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
Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space Committee on Human Exploration Space Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997

OCR for page R1
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 has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures ap- proved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distin- guished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of sci- ence 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. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Acad- emy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the Na- tional 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. William A. Wulf 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 mat- ters 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. Support for this project was provided by Contract NASW 4627 and Contract NASW 96013 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 author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project. Cover: Mars mosaic image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, Arizona. Lunar cres- cent image courtesy of Dennis di Cicco. Cover design by Penny E. Margolskee. Copies of this report are available free of charge from Space Studies Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON HUMAN EXPLORATION NOEL W. HINNERS, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Chair WILLIAM J. MERRELL, JR., H. John Heinz III Center ROBERT H. MOSER, University of New Mexico JOHN E. NAUGLE, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired) MARCIA S. SMITH, Congressional Research Service PETER W. RODNEY and MARC S. ALLEN, Study Directors BARBARA L. JONES, Administrative Associate . . .

OCR for page R1
SPACE STUDIES BOARD CLAUDE R. CANIZARES, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair MARK R. ABBOTT, Oregon State University JOHN A. ARMSTRONG,* IBM Corporation (retired) JAMES P. BAGIAN, Environmental Protection Agency DANIEL N. BAKER, University of Colorado LAWRENCE BOGORAD, Harvard University DONALD E. BROWNLEE, University of Washington JOHN J. DONEGAN, John Donegan Associates, Inc. GERARD W. ELVERUM, JR., TRW ANTHONY W. ENGLAND, University of Michigan DANIEL J. FINK,* D.J. Fink Associates, Inc. MARTIN E. GLICKSMAN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute RONALD GREELEY, Arizona State University BILL GREEN, former member, U.S. House of Representatives NOEL W. HINNERS,* Lockheed Martin Astronautics ANDREW H. KNOLL, Harvard University JANET G. LUHMANN, University of California, Berkeley JOHN H. McELROY,* University of Texas, Arlington ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, CIESIN BERRIEN MOORE III, University of New Hampshire KENNETH H. NEALSON, University of Wisconsin MARY JANE OSBORN, University of Connecticut Health Center SIMON OSTRACH, Case Western Reserve University MORTON B. PANISH, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired) CARLE M. PIETERS, Brown University MARCIA J. RIEKE, University of Arizona JOHN A. SIMPSON, Enrico Fermi Institute ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, Space Telescope Science Institute MARC S. ALLEN, Director *Former member. TV

OCR for page R1
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS ROBERT J. HERMANN, United Technologies Corporation, Co-chair W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-chair PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan LAWRENCE D. BROWN, University of Pennsylvania RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University JOHN E. ESTES, University of California, Santa Barbara L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, Elf Atochem North America, Inc. JOHN E. HOPCROFT, Cornell University RHONDA J. HUGHES, Bryn Mawr College SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota KENNETH I. KELLERMANN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California, Los Angeles DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory L.E. SCRIVEN, University of Minnesota SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center CHARLES A. ZRAKET, MITRE Corporation (retired) NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director v

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Foreword From the dawn of the space age, human spaceflight and space science have made uneasy bedfellows. A 1960 report commissioned by Science Advisor George Kistiakowsky for President Eisenhower concluded that ". . . among the major reasons for attending the manned exploration of space are emotional com- pulsions and national aspirations.... It seems, therefore, to us at the present time that man-in-space cannot be justified on purely scientific grounds, although more thought may show that there are situations for which this is not true. On the other hand, it may be argued that much of the motivation and drive for the scientific exploration of space is derived from the dream of man's getting into space him- self."i In addition to questions of motivation and justification, accommodating the frequently conflicting needs of human life support and scientific investigation inevitably increases pressures on finite financial and tangible resources. The successes of joint crowed and scientific missions, from Apollo to the Hubble repair to Shuttle/MIR, show the possible benefits of cohabitation. Of course, there have also been periods of friction and consequently unrealized po- tential. This report of the Space Studies Board' s Committee on Human Explora- tion examines U.S. spaceflight history and draws lessons about "best practices" for managing scientific research in conjunction with a human spaceflight pro- gram. Since NASA's current focus is the development and subsequent operation of a crowed orbital laboratory, the International Space Station, some of these lessons should be immediately useful. The report is intended to be especially germane for a national decision to resume human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. Claude R. Canizares, Chair Space Studies Board i"Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on Man-in-Space," December 16, 1960, in Exploring the Unknown, Volume I: Organizing for Exploration, John W. Logsdon, ea., NASA SP-4407, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1995, p. 411. . . vat

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface In 1988 the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering stated in the report Toward a New Era in Space: Realigning Policies to New Realities that ". . . the ultimate decision to undertake further voyages of human exploration and to begin the process of expanding human activities into the solar system must be based on non-technical factors. It is clear, however, that if and when a program of human exploration is initiated, the U.S. research com- munity must play a central role by providing the scientific advice necessary to help make numerous political and technical decisions." Since its establishment in 1958, the Space Studies Board, formerly the Space Science Board, has been the principal independent advisory body on civil space research in the United States. In this capacity, the Board established the Commit- tee on Human Exploration (CHEX) in 1989 to examine science and science policy matters concerned with the return of astronauts to the Moon and eventual voy- ages to Mars. The Board asked CHEX to consider three major questions: signs? missions? 1. What scientific knowledge is prerequisite for prolonged human space mis 2. What scientific opportunities might derive from prolonged human space 3. What basic principles should guide the management of both the prerequi- site scientific research and the scientific activities that may be carried out in con- junction with human exploration? This report addresses the third of these topics. The first was the subject of Six

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE Scientific Prerequisites for the Human Exploration of Space, published in 1993, and the second was treated in Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, published in 1994. In developing principles to guide management of the science covered in the first two reports, the committee observed that the productivity of the scientific component of human space exploration appears to be correlated with the organi- zational approach and structure used to manage the program. It is reasonable, then, to look back and try to formulate principles and recommendations that can strengthen the prospects for future success. It was not the committee' s charge or intent to tell NASA precisely how to organize itself; indeed, there are several possible organizational arrangements that would be consistent with the conclu- sions of this study. Moreover, no organizational arrangement can guarantee suc- cess in the absence of clearly articulated and commonly agreed on goals. Throughout its study, the committee has made a deliberate effort to find ways to abolish the historic dichotomy between space science and human exploration and to seek ways to encourage a synergistic partnership. When the committee initiated its work in 1989, it appeared that NASA might proceed with a new initiative in the human exploration of the solar system, spe- cifically human missions to the Moon and Mars, and there was an interest on the part of the Space Studies Board to influence these new activities. Since that time, urgency to proceed to an implementation phase abated as budget pressures and a drastically changed world political situation weighed against any near-term com- mitment. On the other hand, the nation's commitment to human presence in low Earth orbit has become firmer with the pending orbital assembly of the Interna- tional Space Station. Moreover, interest in a Mars human exploration program has been aroused by the recent announcement of possible evidence of relic bio- logical activity in a meteorite of martian origin. The associate administrators for space science and human exploration recently directed NASA field centers to initiate planning for an integrated approach that could be brought forward "some- time in the second decade of the next century." The fact that human exploration beyond low Earth orbit is once again a subject of public dialogue and active planning makes this report especially timely. Noel W. Hinners, Chair Committee on Human Exploration

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Approach, 6 Management of the Classical (Robotic) Space Science Program, 7 A New Environment, 7 Notes and References, 8 PRINCIPLES FOR SCIENCE MANAGEMENT Interaction between Space Science and Human Spaceflight Communities, 10 Management Principles, 19 References, 21 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Science Prerequisites for Human Exploration (Enabling Science), 22 Science Enabled by Human Exploration, 26 Institutional Issues, 28 Notes and References, 32 BIBLIOGRAPHY x~ 5 10 22 34

OCR for page R1