, Executive Secretary Altoria Ross, Administrative Assistant TASK GROUP ON GRAVITY PROBE B Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a complex experimental program in gravitational physics that has been under development for more than 30 years. This flight experiment is intended to measure, for the first time, the Lense-Thirring effect, one of the predictions of Einstein's theory of relativity; it will also measure geodetic precession with unprecedented accuracy. With additional program costs projected at $340 million, this is now the third costliest NASA space science mission after AXAF and Cassini. During the past several years, a number of prominent scientists have questioned the scientific value of the program, while others have strongly defended it. Because of the tight constraints on present and near-term future NASA budgets, the NRC has been asked to perform a critical review of the scientific merit and prospects for success of the GP-B mission. The scope of the study will encompass three issues: Scientific importance—including a current assessment of the value of the project in the context of recent progress in gravitational physics and relevant technology; file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (37 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Technical feasibility—the technical approach will be evaluated for likelihood of success, both in terms of achievement of flight mission objectives but also in terms of scientific conclusiveness of the various possible outcomes for the measurements to be made; and Competitive value—if possible, GP-B science will be assessed qualitatively against objectives and accomplishments of one or more projects of similar cost (e.g., the Cosmic Background Explorer—COBE). In order for the results of the study to be ready in time to affect the FY96 NASA budget request, they are to be presented to the NASA Administrator by June 1, 1995. Meetings of the task group (TGGPB) are planned for January, February, and March 1995. TGGPB Membership Val L. Fitch, Princeton University (co-chair) Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Princeton University (co-chair) Eric B. Adelberger, University of Washington Gerard W. Elverum, Jr., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired) David G. Hoag, Draper Laboratories (retired) Francis E. Low, Massachusetts Institute of Technology John C. Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Richard E. Packard, University of California at Berkeley Robert C. Richardson, Cornell University Stuart L. Shapiro, Cornell University Mark W. Strovink, University of California at Berkeley Clifford M. Will, Washington University Ronald D. Taylor, Executive Secretary Susan G. Campbell, Administrative Assistant file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (38 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]

OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1994 (Activities and Membership) Last update 8/25/00 at 4:19 pm Site managed by Anne Simmons, Space Studies Board The National Academies Current Projects Publications Directories Search Site Map Feedback file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an94ch2.htm (39 of 39) [6/18/2004 10:40:32 AM]