As a result of discussions between NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Space Studies Board (SSB) conducted during the Spring of 2013, a study was undertaken to review a draft of the SMD’s 2014 Science Plan and comment on the following specific areas:
• Responsiveness to the NRC’s guidance on key science issues and opportunities in recent NRC reports;
• Attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance;
• Identification and exposition of important opportunities for partnerships as well as education and public outreach;
• Integration of technology development with the science program;
• Clarity on how the plan aligns with SMD’s strategic planning process;
• General readability and clarity of presentation; and
• Other relevant issues as determined by the committee.
The request for this review was made at a time when NASA is engaged in the final stages of a comprehensive and agency-wide effort to develop a new strategic plan as required by the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010. The new strategic plan will, on its release in February 2014, outline the agency’s revised strategic goals and objectives at a time when NASA’s budget is under considerable stress. NASA’s budget has remained and is forecast to remain essentially flat in the years ahead at about the $16.86 billion of the FY2013 budget. However, extra uncertainty is palpable at the time of this review because budget pressures, such as sequestration, government shut downs, and debt ceiling debates, only increase. SMD’s budget in the FY2013 operating plan, as approved in late September 2013, stands at $4,781.6 million1 as compared to $5,073.7 million in FY2012.2 Owing to the impact of the budget constraints at SMD, and as noted in a recent NRC report, “Key decadal survey priorities in astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, and Earth science now will not be pursued for many years, or not at all. The carefully crafted strategic planning process, with its priority setting and consensus building, that has led in the past to the United States leading the world, with science missions such as the Curiosity rover on the surface of Mars and the Hubble Space Telescope, is now in jeopardy because it no longer may lead to a tangible program outcome.”3
As detailed in Appendix C, the NRC has reviewed NASA’s science and/or Earth science plans on six previous occasions.4,5,6,7,8,9 The last such review was conducted in 2006. SMD issued its last Science Plan in 2010, but no NRC review of it was undertaken.
SCOPE OF THE DRAFT SCIENCE PLAN
The draft Science Plan provides a description of the NASA science programs conducted by the Heliophysics, Earth Science, Planetary Science and Astrophysics divisions of the agency’s SMD. Chapter 1 of the draft Science Plan provides top-level outlines of why and how SMD conducted its space
science activities, which are its partner agencies, and provides details on its strategic planning activities. Chapter 2 explains how SMD’s scientific activities contribute to the nation. It continues by describing how SMD’s activities accord with legislative imperatives and how it interacts with the Administration, Congress, and the scientific community. This chapter concludes by indicating how SMD will address the top level goals to appear in the 2014 NASA Strategic Plan. Chapter 3 presents the principles and strategies SMD employs to address its goals. It continues by describing the technical, managerial, international, political, fiscal, and environmental challenges SMD faces. Chapter 4 discusses the detailed plans for each of SMD’s four divisions. Chapter 5 discusses the activities of the Joint Agency Satellite Division. The draft Science Plan concludes with a series of appendixes containing additional tabular material on missions and programs discussed in the earlier chapters and a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. See, for example, NASA, “FY 2013 Operating Plan for Public Law 113-6 Appropriations,” August 1, 2013, available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY_2013NASA_OperatingPlanEnclosure1_13SEP2013.pdf, accessed November 17, 2013.
2. See, for example, NASA, “FY2014 Budget Estimates,” available at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740427main_NASAFY2014SummaryBriefFinal.pdf, accessed November 17, 2013.
3. National Research Council (NRC). 2012. NASA’s Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., p. 33.
4. NRC. 1997. “On NASA’s Office of Space Science Draft Strategic Plan,” letter report from SSB Chair Claude R. Canizares to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, August 27. Washington, D.C.
5. NRC. 2000. “On the Space Science Enterprise Draft Strategic Plan,” letter report from SSB Chair Claude R. Canizares to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, May 26. Washington, D.C.
6. NRC. 2003. “On Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter report from SSB Chair John H. McElroy to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science, May 29. Washington, D.C.
7. NRC. 2006. “A Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan,” letter report from A. Thomas Young, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Review of NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan, to Mary Cleave, NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, September 15. Washington, D.C.
8. NRC. 2000. Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
9. NRC. 2003. “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter report from Robert J. Serafin, chair of the Committee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, and SSB Chair John H. McElroy to Ghassem R. Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science, July 31. Washington, D.C.
