National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25587.
×
Page R10

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.

Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further Editorial Correction Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan Committee on the NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan Space Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences A Consensus Study Report of PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by Contract No. NNH17CB02B with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25587 Copies of this publication are available free of charge from: Space Studies Board National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25587. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION

COMMITTEE ON THE NASA SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE SCIENCE PLAN JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara, Chair VICTORIA E. HAMILTON, Southwest Research Institute, Vice Chair STEVEN J. BATTEL, NAE,1 Battel Engineering MELISSA A. MCGRATH, SETI Institute ANNA M. MICHALAK, Carnegie Institution for Science ROBYN MILLAN, Dartmouth College PREETHI NAIR, University of Alabama TUIJA PULKKINEN, NAS,2 University of Michigan KEIVAN G. STASSUN, Vanderbilt University MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego Staff DAVID H. SMITH, Senior Program Officer, Study Director ANDREA REBHOLZ, Program Coordinator BEN CASSESE, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern STEPHEN TAMES, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern 1 Member, National Academy of Engineering. 2 Member, National Academy of Sciences. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION v

SPACE STUDIES BOARD MARGARET G. KIVELSON, NAS,1 University of California, Los Angeles, Chair JAMES H. CROCKER, NAE,2 Lockheed Martin (retired), Vice Chair GREGORY P. ASNER, NAS, Carnegie Institution for Science JEFF M. BINGHAM, Consultant ADAM BURROWS, NAS, Princeton University MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, Dittmar Associates JEFF DOZIER, University of California, Santa Barbara VICTORIA E. HAMILTON, Southwest Research Institute CHRYSSA KOUVELIOTOU, NAS, George Washington University DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles ROSALY M. LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory STEPHEN J. MACKWELL, American Institute of Physics DAVID J. MCCOMAS, Princeton University LARRY PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California, Berkeley BARBARA SHERWOOD LOLLAR, University of Toronto HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego ERIKA WAGNER, Blue Origin PAUL WOOSTER, Space Exploration Technologies EDWARD L. WRIGHT, NAS, University of California, Los Angeles Staff COLLEEN N. HARTMAN, Director TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate MARGARET A. KNEMEYER, Financial Officer RADAKA LIGHTFOOT, Financial Associate 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vi

Preface In a letter dated June 12, 2019 (reprinted in Appendix A), Associate Administrator Thomas H. Zurbuchen of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) informed the Space Studies Board (SSB) that SMD planned to release a new version of its Science Plan in October 2019. In keeping with its practice of the last several decades, Dr. Zurbuchen requested that the SSB initiate a study to review the draft Science Plan and provide feedback to SMD. Subsequent discussions between the SSB and SMD resulted in the definition of a statement of task for an ad hoc committee that would undertake the review. The discussions further established that a draft of the plan would be available at the beginning of July 2019 and that a final report would be delivered to NASA 12 weeks later. In response to SMD’s request, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established the Committee on the NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan on July 12. The committee’s membership consisted of two individuals with expertise in each of SMD’s four principal space science disciplines—astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics, and Earth science and applications. These individuals were supplemented by experts in engineering and space technology and space science policy. Given the expedited schedule for the completion and delivery of the review, the majority of the committee members were recruited from the ranks of the SSB and the board’s four standing committees—the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), the Committee on Astrobiology and Planetary Science (CAPS), the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP), and the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space (CESAS)—and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB). To broaden the scientific and technical scope of the review committee’s assessment, the draft Science Plan was shared with the members of the SSB, ASEB, CAA, CAPS, CSSP, and CESAS. Their comments were shared with the review committee, who held a single meeting at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C., on August 1-2. To ensure that the members of the review committee understood the purpose and scope of the draft Science Plan, the agenda for the August meeting included extensive discussions with Dr. Zurbuchen and other individuals at NASA headquarters responsible for drafting the plan. An initial draft of the review committee’s report was assembled during the week following the August 1-2 meeting. The report’s text was finalized on August 14 and sent to external reviewers for comment on August 15. The report was revised in response to reviewer comments during the first 2 weeks of September and approved for release on September 23. The work of the committee was made easier thanks to comments and other important contributions made by the following individuals: Megan Donahue, Michigan State University; Tom Greene, NASA Ames Research Center; Ellen Gertsen, NASA Headquarters; Stephen J. Mackwell, American Physical Society; David J. McComas, Princeton University; William B. McKinnon, Washington University; Clive Neal, University of Notre Dame; Michael New, NASA Headquarters; Meenakshi Wadhwa, Arizona State University; and Thomas H. Zurbuchen, NASA Headquarters. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION vii

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Roger D. Blandford, NAS,1 Stanford University; Stacey W. Boland, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Lennard A. Fisk, NAS, University of Michigan; James F. Kasting, NAS, Pennsylvania State University; Robert A. Lindeman, NAE,2 Northrop Grumman Mission Systems, retired; and George W. Sutton, NAE, Analysis and Applications, Inc. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, NAE, New Jersey Institute of Technology. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. 1 Member, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Member, National Academy of Engineering. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION viii

Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 5 2 READABILITY AND CLARITY OF PRESENTATION 7 Title and Context, 7 Clarity of Presentation, 8 3 LEVEL OF AMBITION 10 Principles and Realization of Science Goals, 10 4 ABILITY TO MEET SCIENCE OBJECTIVES IN DECADAL SURVEYS 12 Meeting Science Objectives, 12 5 IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES 14 Leadership Priorities and Guiding Principles, 14 Evaluation of Achievements, 15 Diversity, Inclusion, and the Workforce, 15 6 CONCLUSIONS 17 APPENDIXES A Letter of Request 21 B Summary of the Draft Explore Science 2019-2024: A Vision for Scientific Excellence 22 C Committee Biographical Information 26 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION ix

Next: Summary »
Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) ties together diverse researchers, sponsors, and resources to develop the science community’s understanding of the universe. Within scientific organizations like NASA, it is important to establish clear strategies and goals to guide research and foster new discoveries across varying missions. SMD created a draft for their 2019 Science Plan, and a review of this draft is necessary to ensure that the plan establishes clear, attainable, relevant, and ambitious goals.

Review of the Draft 2019 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan provides comments on and recommendations for SMD’s draft. Comments in this report focus on the level of ambition of the specified strategies in light of current and emerging opportunities to advance Earth and space science over the next 5 years, the ability of SMD to meet the science objectives in the most recent decadal surveys through implementation of specified strategies, additional strategies for SMD’s considerations, and the general readability and clarity of the draft. Recommendations in this report identify important improvements for the 2019 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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!