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 19
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 20
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 21
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 22
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 23
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 24
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 25
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 26
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 27
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 28
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 46
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 47
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 48
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 49
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 50
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 51
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 52
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 53
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 54
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 55
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 56
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]
