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 10 gaps, overlaps, and synergies of the OSS program vis-à-vis major non-U.S. space science programs would provide a broader perspective. The document also mentions the operational aspects of international cooperation and describes NASA’s interactions with the Department of State on matters related to international agreements, interagency reviews, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The ITAR has raised serious concerns about impediments to international cooperation28 such as problems some foreign scientists encounter in gaining access to critical discussions on international missions in which they are involved.29 Many scientists also face significant difficulties in trying to obtain visas to the United States. The Board is aware of NASA’s ongoing efforts to address the impediments to cooperation under ITAR requirements and believes that reference to such past and planned activities would address a critical aspect of the OSS’s ability to facilitate international cooperation among scientists and to conduct joint missions with foreign partners. It is also important that the OSS recognize and address the problems foreign scientists face in seeking visas to the United States. INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SCIENCE PROGRAM The Board believes that the linkages between technology development and science objectives in the draft OSS document are sound and well done. The individual discussions of technology development in some theme areas, however, could be strengthened. For example, some important new technologies and hardware development capabilities are omitted,30 and further details on descriptions of some processes associated with technology development and time lines for those developments would strengthen the document.31 In addition, the technological needs of astrobiology are not discussed in any depth and are only highlighted on page 53. Many of the technologies referenced have no specific relevance to astrobiology, but other critical technologies are not articulated in the document. For example, the document does not mention the miniaturization of analytical instruments (“labs on a chip”) for the analysis of organic compounds, including their chirality and isotopic composition, which is essential to the search for life elsewhere in the solar system. The search for life is a primary driver in the OSS document. A strategy for the development of technology for observing biosignatures and life detection should be articulated. For sample return missions, details about capabilities, required technologies associated with planetary protection, and construction time lines are not provided for curation and handling facilities. OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH Representatives of the OSS reported during the Board’s meeting on March 24, 2003, that the Education and Public Outreach (EPO) sections of the OSS draft document will be rewritten. The Board agrees that the EPO sections can be improved significantly and offers suggestions for the next version. For example, the connection between the actions described on page 20 of the EPO section and the bullets on page 21 could be