Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 7


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



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

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

OCR for page 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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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 6
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]