Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate
Science Plan

Committee on the Assessment of the NASA Science Mission Directorate 2014 Science Plan

Space Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu



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 R1
Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan Committee on the Assessment of the NASA Science Mission Directorate 2014 Science Plan Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
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 report is based on work supported by Contract NNH11CD57B between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 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-13: 978-0-309-29765-3 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-29765-6 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) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
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. C. D. Mote, Jr., 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
OTHER RECENT REPORTS OF THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science: Summary of a Workshop (Space Studies Board [SSB], 2013) Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society (SSB, 2013) Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid (Board on Physics and Astronomy [BPA] with the 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) The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: A Workshop Report (SSB, 2012) NASA’s Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus (Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, 2012) Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey (BPA and SSB, 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 Assessment of the Science Proposed for the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) (BPA, 2011) Panel ReportsNew Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (BPA and SSB, 2011) Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 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) Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (SSB, 2011) 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: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2010) An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions (SSB, 2010) Forging the Future of Space Science: The Next 50 Years (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) 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) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html iv

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON THE ASSESSMENT OF THE NASA SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE 2014 SCIENCE PLAN JAMES P. BAGIAN, University of Michigan, Chair JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired), Vice Chair LENNARD A. FISK, University of Michigan LEE-LUENG FU, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research J. TODD HOEKSEMA, Stanford University STEPHEN MACKWELL, Lunar and Planetary Institute MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona MEENAKSHI WADHWA, Arizona State University BELINDA WILKES, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory STEVEN C. WOFSY, Harvard University Staff DAVID SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Study Director ABIGAIL SHEFFER, Associate Program Officer DIONNA WILLIAMS, Program Coordinator F. HARRISON DREVES, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board v

OCR for page R1
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 JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation THOMAS R. GAVIN, California Institute of Technology NEIL GEHRELS, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research HEIDI B. HAMMEL, Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy RODERICK HEELIS, University of Texas, Dallas JOSEPH S. HEZIR, EOP Group, Inc. WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR., Carnegie Institution for Science (retired) ANTHONY C. JANETOS, University of Maryland JOAN JOHNSON-FREESE, U.S. Naval War College JOHN F. MUSTARD, Brown University DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ROBERT T. PAPPALARDO, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology SAUL PERLMUTTER, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona DAVID N. SPERGEL, Princeton University MEENAKSHI WADHWA, Arizona State University CLIFFORD M. WILL, University of Florida THOMAS H. ZURBUCHEN, University of Michigan 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 vi

OCR for page R1
Preface In a letter dated April 10, 2013, Associate Administrator John M. Grunsfeld of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) informed the Space Studies Board (SSB) that SMD was planning to release a new version of its quadrennial Science Plan in February 2014. Dr. Grunsfeld reminded the SSB that it had provided helpful comments on science plans in past years and requested that the SSB devise a plan to review a draft of the document to be released in 2014. Subsequent discussions between the SSB and SMD resulted in the definition of a statement of task for an ad hoc committee that would review the draft 2014 Science Plan and established that a draft of the plan would be delivered to the NRC at the beginning of August 2013 and that a final report would be delivered to NASA 15 weeks later. The draft Science Plan was delivered to the SSB on August 8 with an updated version of Dr. Grunsfeld’s letter of request (Appendix A). In response to SMD’s request, the NRC established the Committee on the Assessment of the NASA Science Mission Directorate 2014 Science Plan in early August. The committee’s membership consisted of at least two individuals with expertise in each of SMD’s four principal space science disciplines—astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, solar and space physics (also called heliophysics), and Earth science. These eight individuals included at least one liaison member from each of SSB’s four standing committees: the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP), and the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space (CESAS). The three remaining members of the assessment committee consisted of individuals with expertise in space technology, space science policy, and human spaceflight. The assessment committee held a single meeting at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on September 10-12. To broaden the scientific scope of the assessment committee’s review, the draft Science Plan was shared with the members of CAA, CAPS, CSSP, and CESAS. Each standing committee discussed the draft Science Plan in the course of a series of conference calls held in late-August (or, in the case of CAPS at its September 4-6 meeting in Washington, D.C.). Each standing committee’s liaison member was given the opportunity to report the diversity of viewpoints and opinions expressed by the members of the standing committees during the assessment committee’s September meeting. Finally, to ensure that the members of the assessment committee had a complete understanding of the purpose and scope of the draft Science Plan, the agenda for the September meeting included an extended conference call with representatives of SMD’s four divisions and those individuals at NASA headquarters responsible for the drafting of the plan. An initial draft of the assessment committee’s report was assembled soon after the September 10- 12 meeting. The report’s text was discussed and finalized during committee-wide conference calls held on September 24 and 27 and sent to external reviewers for comment on October 3. 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 NRC’s Report Review Committee. 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: Steven Battel, Battel Engineering; Donna Blackmond, The Scripps Research Institute; Roger Blandford, Stanford University; vii

OCR for page R1
Adam Burrows, Princeton University; Timothy Killeen, State University of New York, Albany; Dennis Hartmann, University of Washington; Monica Kress, San Jose State University; Marcia McNutt, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Ralph McNutt, Jr., John Hopkins University; and Thomas Zurbuchen, University of Michigan. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse any of the viewpoints or observations detailed in this report, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University. 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. viii

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 7 2 RESPONSIVENESS TO NRC GUIDANCE 9 3 INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECTS 25 4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERSHIPS 27 5 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH 29 6 INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE 31 SCIENCE PROGRAM 7 ALIGNMENT WITH THE SMD STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS 35 8 READABILITY AND CLARITY OF PRESENTATION 39 9 CONCLUSIONS 41 APPENDIXES A Letter of Request 45 B Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues 47 C Summary of Prior NRC Reviews of NASA Science And Earth Science Plans 49 ix

OCR for page R1