National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

APPENDIX A
Space Physics Missions (1958-2000)

INTRODUCTION

This appendix examines the processes involved in obtaining observations from space, which were discussed briefly in Chapter 6. This examination was motivated by a concern over the long time delays between the start of a mission and the return of scientific data which became common in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We start by considering the time from the start of a mission to launch of the spacecraft. We take the starting date as the date that investigators submitted proposals to place instruments on the spacecraft. We chose the proposal date because it is a well-defined starting point that exists in some form for most missions. However, we recognize that it is not the "actual" starting time for the ideas that led to the mission. For instance, NASA administrators first have to be convinced to start, or at least investigate, a mission prior to issuing an Announcement of Opportunity for investigators. In several cases we discuss this preannouncement development stage as well. (A date of July 1 is used when only the year is known. When a proposal date is not available, we use an estimated date on which the "concept" development started for the mission.)

INTERVAL FROM PROPOSAL TO LAUNCH FOR MAGNETOSPHERIC MISSIONS

Missions Started in the 1960s

In this section we consider missions for which one or more investigators submitted proposals in the 1960s. Table A.1 shows a representative list of

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

TABLE A.1 Space-Physics-Related Launches in the 1960s

Mission

Start

Launch

Time to Launch

Lead Agency

Pioneer 2

5/1958

11/1958

6 mo

NASA

Explorer 6

7/1958

8/1959

1 yr 1 mo

NASA

Pioneer 5

1/1959*

3/1960

1 yr 2 mo

NASA

Discoverer 31

7/1960*

8/1961

1 yr 1 mo

NASA

Discoverer 33

7/1960*

9/1961

1 yr 2 mo

NASA

Discoverer 36

7/1960*

12/1961

1 yr 5 mo

NASA

IMP 1

12/1960*

11/1963

2 yr 11 mo

NASA

OGO 1

7/1962*

9/1964

2 yr 2 mo

NASA

IMP 2

1/1961*

10/1964

3 yr 9 mo

NASA

Mariner 4

7/1962

11/1964

2 yr 4 mo

NASA

IMP 3

12/1960*

5/1965

4 yr 6 mo

NASA

OGO 2

7/1962*

10/1965

3 yr 3 mo

NASA

Pioneer 6

7/1963*

12/1965

2 yr 5 mo

NASA

OGO 3

7/1962*

6/1966

3 yr 11 mo

NASA

Pioneer 7

7/1963*

8/1966

3 yr 1 mo

NASA

ATS 1

2/1965

12/1966

1 yr 10 mo

NASA

OGO 4

7/1962*

7/1967

5 yr

NASA

IMP 4

12/1964*

5/1967

2 yr 6 mo

NASA

OGO 5

8/1964

3/1968

3 yr 7 mo

NASA

OGO 6

3/1966

6/1969

3 yr 3 mo

NASA

IMP 5

7/1965*

6/1969

3 yr 11 mo

NASA

IMP 6

7/1968

7/1971

3 yr

NASA

Pioneer 10

7/1969

3/1972

2 yr 8 mo

NASA

IMP 7

11/1966

9/1972

5 yr 10 mo

NASA

Pioneer 11

7/1969

4/1973

3 yr 9 mo

NASA

IMP 8

11/1966

10/1973

6 yr 11 mo

NASA

AEC

7/1969

12/1973

4 yr 5 mo

NASA

Mariner 10

7/1969*

11/1973

4 yr 4 mo

NASA

ATS 6

7/1968

5/1974

5 yr 10 mo

NASA

Viking

7/1969

7/1975

6 yr

NASA

* Mission concept date used.

missions from this period. An asterisk indicates missions for which the concept date is used. The time from proposal to launch for our sample varied from less than two years to nearly seven years. Several of the missions took three to four years. One of the shortest was ATS 1, which took one year and ten months. ATS 1 was designed to test communications technology and was not originally intended to carry any scientific instruments. However, in early 1965 the decision was made to include a small number of scientific instruments. These had to be completed quickly to keep the project on schedule. The spacecraft with the longest development interval was IMP 8. IMP was a scientific spacecraft, and its development was originally planned to take six years, with launch in 1972. It

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

should be noted that IMP 8 was still providing valuable solar wind data 18 years after launch.

Missions Started in the 1970s

Table A.2 lists several missions started in the 1970s. The Voyager and the International Sun Earth Explorer (ISEE) missions took about five years from proposal to launch. Both were scientifically successful missions. ISEE reentered the Earth's atmosphere in 1987 after 10 years in orbit, while the Voyagers are still returning heliospheric data after having probed the magnetospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

The Dynamics Explorer (DE) mission provides a good example of the effort required to define and sell a mission concept in the 1970s. The DE mission was designed to study the atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere as a system. Conferences laying the foundation for the DE mission began as early as 1972. During the fall of 1973 the scientific concepts on which the DE mission was based were presented to the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters. In April 1974 a planning and feasibility study group was established at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), and in July 1974 an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) was released that solicited proposals for Explorer-type payloads. Many of the proposals submitted in response to this AO were for the Electrodynamics Explorer (EE) program.

An EE study team was appointed in 1975. It issued a report describing the mission, and in May 1976 NASA made the final selection of investigators for the mission. A project plan was prepared by GSFC, and a cost review was conducted at NASA Headquarters. Following this review it was decided that the EE project could not be implemented as outlined. However, the scientific communi

TABLE A.2 Space Physics Related Missions in the 1970s

Mission

Start

Launch

Time to Launch

Lead Agencies

ISEE 3

9/1972

8/1978

5 yr 11 mo

NASA

Pioneer Venus

10/1973

5/1978

4 yr 7 mo

NASA

DE 1 and 2

7/1974

8/1981

7 yr 1 mo

NASA

AMPTE

U.K., Germany

7/1972

8/1984

12 yr 1 mo

NASA,

Spacelab

9/1976

8/1985

9 yr 1 mo

NASA

Galileo

11/1976

10/1989

12 yr 11 mo

NASA

Ulysses

8/1977

10/1990

13 yr 2 mo

ESA, NASA

UARS

12/1978

9/1991

12 yr 9 mo

NASA

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

ty had made a very strong case that the scientific problems EE was to attack were of the highest priority in space physics. So in January 1977 a smaller mission, Dynamics Explorer, was started. The investigators for this smaller mission were chosen in May 1977. Funding authorization for the program was received in October 1977, and the two DE spacecraft were launched Jess than four years later.

The final mission during the 1970s was Galileo. The Galileo proposals were written in 1976. The original launch was scheduled for 1982, but problems with the spacecraft and with the Space Shuttle launch system caused it to be postponed until 1986. The launch was further delayed until 1989 by the Challenger explosion. However, even if the Challenger explosion had not occurred, the interval between proposals and launch still would have been nine years.

Missions Started in the 1980s

During the 1980s the time between the selection of experiments for a mission and the actual launch became very large (Table A.3). The Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) mission was started in 1981. Originally, it was an Air Force project called RADSAT. In 1982 it was combined with the NASA Chemical Release Program. After a number of delays, including the Challenger accident, CRRES was launched in 1990.

The International Solar-Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program resulted from a series of studies conducted by committees of the National Research Council's Space Sciences Board (SSB) in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Among these was the Kennel report1, which cited six critical regions of the terrestrial magnetosphere that needed to be better understood in order to understand the time-dependent exchange of energy and plasma between the solar wind and the magnetosphere. From this the Origins of Plasma in the Earth's Neighborhood (OPEN) program evolved. In the OPEN program spacecraft would be flown simultaneously in four key regions: the WIND spacecraft would monitor the solar wind, the POLAR spacecraft would observe in the polar region, EQUATOR would provide observations in the near-earth magnetotail equatorial region, and GEOTAIL would probe both the near-earth and distant magnetotail. Proposals for participation in the OPEN mission were written in 1980. During the design phase of the mission it became evident that the costs would exceed the available resources. Since understanding the global flow of energy throughout a system as vast as the magnetosphere required the four spacecraft at a minimum, it was decided to seek international cooperation. This led to the formation of ISTP. Under ISTP the Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science

1  

Solar System Space Physics in the 1980's: A Research Strategy; Committee on Solar and Space Physics, Space Sciences Board, National Research Council, 1980.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

TABLE A.3 Space-Physics-Related Missions in the 1980s

Mission

Start

Launch (actual or expected)

Time to Launch

Lead Agencies

CRRES

7/1981

7/1990

9 yr

DoD, NASA

SAMPEX

9/1988

7/1992

3 yr 9 mo

NASA

ISTP/Geotail

3/1980

7/1992

12 yr 4 mo

ISAS, NASA

ISTP/Wind

3/1980

9/1994

14 yr 6 mo

NASA

ISTP/Polar

3/1980

6/1995

15 yr 3 mo

NASA

FAST

7/1988

7/1994

6 yr

NASA

ISTP/Cluster

7/1988

12/1995

7 yr 5 mo

ESA

CRAF

11/1985

7/1996

10 yr 8 mo

NASA

ACE

7/1986

8/1997

11 yr 1 mo

NASA

Cassini

2/1990

7/1997

7 yr 5 mo

NASA, ESA

SOHO

7/1989

7/1995

6 yr

ESA, NASA

(ISAS) took the lead in the GEOTAIL spacecraft. The European Space Agency agreed to provide four spacecraft that would fly in a tetrahedral formation to probe the polar magnetosphere, magnetopause, and cusp (CLUSTER). The EQUATOR spacecraft was canceled. It was hoped that data from the CRRES spacecraft would partially fill the gap left by the cancellation of EQUATOR, but CRRES stopped operating in 1991. The ISTP mission was approved in 1988. The GEOTAIL spacecraft was launched in July 1991, 12 years after the initial proposal. Unfortunately, the schedules for the WIND and POLAR spacecraft have slipped recently, and it will be at least mid- to late 1995 before they are launched.

The Fast Auroral Snapshot Explorer (FAST) is a small explorer mission. It will provide high-resolution observations in the auroral zone. In this small explorer program the entire instrument complement was proposed as a unit with a single principal investigator. The proposals were written in 1988, and the current schedule calls for a 1994 launch.

The time difference between the proposal and launch date for each mission, which provides a measure of the implementation time, has been plotted versus launch date in Figure A.1. Explorer and other NASA missions are shown in the Figure, with future missions indicated by arrows that represent the effect of a one-year delay. The implementation time has steadily increased over the past three decades, with the result that most recent missions have taken approximately 12 years to be implemented.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×

FIGURE A1.1 Implementation times for space-physics-related missions, 1958-2000.

Note: Launches for which reliable start dates could not be obtained are not included in this Figure.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Space Physics Missions." National Research Council. 1994. A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4792.
×
Page 88
Next: Appendix B: The Solar Telescope That Saw No Light »
A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research? Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $40.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book investigates and analyzes several disturbing trends in government support for space physics research over the past decade. The authors identify funding and management problems that thwart cost efficiency within this discipline, and suggest possible solutions. The volume also has broader implications for anyone engaged in research or in the funding and organizing of space physics research.

  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!