Space Studies Board: Annual Report 1995 (1996)

During 1995, the Space Studies Board and its committees and task groups gathered for a total of 40 meetings. The following narratives present highlights of these meetings. Formal study reports and short reports developed and approved during the meetings and issued during 1995 are represented in this annual report either by their executive summaries (for full-length reports) in Section 3 or by reproduction in full (for short reports) in Section 4.

Nine full-length reports were distributed or delivered, including a congressionally mandated report by the Committee on the Future of Space Science (executive summary in Section 3.6) and a comprehensive survey of Earth observation programs by the Committee on Earth Studies (Section 3.4). Major research guidance reports were completed and published by the Committee on Microgravity Research (3.2) and by the federated Committee on Solar and Space Physics/Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research (3.9). Several significant assessment reports were also published, including an assessment of small missions by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (3.7), a scientific evaluation of Gravity Probe B by the Task Group on Gravity Probe B (3.3), and an analysis of technologies for a 4-meter active optics telescope by the Task Group on BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory (3.5). In addition, the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics’ Panel on Ground-based Optical and Infrared Astronomy released its report (3.1), and the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research issued its second and final report (3.8).

Five short reports were also prepared and released during 1995. They addressed such diverse topics as reflight of shuttle-borne synthetic aperture radars, the role of NASA centers and center scientists in scientific research, guidelines for establishment of NASA research institutes, and clarification of findings of the microgravity research opportunities report and of the Future of Space Science Committee’s management study. These short reports are reprinted in full in Section 4.

Prepared during the first months of last year, our 1994 annual report noted a clearer emergence of “the post-Cold War evolution of the national policy and budget environment first heralded a year ago.” While those budget trends continued throughout 1995, the policy climate for space and space research was being revolutionized. The pressures to downscale that NASA and other federal agencies faced in 1994 continued to intensify, as represented by the Administration’s Reinventing Government-2 (REGO-2), for example, and the drive toward a balanced budget by the new Republican Congress. For research, potent political forces countermanded earlier pressures toward “strategic” research and began to reemphasize basic research. Some formerly favored programs, such as the Department of Commerce’s Advanced Technology Program, came to be perceived as unwarranted intrusions by the government into properly private sector decision making—“pubescent industrial policy,” in the words of one influential congressman.

For NASA, the big budget news during the first quarter of 1995 was the additional $5 billion of out-year reductions mandated in mid-January by the White House to pay for proposed tax cuts. In a very dramatic budget press conference on February 6, Administrator Daniel Goldin stated: “Make no mistake. When this is over, NASA will be profoundly different. We’re going to restructure the Agency.” Mr. Goldin made clear that his preferred solution was to reduce NASA’s infrastructure and work force, rather than delete programs. Nonetheless he admitted, “This will be painful. It means NASA employees will lose their jobs. Contractors working at NASA and at their own offices will lose their jobs.” That this was not empty rhetoric became increasingly apparent. In mid-March, Mr. Norman Augustine, president of the new aerospace behemoth Lockheed Martin, announced the beginning of a company consolidation process projected to lead to elimination of 25,000 to 40,000 of its 170,000 jobs. On March 27, the Clinton Administration revealed REGO-2, itself intended to eliminate about 13,000 jobs by the end of the decade. While most of the downsizing would take place in the private sector, NASA headquarters itself was targeted for a 40% reduction by the end of the decade, with the field centers facing smaller but still very substantial cuts.

Several NASA management studies were completed during the first quarter, including the “NASA Federal Laboratory Review” (by the Foster Committee) and reviews of shuttle operations. A “red team white paper” prepared for discussion by NASA management generated anxiety and discussion with its call for widespread consolidation of agency functions. The pace of meetings of the Board’s own Future of Space Science (FOSS) project accelerated during the quarter, with NASA Headquarters-field center roles and relationships coming under new scrutiny.

On the science front in early 1995, NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division announced its eagerly awaited Discovery selections to follow Pathfinder and Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR). Getting the nod for development was the Lunar Prospector, intended to map the chemical composition of the lunar surface and its magnetic and gravity fields. Three other missions, targeted on a cometary coma, Venus, and solar particle streams, were selected for further definition studies for possible later development.

On March 1–3, the Space Studies Board held its 115th meeting at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. Members had an opportunity to hear from Drs. Jack Fellows and Sarah Horrigan of the Office of Management and Budget, and from Mr. David Moore of the Congressional Budget Office, on the overall funding outlook for NASA. Drs. France Cordova, Harry Holloway, Charles Kennel, and Wesley Huntress provided detailed insight into status and planning within the agency’s science programs. Mr. Alan Ladwig, NASA associate administrator for policy and plans, discussed strategic planning at the agency level and the role of outside organizations in this planning. Reports were heard from Drs. Val Fitch and Michael A’Hearn on the Gravity Probe B and BMDO 4-meter telescope task group activities, respectively, and the Board was briefed by Mr. Robert Winokur, NOAA assistant administrator for the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS), on progress in setting up the Integrated Program Office for the polar-orbiting environmental satellite system. European Space Science Committee (ESSC) Chair François Becker briefed the Board on the evolving organization of that committee; this discussion led to broad agreement that the Board and the ESSC should undertake a joint “lessons-learned” study on international collaborations in space research.

During the meeting, the Board approved its 1995 operating plan, a new task on data and sample archiving for the Committee on Microgravity Research, and the lessons-learned report on Clementine of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. Informal agreement was reached on preliminary plans for a Board project on NASA’s Research and Analysis (R&A) programs.

NASA Chief Scientist Cordova formally requested the Board’s perspectives on the role of science and scientists at the NASA field centers as an input to internal NASA management discussions. Board members had several opportunities to discuss the topic during the meeting and, recognizing that a full treatment of this complex issue would have to wait until issuance of the FOSS report near the end of the year, prepared a letter report that was subsequently delivered to Dr. Cordova on March 29 (Section 4.1).

During the second quarter, the three big issues were NASA’s Zero Base Review (ZBR), the budget, and Shuttle-Mir. Begun during 1994, the ZBR gathered up and integrated the results of a number of agency management studies that spanned space shuttle operations, the field center system, and NASA’s labor force. Key inputs were Administration and OMB guidance and REGO-2. A major driver in the exercise was identifying the extra $5 billion that the Administration had decided in January to cut from the agency’s 5-year budget runout to finance a tax cut.

Building on a legacy of center “roles and missions” studies, including notably the analysis carried out a few years ago by former Deputy Administrator J.R.Thompson, the ZBR recommended that each center have a “primary mission” aligned with one of the strategic enterprises in NASA’s strategic plan. Other major themes in the ZBR were improved financial controls, including “industrial accounting,” to allocate all direct and indirect costs for all programs, and privatization wherever possible. Shuttle operations were identified as especially suitable for privatizing. An operating guideline of the ZBR was to eliminate to the extent possible all non-civil servant (or non-JPL employee, at that center) in-house research work. Research programs not aligned with their parent center’s primary mission would be considered for spin-off into a privatized “institute,” which would compete with other outside community scientists for funding. At the same time, the ZBR provided that NASA Headquarters staffing would continue its downward glide to an overall 50% reduction, and total agency employment was projected to decline from 21,060 in April 1995 (down from 24,030 in January 1993) to a planned 17,500 in 2000. The bulk of ZBR cuts would be taken from “infrastructure,” but no field centers were to be closed. The plan strove to protect “program,” in contrast to infrastructure, and in fact no science programs were to be terminated under the NASA austerity plan.

In releasing the ZBR results on May 19, Administrator Goldin expressed satisfaction with the results of the grueling effort: “I’m pleased with what I’ve seen so far…. We’ve found ways to streamline operations, reduce overlap, and significantly cut costs without cutting our world-class space and aeronautics programs. We have much hard work before us, but I believe a stronger and more efficient NASA will emerge.” Unfortunately, the day before the ZBR’s public release, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget resolution that once again ratcheted down NASA’s budget limbo-bar as part of the new Congress’ drive for a balanced budget in 2002. In particular, the ZBR plan’s $13 billion agency budget for 2000 would now be $11.7 billion, according to the House. Because the projections were not corrected for inflation, inflationary erosion would compound the decline implied by these reductions from the FY95 figure of $ 14.3 billion. Mr. Goldin promised to fight the new round of cuts. As the House budget resolution went to conference with its Senate counterpart in mid-June, attention began to shift to the appropriations process, in which the true implications of the budget resolutions would be hammered out. The 1994 Congressional Budget Office report Reinventing NASA took on fresh interest.

In contrast to the turmoil on the ground, the elegance and delicate grace of spaceflight thrilled television viewers as the Atlantis and Mir docked for the first time on June 29. Almost 20 years after the first U.S.-Russian orbital link-up in the Apollo-Soyuz program, astronauts and cosmonauts greeted each other again through a docking adapter far above Earth. Images of the historic shuttle-Mir coupling, in which crew were rotated out of a Russian space station by a U.S. shuttle, seemed to lend to the space station program a solidity that repeated congressional reaffirmations have not.

On June 8 and 9, the Board held its 116th meeting in Washington, D.C. Regular Board business was compressed into the first day of the meeting, so that the second could be devoted to a joint meeting with the steering group of the FOSS project. First, NASA Chief Scientist Cordova reviewed current planning issues in the space sciences, with a special emphasis on the new “science institute” concept that had emerged as part of the ZBR. Dr. Cordova presented the Board with several specific questions for discussion and requested a formal response from the Board. The Board collected its conclusions in a letter forwarded to Dr. Cordova on August 11 (Section 4.5). The afternoon session focused on long-range planning issues specific to NASA’s Space Physics and Astrophysics Divisions; a review of ESSC status and plans, including a proposed joint SSB-ESSC study, was presented by ESSC Chair Becker. Also in attendance were ESSC Deputy Chair Herbert Schnopper and Scientific Assistant Jean-Claude Worms. The second day of the meeting began with a presentation to the Board of the status and preliminary findings of the FOSS project by steering group Chair John Armstrong and task group Chairs Daniel Fink, Roland Schmitt, and Anthony England. After a break, Associate Administrators Huntress and Kennel and Deputy Associate Administrator Arnauld Nicogossian joined the Board for a discussion of the ZBR, including its philosophy, findings, and implications for NASA’s science offices. During the course of the meeting, committee reports from the Board’s Committees on Microgravity Research, Earth Studies, Space Biology and Medicine, and Planetary and Lunar Exploration were also heard and discussed. Planning was reviewed for Board tasks on NASA R&A and on research mission effectiveness and risk. A draft letter report by the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine was also approved (Section 4.4).

The third quarter of 1995 started out with a bang on July 10 when NASA’s House appropriations subcommittee recommended a radical restructuring of NASA and its priorities. Only 5% below the President’s FY96 request

overall, the subcommittee’s package provided for cancellation of Cassini and Gravity Probe B and closure of Goddard Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Langley Research Center. At the same time, the shuttle, space station, Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility, and Earth Observing System (EOS) were untouched. But barely a week later, the full committee reversed the most radical provisions of the initial package, restoring all of the above cuts, but reducing EOS by $333 million. The accompanying committee report expressed satisfaction with the ability of the plan resulting from NASA’s Zero Base Review to achieve the long-range reductions that had been foreseen at the end of 1994 but directed the agency to complete by March 31, 1996, a further study that would accommodate a new and larger retrenchment. The committee report suggested that NASA might have to consider closing centers or eliminating major programs after all, contrary to guidelines NASA had set for itself for the initial Zero Base Review. The bill passed the House on July 31, and attention shifted to the Senate.

The corresponding bill reported out of the Senate appropriations committee on September 13 was more favorable to space science in many areas. For example, some reduced funding was included for the House-zeroed Space Infrared Telescope Facility, greatly improving its prospects for a new start in the conferenced legislation, and the House cut in EOS was reduced from 22% of the President’s request to essentially nil. As the September 30 fiscal year end approached, the final outcome of space funding for FY96 was subsumed into the general budget stand-off and 6-week continuing resolution negotiated between the Congress and the White House to avert a threatened government-wide shutdown. While the rapid growth of space science spending of recent years was now clearly at an end, researchers would have much to be pleased about if a compromise between House and Senate budgets could survive subsequent negotiations and become law.

The full Space Studies Board did not meet during the third quarter, but its executive committee (XCOM) met at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on August 8–10. The first day of the meeting was held in joint session with the FOSS Steering Group. After discussion of the suggestions for the group’s draft report that were obtained from a review by the full Board during July, and consideration of proposed revisions, the XCOM approved the report for submission to NRC institutional review. The XCOM spent the next day and a half reviewing activities of individual Board committees and acted on a number of proposed new membership nominations and projects. It approved new projects on small satellites (Committee on Earth Studies), on the small and mid-sized explorer (SMEX/MIDEX) mission lines (Committee on Solar and Space Physics), and on near-Earth asteroids, trans-Neptune solar system science, and the role of surface mobility in planetary space probes (three studies for the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration). In order to improve communication between the Board and the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, the XCOM approved creation of a committee co-chairmanship to be occupied by an astronomer member of the Board. The XCOM also gave concurrence to a Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics study on National Science Foundation infrastructure funding and did additional planning for the Board’s studies on NASA R&A, research mission effectiveness and risk, and international space science collaborations. A draft study plan addressing new NASA space astronomy missions was forwarded to the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics for consideration.

During the fall, NASA’s “science institutes framing committee” was completing its work and beginning to brief outside advisory groups and the scientific community. NASA executives explained how establishment of the new institutes would improve the overall quality of NASA’s science programs, and began to sift through the many practical, statutory, and equity issues involved in creating the first institutes at the Johnson Space Center and the Ames Research Center. The U.S. Microgravity Laboratory-2 shuttle Spacelab mission, which ended after 16 days on-orbit in early November, was reported to have produced excellent results.

The Board held its 117th and final meeting of 1995 on November 28–30 at the NRC’s Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The main topics were a series of videoconferences with government officials and project status reports and approvals for the Board’s committees. NASA Chief Scientist Cordova presented a preview of the agency’s developing responses to the Board’s FOSS report, Managing the Space Sciences. It became apparent that the term “concurrence” was being understood differently than the report had intended, and so the Board drafted a short letter of clarification to the chief scientist (Section 4.6). Associate Administrators Huntress, Holloway, and Kennel presented the status of science programs in their offices. Later in the meeting, Deputy Associate Administrator Alphonso Diaz summarized the recommendations of his institute framing committee, recapitulating and elaborating this leitmotif that had run through all the science office briefings. In another videoconference, Dr. Horrigan, Office of Management and Budget program examiner, explained the intent and requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The Board was pleased to have visits from Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Co-Chair Marc Davis and ESSC Deputy Chair Schnopper.

In addition to routine status reports from its discipline committees, the Board considered two completed reports and a new project. A Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration report on the Mars Surveyor program was remanded to the committee for expansion in several areas, and a Committee on Microgravity Research report on data and sample archiving and retrieval was approved subject to revision. A new NASA-requested project on sample return from Mars or near-Earth objects was approved. A splinter breakfast meeting was held to sharpen the focus of the proposed new project on research mission effectiveness and risk to be conducted jointly with the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board. Space Studies Board members were pleased to welcome ASEB member Donald Kutyna and ASEB Director JoAnn Clayton for the discussion.

Tuesday, December 19, symbolized in a single non-event both elation and frustration in the last quarter of 1995. There was to have been a NASA press conference on early results of the Galileo entry probe, which had hurtled dramatically into the jovian atmosphere two weeks before. But NASA was closed, shuttered again for the second time in as many months, a victim of the continuing conflict over appropriations between the Congress and the White House. While enough bills had been signed to exempt 600,000 federal workers from the second lockout, the VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill was one of several that the President vetoed that week, closing the space agency. Ironically, the vetoed VA-HUD-IA bill was itself the result of an unusual process whereby the House-Senate conference bill was rejected by the House briefly before being passed and then forwarded for executive rejection.

Also during the final days of 1995, a new chapter in the space station odyssey seemed about to unfold. Based on a December 26 report in the Washington Post (with NASA still largely furloughed, official information was scarce), the Russians proposed to continue their current Mir station in service as the “hub” of the new International Space Station. NASA Administrator Goldin reportedly countered with the suggestion that if the Russians would be able to deliver elements that are, quoting from the Post, “critical to the completion of the new space station,” then “instead of building new laboratory modules for the new facility…the Russians could decide to shift two of the most modern laboratory segments from Mir when the time comes.” But any reconsideration of the fundamental structure and composition of the station, especially in the prevailing fiscal climate and without a signed NASA appropriation for FY96, presented the possibility that the long-standing debate over the program could be reopened.

Solar researchers were delighted when the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) was successfully launched on December 2 and began making its way to its station at the Earth-Sun L1 point. The X-ray Timing Explorer was successfully launched, after a number of launcher-related delays, just a few days before the end of the year.

The last days of 1995 found the nation’s space program without an appropriation, held hostage in broader disputes that included fundamental disagreements about the Environmental Protection Agency, also funded in the VA-HUD-IA bill. While the general outlook for NASA was more uncertain than directly threatened, the continuing stalemate and furlough of agency personnel impacted planning, progress, and morale across the space program. Even with its disabled high-rate antenna, Galileo’s successful entry probe deployment after a six-year cruise was a bright beacon over a turbulent and anxious space research landscape.

Claude R.Canizares,§ Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair)

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

Joseph A.Burns,* Cornell University

John J.Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc.

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

William Green, New York, New York

Harold J.Guy,* University of California at San Diego

Noel W.Hinners,§ Lockheed Martin Astronautics

Janet G.Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley

John H.McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington

Roberta Balstad Miller,§ Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network

Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire

Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center

Simon Ostrach,§ Case Western Reserve University

Carlé M.Pieters,§ Brown University

Judith Pipher,* University of Rochester

Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona

Roland W.Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired)

John A.Simpson, University of Chicago

Arthur B.C.Walker, Jr.,* Stanford University

Robert E.Williams, Space Telescope Science Institute

Louis J.Lanzerotti, AT&T Bell Laboratories (ex officio, U.S. representative and vice president of COSPAR)

François Becker, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Physique (liaison from the European Space Science Committee)

Marvin A.Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook (ex officio, chair of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research)

Jack L.Kerrebrock, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio, chair of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board)

Vincent Vitto, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ex officio, chair of the Naval Studies Board Space Panel)

Marc S.Allen, Director

Betty C.Guyot, Administrative Officer

Anne K.Simmons, Administrative Assistant

The Board’s international program advanced importantly during late 1995. The incoming chair of the Board’s Committee on International Programs (CIP), Dr. Berrien Moore, participated in the September 14–15 meeting of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC) held at the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, England. A significant item on the meeting agenda was initiation of the long-planned joint study of U.S.-Europe collaboration in space science. Both the Board and ESSC brought to the meeting lists of candidate missions for study. The two lists were discussed, and general agreement was reached that the study should consider only missions that have already flown and produced significant scientific return. There was also general agreement that an additional category of programs should be added to those identified by the Board—international data collection networks (e.g., that for AVHRR). It was also decided that the final list of missions would be selected by the joint study panel, once formed, from the Board-ESSC list. Plans were laid for the first meeting of the joint study to take place in conjunction with the next ESSC meeting, in April 1996, at a location in Europe. The second and final meeting of the joint study panel would take place in the United States, perhaps at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, in September 1996.

A preliminary nominations list for the CIP was prepared and circulated for comment and Board approval.

The Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science and Applications, a cooperative activity of the Space Studies Board and the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, operated during 1994 as the Future of Space Science (FOSS) project’s Task Group on Technology. The FOSS project and the activities of its task groups are described below in a separate subsection.

The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) met in Washington, D.C., on April 21–22. A major agenda item was the formal release of the report of the Panel on Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy (OIR Panel), chaired by CAA member Richard McCray, entitled A Strategy for Ground-Based and Infrared Astronomy (Section 3.1). McCray reported on briefings to staff members in Congress and on a meeting with NSF Director Neal Lane. The Council of Directors of Independent Astronomical Observatories drafted a letter supporting the OIR Panel’s recommendations. Dr. Hugh Van Horn, director of the Astronomical Sciences Division at NSF, described steps being taken by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories in response to the OIR Panel’s report. NASA Astrophysics Division Director Daniel Weedman briefed the committee, noting that if Congress were to fund SOFIA and SIRTF in the FY96 budget, all the priorities of the 1991 Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee report (the Bahcall report) would have been addressed, except for the Astrometric Interferometry Mission. By the end of the decade NASA expects to launch AXAF, FUSE, SWAS, SMIM, and WIRE and to be involved in the international missions ISO, FIRST, Astro-E, and Integral. These missions would empty a 30-year queue, and so there was a need to begin planning for new starts after 2000. Drs. Weedman and Van Horn agreed that an astronomy and astrophysics survey, with a prioritized list of mission concepts and a strong community consensus behind it, would be useful for the FY00 budget planning cycle. The committee decided to consider when to begin the next survey at its fall meeting after the FY96 budget was settled.

Dr. Holland Ford discussed the Polar Stratospheric Telescope and mentioned the Space Studies Board task group assessing the 4-meter orbital telescope. Board Director Marc Allen described the Board’s Future of Space Science project. The committee developed written comments for this project and formed an ad hoc subcommittee to provide additional input, chaired by Dr. Marc Davis, with Drs. Jonathan Grindlay and John Huchra. Dr. Allen suggested that the committee consider generating a science strategy for NASA astronomy and astrophysics and requested input from the committee on the Board’s project to examine international space collaborations.

Space Telescope Science Institute Director Robert Williams gave a talk on the Hubble Space Telescope’s scientific discoveries since the repair mission. The Russian perspective on international space collaboration was provided by Dr. Rashid Sunya’ev, who reported on Russian space missions. He expressed concern about the “brain drain” to the West and the loss of interest in science by young people. In a joint session of the committee with the NRC’s Board on Physics and Astronomy, Mr. Steven Merrill, director of the NRC’s Office of Congressional and Government Affairs, discussed current political activity in Congress and what he foresaw as a new era for science.

The committee met again on September 15–16 in Washington, D.C. Senior NASA and NSF management briefed the committee on the rapidly changing budget situation at NASA and the NSF and its impact on astronomy and astrophysics. The president and board director of the Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), Inc., Drs. Goetz Oertel and Bruce Margon, discussed AURA’s views on the strategy prepared by the OIR panel. In connection with the panel’s recommendations and a proposed follow-on study on astronomy infrastructure, the directors of federal astronomy centers—the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, and the Space Telescope Science Institute—described their plans and needs for the near future.

The committee considered several possible new undertakings: (1) an examination of the implementation, primarily by the NSF, of recommendations on astronomy grants and infrastructure, the highest priority for ground-based astronomy in the 1991 survey report, (2) a review of concepts for future NASA space astronomy and astrophysics missions and preparation of a science strategy, (3) an assessment of the scientific value of having the Space Infrared Telescope Facility (SIRTF) in orbit at the same time as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), and (4) timing for initiation of the next decadal astronomy and astrophysics survey. It was decided to pursue the requested space astronomy strategy and mission assessment and to draft a short report on optimizing the operational availability of SIRTF in concert with the other Great Observatories.

Marc Davis, University of California at Berkeley (co-chair)

Marcia J.Rieke, University of Arizona (co-chair)

Leo Blitz, University of Maryland

Arthur F.Davidsen, Johns Hopkins University

Holland C.Ford,* Space Telescope Science Institute

Wendy Freedman, Carnegie Observatories

Jonathan E.Grindlay, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Doyal A.Harper,* Yerkes Observatory

John P.Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Kenneth I.Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory

Richard A.McCray, University of Colorado at Boulder

Jeremiah P.Ostriker,* Princeton University

Robert Rosner, University of Chicago

Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley

Robert L.Riemer, Study Director

Anne K.Simmons, Administrative Assistant

The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) held a workshop on synthetic aperture radar (SAR) on January 9–11 at the Beckman Center. The purpose of the workshop was for the committee to hear briefings on the use and impact of SAR technology on specific fields of Earth sciences research, and to develop advice for NASA regarding future SAR flights. NASA and NOAA representatives were in attendance, as were speakers from academia and industry.

The meeting’s general session began with a background discussion by Dr. Miriam Baltuk, SAR program scientist at NASA Headquarters. She noted that NASA was looking for advice on the next step in its SAR program and was specifically seeking a recommendation on flying a third shuttle SAR mission. Mr. Robert Winokur, NOAA assistant administrator for NESDIS, gave a discussion on operational requirements compiled by his interagency panel. This discussion was followed by reports from a number of science panels on the topics of oceanography, solid Earth, terrestrial ecology, ice sheets and glaciers, hydrology, and technology. The strongest case for a third flight was made by the solid Earth panel, which concluded that a third mission, using a modified SAR, could provide an important advance in the knowledge of global topography.

After the science presentations, the committee decided on a list of 13 themes to organize its advice to Dr. Charles Kennel, the associate administrator for Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE). The workshop participants broke into discipline splinter groups to develop input on these themes and reported these back to the full committee before adjourning. These inputs were used by Chair McElroy to draft a brief report containing recommendations (Section 4.2). The committee planned to develop a broader and more detailed assessment of SAR programs and technologies during the coming year.

The committee met on May 1–3 in Washington, D.C. Chair John McElroy opened the meeting and updated the committee on the status of the Earth Observations from Space report (Section 3.4), which was under review and revision. Time was later spent ironing out details of the report’s presentation. Associate Administrator Kennel addressed the committee on a variety of issues. Of significant interest was an update on the state of NASA restructuring and its future effects on scientific research. He also touched on the status of the Earth Observing System (EOS) program in this context. Other guests at the meeting included Dr. Dixon Butler, MTPE’s director of operations, data, and information systems, and Mr. Winokur of NOAA. Dr. Butler briefed the committee on the status and future of the EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS). Mr. Winokur described the details of NOAA satellite programs including the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) systems, the planned National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), the Landsat program, and the Ocean Remote Sensing Program, and also gave an overview of the NASA-NOAA realignment survey. This latter survey was initiated to identify possible cost savings that could be achieved through closer NOAA and NASA interaction. As a continuation of the committee’s ongoing evaluation of SAR, presentations were given by representatives of various agencies. The view of the international community was presented by representatives from Germany, Japan, Italy, and the European Space Agency. Further input was also received from NASA, NOAA, and JPL representatives.

A prepublication copy of Earth Observations from Space was made available to participants in the July 19–28 workshop on the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and NASA’s MTPE/EOS program.

The committee met August 21–23 in Washington, D.C., to hear additional briefings on SAR programs and on plans for small satellite programs at NASA and NOAA. In his opening comments Chair McElroy summed up events at the July USGCRP workshop, which was held at La Jolla by the NRC’s Board on Sustainable Development. There was discussion about the La Jolla workshop recommendations on the elimination or decentralization of the EOS data archive systems. A status briefing on NASA’s MTPE was given by MTPE Associate Administrator Kennel, followed by Mr. Ernest Paylor of NASA, who discussed the future of SAR. Committee member Richard Moore provided a technical tutorial on the principles of SAR.

The general session the following morning was opened with briefings on NASA’s New Millennium program and the OSAT technology program by Dr. Kane Casani of JPL, Mr. Sam Venneri of NASA’s Office of Space Access and Technology (OSAT), and Mr. Gran Paules of MTPE. The committee understood the New Millennium program to be primarily a new way of managing mission development and execution for the observing sciences. Mr. Winokur of NOAA gave a briefing covering recent studies initiated by NOAA on SAR and small satellites, and other NOAA status issues such as ongoing budget negotiations. The committee then went into executive session to discuss the SAR and small satellite studies. The meeting adjourned at noon on the third day, with Dr. McElroy taking responsibility for revising the SAR report. Attendance by General Accounting Office staff during both days of open meetings was noted by the committee.

On November 15, the committee met in Washington, D.C., for the first of three planned meetings to analyze the ability of small satellites to satisfy “core” observational needs of NASA and NOAA, including weather and climate monitoring and prediction programs. Budgetary pressures, the desire within the scientific community for shorter mission time lines, gaps and opportunities in planned MTPE programs, and calls for more rapid technology infusion focused renewed attention on the possible use of small satellites in the EOS program. Similarly, interest in small satellites was heightened by NOAA and DoD (USAF) plans to forego planned block upgrades and instead design a common spacecraft system (the NPOESS) to fulfill the functions currently performed by POES and the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Chair McElroy reviewed the background of the small satellite study and the time table for completion of the SAR report. The former study will build on an NRC study of technology for small satellites and the recent La Jolla summer workshop to review the status and scientific foundations of EOS and the USGCRP. It will also take into account the widely publicized DoD-NASA Clementine small satellite mission, NASA’s initiation of the Lewis and Clark demonstration missions, and the New Millennium technology development program.

NASA participation in the meeting was precluded by the government-ordered shutdown of “non-essential” services, but committee members were given copies of a NASA presentation on MTPE status prepared by Mr. William Townsend. Mr. Winokur, director of NOAA/NESDIS, reviewed the status of NOAA’s satellite programs and the NPOESS. Dr. Fuk Li, of the JPL, reviewed JPL efforts to develop a lightweight SAR and its possible applications. After Dr. Li’s presentation, there was discussion about the utility of a system that had limited ground coverage and long repeat times. According to Dr. Li, the New Millennium program will demonstrate a number of advanced spacecraft, sensor, and processing technologies that might find future application in the EOS and NPOESS. Dr. Li spoke in particular about the advantages of developing spacecraft with “intelligent” flight systems and greater autonomy.

Dr. Walter Scott, of EarthWatch, began his presentation with an introduction to EarthWatch and a description of its first planned satellite mission, EarlyBird, scheduled for launch in 1996. EarlyBird’s 3-meter resolution corresponds to typical airborne imager maps. QuickBird was described as Earth Watch’s next planned system, to feature a 1-meter panchromatic sensor.

Mr. David Johnson, of CTA, presented a review of the Clark spacecraft and its role in increasing the capability and reducing the cost of small spacecraft. A spirited discussion followed on why Landsat costs are so high and whether the government should develop and launch its own remote sensing satellites. Next, Dr. Frank Martin, of Lockheed Martin, talked on three of the questions participants had been asked to consider prior to their attendance at the meeting: (1) Have new spacecraft technologies emerged that can enhance payload mass, power, and volume fractions, or reduce overall systems cost? (2) As a result of technological advances, are there ways of aggregating or parsing sensor systems (including satellite constellations) that can offer advantages in the cost or effectiveness of Earth observations? (3) If such ways exist, what are their implications for the future of MTPE, POES/DMSP, and GOES in terms of both spacecraft and ground system configurations? Dr. Bruce Marcus, of TRW, presented results of a TRW study of alternative NPOESS space segment architectures. This study was an outgrowth of preliminary work from the NRC July 1995 La Jolla summer workshop on MTPE/EOS and USGCRP. Mr. Robert Barry, of Ball

Aerospace and Technology Corporation, described several of Ball’s small satellite ventures, altimetry, and Ball’s Geosat Follow-On (GFO), which is being designed to be a long-life operational small satellite for the Navy. Mr. Barry noted that the government contract with Ball for GFO gives great responsibility to the contractor for managing the project and strong incentives for successful on-orbit performance.

John H.McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington (chair)

William D.Bonner, University of Colorado

George H.Born,* University of Colorado

John V.Evans, COMSAT Laboratories

Inez Y.Fung, University of Victoria

Elaine R.Hansen, University of Colorado at Boulder

Roy L.Jenne, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Pamela E.Mack, Clemson University

Richard K.Moore, University of Kansas

Stanley Morain, University of New Mexico

Peter M.P.Norris, Santa Barbara Research

Clark Wilson,* University of Texas at Austin

Arthur Charo, Study Director

Richard C.Hart, former Study Director

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) was inactive during 1995. Preliminary discussions were held with officials of NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications about restarting the committee for the purpose of completing and issuing a previously tabled report on science management within human spaceflight programs.

The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) met on February 8–9 in Washington, D.C., to discuss its next study. The director of NASA’s Microgravity Science and Applications Division (MSAD), Mr. Robert Rhome, presented a detailed overview of the current microgravity program to the committee. Drs. Rose Scripa and Robert Snyder, both of MSAD, were present to answer questions. The overview was followed by a presentation from Mr. Rhome, at the previous request of the committee, on potential studies that would be particularly useful to MSAD. After some discussion, the committee decided to take up a study evaluating the current MSAD strategy for archiving flight data and samples. The final topic of discussion before adjournment was the committee’s report Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s (Section 3.2). The report was in press at the time of the meeting, and advance copies had been made available to MSAD for planning purposes. Mr. Rhome presented the committee with a series of questions seeking clarification of the report’s contents. These questions arose from changes that had taken place in the agency since the report was initiated, such as the drive to consolidate division activities. There was some discussion of the questions, and the meeting was concluded with the decision that the committee would develop written responses to the questions to accompany publication of the report (Section 4.3).

The committee held a second meeting on May 22–23 in Washington, D.C., to begin work on the data and sample archiving study. Invited speakers made detailed presentations on the development and management of the Hubble Space Telescope archives, the Planetary Data System, and USGCRP. In addition to learning about these observational data archives, the committee was briefed on a large, materials science data archive by Dr. Gil Kaufman of the Aluminum Association. Board staff member Richard Hart gave a talk on the findings of previous data management studies by the Board’s defunct Committee on Data Management and Computation. After the

committee had had an opportunity to become familiar with the issues, problems, and “lessons learned” associated with a variety of archives, NASA speakers briefed the committee on the current archiving strategy employed by MSAD. MSAD’s Mr. Gary Martin gave a talk outlining the overall philosophy and design of the plan for archiving microgravity experiment data and samples. MSAD Chief Scientist Roger Crouch was also present to answer questions. The archives for MSAD flight experiments are distributed between two NASA field centers, and the committee heard briefings from Drs. Howard Ross and Laura Maynard of the Lewis Research Center (LeRC), and from Drs. Robert Snyder and Charles Baugher of the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), about the content and management of their respective archives. The committee also saw demonstrations of access to on-line directories for these archives through the Internet. At the time of the meeting, only one mission, the 1992 flight of USML-1, had followed MSAD’s full archival procedure, and it was not clear how much of that data was yet accessible. MSAD described its approach as “minimalist,” and Dr. Crouch expressed his concern that a more extensive approach might force MSAD into a “one size fits all” archival strategy in the future. Prior to adjournment, committee members agreed that before the next meeting they would attempt to access the archives on their own and report back on their findings.

The committee met a third time on August 26–29 at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to continue the assessment of MSAD’s data and sample archiving strategy. The meeting began with opening remarks by Chair Martin Glicksman, followed by a roundtable discussion of the experiences of each committee member in trying to access information on the NASA microgravity archives through the Internet. Mr. Rhome and Mr. Martin of MSAD were present for this discussion. The following morning, Drs. Judy Allton and Michael Zolensky of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, NASA Johnson Space Center, described in detail how physical samples, ranging from lunar specimens to interstellar dust particles, are carefully stored, catalogued, and accessed for future use. These procedures included keeping the research community informed of available resources and determining how requests for samples would be resolved. Dr. Snyder of MSFC gave a presentation to the committee on the archiving of samples at that center. Most of MSFC’s experience in this area is with Skylab experiments, inasmuch as virtually none of the samples collected from Spacelab have been returned to NASA and there are few restrictions on how principal investigators must manage their samples. Mr. Rhome gave a presentation on the current status of MSAD, including NASA’s plans to further reduce the size of MSAD’s headquarters staff. The remainder of the day was devoted to a demonstration of actual, digitally archived flight data (acquired from LeRC) and discussion of the archiving report. By the end of the afternoon the committee had come to agreement on many of the major recommendations that would be presented in the report. Discussion continued the following morning, and the meeting adjourned in mid-afternoon with an agreement that a first draft of the report would be assembled by the committee chair and study director.

The committee met for its final gathering of 1995 on November 8–9 at the Beckman Center to finalize the data and sample archiving report. The meeting opened with discussion on the recent Japan Space Utilization meeting in Tokyo, at which staff member Sandra Graham had presented a talk on the committee’s Opportunities report, and on the U.S.-Russian microgravity conference in Washington, D.C., where member Robert Bayuzick had made a similar presentation. Committee members’ comments on a draft of the archiving report prepared after the previous meeting had been integrated into the report prior to this meeting. The committee spent most the morning of the first day discussing unresolved issues in the report and spent the remainder of the day rewriting the report. The committee as a whole devoted the second day of the meeting to reviewing, discussing, and editing this new version, line by line. These changes were integrated at the completion of the meeting so that the report would be ready to enter NRC review.

Martin E.Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (chair)

Robert A.Altenkirch, Washington State University

Rosalia N.Andrews,* University of Alabama at Birmingham

Robert J.Bayuzick, Vanderbilt University

Gretchen Darlington, Texas Children’s Hospital

Howard M.Einspahr, Bristol Myers Squibb Company

J.Gilbert Kaufman, Jr., The Aluminum Association

L.Gary Leal, University of California at Santa Barbara

Ronald E.Loehman, Sandia National Laboratories

Margaret J.Lyell, West Virginia University

Morton B.Panish, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired)

Ronald F.Probstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John D.Reppy, Cornell University

Julian Szekely, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (deceased)

Forman A.Williams, University of California at San Diego

Sandra J.Graham, Study Director

Victoria Friedensen, Administrative Assistant

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) met at the Beckman Center on February 8–10 to begin work on a study of NASA’s Mars exploration plans. Chair Joseph Burns updated the committee on the status of its reports, including An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995–2010 (released in late 1994), The Role of Small Missions in Planetary and Lunar Exploration (Section 3.7), and Lessons Learned from Clementine. The bulk of the meeting was devoted to briefings on current understanding about Mars and to the geophysical, geological, atmospheric, and exobiologic goals of Mars exploration. Dr. Dan McCleese, JPL, briefed the committee on plans for the Mars Surveyor program and emphasized the tight constraints facing the program. Dr. Lewis Franklin, of Stanford University, explained how some of these constraints might be overcome if a variety of Russian launch vehicles, including refurbished ICBMs, were used. Following discussions in executive session, it was decided that the committee would produce a short report on Mars science, and writing tasks for an initial draft were assigned. Dr. Jurgen Rahe, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division, briefed the committee via videoconference on his division’s recent review of R&A programs, the selection of Discovery mission(s), and the Astronomical Search for Extra-Solar Planetary Systems program. He also gave NASA’s preliminary response to the committee’s Integrated Strategy. The meeting concluded with Dr. Wesley Huntress, associate administrator for space science, briefing the committee via videoconference on the details of NASA’s FY96 budget, the long-term future of the planetary exploration program, and the likely role of international cooperation.

The committee met again in Woods Hole on June 12–16 to continue work on its study of NASA’s Mars exploration plans. Chair Burns reported that the committee’s report The Role of Small Missions in Planetary and Lunar Exploration had been approved by the NRC for publication (Section 3.7) and that advance copies had been delivered to Drs. Huntress and Rahe at NASA Headquarters. Another report, Lessons Learned from Clementine, had been approved by the Board and was being revised for external review. In addition to finalizing the text of the Mars report, the committee devoted time to planning future activities. Topics under consideration included exploration of the trans-Neptune solar system, the role of mobility in planetary exploration, exploration of near-Earth asteroids, and an assessment of ground- and space-based planetary astronomy facilities. The remainder of the meeting was spent on a presentation on the role of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Subcommittee, the ongoing Zero Base Review, the status of planetary missions, NASA’s Discovery program, exobiology, and terrestrial impact structures. Dr. Huntress briefed the members on the roles of NASA centers, plans for the creation of science institutes, and the downsizing of Office of Space Science staff at NASA Headquarters. Dr. Rahe (via teleconference) reported on the status of ongoing planetary programs and, in particular, on the recent selection of Lunar Prospector as the third Discovery mission. Dr. Alan Binder (Lockheed Martin), Lunar Prospector’s principal investigator (PI), gave a detailed briefing on this mission, its background, and likely scientific achievements. Discussion of the Discovery program continued in a conversation with Dr. Richard Goody (Harvard University), PI for the proposed Venus Multiprobe Mission.

The committee next met in Washington, D.C., on September 6–8 to hold initial briefings relating to a number of potential studies. Its new chair, Dr. Ronald Greeley, gave a brief presentation on the committee’s role and position within the Board and the NRC. Most of the meeting was used for planning for, and presentations on, possible future studies on the exploration of the trans-Neptune solar system, the role of mobility in planetary exploration, and the exploration of Earth-approaching asteroids. Dr. William Piotrowski of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division gave a briefing on current and future planetary science missions and on the status of NASA’s space science budget.

Later in the day, Dr. Giulio Varsi of the Solar System Exploration Division briefed the committee on new planetary missions, such as the proposed Pluto Express, and the technologies needed to perform them. Other presenters on the first day of the meeting included Drs. James Cutts and Kerry Noch of JPL on the use of balloons for planetary robotic exploration, and Dr. John Darrah of the USAF Space Command on its asteroid detection program.

On the second day of the meeting, Dr. William McKinnon of Washington University detailed the characteristics of solid bodies in the trans-Neptune region. Dr. Harold Levison of Southwest Research Institute discussed current understanding of the content of the Kuiper belt. Dr. Ralph McNutt of the Applied Physics Laboratory talked about the particle and fields environment in the outer heliosphere. Dr. Jonathan Lunine of the University of Arizona updated the committee on the deliberations of the Pluto Express Science Working Group. One important issue raised in Dr. Lunine’s presentation was the question of ultimate management authority in a mission using the “science-craft” approach (i.e., spacecraft systems designed around an integrated instrument package rather than the conventional approach of integrating individual instruments into a predesigned spacecraft bus) adopted by that working group. On the final day of the meeting, the committee heard from Dr. Richard Binzel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on current scientific understanding of near-Earth objects.

Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University (chair)

Joseph A.Burns,* Cornell University (former chair)

James R.Arnold, University of California at San Diego

Frances Bagenal, University of Colorado at Boulder

Jeffrey R.Barnes, Oregon State University

Geoffrey A.Briggs,* NASA Ames Research Center

Michael H.Carr,* U.S. Geological Survey

Philip R.Christensen, Arizona State University

Russell Doolittle, University of California at San Diego

James L.Elliot,* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Heidi Hammel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Barry H.Mauk,* Johns Hopkins University

George McGill, University of Massachusetts

William B.McKinnon,* Washington University

Harry McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee

Ted Roush, San Francisco State University

John Rummel, Marine Biological Laboratory

Gerald Schubert, University of California at Los Angeles

Eugene Shoemaker, U.S. Geological Survey

Darrell F.Strobel, Johns Hopkins University

Alan T.Tokunaga, University of Hawaii

George W.Wetherill,* Carnegie Institute of Washington

Roger Yelle, University of Arizona

Maria T.Zuber, Johns Hopkins University

David H.Smith, Study Director

Altoria B.Ross, Administrative Assistant

The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met on April 12–14 in Washington, D.C., to consider implications of the NASA Federal Laboratory Review (also known as the Foster Committee report), with emphasis on issues related to peer review in the life sciences. During the course of the meeting, CSBM was given an overview of the NASA life sciences program by Director Joan Vernikos, of NASA’s Life Sciences and Applications Division (LSAD). Deputy Director Frank Sulzman briefed the committee on life sciences research programs, and Dr. Earl

Ferguson, director of the Aerospace Medicine Division, was present to answer questions. Dr. Ronald White, also of the LSAD, gave a presentation on peer review activities, and Associate Administrator Harry Holloway briefed the committee on NASA’s restructuring actions. On the second day of the meeting the committee developed a draft of a letter report on peer review and the NASA Federal Laboratory Review; the letter was later approved by the Board at its June meeting (Section 4.4).

The committee met on July 27–28 at Woods Hole to develop a detailed work plan for a major review of the NASA life sciences program. This task is envisioned as a survey of all the life sciences areas appropriate for study in a space environment and will replace the committee’s last major strategy report, published in 1987. The meeting began with opening remarks by Chair Mary Jane Osborn on the committee’s recently completed letter report on peer review. The letter was formally presented to Dr. Vernikos later in the afternoon. Committee member Richard Setlow gave a presentation on space radiation issues, and there was a discussion of the committee’s planned study on this topic. Dr. Vernikos and other LSAD representatives agreed that such a study would be useful to NASA. Dr. Vernikos then briefed the committee on research status, planning for new NASA science institutes, and international collaboration planning. Drs. Ronald White, Walter Schimmerling, and Frank Sulzman gave presentations on the range of life sciences research currently sponsored by NASA. On the morning of the second day of the meeting there was a general discussion of the topics presented by NASA and of various options for carrying out the strategy task. Dr. Vernikos offered the assistance of NASA in supporting future workshop activities. The committee met in executive session after lunch and developed a detailed plan for carrying out the study.

The committee met again on October 23–25 in Washington, D.C., to continue work on the major strategy review for NASA life sciences. After opening remarks by the chair, the committee heard overviews of life sciences discipline areas presented by individual committee members and outside experts to introduce committee members to the status of research in those fields of the life sciences relevant to space investigation. Several observers were present from NASA Headquarters to comment on the points raised in the presentations. Mr. Alphonso Diaz, NASA deputy associate administrator for space science, gave the committee an overview of NASA’s current planning for the science institutes. The committee noted the rapid pace at which NASA was proceeding to set up the life sciences institutes and the limited planning detail available. The committee entered executive session on the second day to refine its three-year work plan for the research strategy project. These refinements included a decision on the structure and outline of the report. Much of the detailed planning focused on the committee’s upcoming February 1996 workshop in cell biology, which will be chaired by member Elliot Meyerowitz.

Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center (chair)

Norma M.Allewell, University of Minnesota

Charles J.Arntzen, Texas Medical Center

Robert E.Cleland, University of Washington

Mary F.Dallman, University of California at San Francisco

Francis (Drew) Gaffney, Vanderbilt University

Marc D.Grynpas,* Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute

James R.Lackner, Brandeis University

Anthony P.Mahowald, University of Chicago

Robert W.Mann,* Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Elliot Meyerowitz, University of Chicago

Kenna D.Peusner, George Washington University Medical Center

Steven E.Pfeiffer, University of Connecticut Health Center

Gideon A.Rodan, Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratory

Fred D.Sack,* Ohio State University

Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratories

Sandra J.Graham, Study Director

Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant

Victoria Friedensen, Administrative Assistant

The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) met jointly with the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research (CSTR) at the Beckman Center on February 14–17. Chairs Janet Luhmann and Marvin Geller briefed the committees on the status of report activities and the Board’s request for contributions to the Future of Space Science (FOSS) study. The recent release of NASA’s FY96 budget and the absence from it of any new starts for space physics were major topics of discussion. Briefings on agency activities were given by four individuals. Dr. George Withbroe, NASA’s division director for space physics, gave a detailed briefing via videoconference on NASA’s FY96 budget. Dr. Richard Behnke, NSF, and Col. Tom Tascione, USAF, gave updates, also via videoconference, on the latest developments in the national space weather initiative. In addition, Dr. Behnke gave a brief account of NSF’s FY96 budget and expressed interest in the idea of a short workshop on solar variability. Agency status reports were completed by Dr. Ronald Zwickl in a roundup of NOAA activities. The final briefing at the meeting was a status report on the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) mission by Dr. Samuel Yee of the Applied Physics Laboratory. The idea of sponsoring a workshop on TIMED, and its connection to the ongoing Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite mission, was raised. The workshop was tentatively scheduled for the fall. The main goal of the meeting was writing for the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate’s “21st Century Report.” The remainder of the meeting was taken up with drafting material for this and the FOSS study and writing a letter to the chair of the Board on concerns raised by NASA’s FY96 budget.

The two committees met jointly at the Beckman Center on August 1–4 for their annual summer meeting. The primary goal of the meeting was to complete writing assignments for the 21 st Century Report. Other projects to be worked on included an assessment of the space physics aspects of NASA’s Office of Space Science (OSS) strategic plan and a research briefing report on space weather. Following the completion of these studies, the committees anticipated undertaking a scientific assessment of TRACE and any space physics projects selected for development in the next round of midsize Explorer (MIDEX) missions. Dr. Behnke, NSF’s division director for atmospheric sciences and co-chair with Col. Tascione of the National Space Weather Program interagency initiative, described (via videoconference) ongoing activities and, in particular, a June 15–16 meeting in Arlington, Virginia, convened to draft an implementation plan for a National Space Weather Program. NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress described (via videoconference) the ongoing Zero Base Review and headquarters reorganization. Central to the reorganization of the Office of Space Science is the creation of a single science division and a new science “board of directors.” Current visiting senior scientist positions will be phased out, but IPA positions are likely to remain. Dr. Withbroe briefed the committees (via videoconference) on the latest developments in NASA’s space physics program. One topic addressed was changes likely in the availability of launch opportunities. In particular, a formal “secondary payloads” NASA Research Announcement or Announcement of Opportunity may be issued in order to take advantage of piggyback launches. Dr. Withbroe also described some new mission concepts, including NASA participation in Japan’s Solar-B mission and in a Solar Polar Imager designed to detect Earth-bound mass ejections.

The federated committees met together in Washington, D.C., on November 13–15. Prior to the furlough of U.S. government employees, which began November 14, several representatives of government agencies briefed the committees. Dr. Sarah Horrigan, a program examiner for science and space programs with the Office of Management and Budget, and Dr. Richard Obermann, a congressional staff member with the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, provided perspectives on the budget and the image of space research on Capitol Hill. In order to keep the committees abreast of recent activities relevant to the space weather research briefing, CSSP member Spiro Antiochos and Study Director David Smith told the committees about the recent space weather workshops they had attended, respectively, at the Naval Research Laboratory in September and at the Sacramento Peak Observatory in October.

CSTR member Jack Gosling gave a brief account of a recent meeting at which opposing champions in the Flare versus Coronal Mass Ejection controversy had presented their views. The next presentation was from Dr. Michael Teague, who gave an overview of the U.S. Solar-Terrestrial Energy Program coordinating activities following the reduction of support for that office at the Goddard Space Flight Center. In particular, he described the World Wide Web (WWW) pages currently under development that tie together some of the ground-based contributions to the International Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program and Interagency Consultative Group (IACG) for space science programs. NASA Space Physics Division Director Withbroe reviewed the new NASA Headquarters organizational chart. Dr. Withbroe said that the new organization, to be implemented soon, will place him in a new

council of science advisors to the associate administrator, where he will be responsible for the theme “Sun-Earth-Heliosphere Connection.” He will be one of four directors who will interface with the new, integrated Science Division under Mr. Henry Brinton. Dr. Withbroe said that space physicists should see several new activities in 1996, including the appearance of a NASA research announcement on “New Mission Concepts” (for support of mission concept development), and activities related to formulating a discipline mission strategy for NASA’s long-range planning exercise to be held in 1997. Next, Dr. Behnke (NSF) and Col. Tascione (USAF) described the status of the National Space Weather Program initiative, which was going forward with a multiagency announcement of opportunity expected in 1996. A “fast prototyping laboratory” where investigators can try out space weather tools is envisioned as part of this program. Col. Tascione stressed the need for good metrics of progress and solicited ideas for them. Dr. John Lynch, from the NSF Office of Polar Programs, described the new organization of space physics activities, with he himself responsible for Antarctic programs and Dr. Odile de la Beaujardiere assuming a new position of responsibility for Arctic space physics-related programs (among others). Polar programs of concern to the two committees include helioseismology, neutron monitors, wave transmission experiments, radar installations, and balloon programs. Dr. Chris Russell (UCLA) reviewed advantages of solar electric propulsion (SEP) for space physics missions. SEP is expected to become available as a mission design option following testing on the recently announced first New Millennium mission (launch in 1998).

During writing sessions, the committees completed the Opportunities, Challenges and Imperatives in Upper Atmosphere Research Entering the 21st Century for the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (the parent board of CSTR) and the final draft of a short report assessing space physics aspects of NASA’s 1995 Office of Space Science’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan—Space Science for the 21st Century. This committee assessment was based on a comparison with the committees’ own recently completed A Science Strategy for Space Physics (Section 3.9).

Janet G.Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley (chair)

Spiro K.Antiochos, Naval Research Laboratory

Janet U.Kozyra, University of Michigan

Robert P.Lin, University of California at Berkeley

Donald G.Mitchell, Johns Hopkins University

Arthur D.Richmond, National Center for Atmospheric Research High Altitude Observatory

Harlan E.Spence, Boston University

Michelle F.Thomsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Roger K.Ulrich, University of California at Los Angeles

David H.Smith, Study Director

Altoria B.Ross, Administrative Assistant

The Future of Space Science (FOSS) project is a cluster of related studies responding to FY94 Senate appropriations report language and a subsequent request by NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin. The Senate report language stated the following:

Additional guidance was provided in the FY95 appropriations report:

The FOSS Steering Group met on January 4–5 in Washington, D.C. The meeting began with a general discussion of the FOSS study. It was noted that policy environment changes had broadened the scope of the study and might increase interest in and acceptance of its results. With a smaller NASA budget likely in the future, it was decided that the study should focus on the distinct role of science in the space program. This should include the issue of quality in a budget environment that has stopped expanding.

In remarks to the steering group, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin described his own perspective on the status of science within the agency. He stated that “the true job of NASA is not to support the scientific community” and that success cannot be measured by the number of scientists or by the dollars allocated to them. He expressed satisfaction with the present science organization, as well as the thought that setting up a separate space science institute would not be in the best interest of the agency. He favored “Darwinism,” referring to survival of only the strongest programs. He suggested that major areas for the study to address were (1) the peer review process, (2) procurement with universities, and (3) prioritization, given the need to cancel some programs. According to Mr. Goldin, the most constructive thing the committee could do would be to “establish that it is socially acceptable to cancel an ongoing program to start something new.” Chief Scientist France Cordova remained to continue the discussion after Mr. Goldin was obliged to leave the meeting.

Status was reported for each of the FOSS task groups. FOSS Task Group on Technology (FOSS-T) Co-Chairs John Hedgepeth and Anthony England reported on the November meeting of that task group. Although technology utilization had formally become a figure of merit for projects, the agency’s integrated technology planning did not appear adequate. The task group perceived that the Office of Space Access and Technology was trying to follow an Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) model, which, if coordinated as an approach to goals, would be an improvement. FOSS Task Group on Research Prioritization (FOSS-RP) Chair Roland Schmitt presented some preliminary thoughts of his task group that he expected to develop further during a teleconference planned for the following week. He pointed out that this task group would look to see which pieces of a candidate process being considered for endorsement already existed within NASA. The 1991 Office of Space Science and Applications “Woods Hole process,” as well as the second report of the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research (in press), would be examined for components that could be included. FOSS Task Group on Alternative Organizations (FOSS-AO) Chair Daniel Fink reported that his group planned to hear from numerous individuals and organizations on various organizational structures. Given the various forces acting on the present agency, he felt that the committee would probably need to broaden its study beyond the narrow issues in the Senate report language.

FOSS Chair John Armstrong led further discussion of the deliberations to date. The group should lay out an understanding of what NASA science should be; what a healthy and balanced program is, including the whole science life cycle; and what the proper relation should be between science and engineering throughout this life cycle. Reservations were expressed as to whether selection and priority setting were really “broken” within

disciplines, or only between them. Further discussion contrasted mission definition and PI funding at NASA with those processes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The meeting ended with assignment of tasks to members and staff.

The steering group reconvened on June 9–10, joining the Space Studies Board in joint session on June 9. During the joint session, steering group and task group chairs briefed the Board on early findings of the project and obtained the Board’s inputs. The remainder of the meeting was used by the steering group to conduct a detailed review of the work of the three FOSS task groups; the results gave the task group chairs guidance for completing their reports. On the afternoon of June 9, Administrator Goldin again met with the steering group and gave his perspective on current events at the agency. He also requested that delivery of the final report of the project be advanced from January 1996, as originally planned, to September 1995. Acknowledging the challenge, Chair Armstrong agreed to expedite the work and to strive for a final briefing in late September.

The FOSS project thus greatly accelerated its schedule. To meet the new September completion date for the report, an integrated draft was assembled and sent to the steering group on July 14. Subsequently, an improved draft was circulated to the full Board for review. The steering group convened for the last time on August 7 and 8 at Woods Hole. The first day and a half were spent revising the draft report in response to suggestions obtained from the entire Board in late July. After making a number of changes and resolving a number of unsettled issues, the steering group submitted the amended report to the executive committee of the Board for approval on the afternoon of August 8. The executive committee approved this draft, which was submitted to NRC institutional review a few days later. Following revision and formal approval by the NRC, the final report, Managing the Space Sciences, was completed on September 22 (Section 3.6). FOSS Committee Steering Group Chair Armstrong, FOSS Task Group on Alternative Organizations Chair Fink, and Board Chair Claude Canizares briefed Administrator Goldin and senior NASA management on the findings of the report on September 26, and the Board staff began initial distribution of the document. In all, the 35 members of the four FOSS groups met 21 times over a 12-month period to complete the study.

John A.Armstrong, IBM Corporation (retired) (chair)

Anthony W.England, University of Michigan

Daniel J.Fink, D.J.Fink Associates, Inc.

Ursula W.Goodenough, Washington University

John M.Hedgepeth, Digisim, Inc.

Jeanne E.Pemberton, University of Arizona

William Press, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

P.Buford Price, University of California at Berkeley

Roland W.Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired)

Guyford Stever (retired)

James Wyngaarden, National Institutes of Health (retired)

Marc S.Allen, Study Director

Betty C.Guyot, Administrative Officer

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

Nathaniel B.Cohen, Consultant

The FOSS Task Group on Alternative Organizations (FOSS-AO) met on February 2–3 in Washington, D.C., where the group heard briefings from officials of many government and government-related agencies on organizational structures. Dr. Robert Cooper, a member of the task group and former director of ARPA, described ARPA’s history and operating principles. Dr. Anita Jones, director of Defense Research and Engineering, described the structure and decision-making hierarchy within the Department of Defense (DoD). Mr. Robert Winokur, NOAA/ NESDIS, described the NOAA structure and the future distribution of responsibilities between NOAA, NASA, and DoD on NPOESS. Dr. Ruth Kirschstein, deputy director of the NIH, described the 24-institutes system of the NIH.

Dr. Stamatios (Tom) Krimigis, space science director for the Applied Physics Laboratory, presented an overview of the laboratory. Dr. Robert LaFande, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), described the NRL as a very hands-on operation, with an almost medieval guild character among the staff, ranging from apprentice to master craftsman. Mr. Ian Pryke, head of the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Washington office, briefed the task group on the structure of ESA. Dr. Harry Holloway, NASA associate administrator for life and microgravity sciences and applications, talked about moving the life and microgravity sciences into the Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise in NASA’s strategic plan, and out of the Scientific Research Enterprise, which has been renamed the Space Science Enterprise. Dr. John Klineberg, director of Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), spoke concerning space science activities at GSFC. Mr. Alan Ladwig, NASA associate administrator for the Office of Policy and Plans, spoke about the purpose and function of this new office.

The task group’s second meeting was on March 10–11 at the Beckman Center, where the group continued to hear briefings on agencies’ structures. Mr. Ray Colladay of Lockheed Martin described ideas for revitalizing NASA’s technology program. Dr. Martin Blume, a member of the task group and deputy director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, described the science management system in the Department of Energy. During executive session, the group discussed problems in NASA’s science organization and management. Recommendations that would use NASA’s current downsizing to the agency’s advantage were identified. The meeting was concluded by making writing assignments and deciding whom to invite to the next meeting.

The third meeting was held on March 27–28 in Washington, D.C. Dr. Edward Stone, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), briefed the group on the JPL infrastructure and its relationship with NASA. Dr. John Mansfield, NASA associate administrator for space access and technology, briefed the committee on the Space Technology Enterprise Integrated Technology Plan. Dr. Walter Morrow, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Lincoln Laboratory, described the laboratory, whose mission is to develop new technology for DoD. Dr. William Miller, currently at West Virginia University and previously director of the Office of Naval Research and commander of Naval Research, described the relationship between the Navy scientific headquarters organization and its field centers. Dr. Lew Allen, past director of JPL and currently a director of the Draper Laboratory, addressed the committee by videoconference regarding the JPL model for a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) laboratory. Dr. Lennard Fisk, previously NASA associate administrator for space science and applications, gave his perspective on past and possible future NASA science organizations. NASA Deputy Administrator John Dailey discussed the reengineering efforts at NASA. During executive session, the group continued listing perceived problems, the pros and cons of the present science organization, and the respective responsibilities of NASA Headquarters and its field centers. There was also some discussion regarding the NASA internal “red team white paper.” The group discussed the pros and cons of the JPL model and an institute model. Principles important to science organization and management were identified, and the meeting concluded with the delegation of additional writing assignments to members and staff.

The task group met twice during the second quarter. At an April 18–19 meeting in Washington, D.C., the task group discussed several issues of importance to establishing a workable organizational structure. Among these issues were the roles of the chief scientist, Science Council, institutes, and technology. Dr. John Naugle joined the task group by teleconference to report on his experiences as former chief scientist at NASA. He presented a brief overview of the position and left the committee with several questions to consider. Dr. Timothy Coffey from the Naval Research Laboratory was also in attendance and presented his view of how privatization of NASA science could be undertaken. His thoughts were based on a past analysis of potentially privatizing NRL. More writing assignments were made at the end of the meeting.

The task group met again on May 24–25 in Washington, D.C. NASA Chief Scientist France Cordova, Dr. Harry Holloway, and Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth Charles Kennel joined the committee to review the results of NASA’s Zero Base Review team. In addition, the task group discussed details of the report and began to assemble the full text of recommendations and observations. Completion of its contribution to the final report was accomplished via teleconferences and electronic communication.

Daniel J.Fink, D.J.Fink Associates, Inc. (chair)

Martin Blume, Brookhaven National Laboratory

John F.Cassidy, United Technologies Research Center

Robert S.Cooper, Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corporation

Gerald P.Dinneen, National Academy of Engineering

Harold B.Finger, General Electric Company (retired)

Noel W.Hinners, Lockheed Martin Astronautics

Thomas E.Malone, Association of American Medical Colleges (retired)

Norine E.Noonan, Florida Institute of Technology

James R.Thompson, Jr., Orbital Sciences Corporation

Arthur B.C.Walker, Jr., Stanford University

Sidney C.Wolff, National Optical Astronomy Observatories

Marc S.Allen, Study Director

Richard C.Hart, former Study Director

Erin C.Hatch, Research Assistant

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

Nathaniel B.Cohen, Consultant

The FOSS Task Group on Research Prioritization (FOSS-RP) held a teleconference on January 9 to discuss the status of the conclusions reached to date. Notes on the hierarchy of priority and goal setting, as well as on the processes at each step, were prepared by Chair Roland Schmitt and circulated to the group a few days in advance. The group used these notes and expanded on them by discussing the ordering of priorities and criteria that should be used at each step. The teleconference ended with tasks assigned to members and staff.

On February 21–22 the task group convened in Washington, D.C. Mr. Alan Ladwig briefed the group on objectives of the Office of Policy and Plans in NASA’s reinvention process. During executive session, there was much discussion contrasting priority setting within disciplines with priority setting on an interdisciplinary and agency-wide basis. The role of the Board in setting priorities was discussed at length, including what importance should be given at this level to mission costs. The group developed lists of possible criteria for the use of disciplinary committees and factors related to the composition of committees that establish goals. Previous NASA priority-setting methods, including the 1991 “Woods Hole Process,” were examined and contrasted with the present situation, and the group developed criteria that would apply to a NASA-level prioritization. The meeting concluded with a discussion on differences among the six NASA scientific disciplines. It was decided that different disciplines might necessitate different methods for prioritization. Writing assignments for summary papers on how past disciplinary priority efforts worked were given to members and staff.

The task group gathered for a final meeting on June 5–6 in Washington, D.C. The goal of the meeting was to develop an organizational system that would prioritize science projects and goals while also taking into account other political and social factors. At the beginning of the meeting Chair Schmitt presented a general outline for a four-tier organization suitable to such a process. Modification of the proposal continued as the task group evaluated the full practicality of such a general system and put it through several tests. The task group used teleconferences and electronic mail to finalize its proposals and recommendations.

Roland W.Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired) (chair)

William F.Brinkman, AT&T Bell Laboratories

Larry W.Esposito, University of Colorado at Boulder

Robert A.Frosch, Harvard University

David J.McComas, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Christopher F.McKee, University of California at Berkeley

Morton B.Panish, AT&T Bell Laboratories (retired)

Carlé M.Pieters, Brown University

Rudi Schmid, University of California at San Francisco

Eugene B.Skolnikoff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Marc S.Allen, Study Director

Richard C.Hart, former Study Director

Erin C.Hatch, Research Assistant

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

Nathaniel B.Cohen, Consultant

The FOSS Task Group on Technology (FOSS-T) met at JPL on February 23–24, the first of three meetings at NASA centers intended to educate the group about NASA’s processes for developing new technology for space science and for inserting new technologies into its missions. JPL’s senior management participated in the meeting and responded to questions from the task group. JPL briefed the committee on technology requirements, technology development, technology infusion, technology transfer, and lowering the cost of flight projects, and provided tours of some of its special facilities. The JPL meeting provided an opportunity to learn about some new NASA programs that use new technology, such as the New Millennium and the Mars Pathfinder programs, and their relationship to the agency’s increased emphasis on using new technology in its missions. Questions were raised about the sources of funding and expertise to develop the new technology for new-technology-based missions. A major issue discussed by JPL representatives and the task group was the disconnect between technology development projects started at the Office of Space Access and Technology and the science offices, especially the Office of Space Science. The meeting was concluded by JPL’s mentioning that since the release of the NRC’s report Improving NASA’s Technology for Space Science, JPL has added a project technologist to its projects, owing partly to the recommendations made in the report.

The task group met at NASA’s Lewis Research Center on March 30–31 for the second of its three planned visits to NASA centers. The purpose of the visit was to learn about the technology work sponsored there by the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications and the Office of Space Access and Technology. The task group was introduced to the capabilities of the center by Director Donald Campbell and received a day and a half of briefings and tours that concentrated on Lewis’ traditional strengths in space technology (power, communications, and propulsion) and microgravity sciences (especially transport phenomena, fluid mechanics, and combustion).

During the second quarter, the task group met in Washington, D.C., and at the Goddard Space Flight Center on April 24–26, and again in Washington, D.C., on June 5–6. At the April meeting in Washington, D.C., the task group met with the associate administrators of the Offices of Space Science (Dr. Huntress), Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (Dr. Holloway), Mission to Planet Earth (Dr. Kennel), and Space Access and Technology (Dr. John Mansfield), along with other key officials. This meeting was held to discuss the planning and programs under way at NASA for developing and infusing new technology into NASA’s space science missions and programs. The meeting at GSFC was among the task group members and the departing center director (Dr. John Klineberg) and his staff. This meeting was held in order to learn about the GSFC projects to develop technology for space science and Earth science missions. The June 5–6 meeting was an executive session for reaching a consensus on the report’s main findings and recommendations. The task group completed its input for submission to the FOSS Steering Group on June 30.

Anthony W.England, University of Michigan (co-chair)

John M.Hedgepeth, Digisim, Inc. (co-chair)

Joseph P.Allen, Space Industries International, Inc.

Robert P.Caren, Lockheed Corporate Headquarters

John J.Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc.

James W.Head III, Brown University

John M.Logsdon, George Washington University

Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University

Judith Pipher, University of Rochester

Alfred Schock, Orbital Sciences Corporation

Henry Plotkin, Technical Advisor

Noel E.Eldridge, Study Director

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

The Task Group on Biological Effects of Space Radiation, a subpanel of the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, held its first meeting on November 13–15, in Washington, D.C., to begin work on its task to identify the research needed to reduce the risk and uncertainty of radiation hazards to humans on extended, deep-space missions. After opening remarks by task group Chair Richard Setlow, the general session began with a short talk by Dr. Harry Holloway, associate administrator for life and microgravity sciences and applications, regarding the type of information NASA hoped to obtain from the study. Dr. Holloway stressed the need for a concrete research plan, with timetables, that would allow NASA to be ready for a piloted mission to Mars in the year 2018. Both this presentation, and one given by NASA’s Deputy Director of Life Sciences Frank Sulzman, helped the task group sharpen the focus of its task. Dr. Walter Schimmerling, of NASA’s Life Sciences and Applications Division, gave a presentation on the design of NASA’s radiation research program. The task group also heard several presentations on the status of NASA radiation research and the agency’s current understanding of radiation hazards.

The task group went into executive session at midmorning of the second day to discuss various technical issues relating to research in this field, including an apparent controversy among radiation investigators about the validity and applicability of various published data sets. The task group agreed on a detailed outline of the report, as well as a preliminary list of areas of recommended research. Writing assignments were made, with provisions for sections of the report to be drafted in the coming weeks and integrated prior to the next meeting. Task group members would confer with each other and members of the research community regarding the available data during this drafting phase. A tentative schedule of meetings was agreed on.

Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory (chair)

John F.Dicello, Jr., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

R.J.Michael Fry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

John B.Little, Harvard School of Public Health

R.Julian Preston, Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology

James B.Smathers, University of California at Los Angeles

Robert L.Ulrich, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

Sandra J.Graham, Study Director

Shobita Parthasarathy, Research Assistant

Victoria Friedensen, Administrative Assistant

Revision of the final report of the Task Group on Priorities in Space Research (TGPSR), Setting Priorities for Space Research: An Experiment in Methodology, was completed, and the report was published and disseminated (Section 3.8).

John A.Dutton, Pennsylvania State University (chair)

Philip H.Abelson, American Association for the Advancement of Science

William P.Bishop, Desert Research Institute

Lawson Crowe, University of Colorado at Boulder

Peter Dews, Harvard Medical School (retired)

Angelo Guastaferro, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc.

Molly K.Macauley, Resources for the Future

Thomas A.Potemra, Johns Hopkins University

Arthur B.C.Walker, Jr., Stanford University

Marc S.Allen, Study Director

Joyce M.Purcell, former Study Director

Carmela J.Chamberlain, Administrative Assistant

The Task Group on BMDO’s New Technology Orbital Observatory (TGBNTOO) completed its report, A Scientific Assessment of a New Technology Orbital Telescope, which was published in mid-September and distributed to interested parties in the DoD, NASA, and the scientific community (Section 3.5).

Michael F.A’Hearn, University of Maryland (chair)

Roger Angel, University of Arizona

Anita Cochran, University of Texas at Austin

James L.Elliot, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Christ Ftaclas, Hughes Danbury Optical Systems

Garth D.Illingworth, University of California at Santa Cruz

Holland C.Ford, Johns Hopkins University, liaison from Space Telescope Science Institute

David H.Smith, Study Director

Altoria B.Ross, Administrative Assistant

Formed with close cooperation by the NRC Board on Physics and Astronomy, the Task Group on Gravity Probe B (TGGPB) met three times on a fast-track schedule. The task group first met at Stanford University on January 10–12 to begin its review of the NASA general relativity mission Gravity Probe B (GP-B). The initial meeting included extensive briefings by Drs. Francis Everitt, Bradford Parkinson, and other members of the Stanford-Lockheed team on scientific and technical aspects of the proposed GP-B mission. Guest speakers Drs. Kip Thorne and Irwin Shapiro provided additional comment via videoconference on the scientific significance of the mission. In addition to receiving briefings, the task group toured facilities at both Stanford and Lockheed.

The second meeting of the task group was held in Washington, D.C., on February 10–11. At this meeting, NASA Administrator Goldin described his expectations for the study and how he intended to use the advice provided by the task group. Drs. Charles Townes, Roger Blandford, David Wilkinson, and Doyal Harper spoke to the task group about other NASA missions, such as SIRTF, SOFIA, and COBE. Drs. Everitt and Parkinson responded to new technical questions that had arisen following the January review.

On March 3–4 the task group met in Washington, D.C., to prepare its final report. Following a presentation by Dr. B. Lange on an experiment concept proposed as an alternative to GP-B, the task group discussed the issues in its charge and drafted a preliminary document describing its response.

The final report, Review of Gravity Probe B, was delivered to NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on May 15, and task group Co-Chairs Val Fitch and Joseph Taylor and Space Studies Board Chair Claude Canizares briefed Mr. Goldin and key administrators (Section 3.3).

Val L.Fitch, Princeton University (co-chair)

Joseph H.Taylor, Jr., Princeton University (co-chair)

Eric B.Adelberger, University of Washington

Gerard W.Elverum, Jr., TRW Space and Technology Group (retired)

David G.Hoag, C.S. Draper Laboratory (retired)

Francis E.Low, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John C.Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Richard E.Packard, University of California at Berkeley

Robert C.Richardson, Cornell University

Stuart L.Shapiro, Cornell University

Mark W.Strovink, University of California at Berkeley

Clifford M.Will, Washington University

Ronald D.Taylor, Study Director

Susan G.Campbell, Administrative Assistant

Angela C.Logan, Project Assistant