Review of NASA Office of Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan: Letter Report (2003)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

ASSESSMENT OF NASA’S DRAFT 2003 SPACE SCIENCE ENTERPRISE STRATEGY 9 analysis,23 and the Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos report noted that “it is essential that an interagency initiative on the physics of the universe maintain a balanced approach that provides opportunities for investigator- initiated experiments, detector R&D, theoretical work, and computational efforts that address the committee’s scientific questions.”24 If the recommended theory elements are not included in the document, the OSS should discuss the alternatives to or consequences of this decision. As currently structured, the minimal description of ground-based research creates an imbalance with the focus on spaceflight missions. Another important aspect of balance within theme areas is the ability of researchers to interpret data from multiple spacecraft (box, page 14). The recognition of the importance of R&A by the science community led to arguments for the development of the National Virtual Observatory (NVO) and the parallel Virtual Solar Observatory (VSO). From the perspective of planning future observations, however, the OSS document should address observations from multiple space and ground-based observatories and how researchers can access such data. For example, the 2001 NRC report Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA’s Earth and Space Science Mission Data states: The successful implementation of methods for making complex queries of multiple databases is likely to be technically challenging and costly. The level of appropriate investment by NASA in federated data systems should be evaluated at regular intervals and should be based on 1) the importance of the scientific questions that can be addressed through the simultaneous mining of multiple databases, 2) demonstrated scientific return from past investments, and 3) the readiness of computational and communications technology to support data mining.25 Interagency and International Participation The OSS document discusses the participation of interagency and international partners in the OSS program (pages 11, 51, and 64–70). The OSS and NASA collaborate with a host of U.S. federal agencies, nations, and organizations, all of which the document recognizes as providing valuable contributions to the OSS program. There are, however, functions within these partnerships that the Board did not see mentioned in the document. In interagency partnerships, for instance, the Board saw no mention of the cooperation between NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), which was recommended by the SSE survey and addressed by the National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (NAAAC).26 Also, in the description of NASA’s cooperation with the Department of Commerce, the Board did not see any reference to the many areas for NASA-NOAA collaboration on research in solar and space physics in support of space weather applications, as recommended in the SSP survey.27 Considering the importance of international cooperation in the OSS’s history, the draft document could be improved by providing additional context as to how the OSS program, especially the flight missions, relate to non-U.S. programs. One sees mention of foreign-led missions such as Solar-B and BepiColumbo; however, discussion on the