2
Responsiveness to NRC Guidance
The foundation of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) advice to NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is the set of decadal surveys in astronomy and astrophysics, Earth science and applications from space, planetary science, and solar and space physics (heliophysics). NASA’s science program has clearly demonstrated the success of this strategic planning process, having produced world-class science from a sequence of hundreds of missions that have explored our world, the solar system, and the cosmos. The combined scientific legacy of the program managed by SMD and its predecessor organizations over the past decades is noteworthy.
The purpose of the decadal surveys is to assess through a community-based bottoms-up process the current state of knowledge in a specific discipline; identify and prioritize the most important scientific questions for the next decade; and prioritize ground- (when appropriate) and space-based missions and activities that can address these questions. In addition, all of the decadal surveys published since 2010 include independent assessments of the cost and technical realism for proposed missions and activities. Since the first astronomy survey in the 1960s, the decadal survey process has matured into a robust method for developing a set of goals and objectives for various programs that are based on a community consensus on an achievable suite of science programs in pursuit of high-priority, compelling science questions. The most recent decadal surveys of relevance to this review of SMD’s draft Science Plan are as follows:
• Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society, published in 2013;1
• Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, published in 2011;2
• New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, published in 2010;3 and
• Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, published in 2007.4
In addition to these reports produced on a 10-year cycle, the Space Studies Board also conducts midterm assessments, halfway through the envisioned decade, of NASA’s implementation of the decadal priorities. Given the recent nature of three of the four decadal surveys noted above, the most relevant and recent midterm was carried out for the Earth science decadal survey, resulting in the publication of Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey, published in 2012.5 This committee’s assessment of how SMD’s draft Science Plan responds to NRC guidance is principally based on its analysis of alignment with the goals and objectives of the relevant reports cited above.
Assessment of the draft Science Plan with respect to its responsiveness to and consistency with relevant NRC reports is complicated by the fact that the studies leading to the latter documents were not conducted simultaneously. The oldest report, the Earth science decadal survey, was released in 2007. The most recent reports, solar and space physics decadal survey and the Earth science midterm assessment, were released in 2012. Thus, each study was conducted under a different set of external scientific, programmatic, and budgetary circumstances. Moreover, SMD’s implementation of recommendations contained in each survey has followed a very different evolutional path since it was released. In addition, the four science disciplines display a vast disparity in implementation modalities
and resulting technical issues. That is, Earth science and astrophysics missions are typically confined to the relatively benign conditions in cislunar space, whereas planetary science missions have to traverse interplanetary distances and contend with diverse planetary environments. Factoring in the diverse scientific cultures of the four disciplines and the varying imperatives imposed on each of them by societal imperatives, means that a unified treatment of the responsiveness of the draft Science Plan to NRC recommendations is difficult. Therefore, the next four sections discuss in turn, the responsiveness of the heliophysics, planetary science, astrophysics and Earth science aspects of draft Science Plan. Common themes identified in the four disciplinary sections are then summarized in the concluding section of this chapter.
HELIOPHYSICS
The draft Science Plan describes the objective of heliophysics is “to explore and understand the dynamical processes connecting the Sun and its atmosphere with the Earth and planetary space environments, out through the far reaches of our solar system.”6 Studies of the varying particle and field environments that pervade the solar system are not only of intrinsic scientific interest but also are of direct relevance to society because changes in the interplanetary environment can have damaging consequences to technical infrastructure, such as communications satellites and electrical grids. The solar and space physics community provides a framework for future exploration of our heliosphere through the production of a decadal survey, the most recent of which is Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society.7 The goals noted in the solar and space physics sections of the draft Science Plan are in reasonable agreement with the four key science goals outlined in the 2013 decadal survey that focus on the following: the origins of the Sun’s activity and variations in the space environment; the dynamics and coupling of Earth’s magnetosphere, ionosphere, and atmosphere and their response to solar and terrestrial inputs; the interactions of the Sun with the solar system and the interstellar medium; and fundamental processes within the heliosphere and throughout the universe.8
Decadal Survey Priorities
The first new priority in the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey was the Diversify, Realize, Integrate, Venture, Educate (DRIVE) initiative.9 The Heliophysics division at NASA has reorganized various program elements to respond to the DRIVE initiative; for example, the consolidation of the technology development programs into H-TIDeS is a positive step. Although the high profile given to DRIVE as a concept is aligned with the decadal survey recommendations, the draft Science Plan does not emphasize the potential of DRIVE to lay the groundwork for future missions when the missions themselves are not yet financially feasible. Moreover, as might be expected if the decadal recommendation was being followed, the draft Science Plan does not state that priority will be given to augmentation, instead of just reorganization, of DRIVE program elements. As it is, specific response to the recommended DRIVE program elements is missing in some areas (e.g., laboratory experiments) and vague in others as to what plans, if any, are in place for augmentation (e.g., mission-supporting research, LCAS/tech development, and grand-challenge research). The issues regarding education (the “E” in DRIVE) cut across all disciplines (see Chapter 5).
The second new priority of the 2013 decadal survey was for an acceleration of the Explorer program and regular selection of missions of opportunity. The decadal survey recommended an augmentation to the budget of the Explorer program to enable a launch cadence of one every 2-3 years, but this rate will not be achieved at all if the plan is followed as described. In fact, the cadence of Explorer selections will slow to no more than one every 4 years. Current plans for the Explorer program are attributed to the difficult budget environment. However, the draft Science Plan does not adequately capture the importance of the Explorer program in advancing heliophysics science. The science return of
the Explorer program is great, producing world-class science, helping train and maintain a vibrant community of researchers, and providing regular access to space. The science goal for each Explorer is selected competitively and so cannot be fully specified in the draft Science Plan, but the plan is remiss in not providing an inspiring vision of the broader heliophysics science program. Without a statement of the important science goals that can be achieved by the Explorer program, the program seems less compelling, which may deleteriously impact its success.
Heliophysics and other divisions need to implement moderate strategic missions less expensively. The draft Science Plan does not address the highly relevant decadal survey recommendation to contain cost by changing the mission management strategy for the Solar Terrestrial Probes (STP) program; the decadal survey strongly supported an increased role for principal-investigator (PI)-led, cost-capped STP mission management.
The draft Science Plan does not describe specific metrics for scientific success or achievement other than mission launches. Counts of launches are a necessary but insufficient metric of the level of achievement or success. At the very least, NASA could be tracking papers published and talks given for strategic missions, and individual projects should track the same for PI-led missions. Use of the h-index for projects has been discussed based on application to large organizations, but those results have continued to be contentious.10,11,12 The draft plan does not indicate clearly what science will be achieved. In addition, the draft plan lists broad research questions that are broadly consistent with the science priorities of the decadal survey and gives a description of programs, but provides no meaningful linkage between the two. Such linkages are typically provided by top-level traceability matrices. The science goals for heliophysics (see Appendix A of the draft Science Plan) are of such broad scope that there is no meaningful way to derive meaningful metrics for success. The top-level science questions in Chapter 1 of the plan do not quite reflect everything done by Heliophysics—e.g., specifics concerning the solar wind and outer heliosphere are not represented at the top level—as described in Section 4.1 of the draft Science Plan; an alternative statement of the first question is, Why does the Sun vary, how do planets and the solar system environment respond, and what are the effects of space weather?
The draft Science Plan provides a competent description of the Heliophysics program; however, the committee found the science section to be relatively uninspiring. The plan focuses on programmatic issues, whereas the committee suggests that highlighting the science of each mission would be an improvement. The excitement of, for example, sending a probe deep into the Sun’s atmosphere is not conveyed—a lost opportunity to highlight an inspiring science goal in which NASA is currently investing heavily. The draft Science Plan provides no specific indication for how additional resources would be applied to high-priority science targets, if they were available.
The decadal survey provided a set of decision rules with regard to the Solar Probe-Plus (SPP) mission that were designed to guide the agency in deciding if the mission should be reviewed. The committee notes that a permanent reduction in the overall Heliophysics budget will raise the relative share of division resources committed to the SPP mission. This matter is not discussed in the draft plan nor is that fact that the slowing of the Explorer cadence and delay of the next strategic mission may exceed the trigger points recommended by the decadal survey for a review of the SPP mission in the context of overall program balance.
In summary, the Heliophysics section of the draft Science Plan generally follows the priorities and decision rules of the 2013 decadal survey. NASA’s Heliophysics Division is pressing ahead to implement the zeroth-order goal of the solar and space physics decadal survey—to complete the existing program.
Many of the solar and space physics decadal survey goals are not being implemented. Virtually no resources are available to accomplish anything in the upcoming decade beyond completing missions already in development that were recommended in the 2003 survey.13 The 2013 decadal survey science goals are necessarily being pushed back. The loss of many scientific opportunities is not acknowledged in the draft Science Plan. In addition, the draft Science Plan does not place sufficient emphasis on the scientific potential of the 2013 decadal survey’s DRIVE initiative or the Explorer program.
Recommendation: The draft Science Plan should be amended to include more emphasis on the potential of the DRIVE and Explorer programs to achieve heliophysics science goals, even in challenging times. Explicit priorities for augmentation of these programs should be stated, and program balance with missions should be addressed via the application of the decision rules from the relevant decadal survey. How high-priority science questions might be answered via DRIVE and the Explorer program should be discussed.
Science Balance
The draft Science Plan does not comment on the consequence of budget reductions for discipline balance. The 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey makes clear recommendations to achieve balance in approach, science topics, techniques, and scales of programs. Guiding principles presented in the decadal survey are as follows:
• To make transformational scientific progress the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere should be studied as a coupled system;
• To understand the coupled system requires that each subdiscipline be able to make measurable advances in achieving its highest-priority science goals; and
• Success across the entire field requires that the various elements of solar and space physics research programs . . . be deployed with careful attention to the mix of assets and to the schedule (cadence) that optimizes their utility over time.14
The survey’s recommended program is predicated on working to restore the proper balance over the course of the decade.
Clearly, the delay of all new missions recommended in the decadal survey and their slower cadence makes it impossible to achieve the balance required for the system science. In the face of this difficult reality, it becomes all the more important to exploit the cost effective science return promised by the first two new recommendations of the decadal survey: the implementation of the low-cost DRIVE initiative and the acceleration of the Explorer program. Although the DRIVE initiative and Explorer program are discussed in the draft Science Plan, their potential for achieving Heliophysics science goals, even in challenging times, is not emphasized—something the committee considers to be a lost opportunity to present the compelling nature of the science and its importance to society—key themes of the decadal survey.
As described in the draft Science Plan, there would be insufficient resources available to make balanced progress on the scientific goals laid out by the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey. The draft Science Plan does not adequately account for the negative effects of pursuing an imbalanced program in Heliophysics, without which the Sun, Earth, and heliosphere cannot be studied as the coupled system it is.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should explain how the erosion of the capabilities of the current constellation of heliophysics spacecraft will affect the nation’s ability to accomplish the science goals of the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey and how its full implementation could serve the needs of the nation by developing a more complete understanding of the space environment.
Implications of Reduced Budget for Decadal Survey Implementation
Progress in heliophysics requires simultaneous observations across the entire system as enabled by the aging constellation of spacecraft collectively known as the Heliophysics System Observatory
(HSO). Delaying future missions will inevitably result in gaps in the HSO, thwarting our ability to do system science; for example, understanding of the ionosphere requires knowledge of inputs from above and below. Moreover, planned synergies will not be possible; for example, the first new recommended science mission concept, the Outer Heliosphere Mission—i.e., the mission referred to in the 2013 decadal survey and the Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP)—has synergies with Voyager that are likely to be lost under the current schedule. IMAP’s delay also has an impact on space-weather science as it would provide a much-needed solar wind monitor. The draft Science Plan discusses neither these synergies nor the impacts of their loss.
As laid out in the 2013 decadal survey, the continuity of space weather measurements is essential not only for understanding the variability in geospace, but also for understanding space climate—that is, the long-term variations of the space environment. The draft Science Plan does not discuss how the erosion of HSO capabilities will affect NASA’s ability to accomplish the goals of the decadal survey and serve the needs of the nation.
The draft Science Plan does not discuss any cost saving mission management options that could be pursued, as discussed in the 2013 decadal survey. In addition, the draft plan lacks any kind of statement that would make it clear that the current funding environment precludes a full implementation of the scientific program for heliophysics laid out in the survey. In particular, new missions ranked highly in the survey will necessarily be delayed until missions currently in development can be completed.
PLANETARY SCIENCE
The draft Science Plan describes planetary science as “a grand human enterprise that seeks to understand the history of our solar system and the distribution of life within [it].”15 Achieving these goals has been pursued with missions such as the Voyager spacecraft and the Curiosity mission currently on Mars. The planetary science community provides a framework for future solar system exploration through the production of a decadal survey, the most recent of which is Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022.16 The goals noted in the planetary science section of the draft Science Plan map well to the science priorities of 2011 planetary science decadal survey and its crosscutting themes: building new worlds—understanding solar system beginnings; planetary habitats—searching for the requirements for life; and workings of solar systems—revealing planetary processes through time. However, the committee notes that although general alignment with past planning documents is good, the draft Science Plan fails to note that the recommendations of the 2011 decadal survey—e.g., the initiation of a Europa orbiter mission and a 24-month cadence for the selection of new Discovery missions—are not being followed due to the fiscal constraints imposed on the Planetary Science Division by NASA’s proposed budget for 2014 and beyond.
Decadal Survey Priorities
The sections in the draft Science Plan on missions in development and future missions generally reflect the recommendations from the planetary science decadal survey. One clear omission is a description of the Mars 2020 mission concept and its relationship to the survey-recommended Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher (MAX-C) mission, the highest-ranked strategic (flagship) mission in the 2011 decadal survey. The survey recommended this mission to move forward only if it could be reformulated into a smaller cost box while retaining the preponderance of the mission science goals. Most importantly, the issue of the mission including a caching system for the return of deliverable samples was a formal requirement of the survey, such that the use of “possibly” in the descriptor in Table 4.3b where the goal of the Mars 2020 mission is described is of concern if a goal of the mission is to pursue decadal survey science.
The discussion of the Europa Clipper fails to state that this mission is a rescoped version of the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO),17 also recommended in the 2011 decadal survey. The survey committee found that JEO was scientifically compelling but recommended that if pursued it would have to be descoped because its estimated cost was incompatible with prevailing budgetary expectations. The Europa Clipper appears to retain the ability to address most of the key scientific goals of JEO while being compatible with more constrained budget. It is also worth noting that the Europa Clipper addresses the additional goal of preparing for a future landed mission to explore the surface and interior of Europa for signatures of life, a key factor in the high science ranking of JEO.
The descriptions of the Mars 2020 and Europa Clipper does not mention their clear heritage in the 2011 planetary science decadal survey or show how these missions evolved from the earlier concepts.
Recommendation: A brief discussion of the relationship between the planned Mars 2020 and Europa Clipper missions and the planetary science decadal survey’s Mars Astrobiology Explorer-Cacher and the Jupiter Europa Orbiter should be added to the Science Plan to demonstrate compliance with the survey’s recommendations and to provide an example of how NASA can and does adjust to budget realities while attempting to adhere to decadal survey guidance.
The 2011 decadal survey recommended a 2-year cadence for the release of Announcements of Opportunity (AO) for the Discovery Program. Thus, the draft Science Plan’s discussion limiting the launch of future Discovery missions to the already-selected Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSIGHT) mission in 2016 and a single additional opportunity in 2021 is clearly inconsistent with the decadal survey’s recommendations.18
Science Balance
A clear omission from the discussion of future missions is a full explanation of the planetary science decadal survey’s concept of “balance,” which reflects not just balance across solar system targets, but also balance across mission classes. Under the current fiscal constraints, it is especially important to maintain a balance of small, medium, and large missions that accomplish science objectives while maintaining a healthy cadence of missions. Preserving the standing army of scientists and engineers through an adequate balance of missions will provide support for the planned planetary exploration program and future missions—keeping the excitement of discovery and engagement of the general public. With that in mind, the 2011 planetary science decadal survey also laid out clear decision rules for situations where the budget for planetary sciences activities fall below the level used during the development of the survey. Even as the 2011 decadal survey was officially released, significant cuts in the budget for Planetary Science Division validated the need for such decision rules. These decision rules are not referenced in the draft Science Plan. This omission is unfortunate because the decision rules provide clear guidance to NASA on the path forward in times of budgetary stress. The decadal guidance places primary emphasis on maintaining strong research and analysis (R&A) and technology programs and descoping or delaying large strategic (flagship) missions before interrupting the healthy cadence of small (Discovery) and medium (New Frontiers)-class missions.
The draft Science Plan fails to articulate clearly how NASA intends to achieve balance in its planetary science activities. While the 2011 planetary science decadal survey provides recommendations on balance, including decision rules that provide clear guidance for dealing with a reduced budget environment, these recommendations are notably lacking from the draft Science Plan.
Recommendation: NASA should include a discussion of balance that includes science goals, mission targets, and mission classes and explicitly indicate how these agency choices derive from, or remain at variance with, the decision rules that were clearly laid out in the planetary science
decadal survey and remain the planetary science community’s prioritization criteria for the coming decade. If they are at variance with NASA’s plans, then, in addition, NASA’s rationale for not utilizing these decision rules and prioritization criteria should be stated explicitly.
Implications of Reduced Budget for Decadal Survey Implementation
The FY2013 and FY2014 proposed budgets for NASA’s Planetary Science Division were significantly reduced from prior years and continue to undergo major uncertainty. The FY2013 NASA Planetary Science budget in the President’s request was $1.19 billion. This reduction represented a massive (20 percent) budget cut from FY2012, with considerable consequences for the future of planetary exploration as well as the prospect of achieving the priorities outlined in the 2011 planetary science decadal survey report.19 These reductions jeopardize the continuity of the highly successful Mars Program, indefinitely delay the initiation of the high-priority Europa mission, and reduce the recommended cadence of Discovery and New Frontiers missions, all high priorities of the 2011 decadal survey. They also jeopardize NASA’s scientific exploration of the solar system using current assets, like the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) and Cassini, and the research programs that support the training of the next generation of leaders in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that the United States needs to prosper. The ongoing uncertainty in the level of funding also precludes SMD from conducting the long-term planning needed to develop and implement planetary science missions in a cost-effective manner. The timescale for developing such missions is 5-10 years, and requires stable funding in order to develop a coherent plan for the future that is responsive to the 2011 decadal survey priorities.
The addition of directed activities and/or missions to the planetary science portfolio that were not identified as important or included in the 2011 decadal survey adds challenges to the implementation of the survey that make it more unlikely that they will be accomplished. For example, the 2014 draft Science Plan outlines SMD’s increased efforts toward the detection of near-Earth asteroids, which are a recommendation of an earlier report of the NRC but are not a priority of the 2011 survey for medium or large mission activity, resulting in an additional unfunded mandate against an already eviscerated budget.20
The draft Science Plan does not acknowledge the potential of the deep cuts in funding for the Planetary Science Division to threaten the health of the program of planetary research, technology development, and missions. Additional stresses result from directed activities and missions that are not included in the 2011 planetary science decadal survey.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should explicitly discuss the threats to the implementation of the 2011 planetary science decadal survey recommendations and priorities, demonstrate and describe how the currently proposed plan will support or not support the decadal survey, and present an associated rationale and mitigation plan.
The 2006 NRC report on balance in NASA’s science programs concluded that “major missions in space and Earth science are being executed at costs well in excess of the costs 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 for dealing with historical overruns and schedule slips that has served the space and Earth science communities has been disrupted, and the balance among large, medium, and small missions has been difficult to maintain.”(p. 3)21 Living within the budget estimates for missions is essential. The 2006 NRC report also recommended 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. 3)22 This recommendation by the NRC resulted in the utilization of the so-called CATE (Cost and Technical Evaluation) during the decadal surveys. The CATE process provided the “sticker shock” impetus for NASA to descope the MAX-C mission by almost 50 percent to the Mars 2020 Rover,
and the Jupiter-Europa Orbiter mission to the much less expensive Europa Clipper. It is now incumbent on NASA to take a very rigorous and transparent approach to the implementation of these projects.
The committee applauds the statements in the draft Science Plan that discusses requirements to “establish a budget for each new mission that matches a probable life-cycle cost defined by engineering studies and independent cost estimates”; “providing realistic budget envelopes and mission concept cost estimates as basic input to NRC committees formulating decadal surveys”; “establishing program life-cycle budget at the 70% confidence level”; “obtaining multiple, independently generated internal and external cost estimates”; and “reviewing projects at multiple, formal key decision points that function as gates to the next stage of development.”23 However, these statements only have value if the managers and leaders at NASA Headquarters and the implementing center take them seriously and apply them effectively. As an example, the very recently conducted Mars 2020 Mission Concept Review yielded a CATE estimate of ~$100 million greater than the stated $1.7 billion cap, before the payload has even been selected. This warning flag warrants that NASA exercise extreme vigilance in payload selection and pay particular attention to the “threshold” and “baseline” recommendations. Only by adhering to the rigorous budget management processes described above can NASA avoid the disruptions and potential cancelations caused by overruns in the large strategic missions.
The committee is encouraged by the words in the draft Science Plan on the issue of containing mission costs and feel it would be an important step for NASA to follow the budgetary and management procedures contained therein, including clearly establishing the cost, scope, and complexity of missions during formulation and maintaining rigorous independent reviews and oversight during implementation, as applied to principal-investigator-led missions.
Recommendation: Since the potential of an unconstrained large mission to offset the overall balance of the planetary science program is considerable, the committee recommends that the Science Plan clearly indicate how costs for the Mars 2020 mission will be constrained as the mission evolves toward launch. For example, as soon as the Mars 2020 payload is selected, a decadal-survey-type cost and technical evaluation should be conducted to evaluate whether the scope and budget for Mars 2020 are matched.
ASTROPHYSICS
The draft Science Plan notes that the scope of NASA’s Astrophysics Division “is expansive, ranging from the birth of the universe and the development of stars and galaxies over cosmic time to the search for life on planets orbiting other stars.”24 The astronomy and astrophysics community provides a framework for future exploration of the cosmos through the production of a decadal survey, the most recent of which is New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics25 released in 2010. The draft Science Plan organizes implementation of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey recommendations into three science-focused and two cross-cutting programs, which are summarized with reference to the missions, both existing and in development, that will achieve progress in each area. The scope of SMD’s astrophysics program is well aligned with the three key science objectives for the coming decade outlined in the 2010 decadal survey: searching for the first stars, galaxies, and black holes; seeking nearby habitable planets; and understanding the scientific principles underlying the physics of the universe.26
Decadal Survey Priorities
The draft Science Plan is generally responsive to the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey at a high level, with a description of some initial progress on pursuing the science of the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)—the highest priority large, space-based activity—and also a
description of progress being made in a number of other recommended areas.27 However, details are lacking in the current draft, making it difficult for the committee to judge whether NASA is being responsive to a number of specific decadal survey recommendations.
However, the committee notes that NASA’s Astrophysics Division published an implementation plan in 2012 in response to the significant budget cuts at that time.28 That plan provided a level of detail and specificity with reference to the recommendations of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey that would improve the current draft Science Plan.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should include more detailed, mission-specific plans similar to those found in NASA’s 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan, updated for the current budget reality.
Specific suggestions as to what additional details to include, along the lines of those outlined in 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan, albeit with updates due to the further budget cuts in the interim, are given below.
James Webb Space Telescope
While the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a recommendation of the 2000 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey, the mission will address many of the science goals contained in the 2010 decadal survey,29 albeit at a very great cost—more than $8 billion—to NASA’s space science program. The JWST program has in recent years implemented a number of changes to avoid additional cost growth and schedule slippage. Included in these changes is a new program plan that matched work to available funding, does not defer work to future years, and includes better fiscal and schedule reserves. Nevertheless, it should be noted that even if JWST’s cost had not grown, the project would still likely have had a negative impact on SMD’s Astrophysics Division because of the steady decline in the latter’s budget. The programmatic and scientific implications of the delays and cost overruns from JWST are not made clear in the draft plan.
Budget realities make it virtually impossible for SMD’s Astrophysics Division to begin to implement most of the recommendations contained in the 2010 decadal survey until after the completion and launch of JWST. Moreover, JWST’s cost growth has had a long-term impact on all of SMD’s activities, not just those in the Astrophysics Division. None of these implications are discussed in the plan.
Recommendation: The effect of maintaining the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) launch date on the Science Mission Directorate budget should be described in the Science Plan in the eventuality that either the NASA budget shrinks further or the JWST budget grows.
Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope
The highest-priority, large-scale, space-based recommendation of the 2010 decadal survey was to move forward with a mission known as Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)—an observatory designed to settle essential questions in both exoplanet and dark energy research, and which will advance topics ranging from galaxy evolution to the study of objects with our galaxy. The draft Science Plan mentions parallel studies to implement the WFIRST mission that are in progress. The first is to investigate a mission that uses the optical components donated to NASA by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the so-called Astrophysics Focused Telescope Assets (AFTA). The second involves studies of several smaller so-called “probe-class” missions—that is, a proposed class of mid-size astrophysics missions roughly analogous to the Heliophysics Division’s Solar Terrestrial Probes
or the Planetary Science Division’s New Frontiers program—for which no details for science priorities are provided, but which potentially could provide lower-budget options for achieving the science goals of WFIRST.
Notwithstanding the fact that at the time of this publication, the NRC, at NASA’s request, is about to undertake a review of the options for implementing WFIRST, the committee notes that the NRO optics are for a larger telescope (2.4-meter aperture) than that envisioned in the 2010 decadal survey (1.5-meter aperture) and therefore larger than what are required to achieve the survey’s science goals. A larger telescope needs a larger, more capable pointing system, a larger launch vehicle, and a larger focal plane to cover the same area on the sky. All of these issues potentially imply that the AFTA incarnation of WFIRST may consume a greater share of limited financial resources than that assumed in survey, but none of this is discussed in the draft Science Plan, despite the considerable implications for the Astrophysics program.
The draft Science Plan is also silent on the relationship between and relative capabilities of WFIRST and the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) Euclid mission. The 2010 decadal survey clearly states that any NASA contribution to Euclid should not come at the expense of WFIRST.30 Recommendations concerning appropriate levels of NASA support for Euclid are detailed in the NRC report An Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid.31
The draft Science Plan does not discuss in enough detail the relationship between WFIRST, the AFTA telescope opportunity, and ESA’s Euclid. Nor does the draft Science Plan indicate how NASA is going to mitigate the risks to the overall direction and recommendations of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should discuss in more detail the options for implementing the science goals of the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope mission, as well as the status and science capabilities of the European Space Agency’s Euclid dark energy mission. The Science Plan should also clarify how the U.S. contribution to the latter will be kept at the levels recommended in the National Research Council 2012 report An Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid.
Other Survey Recommendations
The second-highest priority in the 2010 decadal survey priority was an augmentation to the Explorer program. While several Explorers and missions of opportunity (MoO) are mentioned in the draft Science Plan, the committee is concerned that the rate is dropping, rather than increasing, as recommended in the decadal survey. In addition, the fact that the recent 2012 Explorer-MoO solicitation resulted in no selections was extremely disappointing to the community and wasteful of resources. Of even more importance, it is certainly not aligned with the general recommendation of the 2010 decadal survey that an augmented Explorer program would lead to an increased capability to respond to scientific and technical breakthroughs.
The draft Science Plan does not mention a number of recommendations of the 2010 decadal survey, at least some of which are discussed in the 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan. These include recommendations on laboratory astrophysics, theory and computation networks, and future capabilities at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths. There is insufficient information on the sounding rocket and balloon program expansion, the astrophysics theory program, technology development for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, and the International X-ray Observatory. The New Worlds and Inflation Probe technology development activities are mentioned only in the appendix,32 but not described in the main program descriptions. All these omissions hindered the committee’s ability to assess the alignment of the draft Science Plan with the full set of recommended actions in the 2010 decadal survey.
NASA’s involvement in JAXA’s Space Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics (SPICA) mission—specifically recommended by the 2010 decadal survey—is not mentioned. However,
according to the 2012 Implementation Plan, NASA’s involvement in SPICA has been reduced due to budgetary pressures; a decision consistent with the decision rules contained in the survey.
There is no specific mention that the mechanical failure of Kepler has rendered it no longer capable of continuing its survey for transiting exoplanets. In addition, the draft Science Plan is missing an opportunity to discuss plans on how to advance the study of exoplanets beyond the planned Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite.
There are several mentions in the draft plan that the budget “is uncertain” or “has been cut” or “is not available.” “Low budget” priorities specified by the 2010 decadal survey are not mentioned in the draft Science Plan.
Summary
The draft Science Plan misses the opportunity to demonstrate the progress that is being made in several areas highly recommended by the 2010 decadal survey. This omission leads to a missed opportunity to show where efforts to respond to the decadal have been made. Some of this information is available in the 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan. In addition, however, the draft Science Plan is not currently specific about recommended actions from the survey that are not being pursued due to the tight budget.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should relate those activities that are being pursued, including the James Webb Space Telescope, to the science goals of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey, as embodied in the survey’s 20 science questions. A table similar to Table 5 of the 2012 Astrophysics Implementation Plan, but updated for the current budget scenario, should be included.
Science Balance
The Astrophysics program at NASA as described in the draft Science Plan is not well-balanced at present, either scientifically or in terms of program size. A better scientific balance would mean being able to address more of the questions and goals outlined in the 2010 decadal survey. Whereas, well-balanced in program size would mean more medium and small missions. Much of this imbalance can be traced to the escalated cost of JWST and the ensuing reduction in the Astrophysics budget while JWST is being completed. Achieving balance in the sense of the mix of mission sizes was an extremely important principle and recommendation in the 2010 decadal survey and resulted in the Explorer augmentation being the second-ranked item in the set of large-scale, space-based, recommended activities. This balance is not being achieved!
Within the remainder of the current Explorer program (assigned to the Astrophysics Division), the balance is not easy to judge because there is no clear linking of missions/opportunities to the various science goals, and many programs are not described in sufficient detail or even mentioned. This problem could be addressed by following the recommendations already noted in the above comments on specific sections of the draft Science Plan.
Consequences of the Issues Outlined Above?
The committee notes that the European Space Agency’s Euclid mission will fly well before any implementation of WFIRST, which is likely not to be launched until the early 2020s. Moreover, owing to the inability of the current budget to support other key activities, such as an augmentation to the cadence of Explorer missions, the United States risks losing expertise in whole technical disciplines, and the draft
Science Plan does not outline any mitigating actions. The likelihood of continuing low flight-rates of X-ray, ultraviolet, and far-infrared missions, for example, threatens U.S. leadership in the development of instrumentation. In summary, the draft Science Plan is silent on the significant risks to current U.S. leadership in a number of areas of astrophysics and, more broadly, space science.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should include a description of how NASA plans to monitor and maintain tighter budgetary control of both existing and future astrophysics missions in order to maximize progress, and maintain U.S. involvement and leadership, on the science goals of the 2010 astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey in the current, tight budget climate.
EARTH SCIENCES
The draft Science Plan explains that the “purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to advance our scientific understanding of Earth as a system and its response to natural and human-induced changes and to improve the ability to predict climate, weather, and natural hazards.”33 Such an undertaking requires coordinated scientific studies of Earth’s land surface interior, atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. Studies of the Earth system are not only of intrinsic scientific interest but also are of direct relevance to society and to the formulation of public policy. The Earth science community provides a framework for future exploration of the cosmos through the production of a decadal survey, the most recent of which is the 2007 NRC report Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond.34 In addition, in 2012, the Earth science community completed a midterm, or mid-decade, assessment of NASA’s implementation of the 2007 decadal survey entitled Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey.35 The acknowledged purpose of SMD’s Earth science program is consistent with the vision statement contained in the 2007 decadal survey: “Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live, how it supports life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity.”36
Implementing Decadal Survey Priorities
The NRC’s first decadal survey in Earth science and applications from space was completed in 2007 and described a comprehensive set of recommendations to implement an Earth Science System research program. Several challenges to implementing that program have emerged in the intervening years, and the 2012 midterm assessment expressed strong concerns about the present trajectory of NASA’s Earth science activities. The 2012 report noted, for example, that in a short time, the number of Earth-observing instruments is projected to decline to 25 percent of the level at the time of the 2007 decadal survey. The midterm assessment stated that this loss of observing capability “will have profound consequences on science and society.”37
Moreover, the loss of Orbiting Carbon Observatory and Glory, due to launch failures, and abandonment of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) concept removed major elements of the framework assumed as the foundation for decadal survey-supported missions. NPOESS climate sensors, originally assigned to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have migrated back to NASA. The 2012 midterm assessment noted that both of these developments have drained significant resources from SMD’s Earth Science Division (ESD), exacerbating the shortfall between actual funding and the budget levels assumed in the 2007 decadal survey.
ESD has made many changes to the recommendations of the 2007 decadal survey and ingested priorities from the administration and Congress to its current slate of missions. However, there is no discussion in the draft Science Plan on the decision-making and priority setting process. There is no clear
response to the NRC’s 2012 midterm assessment call for specific decision-making mechanisms (e.g., similar to the Earth Observing System Payload Panel) to guide SMD in prioritizing decadal survey recommendations vis á vis mandates from the administration and Congress.
Science Balance
The issue of mission balance for the ESD is not an issue of mission size, between small, medium, and large missions. Rather, the study of Earth as an integrated system—the foundation of NASA’s Earth science research program—requires coordinated, balanced observations among all elements of the Earth system. Although such a strategy did underlie the core of the 2007 decadal survey recommendations, for the various programmatic and budgetary reasons noted above, the program of planned Earth science missions, as described in the draft Science Plan, falls short of addressing the full spectrum of Earth system science. Given this reality, ESD faces a challenge to prioritize objectives that can be accomplished with limited and unstable resources. Nevertheless, some components of the Earth system may be addressed in a manner that provides societal benefits. For example, it should be noted that one important element of climate change and consequences, the hydrological cycle, will be addressed by a number of missions in a coherent framework, as shown below.
The draft Science Plan does not adequately discuss the potential synergies between planned missions, for example, the potential of several missions—Soil Moisture Active/Passive, Global Precipitation Measurement, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-on missions, and, possibly, Surface Water and Ocean Tomography, if there will be overlap—to address global and regional water-balance studies.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should articulate the scientific and societal benefits accruing from synergies between planned missions.
Threats to Decadal Survey Implementation
More recently, ESD has developed a plan for a Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space in response to the priorities of the administration and Congress.38 The ESD plan emphasizes the need for continuous measurements to meet the requirements for the study of climate change and, more generally, global change. However, because of the decline of resources for ESD by more than 30 percent in the past decade,39 and the aging of major Earth-sensing satellites, the 2012 midterm assessment expressed concerns for “the tension between the need to continue successful Earth science measurements and the need for timely implementation of decadal survey missions.”(p. 8)40 The tension is evident in the draft Science Plan. In particular, the draft Science Plan describes how only 3 of the 15 missions of the 2007 decadal survey will be implemented. Meanwhile, there continues to be uncertainty as to how best achieve the requirements of Climate-Centric Architecture while also accommodating the NOAA climate-sensing instruments being transitioned back to NASA with the restructuring of the NPOESS program.
These challenges to NASA’s ESD in its efforts to optimize its program make the draft Science Plan especially critical at this time. It does not seem possible to fill in the gaps in the foundations of the ESD program, undertake the new mandate for continuous monitoring of key parameters, and develop the new science initiatives of the 2007 decadal survey under a static or shrinking budget environment. The draft Science Plan alludes to this situation, but it is not captured succinctly or delineated clearly within the text of the draft plan. Uncertainty pervades, and budgets are likely to continue to decline at a time when the demand is increasing for Earth observations that reveal the complexity of the coupled Earth system—observations that allow society to predict the future of Earth on regional and global scales.
The Earth science section of the draft Science Plan fails to provide a vision of how to make progress in achieving NASA’s stated science goals in the current, drastically changed, situation.
Recommendation: The Earth Science section of the Science Plan should provide a realistic presentation of what can and cannot be accomplished in the current budgetary climate. In particular, the Science Plan should address how the requirement for a Climate-Centric Architecture will inform the Science Mission Directorate’s programmatic prioritization, given NASA’s broader mandate to advance Earth system science and deliver applications of high value to society.
CONCLUSIONS
The material presented in the four previous sections reveals much variation in the responsiveness of SMD’s four science divisions to the recommendations contained in the relevant decadal surveys. However, four major threads link many of the concerns the committee has expressed concerning SMD’s heliophysics, planetary science, astrophysics, and Earth science activities as described in the draft Science Plan. These four threads or common themes are as follows: responsiveness to and implementation of the decadal surveys; scientific balance; the role of small-/medium-size missions, which that are typically led by a PI; and the potential threats posed by the implementation of large missions. Each of these topics is outlined below and recommendations are offered.
The draft Science Plan appears to be generally responsive to the top-level science goals identified in the four most recent decadal surveys. However, nowhere is it clearly stated that budget realities make it difficult, if not to impossible, for SMD to implement many of the recommendations contained in the NRC’s four most recent decadal surveys. Nor is it stated what processes SMD will employ to make strategic choices in the current, highly uncertain fiscal environment.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should explicitly discuss the threats to the implementation of the recommendations and priorities contained in the four recent decadal surveys. The Science Plan should also demonstrate and describe how SMD will support or not support the decadal surveys and provide an associated rationale, impact assessment, and mitigation plan.
Recommendation: The decision processes by which the Science Mission Directorate will make strategic choices impacting the implementation of decadal survey recommendations in the current challenging fiscal environment should be discussed in plain language in the Science Plan.
The draft Science Plan fails to articulate clearly how SMD intends to achieve overall scientific balance in the execution of its four science programs. While the individual decadal surveys provide recommendations on balance—including decision rules that provide clear guidance for dealing with a reduced budget environment—evidence that these recommendations were implemented or rationale for decisions made are notably lacking in the draft Science Plan.
Recommendation: The Science Plan should include a discussion of balance that includes science goals, mission targets, and mission classes and explicitly indicate how these agency choices derive from, or remain at variance with, the decision rules and other recommendations that were clearly laid out in the four decadal surveys. If they are at variance with NASA’s plans, then, in addition, NASA’s rationale for not utilizing these decision rules and prioritization criteria should be stated explicitly.
The draft Science Plan does not mention the fact that the cadence of Explorer missions in heliophysics and astrophysics and Discovery missions in planetary science is far below that recommended in the respective decadal surveys. Nor does the draft Science Plan place sufficient emphasis on the potential of these small/medium-size PI-led missions to provide a steady stream of new science results at a time when the possibilities for implementing new large missions is severely limited.
Recommendation: The draft Science Plan should be amended to place more emphasis on the potential of principal-investigator-led missions to achieve important science goals, even in challenging times. Explicit priorities for augmentation of these programs should be stated, and program balance with missions should be addressed via the application of the decision rules from the relevant decadal survey. How high-priority science questions might be answered through such missions should be discussed.
The draft Science Plan makes no mention of the implications for cost growth in major missions (e.g., Mars 2020, Solar Probe Plus, and WFIRST) and the impact such growth has on the implementation of a balanced program across SMD and within its four science divisions. However, the committee is encouraged by the words in the plan on the general issue of containing mission costs.
Recommendation: Because the potential of an unconstrained large mission to offset the overall balance of the SMD’s overall program is considerable, the Science Plan should clearly indicate how cost, scope, and complexity of major projects (e.g., Mars 2020, Solar Probe Plus, and WFIRST) will be constrained as they evolve from formulation through development and on to launch.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. National Research Council (NRC). 2013. Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
2. NRC. 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
3. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
4. NRC. 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
5. NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
6. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 22.
7. NRC. 2013. Solar and Space Physics.
8. NRC. 2013. Solar and Space Physics, p. 3.
9. NRC. 2013. Solar and Space Physics, p. 3.
10. J.E. Hirsch. 2005. An index to quantify and individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 102:16569-16572.
11. A.L. Kinney. 2007. National scientific facilities and their scientific impact on nonbiomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 104:17943-17947.
12. A. Coppin, D. Cruikshank, T. Johnson, E. Jorgensen, A. Kinney, M. McGrath, R. McNutt, L. Spilker, G. Vane, and R. Zurek, “Evaluating the Impact of NASA’s Strategic and Competed Missions,” unpublished poster paper.
13. NRC. 2003. The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
14. NRC. 2013. Solar and Space Physics, p. 3.
15. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 52.
16. NRC. 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022.
17. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 57.
18. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, Table 4.3b, p. 58.
19. NRC. 2011. Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022.
20. NRC. 2010. Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
21. NRC. 2006. An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
22. NRC. 2006. An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs.
23. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, pp. 14 and 16.
24. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 62.
25. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
26. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, pp. 10-14.
27. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
28. NASA. 2012. Astrophysics Implementation Plan. Washington, D.C.
29. See, for example, Chapter 2 of NRC, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.
30. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, p. 17.
31. NRC. 2012. An Assessment of a Plan for U.S. Participation in Euclid, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
32. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 79.
33. NASA. 2013. Draft SMD 2014 Science Plan, version 2. August 9, p. 35.
34. NRC. 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond.
35. NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey.
36. NRC. 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, p. 1.
37. NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey.
38. NASA. 2010. Responding to the Challenge of Climate and Environmental Change: NASA’s Plan for a Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space. Washington, D.C.
39. NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey.
40. NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey.
