C
Summary of Prior NRC Reviews of NASA Science And Earth Science Plans
The National Research Council (NRC) reviewed NASA Science Plans on four previous occasions—1997,1 2000,2 2003,3 and 2006.4 In addition, the NRC also reviewed the Earth Science Plan in 2000 and 2003.5,6 Prior to the 2000 reviews and after the 2003 reviews, NASA’s space and Earth science activities were combined into a single administrative unit currently known as the Science Mission Directorate. NASA did not request a review of its 2010 Science Plan.
The NRC conducted these reviews at the request of the Associate Administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (or its predecessors) and submitted them to the Associate Administrator in letter format, supplemented in 2003 and 2006 with a more detailed report (10-20 pages). NASA usually requested feedback in a few specific areas: responsiveness to NRC guidance, scientific balance, education and outreach, technology development, and general readability. In their responses, previous SSB reviews shared common themes but also presented specific concerns, unique to each plan. This is a summary of previous reviews, organized by area of feedback.
RESPONSIVENESS TO THE NRC’S GUIDANCE
Prior NRC reviews of NASA Science Plans found them to be broadly responsive to the guidance on key science issues and opportunities as described in the recent NRC reports, including decadal surveys. However, each review highlighted several specific NRC recommendations that the plans ignored. Older reviews criticized failures to directly link a plan’s science goals to proposed missions, while the 2006 review applauded “a defensible set of rules for prioritizing missions” based on the decadal surveys’ priorities.
INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECTS AND SCIENTIFIC BALANCE
Previous NRC reviews of NASA Science Plans found good overall scientific balance (though 2003 and 2006 criticized an overemphasis on life detection), but a lack of support for interdisciplinary research. All four reviews strongly criticized NASA’s poor support for research and analysis (R and A) and failure to balance R and A programs. The 2006 review urged NASA to reverse cuts to R and A and develop a strategic plan of all R and A programs.
PARTNERSHIPS AND EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
The identification and exposition of important opportunities for partnerships as well as education and public outreach has been a specific issue addressed in all prior reviews except the one conducted in 2006. Recommendations contained in prior reviews included the following: NASA should understand and focus on its unique educational capabilities, and NASA should establish a plan to develop future
human resources. With respect to the issue of partnerships, previous reviews have recommended that NASA should increase support for universities, and the Science Plans should provide specifics for proposed international missions.
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
Most prior reviews of NASA Science Plans found a need for improvement in the way technology development is integrated with the science program. Several reviews suggested that technology development follow a strategic plan determined by future mission needs.
GENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY OF PRESENTATION
This section was brief in all previous reviews and provided advice relating to specific editorial issues identified in each Science Plan.
OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES
Possibly the strongest and most frequent criticism of all four previous Science Plans identified under the heading of other relevant issues as determined by the committee was the failure to provide sufficient specificity in two key areas:
• The science goals and other criteria that determine mission priorities; and
• The timelines, costs, and contingency plans that control mission success.
Several reviews noted that, without these specifics, NASA’s Science Plan was not “strategic” and, thus, of limited utility in planning. The review of NASA’s 2006 Science Plan noted the inclusion of adequate mission priority specifics, but still lacked the program risk specifics necessary to avoid excessive mission cost growth.
SPECIFIC SCIENCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Each review included, in varying levels of detail, recommendations specific to individual NASA science divisions. Below are summaries of previous reviews’ major recommendations for each science division, including Earth science, which was reviewed separately until 2006.
Heliophysics
The 1997 and 2000 reviews made little mention of heliophysics, other than finding NASA’s high priorities in agreement with the NRC’s. NASA’s 2003 Science Plan deviated sharply from the 2003 solar and space physics decadal survey in two key areas:
• By choosing entirely different Solar-Terrestrial Probe missions, and
• By failing to transition space weather research to operations.
In 2006, the NRC review found the heliophysics plan responsive to the decadal survey but lacking in development of future modeling capability and incapable of launching two Living With a Star missions within 12 months.
Astronomy and Astrophysics
NASA satisfactorily addressed astronomy and astrophysics in its 1997 and 2000 Science Plans with no significant criticism in review. The 2003 review committee suggested adding dark energy and the accelerated expansion of the universe to the list of “grand questions” in astrophysics. The 2006 review found astronomy and astrophysics “significantly unbalanced” due to James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cost growth; the committee recommended more stringent cost controls, cost-capped large missions, and refocusing on small missions to restore balance.
Earth Science
All recent reviews of Earth Science Plans identify two major weaknesses:
• A lack of a realistic plan for maintaining continuity of Earth observations; and
• A failure to integrate the six disciplines of NASA Earth science.
The 2000 and 2003 reviews also criticized poor handling of mission data, suggesting the division needed to develop research partnerships with universities and to make data more readily available to the scientific community. The 2006 review recommended more support for model development to enable predictive capabilities.
Planetary Science
All review committees were unhappy with NASA’s strong focus on life detection when establishing planetary science goals, ignoring the importance of basic discovery science. The 2006 review argued that missions should address specific life detection goals to avoid overuse of that rationale. The review added that Mars should remain the prime planetary target, but other targets should not be neglected. All review committees also criticized NASA’s approach to astrobiology, requesting specific goals and definitions to guide research and technology development.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. National Research Council (NRC). 1997. “On NASA’s Office of Space Science Draft Strategic Plan,” letter report from SSB Chair Claude R. Canizares to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, August 27. Washington, D.C.
2. NRC. 2000. “On the Space Science Enterprise Draft Strategic Plan,” letter report from SSB Chair Claude R. Canizares to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, May 26. Washington, D.C.
3. NRC. 2003. “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter report from SSB Chair John H. McElroy to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, May 29. Washington, D.C.
4. NRC. 2006. “A Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan,” letter report from A. Thomas Young, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Review of NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan, to Mary Cleave, NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, September 15. Washington, D.C.
5. NRC. 2000. Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
6. NRC. 2003. “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter report from Robert J. Serafin, chair of the Committee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, and SSB Chair John H. McElroy to Ghassem R. Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science, July 31. Washington, D.C.
