Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 6
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Space Studies Board
Annual Report—1993
2
Activities and Membership
During 1993, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task
groups gathered for a total of 31 meetings. Two full-length reports were issued,
one on the human exploration of the solar system and one on NASA's technology
programs. Three letter reports were released, dealing with space station
utilization in anticipation of human exploration (Section 4.1), several scientific and
programmatic issues in the space life sciences (4.2), and a scientific review of the
rescoped Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF) (4.3). Three committees,
the Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR), the Committee on Planetary
and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), and the Committee on Solar and Space
Physics (CSSP), were heavily engaged in developing or updating research
strategies. The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) devoted most of its energy to
development of a sweeping status assessment of fields within its scope, to
include operational environmental systems as well as some aspects of the
REPORT MENU
national security space infrastructure.
NOTICE
FROM THE CHAIR
CHAPTER 1
The following sections present highlights of the meetings of the Board and
CHAPTER 2
its committees during 1993. Formal reports and letter reports developed and
CHAPTER 2 (cont.)
approved during these meetings are referenced by the section number of this
CHAPTER 3
annual report where their summaries are reprinted (in the case of full-length
CHAPTER 4
reports) or where they are reproduced in full (in the case of letter reports).
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
The year 1993 began with the nation on the cusp of a new era in science
and technology. During the year, space scientists would watch with anxious
fascination as the Superconducting Supercollider slipped into oblivion, and many
wondered about the fate of Cassini, AXAF, and the Hubble Space Telescope.
Unmistakable signs of change were apparent even before the last year of twelve
of Republican administrations had fully ebbed away. Shortly before the beginning
of the new year, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director D.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (1 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 7
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Allan Bromley released the report of the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology on the research university system,1 which spelled out
an end to across-the-board research growth. At the same time, the NSF took the
first steps in shifting operating budgets to "strategic research."
In the closing days of 1992, President Clinton announced the selection of
Office of Technology Assessment Director John Gibbons as the new science
advisor and director of OSTP. Within two months, the new president had
announced his intention to emphasize technology in its relation to national
growth, including the roles of technology transfer and government-industry
partnership. In spite of statements in favor of the space station program, the role
of space and space science in the new administration remained murky; in a
reorganization of the White House, the National Space Council was absorbed
into OSTP, which shared the president's across-the-board 25% staffing cuts. In a
presidential statement issued on February 22, entitled Technology for America's
Growth—A New Direction to Build Economic Strength, the word "technology" is
pervasive, but "space" is nearly absent.
The Board held its 109th meeting on February 24-25 at the National
Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. The meeting was chaired by member
Dr. William Merrell, of Texas A&M University, in the absence due to illness of
Board Chair Louis Lanzerotti. The space policy backdrop for this meeting was
particularly turbulent, with new consequences of the change in national
administration emerging on almost a daily basis. Dr. Gibbons took the helm as
director of OSTP in early February. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, who had
initiated a series of sweeping management changes at the agency on October
15, was awaiting word on his continued service before finalizing them.
Concurrently, ominous rumors of major over-runs on the space station program,
some as high as $1 billion, were emanating from the Johnson Space Center. This
was followed by a period of conflicting reports as to whether the administration
would seek to cancel or maintain the space station program, in the context of
President Clinton's deficit reduction program presented to the American people in
his first State of the Union Address on February 17. President Clinton
subsequently directed NASA to prepare a less expensive space station plan for
White House action by June 1. NASA Administrator Goldin responded by
establishing a 90-day redesign team to prepare a series of downscaled options
for assessment by a blue ribbon panel, the Advisory Committee on the Redesign
of the Space Station, chaired by MIT President Charles Vest. The redesign team
was to prepare three alternatives, costing over a three-year period $5 billion, $7
billion, and $9 billion, respectively, compared to the baseline $14.6 billion
program planned by the Bush administration over the same period.
As is customary at its February meeting, the Board had briefings on the
budget outlook for space science. Because of the government transition, no
formal budget had yet been transmitted to the Congress. Since President Clinton
had made a number of aspects of his plans public, however, officials of the Office
of Management and Budget and of the Congressional Budget Office were able to
sketch the outlines of the new administration's program and its prospects.
Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications and Chief Scientist
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (2 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 8
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Lennard A. Fisk presented science program status and his expectations for the
organizational and programmatic changes in progress. The Board also heard an
account of the status of major Russian space research programs from the
Russian Counselor for Science and Technology, Dr. Lev Mukkin.
Principal items of internal business that the Board took up at the meeting
included action on several proposed letter reports from committees. The Board
discussed, and remanded for revisions, letters from the Committee on Space
Biology and Medicine (4.2) and from the Committee on Astronomy and
Astrophysics (4.3), the latter operated jointly with the NRC's Board on Physics
and Astronomy. Board members also discussed tentative findings of the research
strategy development effort of the Committee on Microgravity Research, study
plans of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration on
MESUR/Pathfinder, and recommendations by the Committee on Solar and Space
Physics on the reflight of the Tethered Satellite System. Members of the Board
nominated absent Chair Louis Lanzerotti to assume the role of U.S. national
representative to COSPAR on completion of his term as Board chair in mid-1994.
A major activity at the meeting was to conduct a trial of the research prioritization
procedure developed by the Board's Task Group on Priorities in Space
Research. Members applied the task group-developed evaluation instrument to a
set of fictitious space research initiatives and analyzed the results of the trial. The
task group planned to document these results, with recommendations, in a report
to the June meeting of the Board.
On March 9, the Executive Committee of the Board held a teleconference
to follow up on a number of items from the Board meeting. Final approval was
given for a transmittal letter (reprinted in Section 4.1) to NASA Administrator
Goldin intended to accompany the new report of the Committee on Human
Exploration. Potential major Board-level projects were discussed, and options for
the June meeting agenda were considered. It was decided to hold a face-to-face
meeting of the Executive Committee in April to meet the newly appointed
Associate Administrator of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Harry
Holloway and to discuss issues in the NASA life sciences programs.
Two months later than a returning administration, the Clinton team
presented its first budget to Congress. To the relief of space scientists, the
necessary big increases for AXAF, Cassini, and EOS were included in this FY94
budget, which provided for an 8.7% increase for NASA R&D and a 6.5% increase
for NASA overall. On the other hand, the Bush/Quayle Space Exploration
Initiative was abandoned, and its program office at NASA headquarters was
disbanded.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Goldin finalized his reorganization of NASA,
announced the previous October, dividing the Office of Space Science and
Applications into three new science offices. Former OSSA Director Lennard Fisk
announced his departure from NASA.
As planned in March, the Executive Committee met in Washington, D.C.,
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (3 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 9
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
on April 7. Committee on Space Biology and Medicine member Drew Gaffney
was also invited to join the dialogue with Holloway, and a tentative plan for the
June Board meeting, to be held at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas,
was developed.
The Executive Committee held one more planning teleconference before
the Houston meeting on May 5; the members and staff blocked out the agenda
for the meeting and defined the major issues to be addressed.
On June 7, the space station redesign team presented its three options to
the Vest committee. One option (A) was essentially a downscoped version of the
old Freedom design, organized around an integrated flight control module called
Bus-1, developed by Lockheed for robotic spacecraft. The second option (B),
closest to the previous design, depended on an altered assembly sequence and
reduced capabilities in a number of areas to achieve savings. The final option (C)
was a radically new concept that came to be known as "man in a can"; it was a
large pressurized volume to be launched intact, and featured no external truss.
This option, whose costing was regarded with suspicion because of its radical
departure from Freedom heritage, presented problems for integration of
international partner elements as well as a number of serious operational
drawbacks. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Chair George
Brown promptly announced that none of the designs presented would be
politically acceptable in the Congress. On June 10, the Vest committee reported
to the White House: after reviewing the designs presented, the committee
reached the overall conclusion that "Option A has an advantage in capability and
lends itself to modular build-up. Option C is the lowest risk and potentially lower
in cost."2
In the middle of these dramatic developments, the Board held its 110th
meeting on June 9-11 at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Major activities
of the meeting included action on three reports: a research strategy by the
Committee on Microgravity Research, a final report of the Task Group on
Priorities in Space Research, and a report on science management by the
Committee on Human Exploration. One day was spent in presentations and tours
of Center facilities involved with life sciences research and astronaut and crew
training activities. Dr. David Black, director of the Lunar and Planetary Institute,
discussed the work of his institute with members. The Board also heard status
reports from the Committees on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, and the Joint Committee on Technology. After vigorous discussion,
it was decided that the final report of the Task Group on Priorities in Space
Research should be recast as an internal report to the Board, including an
account of Board discussion of the prioritizing methodology and its trial at the
February Board meeting.
Shortly after this meeting, on June 17, President Clinton announced his
selection of a modified version of option A and asked Congress for $1.85 billion
for the station for FY94 and an additional $250 million for scientific payloads. On
top of the $9 billion already spent on the program, the president's proposal called
for an additional investment of $10.5 billion over the next five years to complete
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (4 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 10
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
the station.
The rapid evolution of the space station program continued in the third
quarter, which was marked, however, by the dismaying loss of the Mars Orbiter
spacecraft. On the evening of August 21, following pressurization of the
spacecraft's fuel tanks to enter Mars orbit, the spacecraft failed to respond to
ground control commands. Since the Observer had already received full
instructions for Mars orbit insertion, the possibility existed that it was in orbit
around the planet. But all safe-mode contingencies failed to return any signal
from the spacecraft, and its location and trajectory remain unknown. With the
total loss of the billion-dollar mission and its expected data return, NASA
convened a study team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to review options for an
expedited return to Mars with a replacement mission that might meet scientific
objectives for Mars enunciated by the Board's Committee on Planetary and Lunar
Exploration and the affected research community.
The Space Studies Board did not meet during the third quarter of 1993.
Its Executive Committee and Committee on International Programs met jointly on
July 28-30 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to complete approval action on
several items carried over from the June Board meeting and to discuss long-
range activities of the Board. Acting on behalf of the Board, the committees
approved the revised Committee on Human Exploration and Committee on
Microgravity Research reports for submission to NRC review and accepted the
Board's 1994 program plan. In addition, new or revised project statements of task
were approved for the Committees on International Programs, Planetary and
Lunar Exploration, and Space Biology and Medicine and the Joint Committee on
Technology. Plans for a workshop by the Committee on Earth Studies and a joint
study on the Space Station program by the Committees on Space Biology and
Medicine and Microgravity Research program were also approved.
In the meantime, there were hopeful developments in the space station
program. Vice President Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Victor
Chernomyrdin met and announced a number of space-related agreements,
including a ground-breaking accord on joint development of a further redesigned
international space station. The resulting plan called for the previous international
partners, ESA, Japan, and Canada, to be integrated in a later stage of station
buildup. In spite of some reservations about the U.S.-Russian concept and
widespread concerns about the stability of the Russian space program, the
station's prospects in the FY94 appropriations process seemed strengthened.
In a wider arena, the administration released its National Performance
Review report on September 7. It recommended major changes in many areas of
government operations, not the least of which was a proposed net reduction of a
quarter-million federal employees over a period of five years. How the space
program might be affected by this and other proposed changes remained
uncertain.
The Executive Committee met by teleconference on October 1 to discuss
the agenda for the next Board meeting.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (5 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 11
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
The Board held this final meeting of 1993 (its 111th) on November 15-17
at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The Board took advantage of the
presence of the NRC's Board on Physics and Astronomy there to hold a rare joint
session. After introductory presentations on the current activities of the two
boards, Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker, member of both the Board and of the boards' joint
Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, presented ongoing activities and
plans of the committee. NSF Assistant Director William Harris briefed the boards
on NSF plans and programs, and Dr. Robert Mewaldt concluded the joint meeting
with an interesting account of the SAMPEX mission, a small but highly productive
science mission. Members of the Board considered and approved, subject to
minor revisions, the new integrated strategy of the Committee on Planetary and
Lunar Exploration.
On the second day of the meeting, the Board considered a second draft
of the final report of its Task Group on Priorities in Space Research. It was
decided that the report should be reformatted and published as a discussion
paper rather than as a report presenting formal recommendations. The Board
also considered and approved, with a number of revisions, a report on space
station science management recently prepared by the Committees on Space
Biology and Medicine and on Microgravity Research. The remainder of the day
was devoted to a number of subjects: Prof. François Becker, the new chair of the
European Space Science Committee, gave a summary of planned organizational
changes and new and ongoing projects. Dr. Charles Elachi of JPL described
options under consideration for recovering the science lost with Mars Observer.
The last item for the day was a videoconference with Drs. France Cordova and
Wesley Huntress featuring discussion of the role of NASA's chief scientist and
the status of space science within the agency.
On the last day of the meeting, a planned videoconference with NOAA
Administrator D. James Baker had to be canceled due to a last-minute conflict.
The status of the Committee on Earth Studies survey project was reviewed, and
the Board adjourned after a general discussion of the previous day's
videoconference with NASA science executives.
Overall, 1993 was a year of mixed results for space research. At NASA,
Mars Observer was lost, but two Discovery-class missions (MESUR/Pathfinder
and NEAR) got new starts in the FY94 budget. AXAF-S was canceled, but the
Hubble repair mission went without a flaw. Space station planning advanced as a
major Clinton international initiative, promising early access for U.S. science to
the Russian Mir, but possibly at the cost of some canceled Spacelab missions.
The space research community looked ahead with apprehension to the
FY95 budget and subsequent congressional action. Space science did not
appear high among the administration's priorities, and two large missions, AXAF-I
and Cassini, were reaching their spending peaks. The space station, newly
invigorated by its enhanced foreign policy importance, seemed likely to be
preserved, together with the shuttle; aeronautics and Mission to Planet Earth
were expected to increase. At the same time, the prevailing high priority of deficit
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (6 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 12
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
reduction meant that NASA and other discretionary elements of the federal
budget could be expected to remain flat or actually decline.
In this environment, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was moving to
address a long-perceived need by unveiling a strategic plan for the agency in
early 1994. With NASA's new Chief Scientist, Dr. France Cordova, installed and
representing the agency's science programs within the administrator's office, the
hoped-for agency-wide strategic plan could be the mechanism by which space
science and applications would be clearly oriented within the president's R&D
policy structure.
NOAA, too, experienced both failure and success during 1993.
NOAA/NESDIS worked to develop a long-range strategy for remote sensing for
meteorology, oceanography, terrestrial measurements, and the space
environment. NOAA-13 was launched in August and suffered a power system
failure two weeks later, apparently due to a failure in the battery charge controller
unit. But an agreement for a long-term mutual geostationary satellite backup was
signed by NOAA and EUMETSAT, and the tri-agency (NOAA/NASA/DOD) plan
for convergence of the polar-orbiting platforms DMSP/POES/EOS-PM was
completed and submitted to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Landsat-6 was launched in October but did not achieve orbit. Discussions with
NASA on the future of Landsat continued, as did discussions about the trade-offs
between national security interests and commercialization of remote sensing.
Membership of the Space Studies Board
Louis J. Lanzerotti,§ AT&T Bell Laboratories (chair)
Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University
John A. Dutton, Pennsylvania State University
Anthony W. England, University of Michigan
James P. Ferris, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Herbert Friedman, Naval Research Laboratory
Riccardo Giacconi,* European Southern Observatory
Harold J. Guy,§ University of California at San Diego
Noel W. Hinners,§ Martin Marietta Astronautics Company
David A. Landgrebe,* Purdue University
Robert A. Laudise, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Richard S. Lindzen,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington
William J. Merrell, Jr., Texas A&M University
Robert H. Moser,* University of New Mexico
Norman F. Ness,§ University of Delaware
Marcia Neugebauer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University
Jeremiah P. Ostriker,§ Princeton University
Carlé M. Pieters,§ Brown University
Judith Pipher, University of Rochester
Mark Settle,* ARCO Oil and Gas Company
William A. Sirignano, University of California at Irvine
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (7 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 13
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
John W. Townsend, Jr., NASA (retired)
Fred Turek, Northwestern University
Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University
Marvin A. Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook (ex officio)
Duane T. McRuer, Systems Technology, Inc. (ex officio)
Vincent Vitto, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio)
Donald J. Williams,* Johns Hopkins University (ex officio)
Marc S. Allen, Director
Richard C. Hart, Deputy Director
Betty C. Guyot, Administrative Officer
___________________________
*term expired during 1993
§member of the Executive Committee
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Committee on International Programs (CIP) met jointly with the
Executive Committee of the Board on July 28-30 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
to discuss long-range activities of the Board, as described above.
On November 11-12 the committee sent a delegation of CIP Chair William
Merrell, member Arthur Walker, and Board Director Marc Allen to the fall meeting
of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) at ESA, in Paris. Augmented
by several discipline-specialist guests, the ESSC reviewed an Italian x-ray
astronomy mission, the X-ray Astronomy Satellite (SAX), at the request of the
Italian Space Agency (ASI). Attendees also heard briefings by Drs. Roger Bonnet
and L. Emiliani on the ESA space science and Earth observations programs,
respectively. An anticipated Russian presentation was canceled when the
delegation was unable to attend.
The committee discussed the meeting at a teleconference on December
1, focusing on prospects and a process for possible joint studies.
CIP Membership
William J. Merrell, Jr., Texas A&M University (chair)
Herbert Friedman, Naval Research Laboratory
Norman F. Ness, University of Delaware
Arthur B.C. Walker, Jr., Stanford University
Richard C. Hart, Executive Secretary
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (8 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 14
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
JOINT COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY
FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
The Joint Committee on Technology (JCT), a collaborative activity with
the NRC's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, released its first report,
Improving NASA's Technology for Space Science (National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 1993), and met in Washington, D.C., on March 4 to discuss its
next task. Briefings at this meeting by NASA's Office of Advanced Concepts and
Technology (OACT) and Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) dealt
primarily with the agency's reorganization. OSSA representatives pointed out a
strong parallelism between the committee's new report and current directions of
OSSA thinking. NASA briefers offered some suggestions for the committee's next
task. In subsequent discussion on future activities, the committee considered
three possibilities: doing nothing, assessing a specific technology (for example,
robotics and automation), or analyzing process (i.e., creation or transfer of
technology). The committee chose the last option, feeling that it would be a
logical extension of the first study and would permit exploration of areas such as
technology transfer, the relationship between science needs and technological
opportunities, and the role of universities. Committee members were tasked to
flesh out the proposal, which Co-chairs David Landgrebe and John Hedgepeth
planned to present to the committee's parent boards and to NASA officials. A
study period in late summer or early fall was tentatively envisioned.
Dr. Anthony England assumed the chair of the Space Studies Board
component of the joint committee in midyear.
Subsequently, the joint committee met again in Washington, D.C., on
November 9 to review NASA's progress in implementing the recommendations of
its earlier report. The committee co-chairs noted that the committee had not yet
settled on its next task. The study proposal drafted at its previous meeting was
felt to be too broad by its two parent boards and by its NASA sponsors. A
proposed charge from the Space Studies Board Executive Committee asking the
joint committee to formally review NASA's responses to the recommendations of
previous reports was considered.
Several briefings followed. Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology
representative Dr. Robert Norwood noted that NASA's Integrated Technology
Plan was still in preparation and that the White House had issued a new national
technology policy aimed at encouraging economic growth, more productive and
responsive technology programs, and world leadership in basic science.
Representatives of the agency's science offices discussed the effects of NASA's
reorganization and described their individual responses to the report. They
identified several areas for committee assistance, such as suggesting
membership for internal technology advisory panels, advocating budget stability,
suggesting mechanisms for identifying private-sector technology interests,
encouraging broader involvement of the academic community, and suggesting
ways to coordinate technology development across federal agencies. The
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (9 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 15
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
committee decided to continue to monitor NASA's plans and strategies for
implementing its published recommendations and to defer initiation of a new
study.
JCT Membership
Anthony W. England, University of Michigan (co-chair)
David A. Landgrebe,* Purdue University (former co-chair)
John M. Hedgepeth,§ Digisim, Inc. (co-chair)
Joseph P. Allen,§ Space Industries Intl.
John M. Logsdon,§ George Washington University
Duane T. McRuer,§ Systems Technology, Inc.
Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University
Judith Pipher, University of Rochester
Alfred Schock,§ Fairchild Industries
John W. Townsend, NASA (retired)
Richard C. Hart, Executive Secretary (Space Studies Board)
Noel E. Eldridge, Executive Secretary (Aeronautics and Space Engineering
Board)
___________________________
*term expired during 1993
§member, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
AND TASK GROUP ON AXAF
The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), chaired by Prof.
Marc Davis of the University of California at Berkeley and operated jointly with the
NRC's Board on Physics and Astronomy, met for the first time on January 13-14.
The committee heard program status presentations from the NSF, NASA, and the
Department of Energy (DOE). NSF briefers spoke about reductions facing the
Astronomy Division, but assured the committee that funding for the Laser
Interferometer Gravity-wave Observatory (LIGO) would not be taken from this
division's budget. NASA Astrophysics Division presenters described the tight
funding foreseen by NASA over the coming five years and discussed the status
of AXAF, SIRTF, SOFIA, COSTAR, and international cooperation on missions.
NASA's astrophysics mission operations and data analysis (MO&DA) program
was also discussed. A representative of the DOE Physics Division described their
non-accelerator physics program. The CAA discussed the possibility of
developing recommendations for NASA and the NSF on how to implement the
Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee recommendations, especially the
high-priority recommendations on maintaining the astronomy infrastructure (as
defined by peer-reviewed projects), ongoing maintenance, and existing cutting-
edge facilities in the new fiscal environment.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (10 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 16
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Prof. Arthur Davidsen, chair of the Task Group on the Advanced X-ray
Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), or TGA, presented the findings of the task group to
the CAA. The TGA was chartered in late 1992 to perform a scientific assessment
of the rescoped AXAF program (AXAF-I and AXAF-S) and completed its
deliberations at its meeting on December 10-11, 1992. The TGA's letter report
was forwarded by the CAA to the Board for action at the February Board meeting.
The letter (4.3), which found that the restructured mission was capable of
meeting the scientific goals of the original mission, was approved by the Board
and by the NRC and was released on April 28.
The committee met again on April 27-28 and began with a detailed
presentation on the Gemini Telescope project. House Space Subcommittee
Science Consultant Richard Obermann discussed NASA and NSF issues before
Congress and described the problem of funding NASA programs under a
constrained federal budget. NSF Assistant Director William Harris introduced Dr.
Hugh Van Horn as the director-designate of the Astronomical Sciences Division.
Mr. Arthur Fuchs, chief of the NASA Observatories Development Branch,
discussed reorganization in the Office of Space Science, budget figures, and a
timetable for future missions. Dr. Guenter Riegler, chief scientist for Science
Operations, discussed the pressures on the MO&DA program. The committee
also heard progress reports on three new activities of the Board on Physics and
Astronomy: the Cosmology Panel, the Neutrino Astrophysics Panel, and the
Committee on Cosmic-Ray Physics.
The committee met a third time on November 12-13 at the Beckman
Center. Incoming NASA Astrophysics Division Director Daniel Weedman gave his
perspective on the status of the NASA astrophysics program. The committee was
requested in a letter from NASA Associate Administrator Wesley Huntress to
advise on NASA's infrared astronomy program, particularly on whether the
rescoping of SIRTF and SOFIA within current budgetary constraints satisfied the
Bahcall report's scientific objectives for infrared astronomy. In response, a task
group was formed on SIRTF and SOFIA and charged to submit a report in March
1994.
Col. Thomas Humpherys, USAF, described possible dual use of a
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) 4-meter thin-mirror, active-optics
orbital telescope for national security tests and astronomy. Mr. Sam Williams of
Lockheed and Mr. Roland Plante of Itek described the technical details of the 4-m
system and of a future 10-m design. Committee member Doyal Harper described
the advantages-low water-vapor content, atmospheric stability-for astronomy
from the South Pole, and the projects proposed to take advantage of them. NSF
Astronomy Division Director Hugh Van Horn charged the committee with advising
NSF on its ground-based optical and infrared astronomy program, leading to
formation by the CAA of a second separate task group to address these issues.
Van Horn also discussed the Gemini telescopes; Acting Gemini Director Sydney
Wolff discussed the latest technical developments on the project.
CAA Membership
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (11 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 17
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley (chair)
Arthur F. Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University
Sandra M. Faber, Lick Observatory
Holland C. Ford, Space Telescope Science Institute
Jonathan E. Grindlay, Harvard University
Doyal A. Harper, Jr., Yerkes Observatory
Kenneth I. Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Richard A. McCray, Joint Institute Laboratory for Astrophysics
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Princeton University Observatory
Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley
Anneila I. Sargent, California Institute of Technology
Robert L. Riemer, Executive Secretary
TGA Membership*
Arthur F. Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University (chair)
David W. Arnett, University of Arizona
Hale Bradt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Anne P. Cowley, Arizona State University
Paul Gorenstein, Smithsonian Institution
Steven M. Kahn, University of California at Berkeley
James D. Kurfess, Naval Research Laboratory
Robert L. Riemer, Executive Secretary
___________________________
*task group disbanded in 1993
COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES
The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) met on June 14-15. Objectives of
the meeting were to plan for a September workshop, hear status reports on
NOAA and NASA programs, and obtain information on various small satellite
initiatives. Mr. Anthony Durham of NOAA/NESDIS briefed the committee on the
status and plans of the agency's polar and geostationary environmental satellites.
Mr. Durham discussed with the committee the possibility of conducting an
assessment of NOAA's polar environmental satellite program. These discussions
were to continue as the committee seeks to identify the agency's specific
advisory needs.
The committee heard briefings from JPL and Goddard Space Flight
Center about programs and activities under their respective jurisdictions. A
representative from the Advanced Research Projects Agency made a
presentation on the proposed Collaboration on Advanced Multispectral Earth
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (12 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 18
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
Observation (CAMEO) program. Dr. Arturo Silvestrini, president of EOSAT,
provided an overview of the company's current efforts and discussed issues
associated with the sale of Landsat data in the future. The committee considered
plans for a workshop to be held in September at the Beckman Center. The
workshop would focus on scientific and policy developments that had occurred
since publication of the committee's report, Assessment of Satellite Earth
Observation Programs-1991 (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991).
In addition to committee members, participants would include NASA and NOAA
managers as well as invited cross-disciplinary experts from the space-related
earth science and applications community.
The committee subsequently hosted this week-long workshop at the
Beckman Center on September 13-17. The specific purpose of the meeting was
to begin a study surveying programs and plans for civil Earth observations for the
next two decades. The study will encompass NASA's Mission to Planet Earth
program, NOAA's polar and geostationary operational satellites, and civilian uses
of DOD's meteorological satellites and associated information systems. It was
planned to present the study to the Board for review at its winter meeting in 1993
and to complete NRC review and publication by April 1994.
In addition to status updates from NASA and NOAA, the September
meeting featured briefings from several other NRC chairs on related completed or
ongoing studies, an overview of recently published and planned Office of
Technology Assessment reports on remote sensing, an update from the U.S.
Geological Survey about its Earth observation activities, and a presentation on
future passive sensor systems.
CES Membership
John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington (chair)
William Bonner, University Center for Atmospheric Research
George Born, University of Colorado
Janet Campbell, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space
Dudley Chelton, Jr., Oregon State University
John Evans, COMSAT Laboratories
Diana Freckman, Colorado State University
Elaine Hansen, University of Colorado
Roy Jenne, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Kenneth Jezek, Ohio State University
Edward Kanemasu, University of Georgia
Richard Kott, consultant, Fort Washington, Maryland
Conway Leovy, University of Washington
John MacDonald, MacDonald-Dettwiler Associates
Pamela Mack, Clemson University
Stanley Morain, University of New Mexico
Clark Wilson, University of Texas at Austin
Joyce M. Purcell, Executive Secretary
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (13 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
OCR for page 19
Space Studies Board Annual Report-1993 (Activities and Membership)
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION
The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) released its first report,
Scientific Prerequisites for the Human Exploration of Space (National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 1993).
The committee met in Washington on April 5-6 to undertake two tasks: to
respond to comments by external reviewers on its second report, Scientific
Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, and to finalize the text of its
third report, Science Management Principles for the Human Exploration of Space.
The committee was briefed about recent organizational changes at NASA,
particularly the breakup of the Office of Space Science and Applications into
three parts and the dissolution of the Office of Exploration. Following a general
review of the comments made by the external reviewers of the Opportunities
report, the committee drafted responses to specific criticisms and suggestions.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to drafting final recommendations for
the Management Principles report for forwarding to the Board for approval at its
June 1993 meeting.
CHEX Membership
Noel W. Hinners, Martin Marietta Astronautics Company (chair)
Louis J. Lanzerotti, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Elliott C. Levinthal,* Stanford University
William J. Merrell, Jr., Texas A&M University
Robert H. Moser,* University of New Mexico
John E. Naugle, consultant, North Falmouth, Massachusetts
Marcia S. Smith, Congressional Research Service
Gerald J. Wasserburg, California Institute of Technology
David H. Smith, Executive Secretary
___________________________
*term expired during 1993
1Renewing the Promise: Research-Intensive Universities and the Nation, report
of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., December 1992.
2Final
Report to the President, Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the
Space Station, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., June 1993, p.
49.
file:///C|/SSB_old_web/an93ch2a.htm (14 of 15) [6/18/2004 10:34:33 AM]
