National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan (2013)

Chapter: B--Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues

« Previous: A--Letter of Request
Suggested Citation:"B--Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18609.
×

B

Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues

As explained in Chapter 8, the draft Science Plan contains numerous factual errors and other minor issues requiring attention. These errors and issues need to be corrected for better readability and clarity. The following are some examples:

•   Page 3—“Mars is our nearest neighbor…” Venus is the nearest planet to the Earth.

•   Page 12 (and 93)—“Solar System Exploration and Research Virtual Institute” is referred to as the “Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute” on page 55

•   The text: “…Analysis Groups, whose Chairs sit as members of the Science Committee’s subcommittees” needs to be modified because this is no longer the case.

•   Page 14—“NASA and ESA are moving to coordinate plans for Mars exploration, the next strategic mission to the Jupiter system, and the priority Astrophysics and Heliophysics missions…” This text reads as though it was copied from the 2010 Science Plan.

•   Page 15-16—The text does not distinguish between the different types of the Falcon 9. The flight expected in 2013 was the Falcon 9 version 1.1. The Falcon 9 itself had its first launch much earlier.

•   Page 16-17—No mention of the James Webb Space Telescope is made in the section on Mission Cost Estimation and Management.

•   Page 17—“Missions that required a cost re-baseline… the final overruns were small, within 5% deviation, and less than 5 months of a launch delay.” It is incorrect to include the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) in this list.

•   Page 18—“By precluding the dissemination of information to foreign colleagues and foreign students and researchers at U.S. universities, ITAR hampers the universities’ collaborative environment…” This sentence suggests that ITAR only impacts universities. ITAR also impacts NASA’s ability to work with the space agencies of our ally nations (Canada, France, Germany, etc.).

•   Pages 19, 32, and 60—Space weather is defined three times, and the definitions are not consistent.

•   Page 22—“This space environment is very different then…” should be “This….is very different than….”

•   Page 29—Reference to “Table 4.2a” should be a reference to “Table 4.1a.”

•   Pages 37 and 38—The end of the Jason mission is not reflected in the graphics or in the number of missions.

•   Page 38—OCO is a foundational mission. It had not yet launched at the time of the decadal survey release.

•   Page 38—The text on this page explains the Earth Science Division’s flight portfolio in terms of strategic and competed missions, as well as missions required to meet the nation’s needs for sustained climate and land imaging observations. It is not clear how this terminology relates to the ensuing descriptions of the Earth Systematic Missions Program and the Earth System Science Pathfinder Program, which is then followed by a different set of headings for the Current Missions.

•   Page 39—“National Polar-orbiting Operational Satellite System (NPOESS)” should be “National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)”

Suggested Citation:"B--Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18609.
×

•   Page 40—“… although it cautioned that this could result in an impact pace at which the program will be able to conduct the recommended research.” The meanings of this sentence and the term “impact pace” are unclear.

•   Page 40—“…has called upon NASA to once again take responsibility for the measurements that would have been made by the “NOAA Climate Sensors,”…” It is unclear how these measurements and sensors relate to the Joint Polar Satellite System for which NASA is reimbursed by NOAA.

•   Page 44 and 75—The descriptions of the PACE mission are not consistent.

•   Page 51—“RapidSCAT” is correctly RapidScat.

•   Page 53—“… the dwarf planet Pluto and its putative rings…” The existence of rings around Pluto is not generally accepted.

•   Pages 53, 58, 78, and 81—The spacecraft in the Discovery program are described as being “medium size” or “medium sized” and later described as “small missions” or “medium missions.” A consistent terminology would help the reader.

•   Page 54—It may be inappropriate to include the Mighty Eagle Prototype Robotic Lunar Lander in the list of directed missions in the Lunar Quest Program.

•   Page 55—The Keck telescope observatory is incorrectly listed as a national facility. It is a private observatory.

•   Page 56—The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer mission (LADEE) is not included in the current missions launched in 2013.

•   Page 57—The term “prebiotic chemistry” may be more appropriate than “the origin of life” in the third entry of Table 4.3a.

•   Page 58—MRO is incorrectly identified as having discovered methane on Mars. The detection of methane in the martian atmosphere was reported by ground-based observers and ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft, and remains controversial.

•   Page 58—“NASA will supply portions of two instruments and science team member support [to JUICE].” NASA is supplying one entire instrument and contributions to two European instruments for JUICE.

•   Page 61—The purpose of planetary protection is not just to prevent contamination that might preclude searches for life on other bodies. It is also to maintain the scientific integrity of the study relating to the prebiotic evolution of planetary bodies.

•   Page 61—The Planetary Protection box makes no mention of COSPAR, which is the de facto guardian of the international consensus views on planetary protection.

•   Page 66—The table describes JWST as a recommendation of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey. This is incorrect. It was a recommendation of the 2001 survey.

•   Page 67—The characteristics of a “probe-class mission” are not defined.

•   Pages 77 and 81—The New Frontiers program is described as consisting of “medium missions” on page 77 and of “large missions” in the table on page 81.

•   Page 78—Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSIGHT) is missing from the list of Discovery missions.

•   Page 81—“CYGNESS” is correctly CYGNSS.

•   Page 81—“SAGE?” is listed as an example of a New Frontiers mission. This is inappropriate.

Suggested Citation:"B--Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18609.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"B--Factual Errors and Other Minor Issues." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18609.
×
Page 48
Next: C--Summary of Prior NRC Reviews of NASA Science And Earth Science Plans »
Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $32.00 Buy Ebook | $25.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is engaged in the final stages of a comprehensive, agency-wide effort to develop a new strategic plan at a time when its budget is under considerable stress. SMD's Science Plan serves to provide more detail on its four traditional science disciplines - astronomy and astrophysics, solar and space physics (also called heliophysics), planetary science, and Earth remote sensing and related activities - than is possible in the agency-wide Strategic Plan.

Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan comments on the responsiveness of SMD's Science Plan to the National Research Council's guidance on key science issues and opportunities in recent NRC decadal reports. This study focuses on attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance; identification and exposition of important opportunities for partnerships as well as education and public outreach; and integration of technology development with the science program. The report provides detailed findings and recommendations relating to the draft Science Plan.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!