4
Opportunities for Partnerships
Each of the four science disciplines within the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is reliant on core partnerships with other NASA divisions and directorates, other federal and international agencies, and commercial entities for successful implementation of at least some component of their activities. The draft Science Plan includes a summary discussion of some of these partnerships in the section “Extending Partnerships Domestically and Internationally.”1 This brief section highlights, for example, the importance of the coordination of ground- and space-based observations and associated modeling activities undertaken by various mission and research agencies. In addition, public-private partnerships—both in the traditional area of launch services and in new areas, such as the hosting of scientific payloads on commercial communications satellites—are discussed.2 Nevertheless, there are key aspects that are still missing and are highlighted below.
The draft Science Plan mentions several of the Heliophysics Division’s collaborative partnerships that will enable the achievement of goals mentioned in the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey.3 Fruitful examples include the ongoing Hinode and Solar Orbiter missions with Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and European Space Agency (ESA), respectively. Future options for missions of opportunity (e.g., Solar-C with JAXA) are under consideration but are not specifically mentioned in the draft Science Plan. Space weather was a major emphasis of the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey, and the draft Science Plan does a good job discussing how heliophysics is the science that underpins space weather. The plan highlights the opportunity and need for cooperation and partnerships with entities beyond the Heliophysics Division for “protecting the planet,” but largely in the context of space weather events, with little attention given to space climate and the issue of continuity of measurements. As in the case with the discussion of Earth science, the draft Science Plan does not adequately address the transition of space weather research to operations and vice versa.
In Planetary Science, while the interactions with other disciplinary divisions are adequately discussed, mostly in the context of interdisciplinary activities, the interactions with the Space Technology Mission Directorate and the Office of the Chief Technologist (see Chapter 6) and with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) need better delineation and clarification. While activities aboard the International Space Station (ISS) and the Asteroid Redirect Mission and associated programs are mentioned at several places,4 the interactions with HEOMD are not clearly discussed. Interactions and possible collaborative activities, such as the Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute, asteroid discovery and characterization, and the role of the Joint Robotic Precursor Activity should be mentioned. Despite recent challenges in international relationships due to mission cancellations, evolving administration priorities, and the general perception that NASA is an unreliable partner, the Planetary Science Division (PSD) has made remarkable progress in rebuilding relationships and establishing partnerships. The draft Science Plan adequately represents the current state of these partnerships. The plan does not, however, articulate the current relationships between PSD and commercial and private entities, such as with the B612 Foundation’s Sentinel mission in the search and characterization of near-Earth asteroids.5 Similarly, relationships with other federal agencies are not included, such as those resulting from the memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Air Force over release of bolide data—i.e., extremely bright meteor trails spotted by national security spacecraft designed
to detect nuclear detonations and provide early warning of ICBM launches—to the science community for analysis or with the National Science Foundation on ground-based telescopes, notably Arecibo.
The draft Science Plan documents that the Astrophysics Division is engaged in a number of international partnerships, e.g. work on instruments for ESA’s Euclid, and the soft X-ray Spectrometer for JAXA’s Astro-H. NASA’s 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan recognizes that both the International X-ray Observatory and Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) were to have been partnerships with ESA and that LISA may still be done this way.6 The draft Science Plan does not clarify whether these partnerships are still to be implemented. In addition, the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey specifically calls for proactive coordination, such as a 5-year regular meeting with the international science community. It is unclear if this decadal recommendation is being implemented.
SMD’s Earth Science Division has no defined pathway to transition capabilities to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In fact the paradigm of “research to operation” is failing as reflected by the transfer of the NOAA climate sensors back to NASA. The implication of the budgetary stress caused by SMD’s new responsibility from NOAA is not clearly delineated. Furthermore, the description of the utilization of the ISS for Earth science is presented as an example of an interdisciplinary activity. However, aside from a few notations within the tables in the rest of the text, the link between HEOMD’s ISS operations and the Earth Science Divisions missions, or the rationale for such a link, is largely absent.
In summary, the discussion of key partnerships in the draft Science Plan is incomplete. In particular, there is a lack of clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of partners within and outside of NASA.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should include a clearer discussion of the roles and responsibilities of Science Mission Directorate with respect to partners within NASA (e.g., Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, Space Technology Missions Directorate and Office of the Chief Technologist) as well as outside of NASA (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, U.S. Air Force, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, and commercial and private entities), including with international agencies (e.g., European Space Agency, Indian Space Research Organization, and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency).
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, pp. 8, 15, 16, 26, 27, 30, and 41.
2. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 6.
3. National Research Council. 2013. Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 67-74.
4. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, box on p. 60.
5. See B612 Foundation, Sentinel Mission, available at http://b612foundation.org/sentinel-mission/, accessed on November 19, 2013.
6. LISA and IXO have been rescoped as e-LISA and Athena in Europe.
