Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Solar and Space Physics:
A Science for a Technological Society
Committee on a Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics)
Space Studies Board
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH06CE15B between the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Grant AGS-1050550 between the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-3: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X
International Standard Book Number-0: 0-309-XXXXX-X
Copies of this report are available free of charge from:
Space Studies Board
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW,
Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-242 or (202) 334-3133; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the
Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors
engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to
the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government,
the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and
vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
www.nationalacademies.org
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
OCR for page R4
Other Recent Reports of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid (Board on Physics and Astronomy [BPA] with Space Studies
Board [SSB], 2012)
Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Spacecraft Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies (SSB, 2012)
Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA's Implementation of the Decadal
Survey (SSB, 2012)
NASA Space Technology Roadmaps and Priorities: Restoring NASA’s Technological Edge and Paving the Way for a
New Era in Space (Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2012)
Recapturing NASA's Aeronautics Flight Research Capabilities (ASEB, 2012)
Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation (SSB, 2012)
Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2011)
An Interim Report on NASA’s Draft Space Technology Roadmaps (ASEB, 2011)
Limiting Future Collision Risk to Spacecraft: An Assessment of NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Programs (ASEB,
2011)
Panel Reports⎯New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2011)
Preparing for the High Frontier—the Role and Training of NASA Astronauts in the Post-Space Shuttle Era (ASEB, 2011)
Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (SSB with ASEB, 2011)
Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey
[prepublication] (BPA and SSB, 2011)
Sharing the Adventure with the Public—The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and
Exploration: Summary of a Workshop (SSB, 2011)
Summary of the Workshop to Identify Gaps and Possible Directions for NASA’s Meteoroid and Orbital Debris
Programs (ASEB, 2011)
Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (SSB, 2011)
Advancing Aeronautical Safety: A Review of NASA’s Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs (ASEB, 2010)
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research (Laboratory Assessments Board
with SSB and ASEB, 2010)
Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions (SSB, 2010)
Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies (SSB with ASEB, 2010)
An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2010)
Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010)
New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2010)
Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce (SSB,
2010)
America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs (SSB with ASEB, 2009)
Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop (SSB
with ASEB, 2009)
An Assessment of NASA’s National Aviation Operations Monitoring Service (ASEB, 2009)
Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (SSB, 2009)
Fostering Visions for the Future: A Review of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (ASEB, 2009)
Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report (SSB with ASEB, 2009)
A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program (SSB, 2009)
Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration (SSB with ASEB, 2009)
Limited copies of SSB reports are available free of charge from
Space Studies Board
National Research Council
The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-477/ssb@nas.edu
www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
iv
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE ON A DECADAL STRATEGY FOR SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS
(HELIOPHYSICS)
DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado, Boulder, Chair
THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan, Vice Chair
BRIAN J. ANDERSON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
STEVEN J. BATTEL, Battel Engineering
JAMES F. DRAKE, JR., University of Maryland, College Park
LENNARD A. FISK, University of Michigan
MARVIN A. GELLER, Stony Brook University
SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research
MICHAEL A. HESSE, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
J. TODD HOEKSEMA,* Stanford University
MARY K. HUDSON,* Dartmouth College
DAVID L. HYSELL, Cornell University
THOMAS IMMEL, University of California, Berkeley
JUSTIN KASPER, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
JUDITH L. LEAN, Naval Research Laboratory
RAMON E. LOPEZ, University of Texas, Arlington
HOWARD J. SINGER, NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center
HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire
EDWARD C. STONE, California Institute of Technology
PANEL ON ATMOSPHERE-IONOSPHERE-MAGNETOSPHERE INTERACTIONS
JEFFREY M. FORBES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Chair
JAMES H. CLEMMONS, The Aerospace Corporation, Vice Chair
ODILE de la BEAUJARDIERE, Air Force Research Laboratory
JOHN V. EVANS, COMSAT Corporation (retired)
RODERICK A. HEELIS,* University of Texas, Dallas
THOMAS IMMEL, University of California, Berkeley
JANET U. KOZYRA, University of Michigan
WILLIAM LOTKO, Dartmouth College
GANG LU, High Altitude Observatory
KRISTINA A. LYNCH, Dartmouth College
JENS OBERHEIDE, Clemson University
LARRY J. PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
ROBERT F. PFAFF, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
JOSHUA SEMETER, Boston University
JEFFREY P. THAYER, University of Colorado, Boulder
PANEL ON SOLAR AND HELIOSPHERIC PHYSICS
RICHARD A. MEWALDT, California Institute of Technology, Chair
SPIRO K. ANTIOCHOS,* NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Vice Chair
TIMOTHY S. BASTIAN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
JOE GIACALONE, University of Arizona
GEORGE GLOECKLER,* University of Michigan and University of Maryland (emeritus professor)
*
Also served on the survey’s Solar Probe Plus Study Group.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
v
OCR for page R6
JOHN W. HARVEY,* National Solar Observatory
RUSSELL A. HOWARD, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
JUSTIN KASPER, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
ROBERT P. LIN, University of California, Berkeley
GLENN M. MASON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
EBERHARD MOEBIUS, University of New Hampshire
MERAV OPHER, Boston University
JESPER SCHOU, Stanford University
NATHAN A. SCHWADRON, Boston University
AMY WINEBARGER, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
DANIEL WINTERHALTER, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
THOMAS N. WOODS, University of Colorado, Boulder
PANEL ON SOLAR-WIND MAGNETOSPHERE INTERACTIONS
MICHELLE F. THOMSEN, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Chair
MICHAEL WILTBERGER, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Vice Chair
JOSEPH BOROVSKY, Los Alamos National Laboratory
JOSEPH F. FENNELL, The Aerospace Corporation
JERRY GOLDSTEIN, Southwest Research Institute
JANET C. GREEN, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DONALD A. GURNETT, University of Iowa
LYNN M. KISTLER, University of New Hampshire
MICHAEL W. LIEMOHN, University of Michigan
ROBYN MILLAN, Dartmouth College
DONALD G. MITCHELL, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
TAI D. PHAN, University of California, Berkeley
MICHAEL SHAY, University of Delaware
HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire
RICHARD M. THORNE, University of California, Los Angeles
STAFF
ARTHUR A. CHARO, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board, Study Director
ABIGAIL A. SHEFFER, Associate Program Officer, Space Studies Board
MAUREEN MELLODY, Program Officer, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
LEWIS GROSWALD, Research Associate, Space Studies Board
CATHERINE A. GRUBER, Editor, Space Studies Board
DANIELLE PISKORZ, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern
LINDA M. WALKER, Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board
TERRI BAKER,† Senior Program Assistant, Space Studies Board
BRUNO SÁNCHEZ-ANDRADE NUÑO, National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and
Technology Policy Fellow
HEATHER D. SMITH, National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board, and Director, Aeronautics and Space
Engineering Board
*
Also served on the survey’s Solar Probe Plus Study Group, which was chaired by Louis J. Lanzerotti, New
Jersey Institute of Technology.
†
Until April 2012.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
vi
OCR for page R7
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
CHARLES F. KENNEL, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, Chair
JOHN KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Vice Chair
MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University
JAMES ANDERSON, Harvard University
JAMES BAGIAN, University of Michigan
YVONNE C. BRILL, Aerospace Consultant
ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
ANDREW B. CHRISTENSEN, Dixie State College of Utah
ALAN DRESSLER, The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution
THOMAS R. GAVIN, California Institute of Technology
HEIDI B. HAMMEL, AURA
FIONA A. HARRISON, California Institute of Technology
JOSEPH S. HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc.
ANTHONY C. JANETOS, University of Maryland
JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, U.S. Naval War College
ROBERT P. LIN, University of California, Berkeley
MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future, Inc.
JOHN F. MUSTARD, Brown University
ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona
DAVID N. SPERGEL, Princeton University
MEENAKSHI WADHWA, Arizona State University
CLIFFORD M. WILL, Washington University
THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director
CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator
TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate
CHRISTINA O. SHIPMAN, Financial Officer
SANDRA WILSON, Financial Assistant
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
vii
OCR for page R8
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
LESTER LYLES, The Lyles Group, Chair
AMY L. BUHRIG, Enterprise Technology Strategy, Boeing, Vice Chair
ELLA M. ATKINS, University of Michigan
INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland, College Park
JOHN-PAUL B. CLARKE, Georgia Institute of Technology
RAVI B. DEO, EMBR
VIJAY DHIR, University of California, Los Angeles
EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University
MICA R. ENDSLEY, SA Technologies
DAVID GOLDSTON, Harvard University
R. JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN B. HAYHURST, Boeing Company (retired)
WILLIAM L. JOHNSON, California Institute of Technology
RICHARD KOHRS, Independent Consultant
IVETT LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory
ELAINE S. ORAN, Naval Research Laboratory
HELEN R. REED, Texas A&M University
ELI RESHOTKO, Case Western Reserve University
EDMOND SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired)
Staff
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director
CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator
TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate
CHRISTINA O. SHIPMAN, Financial Officer
SANDRA WILSON, Financial Assistant
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
viii
OCR for page R9
Preface
Strategic planning activities within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and several
National Science Foundation (NSF) divisions draw heavily on reports issued by the National Research
Council (NRC), particularly those from the Space Studies Board (SSB). Principal among these SSB inputs
is identification of priority science and missions and facilities in the decadal science strategy surveys. The
first true decadal strategy for the field of solar and space physics, The Sun to the Earth⎯and Beyond: A
Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, was published in 2003. That comprehensive study
reviewed relevant research and applications activities, listed the key science questions, and recommended
specific spacecraft missions and ground-based facilities and programs for the period 2003-2012.
Supplemented by several subsequent SSB studies—for example, A Performance Assessment of NASA’s
Heliophysics Program (2009); Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research:
Report of a Workshop (2006); Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (2004); Exploration of the Outer
Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report (2004); and The Role of Solar and
Space Physics in NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative (2004)—the 2003 survey report provided key
guidance for SMD’s solar and space physics (called heliophysics at NASA) programs and NSF’s related
atmospheric and geosciences programs during the first decade of the 21st century.
The successful initiation of many of the missions and programs recommended in the preceding
studies, combined with important discoveries by a variety of ground- and space-based research activities,
demonstrated the need for a second decadal survey of solar and space physics. Thus, in March 2010,
Edward J. Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for the SMD, requested that a new decadal strategy
survey be initiated (Appendix A). The request was seconded by the leadership of NSF’s Division of
Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences. Specific tasks outlined in the request included the following:
• An overview of the science and a broad survey of the current state of knowledge in the field,
including a discussion of the relationship between space- and ground-based science research and its
connection to other scientific areas;
• Determination of the most compelling science challenges that have arisen from recent advances
and accomplishments;
• Identification—having considered scientific value, urgency, cost category and risk, and
technical readiness—of the highest-priority scientific targets for the interval 2013-2022, recommending
science objectives and measurement requirements for each target rather than specific mission or project
design/implementation concepts; and
• Development of an integrated research strategy that will present means to address these targets.
In response to this request, the NRC appointed the Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics
(Heliophysics) Steering Committee, consisting of a 19-member steering group, and 86 additional experts
organized into three discipline panels–the Panel on Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions,
the Panel on Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interactions, and the Panel on Solar and Heliospheric Physics–and
five informal working groups. The discipline panels were charged with the task of defining the current state
of research in their discipline and determining priorities for scientific investigations in those areas. One
member of each panel also served on the steering committee as a designated liaison. The working
groups⎯Theory, Modeling, and Data Exploitation; Explorers, Suborbital, and Other Platforms;
Innovations: Technology, Instruments, and Data Systems; Research to Operations/Operations to Research;
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
ix
OCR for page R10
and Workforce and Education⎯were similarly charged to assess the state of the field in these cross-cutting
areas and to determine areas of critical needs. These working groups were comprised approximately half by
members of the steering committee and panels and half by volunteer consultants. The members of the
working groups are listed in the section that follows this preface. In total, the steering committee, discipline
panels, and working groups involved 105 members. This effort has been supported by NASA and NSF.
Work on the decadal survey began in August 2010 with preparations for the first meeting of the
steering committee in September 2010. The steering committee met to consider the survey charge; to hear
from NASA and the NSF regarding their expectations for the survey, as well as from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and representatives from previous NRC decadal survey committees; and
to determine the set of tasks for the discipline panels and working groups. The steering committee held a
total of six meetings (September 1-3, 2010, and in 2011, February 1-3, April 12-14, June 14-16, August 29-
21, and November 16-18).
The discipline panels each convened first in November 2010 and held a total of three meetings:
• Panel on Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions – November 15-17, 2010,
January 12-14, 2011, and June 1-3, 2011;
• Panel on Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interactions – November 17-19, 2010, January 18-20,
2011, and June 20-21, 2011;
• Panel on Solar and Heliospheric Physics – November 29-December 1, 2010, January 10-12,
2011, and May 25-27, 2011.
The working groups held one meeting each, with the exception of the Research to
Operations/Operations to Research group that held both a town hall meeting and a follow-up meeting. Each
working group reported on their progress during the steering committee meetings and by writing a white
paper report to summarize their findings.
One significant difference from the previous decadal survey of solar and space physics was the
decision to contract with the Aerospace Corporation to perform an independent cost appraisal and technical
evaluation (CATE) of notional missions. This effort was done to increase the cost realism of notional
missions and to facilitate cost comparisons between missions. The steering committee and panels reviewed
more than 300 mission concept white papers, which were submitted in response to an invitation to the
research community.* The panels mapped concepts against their prioritization of science targets and also
considered factors such as technical readiness, scientific impact on particular disciplines, and, in some
cases, operational utility. Then the steering committee selected 12 concepts for further study and CATE
assessment. At the end of that process, six concepts were chosen for consideration leading to the steering
committee’s recommendations of priorities. The details of this process are described in Appendix E.
In June 2011, NASA requested a clarification to the survey’s scope to explicitly consider the Solar
Probe Plus (SPP) mission. Previously, NASA had instructed the committee to assume that SPP and Solar
Orbiter, along with missions that were in advanced development, were part of the baseline program and
should not be subject to review or prioritization.† This new request specified that the SPP mission was not
to be re-prioritized, but that the steering committee should comment on the scientific rationale for the
mission in the context of scientific developments since the publication of the 2003 decadal survey. Also, the
steering committee was asked to provide appropriate programmatic or cost triggers as part of the anticipated
“decision rules” to guide NASA in the event of major technical, cost, or programmatic changes during
development of SPP.
*
The survey’s website, http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/SSB_056864, includes links to
the survey’s “request for information” and to the submissions that were received in response.
†
As per its charge from NASA, the survey committee did not “grandfather” missions or mission concepts from
the previous decadal survey unless they were already in advanced development. In some cases, a concept from the
previous survey was reproposed for consideration by the present survey committee (e.g., MagCon); in others,
elements of an earlier concept were incorporated into a new proposal.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
x
OCR for page R11
To address the change in the scope, the NRC formed a study group specifically tasked to address
these questions for the Solar Probe Plus mission. The group was chosen to minimize conflicts of interest
while maintaining relevant scientific and technical expertise. The study group was led by Louis J.
Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology, who served as an unpaid consultant to the survey. The
remainder of the study group was made up of members of the steering committee and discipline panels. The
study group held one meeting in August 2011 and presented their conclusions by white paper to the full
steering committee in October 2011.
The three discipline panels cast their scientific prioritization in the form of discipline goals and
priorities, from which they derived more detailed scientific “imperatives” and, finally, implementation
scenarios or reference mission concepts. It is important to recognize that panel-specific priorities and
recommendations (imperatives) are not equivalent to report recommendations—these can only be offered
by the decadal survey steering committee. The panels’ various scientific inputs, assessments, and priorities
for new ground- and space-based initiatives have been integrated by the survey steering committee from
which an overall prioritization was derived. The steering committee’s prioritization of new spacecraft
initiatives was heavily influenced by the CATE assessment provided by the Aerospace Corporation.
Chapter 1 of this report discusses the committee’s strategic vision to provide the necessary
scientific knowledge for a society dependent on space, and it outlines the basic strategy that underpins the
steering committee’s recommendations for the next decade. Chapter 2 provides a retrospective view of
recent notable successes of the field and exemplary achievements during the past decade and the research
goals for the several subdisciplines of solar and space physics for the next decade. Chapters 4, 5, and 6
discuss specific implementation plans for a balanced program for NSF and NASA. Finally, Chapter 7
provides the steering committee’s vision for a space weather and space climate program for the nation that
could provide the new, integrated capabilities needed to serve the needs of a society ever more reliant on
space. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the societal relevance of the field of solar and space physics and
addresses the current state of efforts to develop a capability to predict harmful space weather events. The
recommendations of the survey committee are shown in the report Summary and in Chapter 4. These
recommendations were informed in part by the detailed analyses provided by the survey’s discipline study
panels, whose work is summarized in Chapters 8, 9, and 10.
The work of the survey could not have been accomplished without the important help given by
individuals too numerous to list, at a variety of public and private organizations, who made presentations at
committee meetings, hosted outreach seminars and town meetings,* drafted white papers, and participated
in mission studies. Finally, the committee acknowledges the exceptionally important contributions made by
the following individuals at the Aerospace Corporation: Randy Persinger, Robert C. Kellogg, Mark J.
Barrera, Robert J. Kinsey, David A. Bearden, Debra L. Emmons, Robert E. Bitten, and Matthew J. Hart.
*
During the initiation of the decadal survey, town hall meetings and outreach events were held at the University
of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Maryland; College Park; the
University of New Hampshire; the University of Texas, Dallas; the University of Michigan; the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (Arecibo Observatory); Southwest Research
Institute, and at the National Science Foundation’s Upper Atmosphere Facilities Fall 2010 meeting in Roanoke, VA.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xi
OCR for page R12
Acknowledgment of Members of the Decadal Survey Working Groups
The Committee on a Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics) acknowledges
with gratitude the contributions of the members of the five working groups that assessed the state of the
field and areas of critical needs in the cross-cutting areas below.
Theory, Modeling, and Data Exploitation: James F. Drake, Jr., University of Maryland, Co-Lead;
Jon A. Linker, Predictive Science, Inc., Co-Lead; William Daughton, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Jan
Egedal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Joe Giacalone, University of Arizona; Joseph Huba, Naval
Research Laboratory; Janet Kozyra, University of Michigan; Dana Longcope, Montana State University;
Mark Miesch, High Altitude Observatory; Vahe Petrosian, Stanford University; Tai D. Phan, University of
California, Berkeley; Merav Opher, Boston University; Marco Velli, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; and
Michael Wiltberger, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Explorers, Suborbital, and Other Platforms: Kristina A. Lynch, Dartmouth College, Co-Lead;
Brian J. Anderson, John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Co-Lead; Gregory D. Earle,
University of Texas, Dallas; Frank Hill, National Solar Observatory; David L. Hysell, Cornell University;
Larry Kepko, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; David Klumpar, Montana State University; Robert P.
Lin, University of California, Berkeley; Anthony J. Mannucci, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Robyn Millan,
Dartmouth College; Robert F. Pfaff, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Harlan E. Spence, University of
New Hampshire; Michael Thompson, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research; and Allan
Weatherwax, Siena College.
Innovations: Technology, Instruments, and Data Systems: Andrew B. Christensen, Dixie State
College; Co-Lead; J. Todd Hoeksema, Stanford University, Co-Lead; Mihir Desai, Southwest Research
Institute; Keith Goetz, University of Minnesota; Joseph Gurman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; Rod
Heelis, University of Texas, Dallas; Gordon Hurford, University of California, Berkeley; Neal Hurlburt,
Lockheed Martin; Jeff Kuhn, University of Hawaii; Ralph McNutt, Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory; Steve Mende, University of California, Berkeley; Eberhard Moebius, University of
New Hampshire; Danny Morrison, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory; Charles
Swenson, Utah State University; and Daniel Winterhalter, Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Research to Operations/Operations to Research: Michael A. Hesse, NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, Co-Lead; Ronald E. Turner, Analytic Services Inc. (ANSER), Co-Lead; John Allen, NASA
Headquarters; Odile de la Beaujardiere, Air Force Research Laboratory; Joe Fennell, The Aerospace
Corporation; Tamas Gombosi, University of Michigan; Kelly Hand, Air Force Space Command; Russ
Howard, Naval Research Laboratory; Louis J. Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology; Scott Pugh,
Department of Homeland Security; Geoff Reeves, Los Alamos National Laboratory; Pete Riley, Predictive
Science, Inc.; Al Ronn, Northrop Grumman Co.; Robert W. Schunk, Utah State University; Howard Singer,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Space Weather Prediction Center; and Kent Tobiska,
Space Environment Technologies.
Workforce and Education: Cherilynn Morrow, Georgia State University, Co-Lead; Mark Moldwin,
University of Michigan, Co-Lead; Bryan Mendez, University of California, Berkeley; Nicholas Gross,
Boston University; Amy Winebarger, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center; Joshua Semeter, Boston
University; James Drake, University of Maryland; Michael Liemohn, University of Michigan; Allan
Weatherwax, Siena College; and Ramon Lopez, University of Texas, Arlington.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xii
OCR for page R13
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives
and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the
National Research Council (NRC). The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and
critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to
ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the
study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of
the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Vassilis Angelopoulos, University of California, Berkeley,
Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University,
John C. Foster, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Timothy J. Fuller-Rowell, University of Colorado,
William C. Gibson, Southwest Research Institute,
John T. Gosling, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
J. Randy Jokipii, University of Arizona,
Charles F. Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego,
David Y. Kusnierkiewicz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory,
J. Patrick Looney, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Janet G. Luhmann, University of California, Berkeley,
William H. Matthaeus, University of Delaware,
Atsuhiro Nishida, Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (emeritus professor),
Patricia H. Reiff, Rice University,
Arthur D. Richmond, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Karel Schrijver, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center,
A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), and
Gary P. Zank, University of California, Riverside.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions,
they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Martha P Haynes, Cornell University,
and George A Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired). Appointed by the NRC, they were
responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the
institution.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xiii
OCR for page R14
Contents
SUMMARY S-1
PART I: REPORT FROM THE DECADAL SURVEY COMMITTEE
1 ENABLING DISCOVERY IN SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS 1-1
Introduction
Framing the 2013-2022 Decadal Survey
Key Scientific Goals for a Decade
Optimizing a Science Program
The Enabling Foundation
Ground-Based Facilities
Small Space Missions
Moderate-Scale Space Missions
Major Space Missions
Implementation Strategies
Funding Priorities for NASA’s Heliophysics Program
Decision Rules
A Decade of Transformative Science
2 SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS: RECENT DISCOVERIES, FUTURE FRONTIERS 2-1
Scope and Relevance of the Discipline
A Decade of Heliophysics Discovery
Sun and Heliosphere
Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interactions
Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions
Key Scientific Challenges
The Sun and Heliosphere
Solar Wind-Magnetosphere-Interactions
Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions
Rising to the Challenges of the Coming Decade: Overview
3 ADDRESSING SOCIETAL NEEDS 3-1
The Challenge of Predicting Space Weather Events
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xiv
OCR for page R15
4 RECOMMENDATIONS 4-1
Research Recommendations
Baseline Priority for NASA and NSF: Complete the Current Program
First Recommendation for NASA, NSF, and Other Agencies – Implement the DRIVE Initiative
Diversify Observing Platforms with Microsatellites and Mid-Scale Ground-Based Assets
Realize Scientific Potential by Sufficiently Funding Operations and Data Analysis
Integrate Observing Platforms and Strengthen Ties Between Agency Disciplines
Venture Forward with Science Centers and Instrument and Technology Development
Educate, Empower, and Inspire the Next Generation of Space Researchers
DRIVE Conclusions
NASA Mission Lines
Second Recommendation for NASA–Promote and Expand the Explorer Program
Augment Explorer Line to Restore MIDEX
NASA Missions of Opportunity
Third Recommendation for NASA–Restructure STP as Moderate-Scale, PI-led Line
Reestablish STP as Moderate Mission Program
Recommended STP Science Targets
IMAP
DYNAMIC
MEDICI
Fourth Recommendation for NASA – Implement Large LWS GDC-Like Mission
Recommended LWS Science Target
Geospace Dynamics Constellation
Applications Recommendation: Space Weather and Space Climatology
Research to Operations and Operations to Research
Recommendations and Conclusions
Observations
Model Transition to Operations
Strategic Planning and Path Forward
5 NSF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 5-1
Ground-Based Observations
Advanced Technology Solar Telescope
Mid-Scale Funding Line
Candidates for a Mid-Scale Line
CubeSats
Education
Faculty and Curriculum Development
Undergraduate and Graduate Training
Multidisciplinary Research
Funding Cross-Cutting Science
Heliophysics Science Centers
Solar and Space Physics at the NSF
International Collaborations
6 NASA PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 6-1
The NASA Heliophysics Core Program
Decision Rules and Augmentation Priorities
International Collaborations
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xv
OCR for page R16
7 A VISION FOR SPACE WEATHER AND CLIMATOLOGY 7-1
Motivation
Economic and Societal Value
Strengthening the Current National Space Weather Program
Research Sources of Space Weather Information
Core Elements of a Robust Space Weather and Climatology Program
New Elements of a Space Environment Operational Program
An Illustrative Scenario
NSF
NOAA and DOD
DOE
Commercial Sector
An Expanded Role for NASA
Implementation Concept
PART II: REPORTS TO THE SURVEY COMMITTEE FROM THE DISCIPLINE PANELS
8 REPORT OF THE PANEL ON ATMOSPHERE-IONOSPHERE-MAGNETOSPHERE 8-1
INTERACTIONS
8.1 Summary of AIMI Science Priorities and Imperatives for the 2013-2022 Decade
8.1.2 Spaceflight Missions
8.1.3 Explorers, Suborbital, and Other Platforms
8.1.4 Ground-Based Facilities
8.1.5 Theory and Modeling
8.1.6 Enabling Capabilities
8.2 Motivations for Study of Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions
8.3 Significant Accomplishments of the Previous Decade
8.3.1 Magnetosphere-Ionosphere Coupling
8.3.2 Solar-AIM Coupling
8.3.3 Meteorology–AIM Coupling
8.3.4 AIM Coupling and Global Change
8.3.5 International Programs
8.3.6 Current and Future Programs
8.4 Science Goals and Priorities for the 2013-2022 Decade
8.4.1 AIMI Science Goal 1. Global Behavior of the Ionosphere-Thermosphere
8.4.2 AIMI Science Goal 2. Meteorological Driving of the IT System
8.4.3 AIMI Science Goal 3. Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Magnetosphere Coupling
8.4.4 AIMI Science Goal 4. Plasma-Neutral Coupling in a Magnetic Field
8.4.5 AIMI Science Goal 5. Planetary Change
8.4.6 Science Priorities
8.5 Implementation Strategies and Enabling Capabilities
8.5.1 Spaceflight Missions
8.5.2 Explorers, Suborbital, and Other Platforms
8.5.3 Ground-Based Facilities
8.5.4 Theory and Modeling
8.5.5 Enabling Capabilities
9 REPORT OF THE PANEL ON SOLAR-WIND MAGNETOSPHERE INTERACTIONS 9-1
9.1 Summary of SWMI Science Priorities and Imperatives
9.1.1 Missions
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xvi
OCR for page R17
9.1.2 DRIVE-Related Initiatives
9.1.3 Space Weather
9.2 Introduction to SWMI Science
9.2.1 What Is the Magnetosphere?
9.3 Significant Accomplishments of the Previous Decade
9.3.1 Scientific Progression
9.3.2 Regions
9.3.3 Processes
9.3.4 Linkages
9.3.5 System Dynamics
9.3.6 Comparative Magnetospheres
9.4 Science Goals for the Coming Decade
9.4.1 Regions
9.4.2 Universal Processes
9.4.3 System Dynamics
9.4.4 Comparative Magnetospheres
9.4.5 Summary
9.5 Prioritized Imperatives
9.5.1 Introduction
9.5.2 Missions
9.5.3 Future Strategic Missions
9.5.4 International Partnerships
9.5.5 DRIVE-Related Initiatives
9.5.6 Space Weather
9.5.7 Prioritization
9.6 Connections to Other Panels or Disciplines
9.6.1 Solar and Heliospheric
9.6.2 Atmosphere and Ionosphere
9.6.3 Planetary Science
9.6.4 Physics and Astrophysics
9.6.5 Complex Nonlinear System Studies
9.7 References
10 REPORT OF THE PANEL ON SOLAR AND HELIOSPHERIC PHYSICS 10-1
10.1 Physics of the Sun and Heliosphere
10.1.1 Solar and Heliospheric Physics Actions
10.2 Solar and Heliospheric Imperatives
10.2.1 Prioritized Imperatives for NASA
10.2.2 Prioritized Imperatives for NSF
10.2.3 Prioritized Multi-Agency Imperatives
10.3 Significant Accomplishments During the Previous Decade
10.3.1 Determine How the Sun Generates the Quasi-Cyclical Variable Magnetic Field that
Extends Throughout the Heliosphere
10.3.2 Determine How the Sun’s Magnetism Creates its Dynamic Atmosphere
10.3.3 Determine How Magnetic Energy is Stored and Explosively Released
10.3.4 Discover How the Sun Interacts with the Local Galactic Medium and Protects Earth
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xvii
OCR for page R18
10.4 Solar and Heliospheric Objectives for the Coming Decade
10.4.1 Determine How the Sun Generates the Quasi-Cyclical Variable Magnetic Field that
Extends Throughout the Heliosphere
10.4.2 Determine How the Sun’s Magnetism Creates Its Dynamic Atmosphere
10.4.3 Determine How the Sudden Release of Magnetic Energy Enables Flares and CMEs to
Efficiently Accelerate Particles
10.4.4 Discover How the Sun Interacts with the Local Galactic Medium and Protects Earth
10.4.5 SHP Contributions to Achieving the Vision
10.4.6 Goals for the on-going Program and Missions in Development
10.4.7 Goals for Ground-Based Facilities
10.5 Imperatives for the Health and Progress of the Solar and Heliospheric Physics Discipline
10.5.1 NASA Missions in Development
10.5.2 New Imperatives for NASA
10.5.3 Summary of NASA-Related Imperatives by the SHP Panel
10.5.4 NSF Related Initiatives
10.5.5 Multi-Agency Imperatives
10.6 Connections to Other Disciplines
10.6.1 Connections to Earth Science and Climate Change
10.6.2 Connections to Astrophysics
10.6.3 Comparative Planetology and Astrospheres
10.7 References
APPENDIXES
A Statement of Task and Work Plan A-1
B Instrumentation, Data Systems, and Technology B-1
C Suborbital Platforms and Small Explorers C-1
D Education and Workforce Issues in Solar and Space Physics D-1
E Mission Development and Assessment Process E-1
F Committee, Panels, and Staff Biographical Information F-1
G Acronyms G-1
H Request for Information from Community H-1
I List of Responses to Request for Information I-1
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
xviii
