Space Studies Board Annual Report 2006 (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6.2 A Review of NASA's 2006 Draft Science Plan
6.2 A Review of NASA's 2006 Draft Science Plan
Pages 66-92
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 66... ...
Provide recommendations related to planetary protection issues associated with the return to Earth of samples from Venus; and 3. Identify scientific investigations that may be required to reduce uncertainty in the above assessments.
|
From page 67... ...
has a long track record of assessing the biological potential of Venus and making recommendations concerning appropriate planetary protection guidelines for Venus missions. In 1970, for example, the SSB's predecessor, the Space Science Board, commented as follows: A slight possibility exists that terrestrial organisms could grow on airborne particles near to the cloud tops of Venus.
|
From page 68... ...
The most recent NRC study of the planetary protection requirements for Venus missions was issued in 1972. It commented as follows: Two values of probability of growth are used for Venus, one for the planet surface, the other for its atmosphere. Prior to the proposed new quarantine policy these values stood at Pg(surface)
|
From page 69... ...
Thus, a reexamination of the planetary protection requirements for Venus missions is appropriate at this time. TOPICS CONSIDERED BY THE TASK GROUP The task group considered the following topics: • Origins of life -- What does our current understanding of the origins and early evolution of life on Earth tell us about the possible origins of life on Venus?
|
From page 70... ...
Thus, genetic and other physiologic determinants necessary for life on Earth could not function on Venus, nor would biological determinants that evolved on Venus be expected to function on Earth. Planetary Protection Issues Past planetary protection studies have repeatedly addressed the importance of a scientifically sound assessment of what is known and a conservative approach to the unknowns.
|
From page 71... ...
PLANETARY PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with international treaty obligations, NASA maintains a planetary protection policy to avoid the cross-contamination of Earth and extraterrestrial bodies by spaceflight missions (see Attachment 2)
|
From page 72... ...
Without such guidance, NASA cannot provide the appropriate guidelines to mission designers, nor can it establish operational procedures for future Venus missions. NASA states that its planetary protection policy serves the following goals: • To preserve planetary conditions for future biological- and organic-constituent exploration; and • To protect Earth and its biosphere from potential extraterrestrial sources of contamination.
|
From page 73... ...
Recommendations In light of the above conclusions, the task group recommends that the Category II planetary protection classification of Venus be retained. Although there are many important scientific investigations to be carried out to improve understanding and knowledge of Venus, the task group does not recommend any scientific investigations for the specific purpose of reducing uncertainty with respect to planetary protection issues.
|
From page 74... ...
recommendations in recent reports; • Attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance; • Utility to stakeholders in the scientific community; and • General readability and clarity of presentation. In response to your request, the ad hoc Committee on Review of NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan was established and met July 11-13, 2006, in Washington, D.C., to review the draft Science Plan.
|
From page 75... ...
In addition, although the committee makes discipline-specific recommendations for the planetary and Earth sciences, it stresses that the astrophysics and heliophysics sections of the draft plan are also addressed in the more general recommendations and require equal attention. The committee's recommendations on the implementation and viability of the draft NASA Science Plan follow: 1.
|
From page 76... ...
NASA/SMD should incorporate into its Science Plan the recommendations of the NRC Earth science decadal survey interim report,4 and should incorporate the recommendations of the Earth science decadal survey final report when it is completed.
|
From page 77... ...
2For the most recent NRC reviews see "Assessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy," letter report, 2003, and "As sessment of NASA's Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy," letter report, 2003. 3The NRC decadal surveys have been widely used by the scientific community and by program decision makers because they (a)
|
From page 78... ...
Although the NRC has produced decadal surveys in astronomy and astrophysics for four decades, equivalent surveys in the other disciplines have been instituted more recently. The first Earth science decadal survey is currently underway, with the final report due in December 2006, and will not be complete in time for consideration in the final version of the current NASA Science Plan.
|
From page 79... ...
This requires that the purely scientific priorities of such diverse and necessary fields as astronomy, heliophysics, planetary science, and all the subdisciplines of Earth science (e.g., meteorology versus earthquake prediction) must be weighed against one another in a convincing manner.
|
From page 80... ...
This is discussed in the section below titled "Threats to Science Plan Execution." • Planetary science. The planetary decadal survey called for significant technology development and "an increase over the decade in the funding for fundamental research and analysis programs at a rate above inflation that parallels the increase in the number of missions, amount of data, and diversity of objects studied." The draft Science Plan does not respond to these recommendations.
|
From page 81... ...
While the committee recognizes that strategies for Earth science will be developed in the upcoming decadal survey, their absence in the current draft Science Plan means that including them in NASA's plans will require significant programmatic changes. The committee notes that implementation of full-cost accounting at NASA has had a deleterious and unanticipated effect on science execution and balance.
|
From page 82... ...
Examples include the instigation of the decadal survey for Earth sciences and applications from space, recommended by the NRC in 2003.10 The agency also adopted 2005 NRC advice to conduct senior reviews of extended Earth observing missions to determine if such missions were worth continuing or had outlived their usefulness.11 The committee commends NASA for responses by the agency to issues raised in previous recent NRC reviews of NASA science plans. Two prior reviews of Space Science Enterprise plans12 and the 2003 review of the Earth Science Enterprise plan all cited the lack of explicit discussion of priorities and resources in those plans as weakening their utility for decision making.13 The 2006 NASA Science Plan does address explicit priorities for spaceflight missions, and it does indicate that the plan is based on budget projections outlined in NASA's FY 2007 budget request.
|
From page 83... ...
boundaries: lunar exploration, astrobiology, and Earth sciences. The committee believes that all three need additional attention within the draft Science Plan.
|
From page 84... ...
The draft plan does not mention or take account of NASA's Astrobiology Roadmap, which is the primary source of information on the field and its scientific objectives, as defined by the community. The committee suggests that this roadmap be included in the Science Plan as a list or table.15 The text box in Chapter 6 of the draft plan asserts that while the Planetary Science Division provides the institutional home for the core astrobiology R&A program, integrating its efforts, answers are pursued in the research programs and flight missions of "all four SMD Divisions." The committee could find no explicit mention of astrobiology programs or missions in the Earth science or heliophysics sections.
|
From page 85... ...
In short, the Earth science section does not provide the historical context for Earth remote sensing and does not appropriately capture the significance of NASA's accomplishments to date in Earth remote sensing. The committee notes that the Earth science section of the draft plan appears to reflect less community input than other sections, and trusts that this will be rectified following publication of the Earth science decadal survey.
|
From page 86... ...
The committee is concerned that the draft Science Plan suggests that NASA is waiting for the expected decadal survey, when the agency needs a more coordinated effort to develop its Earth systems science strategy now. The Earth science fiscal situation has deteriorated since the interim report was released, specifically due to cuts to R&A programs, degradation of existing missions, and the current turmoil in the NPOESS program.
|
From page 87... ...
The Balance report concluded that "the major missions in space and Earth science are being executed at costs well in excess of those estimated at the time when the missions were recommended in the National Research Council's decadal surveys for their disciplines. Consequently, the orderly planning process that has served the space and Earth science communities well has been disrupted, and balance among large, medium, and small missions has been difficult to maintain" (p.
|
From page 88... ...
If the problem is not successfully addressed, the committee believes there are very real prospects that SMD will be faced with having to abandon either flagship missions or the ability to execute a balanced program. Therefore the committee fully concurs with and reiterates the recommendation of the Balance report that "NASA should undertake independent, systematic, and comprehensive evaluations of the cost-to-complete of each of its space and Earth science missions that are under development, for the purpose of determining the adequacy of budget and schedule" (p.
|
From page 89... ...
This is especially true for Earth science and heliophysics, which are working toward developing operational models, but the draft plan does not present a plan and a schedule for achieving them. The committee recommends that NASA develop a strategic plan to address computing and modeling needs, including data stewardship and information systems.
|
From page 90... ...
The committee finds that the draft NASA Science Plan successfully demonstrates that a major NASA objective is conducting scientific research to advance the fundamental understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe beyond. Portions of the plan do an excellent job of outlining the reasons that NASA carries out science missions.
|
From page 91... ...
In addition, although the committee makes discipline-specific recommendations for the planetary and Earth sciences, it stresses that the astrophysics and heliophysics sections of the draft plan are also addressed in the more general recommendations and require equal attention. The committee's recommendations on the implementation and viability of the draft NASA Science Plan are as follows: 1.
|
From page 92... ...
NASA/SMD should incorporate into its Science Plan the recommendations of the NRC Earth science decadal survey interim report,25 and should incorporate the recommendations of the Earth science decadal survey final report when it is completed.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.