Space Studies Board Annual Report 2009

This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12918

ISBN National Research Council 978-0-309-15465-9

110 pages 8.5 x 11 2010

Visit the National Academies Press online and register for...

Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

10% off print titles

Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest

Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2009

The Space Studies Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which serves as an independent advisor to the federal government on scientific and technical questions of national importance. The National Research Council, jointly administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, brings the resources of the entire scientific and technical community to bear through its volunteer advisory committees.

Support for the work of the Space Studies Board and its committees was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration contract NNH06CE15B.

Cover: The upper half of the cover is a montage of images taken by the Voyager spacecraft of the planets and four of Jupiter’s moons is set against a false-color image of the Rosette Nebula with Earth’s moon in the foreground (NASA/JPL/ASU); the images in the middle of the cover (left-right) include Earth from space; the International Space Station (NASA); the Sun showing a flare and blast wave from an eruption (NASA SDO); a starburst radio- larian by David A. Caron, USC (Rebecca J. Gast, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution); a solar system montage (NASA/JPL); and M16, the Eagle Nebula (NASA, ESA, STScI, J. Hester and P. Scowen (ASU).

From the Chair

The year 2009 was one of transition for the nation, for NASA, and for the Space Studies Board (SSB). The nation pulled back from 2008’s economic precipice, but did not return to the path of economic growth that it had been on. The United States inaugurated a new president who set out to build his administration. By mid-year President Obama had announced the appointment of Charlie Bolden as NASA administrator, and Lori Garver as deputy administrator. The president and Charlie Bolden jointly appointed an independent commission, the now well-known “Augustine Commission,” to provide guidance on the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program. I was honored to serve on that commission. Many of us had known for quite a while that NASA’s human spaceflight program faced a profound change at the time of the retirement of the space shuttle. After all, NASA had depended on it for a generation. That retirement time, 2010, was on us. What would come next? What should come next? The National Research Council appointed a panel, chaired by General Lester Lyles, to consider the goals of the U.S. civil space programs in light of the changes in the United States and its position in the world since the end of the cold war, which had provided the initial impetus for the creation of NASA. That report, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs was released to the Congress and members of the Administration in early July 2009 and became a foundational document for the Augustine Commission. The Augustine Commission was tasked both to look at the imminent space shuttle retirement and provide technically vetted options for the president and NASA administrator as they set the course for the next decade in human spaceflight. Some of the questions before us were these: How long would the gap be between space shuttle retirement in 2010 and the first launch of a new U.S. human-piloted spacecraft? How does the International Space Station (ISS) fit into the United States’ (and the world’s) future in space? Are there other worthy objectives for human exploration besides the Moon? For the participants, the commission was a four-day-per-week volunteer job throughout the summer and early fall. For a couple of the heroes of the commission, it was more than that.

iii

By now, it would be irrelevant to recount the complex and fascinating discussions that took place, because the president and the NASA administrator have made their choices in the 2011 budget proposal presently before Congress. The ISS program is extended to at least 2020. The United States will increasingly depend on foreign partners and the U.S. launch industry to provide station resupply and human launches to low Earth orbit. NASA will strengthen its technology development program to prepare to send humans beyond low Earth orbit after 2010. NASA will explore a “flexible path” approach to human exploration beyond Earth orbit. The decision to extend the ISS’s lifetime presents a challenge and an opportunity for the space science community. The opportunity is the new funding provided in the 2011 budget for ISS utilization, for both science and technology development. The challenge stems from the fact that the science programs expecting to use the station were sacrificed in the effort to fund its completion. The U.S. ISS scientific community was dispersed and has to be reconstructed. Our foreign partners, who faced no such exigency, have developed sensible scientific programs that take advantage of the access to low gravity provided by the station. The United States can certainly do the same. It will require vision and leadership. Some of that vision is being created as I write by the SSB’s first decadal survey on biological and physical sciences in space, co-chaired by Betsy Cantwell and Wendy Kohrt. However, leadership needs also to be provided by NASA and the broader scientific community. We all will have to work hard. Science cannot afford another program demise. While I was occupied with short-term issues on the Augustine Commission, SSB’s ad hoc committees were focusing on the long term. No fewer than three decadal surveys were initiated. Roger Blandford is leading Astro2010, a survey of astronomy and astrophysics, done from both space and the ground, sponsored jointly by the Board on Physics and Astronomy and the Space Studies Board. Steve Squyres is leading the planetary science decadal survey, and I have already mentioned the survey on biological and physical sciences in space. The SSB also carried out an impressive range of more specialized studies that are recounted in this report. The Space Studies Board and the Aeronautical and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) have decided to hold regular joint meetings. Ray Colladay, ASEB chair, and I both believe that coordination of science and engineering advice will become increasingly necessary as NASA undertakes human exploration programs with scientific content. This year was also a year of transition for the SSB. In 2009, Marcia Smith stepped down as staff director for both SSB and ASEB, and Dick Rowberg had a very good turn at the plate as a pinch-hitter. We are deeply indebted to both of them. We are pleased that, after a successful run as study director for Astro2010, Michael Moloney is now director of SSB and ASEB. The profound work begun in 2009 on the decadal surveys will only see the light of day later as they are released and the scientific work begins. We will have much to report for 2010.

Charles F. Kennel Chair Space Studies Board

Space Studies Board Chairs and Vice Chairs

Chairs Lloyd V. Berkner (deceased), Graduate Research Center, Dallas, Texas, 1958−1962

Harry H. Hess (deceased), Princeton University, 1962–1969

Charles H. Townes, University of California at Berkeley, 1970−1973

Richard M. Goody, Harvard University, 1974–1976

A.G.W. Cameron (deceased), Harvard College Observatory, 1977−1981

Thomas M. Donahue (deceased), University of Michigan, 1982−1988

Louis J. Lanzerotti, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Bell Laboratories, 1989−1994

Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994–2000

John H. McElroy (deceased), University of Texas at Arlington, 2000–2003

Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan, 2003–2008

Charles F. Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, 2008–

Vice Chairs George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), 2003–2006

A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), 2006–

Contents

FROM THE CHAIR iii

1 CHARTER AND ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 1 The Origins of the Space Science Board, 1 The Space Studies Board Today, 2 Collaboration With Other National Research Council Units, 4 Assuring the Quality of Space Studies Board Reports, 4 Audience and Sponsors, 7 Outreach and Dissemination, 7 Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Internship, 7

2 BOARD AND STANDING COMMITTEES: ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIP 8 Space Studies Board, 8 Highlights of Space Studies Board Activities, 8 Space Studies Board Membership, 9 U.S. National Committee for COSPAR, 11 Standing Committees, 11 Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, 11 Committee on Earth Studies, 11 Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, 13 Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, 17 Committee on Solar and Space Physics, 17 Space Research Disciplines without Standing Committee Representation, 20

3 AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEES: ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIP 22 Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions, 22 Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities, 23 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey Committee, 24 Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, 28 Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space, 29 Heliophysics Performance Assessment, 32 NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities, 33 Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, 34

vii

viii Contents

Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample-Return Missions, 35 Planetary Sciences Decadal Survey, 36 Radioisotope Power Systems, 39 Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, 40 Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions, 40

4 WORKSHOPS, SYMPOSIA, MEETINGS OF EXPERTS, AND OTHER SPECIAL PROJECTS 42 Future International Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World, 42 Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data, 43

5 SUMMARIES OF MAJOR REPORTS 44 5.1 America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, 45 5.2 Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop, 50 5.3 Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, 55 5.4 An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Missions, 62 5.5 Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, 66 5.6 A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program, 68 5.7 Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration, 76 5.8 Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop, 80

6 CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY 86

7 CUMULATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SSB REPORTS: 1958-2009 88

1 Charter and Organization of the Board

THE ORIGINS OF THE SPACE SCIENCE BOARD The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, to provide scientific and technical advice to the government of the United States. Over the years, the breadth of the institution has expanded, leading to the establishment of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) in 1964 and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 1970. The National Research Council (NRC), the operational arm of the National Academies, was founded in 1916. The NAS, NAE, IOM, and NRC are collectively referred to as “The National Academies.” More information is available at http://nationalacademies.org. The original charter of the Space Science Board was established in June 1958, 3 months before the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) opened its doors. The Space Science Board and its successor, the Space Studies Board (SSB), have provided expert external and independent scientific and programmatic advice to NASA on a continuous basis from NASA’s inception until the present. The SSB has also provided such advice to other executive branch agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Department of Defense, as well as to Congress. The fundamental charter of the Board today remains that defined by NAS president Detlev W. Bronk in a letter to Lloyd V. Berkner, first chair of the Board, on June 26, 1958, which established the Space Science Board: We have talked of the main task of the Board in three parts—the immediate program, the long-range program, and the international aspects of both. In all three we shall look to the Board to be the focus of the interests and responsibilities of the Academy-Research Council in space science; to establish necessary relationships with civilian science and with governmental science activities, particularly the proposed new space agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency; to represent the Academy-Research Council complex in our international relations in this field on behalf of American science and scientists; to seek ways to stimulate needed research; to promote necessary coordination of scientific effort; and to provide such advice and recommendations to appropriate individuals and agencies with regard to space science as may in the Board’s judgment be desirable. As we have already agreed, the Board is intended to be an advisory, consultative, correlating, evaluating body and not an operating agency in the field of space science. It should avoid responsibility as a Board for the conduct of any programs of space research and for the formulation of budgets relative thereto. Advice to agencies properly responsible for these matters, on the other hand, would be within its purview to provide.

The Space Science Board changed its name to the Space Studies Board in 1989 to reflect its expanded scope, which now includes space applications and other topics. Today, the SSB exists to provide an independent, authoritative forum for information and advice on all aspects of space science and applications, and it serves as the focal point within the National Academies for activities on space research. It oversees advisory studies and program assess

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

ments, facilitates international research coordination, and promotes communications on space science and science policy among the research community, the federal government, and the interested public. The SSB also serves as the U.S. National Committee for the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council for Science.

THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD TODAY The Space Studies Board is a unit of the NRC’s Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS). DEPS is one of six major program units of the NRC through which the institution conducts its operations on behalf of NAS, NAE, and IOM. Within DEPS there are a total of 14 boards that cover a broad range of physical science and engineering disciplines and mission areas. Members of the DEPS Committee on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPSCOM) provide advice on Board membership and on proposed new projects to be undertaken by ad hoc study committees formed under the SSB’s auspices. Every 3 years, DEPSCOM reviews the overall operations of each of the DEPS boards. The next review of the SSB will take place in 2010. The “Space Studies Board” encompasses the Board itself, its standing committees (see Chapter 2) and ad hoc study committees (see Chapter 3), and its staff. The Board is composed of prominent scientists, engineers, industrial- ists, scholars, and policy experts in space research appointed for 2-year staggered terms. They represent seven space research disciplines: space-based astrophysics, heliophysics (also referred to as solar and space physics), Earth science, solar system exploration, microgravity life and physical sciences, space systems and technology, and science and technology policy. In 2009, there were 23 Board members. The chairs of the SSB’s standing committees are members of the Board, and of its Executive Committee (XCOM). The chair of the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the U.S. representative to COSPAR are ex officio members. A standing liaison arrangement also has been established with the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), part of the European Science Foundation, and the NRC’s Ocean Studies Board.

Organization The organization of the SSB in 2009 is illustrated in Figure 1.1. Taken together, the Board and its standing and ad hoc study committees generally hold as many as 40 meetings during the year.

Major Functions of the Space Studies Board The Board provides an independent, authoritative forum for information and advice on all aspects of space science and applications and serves as the focal point within the National Academies for activities on space research. The Board itself does not conduct studies, but it oversees advisory studies and program assessments conducted by ad hoc study committees (see Chapter 3) formed in response to a request from a sponsor. All projects proposed to be conducted by ad hoc study committees under the auspices of the SSB must be reviewed and approved by the chair and vice chair of the Board (as well as other NRC officials). Decadal surveys are a signature product of the SSB, providing strategic direction to NASA, NOAA, and other agencies on the top priorities over the next 10 years in astronomy and astrophysics, solar system exploration, solar and space physics, and Earth science. (The astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey is a joint effort with the NRC’s Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA).) A decadal survey on biological and physical sciences in space, a joint effort with the ASEB, was formed in 2009 in response to a congressional request for a study to establish priorities and provide recommendations for life and physical sciences space research, including research that will enable exploration missions in microgravity and partial gravity for the 2010-2020 decade. The Board serves as a communications bridge on space research and science policy among the scientific research community, the federal government, and the interested public. The Board ordinarily meets three times per year (March, June, and November) to review the activities of its committees and to be briefed on and discuss major space policy issues. The November Board meeting typically involves a workshop on a topic of current interest and results in a workshop report. The workshop originally planned for 2009 was rescheduled for November 2010. It was the opinion of the planning committee that inadequate time was available to organize a workshop on the selected theme that would be the desired caliber.

Charter and Organization of the Board

U.S. Representative Space Studies Board Executive to COSPAR Committee

Committee on Committee on Committee on Committee on Planetary Committee on Astronomy and Earth Studies the Origins and and Lunar Exploration Solar and Space Physics Astrophysics Evolution of Life

Board on Physics Board on Life and Astronomy Sciences

Ad Hoc Study Committees

Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies on Space and Earth Science Missions Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Laboratory Assessments Board Sample-Return Missions

Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey Planetary Science Decadal Survey: 2013-2022 Board on Physics and Astronomy Radioisotope Power Systems Biological and Physical Sciences in Space Decadal Survey Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program Heliophysics Performance Assessment Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

NASA's Suborbital Research Capabilities Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA's Space and Earth Science Missions

Workshops

Future International Space Cooperation and Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data Competition in a Globalizing World Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Board on Mathematical Sciences and their Applications Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Denotes Collaborations

FIGURE 1.1 Organization of the Space Studies Board, its standing committees, ad hoc study committees, and workshops, and special projects in 2009. Shaded boxes denote activities performed in cooperation with other National Research Council units. Figure 1.1 R01747 InternationalSSB Annual Representation Report 2009 and Cooperation The Board serves as the U.S. National Committee for COSPAR, an international, multidisciplinary forum for exchanging space science research. Board members may individually participate in COSPAR scientific sessions to present their research or present the results of an SSB report to the international community, or conduct informal information exchange sessions with national entities within COSPAR scientific assemblies. The Board also has a regular practice of exchanging observers with the ESSC, which is part of the European Science Foundation (see http://www.esf.org/).

Space Studies Board Committees

Executive Committee The Executive Committee, composed entirely of Board members, facilitates the conduct of the Board’s business, permits the Board to move rapidly to lay the groundwork for new study activities, and provides strategic planning advice. XCOM meets annually for a session on the assessment of SSB operations and future planning. Its membership includes the chair and vice chair of the Board, the chairs of the standing committees, and one Board member for each discipline that does not have a standing committee.

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Standing Committees Discipline-based standing committees are the means by which the Board conducts its oversight of specific space research disciplines. Each standing committee is composed of about a dozen specialists, appointed to represent the broad sweep of research areas within the discipline. Like the Board itself, each standing committee serves as a communications bridge with its associated research community and participates in identifying new projects and prospective members of ad hoc study committees. Standing committees do not, themselves, write reports, but oversee reports written by ad hoc study committees created under their auspices. Standing committees typically go on hiatus during their discipline’s decadal survey. In 2009, SSB had five standing committees:

• Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA), • Committee on Earth Studies (CES), • Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL), • Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), and • Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP).

Ad Hoc Study Committees Ad hoc study committees are created by NRC action to conduct specific studies at the request of sponsors. These committees typically produce NRC reports that provide advice to the government and therefore are governed by Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Ad hoc study committees usually write their reports after holding two or three information-gathering meetings, although in some cases they may hold a workshop in addition to or instead of information-gathering meetings. In other cases, workshops are organized by ad hoc study committees that serve as organizers only, where a workshop report is written by a rapporteur and does not contain findings or recommendations. In those cases, the study committee is not governed by FACA Section 15 since no NRC advice results from the workshop. The ad hoc study committees that were in place during 2009 are summarized in Chapter 3.

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL UNITS Much of the work of the SSB involves topics that fall entirely within its principal areas of responsibility and can be addressed readily by its members and committees. However, there are other situations in which the need for breadth of expertise, alternative points of view, or synergy with other NRC projects leads to collaboration with other units of the NRC. The SSB has engaged in many such multi-unit collaborations. Among the NRC boards with which the SSB works most often are the ASEB, the BPA, the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, the Board on Life Sciences, and the Ocean Studies Board. This approach to projects has the potential to bring more of the full capability of the National Academies to bear in preparing advice for the federal government and the public. Multi- unit collaborative projects also present new challenges—namely, to manage the projects in a way that achieves economies of scale and true synergy rather than just adding cost or complexity. Collaborative relationships between the SSB and other NRC units during 2009 are illustrated in Figure 1.1.

ASSURING THE QUALITY OF SSB REPORTS A major contributor to the quality of the SSB reports (Table 1.1 lists the 2009 releases) is the requirement that NRC reports be peer reviewed. Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report—2008, all of the reports were subjected to extensive peer review, which is overseen by the NRC’s Report Review Committee (RRC). Typically 7 to 10 reviewers (occasionally as many as 15 or more) are selected on the basis of recommendations by NAS and NAE section liaisons, SSB members, and staff. The reviewers are subject to approval by the NRC. The identities of external reviewers are not known to a report’s authors until after the review has been completed and the report has been approved by the RRC. The report’s authors, with the assistance of SSB staff, must provide some response to every specific comment from every external reviewer. To ensure that appropriate technical revisions are made to

Charter and Organization of the Board

Table 1.1 Space Studies Board Reports Released in 2009

Principal Audiencesb Oversight Committee NASA/ NASA/ Report Title Sponsors or Boarda SMD ESMD NOAA NSF Other Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and NASA SSB X X Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop

America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space NAS internal SSB X X X X Program with National Needs funds

Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for NASA COEL X Mars Sample Return Missions

An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth NASA SSB X Congress Science Missions [Prepublication]

Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation NASA COMPLEX X X Congress Strategies: Interim Report

A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics NASA CSSP X X X Congress Program

Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for NASA SSB/ASEB X X DOE Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration Congress

Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal NASA SSB X X X X and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report. Extended Summary

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2008 NASA SSB X X X X DOE USGS

Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate NASA, NSF BASC X X Data: Summary of a Workshop NOTE: NAS, National Academy of Sciences; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF, National Science Foundation. aOversight committee or board within the National Research Council CES Committee on Earth Studies COMPLEX Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration CSSP Committee on Solar and Space Physics SSB Space Studies Board bPrincipal audiences: Federal agencies that have funded or shown interest in SSB reports. DOE Department of Energy NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA/ESMD NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate NASA/SMD NASA Science Mission Directorate NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NSF National Science Foundation USGS U.S. Geological Survey

the report and that the revised report complies with NRC policy and standards, the response-to-review process is overseen and refereed by an independent arbiter (called a monitor) who is knowledgeable about the report’s issues. In some cases, there is a second independent arbiter (called a coordinator) who has a broader perspective on policy issues affecting the National Academies. All of the reviews emphasize the need for scientific and technical clarity and accuracy and for proper substantiation of the findings and recommendations presented in the report. Names of the external reviewers, including the monitor (and coordinator if one was appointed), are published in the final report, but their individual comments are not released.

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Another important method to ensure high-quality work derives from the size, breadth, and depth of the cadre of experts who serve on the SSB and its committees or participate in other ways in the activities of the SSB. Some highlights of the demographics of the SSB in 2009 are presented in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. During 2009, a total of 349 individuals from 87 colleges and universities and 57 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees. More than 600 individuals participated in SSB activities either as presenters or as invited workshop participants. The report review process is as important as the writing of reports, and during 2009, 52 different external reviewers contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, more than 1,000 individuals from 146 academic institutions, 124 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 45 government agencies or offices participated in SSB activities. That number included 37 members of NAS, NAE, or IOM. Being able to draw on such a broad base of expertise is a unique strength of the NRC advisory process.

Table 1.2 Experts Involved in the Space Studies Board and Its Subunits, January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2009

Number of Board and Committee Members Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented Academia 199 74 Government and national facilities 37 14 Private industry 51 30 Nonprofit and othera 62 27 Totalb,c 349 145

aOther includes foreign institutions and entities not classified elsewhere. bIncludes 37 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine members. cIncludes 29 Board members, 314 committee members.

Table 1.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2009

Government and Academia National Facilitiesa Private Industry Nonprofit and Other Total Individuals Board/committee members 199 37 51 62 349 Guest experts 196 167 45 138 546 Reviewers 32 3 4 13 52 Workshop participants 19 42 26 27 114 Total 446 249 126 240 1,061

NOTE: Counts of individuals are approximate due to possible miscategorization.

aOther includes foreign institutions and entities not classified elsewhere.

Total number of NAS, NAE, and/or IOM members 53 Total number of non-U.S. participants 11 Total number of countries represented, including United States 8 Total number of different institutions represented Academia 146 Government and national facilities 45 Industry 50 Nonprofit and other 74

Charter and Organization of the Board

AUDIENCE AND SPONSORS The Space Studies Board’s efforts have been relevant to a full range of government audiences in civilian space research—including NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Director- ate (ESMD), NASA’s Program Analysis and Evaluation Office, NSF, NOAA, USGS, and the Department of Energy (DOE). Reports on NASA-wide issues were addressed to multiple NASA offices or the whole agency; reports on science issues, to SMD; and reports on exploration systems issues, to ESMD. Within NASA, SMD has been the leading sponsor of SSB reports. Reports have also been sponsored by or of interest to agencies besides NASA—for example, NOAA, NSF, DOE, and the USGS.

Outreach and Dissemination Enhancing outreach to a variety of interested communities and improving dissemination of SSB reports is a high priority. In 2009, the SSB continued to distribute its quarterly newsletter by electronic means to subscribers. The Board teamed with other NRC units (including the Division on Earth and Life Studies, the BPA, the National Academies Press, the Office of News and Public Information, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) to take exhibits to national meetings of the American Geophysical Union and the American Astronomical Society. Popular versions of four of the decadal surveys (Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, New Frontiers in the Solar System, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond, and Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond) continue to be widely distributed to the science community and the general public. Over 2,000 reports were disseminated in addition to the copies distributed to study committee members, the Board, and sponsors. Formal reports delivered to government sponsors constitute one of the primary products of the work of the SSB, but the dissemination process has a number of other important elements. The Board is always seeking ways to ensure that its work reaches the broadest possible appropriate audience and that it has the largest beneficial impact. Copies of reports are routinely provided to key executive branch officials, members and staffs of relevant congressional committees, and members of other interested NRC and federal advisory bodies. Members of the press are notified about the release of each new report, and the SSB maintains a substantial mailing list for distribution of reports to members of the space research community. The SSB publishes summaries of all new reports in its quarterly newsletter. The SSB also offers briefings by committee chairs and members or SSB staff to officials in Congress, the executive branch, and scientific societies. Reports are posted on the SSB Web home page at http://www7. nationalacademies.org/ssb and linked to the National Academies Press Web site for reports at http://www.nap.edu.

LLOYD V. BERKNER SPACE POLICY INTERNSHIP The Space Studies Board has operated a very successful competitive summer internship program since 1992. The Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Internship is named after Dr. Berkner, the Board’s first chair, who played an instrumental role in creating and promoting the International Geophysical Year, a global effort that made it possible for scientists from around the world to coordinate observations of various geophysical phenomena. The general goal of each internship is to provide a promising undergraduate student an opportunity to work in civil space research policy in the nation’s capital, under the aegis of the National Academies. Interns work with the Board, its committees, and staff on one or more of the advisory projects currently underway. Other interns, paid or unpaid, also join the SSB staff on an ad hoc basis. For intern opportunities at the SSB, and a list of past SSB interns, visit the SSB Web site at http://sites. nationalacademies.org/SSB/ssb_052239.

2 Board and Standing Committees: Activities and Membership

During 2009, the Space Studies Board (SSB) had five standing committees representing various disciplines: the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA; jointly with the Board on Physics and Astronomy, BPA), the Committee on Earth Studies (CES), the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL; jointly with the Board on Life Sciences), the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX), and the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP). The Board and its standing committees provide strategic direction and oversee activities of ad hoc study committees (see Chapter 3), interact with sponsors, and serve as a communications conduit between the government and the scientific community. They do not provide formal advice and recommendations, and therefore are not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Section 15.

SPACE STUDIES BOARD

HIGHLIGHTS OF SPACE STUDIES BOARD ACTIVITIES The Board held its 158th meeting on May 13-15, 2009, in Washington D.C. The first day of the meeting was a joint session with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) devoted to the fiscal year (FY) 2010 budgets of the agencies. Guest speakers included Chris Scolese, NASA associate administrator (and acting administrator at the time of the meeting); Gale Allen, NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate; Lynn Cline, NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate; Robie Samanta Roy, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Paul Shawcross, Office of Management and Budget; and congressional staff, including Jeff Bingham, Ed Feddeman, Chan Lieu, and Dick Obermann. On the second day, the SSB continued the discussion about FY 2010 budgets with Charles Gay, NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD); Mary Kicza, NOAA-NESDIS; and Richard Behnke, National Science Foundation. The third day included a presentation and discussion about optical communications with John Rush, director of systems planning, NASA Space Communications Office. The SSB executive committee (XCOM) met on August 4-5 at the J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, for its annual strategic planning session. The XCOM meet with Jean Pierre Swings (European Space Science Committee Chair) and Jean-Claude Worms (European Science Foundation) for a discussion on emerging space powers. The committee also received status reports from Steve Squyres, chair of the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, and Betsy Cantwell, chair of the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space. The Board met at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, November 3-4. The major focus of the meeting was the Augustine Commission Report with briefings from Com- mission members Ed Crawley (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Jeff Greason (XCOR Aerospace). In addition, David Bearden (Aerospace Corporation) reviewed the cost estimate methodology used by the Commis-

Board and Standing Committees

sion. The Board also heard congressional views of the Commission’s report from Chan Lieu and Jeff Bingham of the Senate Commerce Committee and Dick Obermann of the House Science Committee. The Board was also briefed by Mark Uhran (NASA) on the enhanced utilization plan for the International Space Station. The workshop originally planned for this meeting was rescheduled for November 2010. It was the opinion of the planning committee that inadequate time was available this year to organize a workshop on the selected theme that would be the desired caliber.

SPACE STUDIES BOARD MEMBERSHIP Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (vice chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado at Boulder Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University Yvonne C. Brill, Aerospace Consultant Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Dr. Andrew B. Christensen, Dixie State College Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution Jack D. Fellows, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Fiona A. Harrison, California Institute of Technology Joan Johnson-Freese, Naval War College Klaus Keil, University of Hawaii Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, Inc. Berrien Moore III, Climate Central Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology James A. Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University Soroosh Sorooshian, University of California, Irvine Joan Vernikos, Thirdage LLC Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota Ellen G. Zweibel, University of Wisconsin

Ex Officio and Liaison Members Raymond S. Colladay, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired) (ex officio, chair, NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Jay S. Pearlman, IEEE (ex officio, member of the NRC Ocean Studies Board) Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (liaison, U.S. representative to COSPAR) Jean-Pierre Swings, Université de Liège (liaison, chair of the European Space Science Committee)

10 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Membership of the 2006 SSB Executive Committee

July 1, 2008–June 30, 2009 July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) (chair) A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (vice chair) (retired) (vice chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, Inc. Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, Inc. Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory�, Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory�, California Institute of Technology California Institute of Technology James A. Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University Joan Vernikos, Thirdage LLC Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University

Staff in 2009 Marcia S. Smith, Director (left the SSB on March 1) Richard E. Rowberg, Interim Board Director (as of March 2) Brant L. Sponberg, Associate Director and Senior Program Officer Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer Ian W. Pryke, Senior Program Officer Robert L. Riemer,† Senior Program Officer, BPA David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer John Wendt,† Senior Program Officer, ASEB Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer Brian D. Dewhurst,† Program Officer, ASEB (left the ASEB in August) Paul Jackson,† Program Officer, ASEB David Lang, † Program Officer, BPA Abigail A. Sheffer, Associate Program Officer (promoted in December) Lewis Groswald, Research Associate (promoted in May) Victoria Swisher, Research Associate (left the SSB in August) Celeste A. Naylor, Information Management Associate (promoted in January) Tanja Pilzak, Manager, Program Operations Christina O. Shipman, Financial Officer Sandra Wilson, Financial Assistant Catherine A. Gruber, Editor (promoted in March) Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator (promoted in March) Theresa M. Fisher, Program Associate (retired in May) Andrea Rebholz,† Program Associate, ASEB Dionna Williams, Program Associate (joined SSB in June) Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant (joined SSB in June) Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant Linda M. Walker, Senior Project Assistant ______†Staff from other NRC Boards who are shared with the SSB.

Consultants Regina North (joined SSB in February)

Board and Standing Committees 11

Space Policy Interns Elena Amador, Autumn 2009 Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Jordan Bock, Summer 2009 Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Abigail Fraeman, Space Policy Intern Abigail A. Sheffer, Fall 2009 Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow Angie Wolfgang, Summer 2009 Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern

U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council of Science held its annual business meetings in Paris on March 16-19, 2009. The next COSPAR scientific assemblies will take place in Bremen, Germany, on July 18-25, 2010, and Mysore, India, on July 15-22, 2014. Annual business meetings will be held at COSPAR’s Paris headquarters on March 22-25, 2010. The membership term of Edward Stone, the current U.S. representative to COSPAR ends in 2010. The SSB, acting in its role as the U.S. National Committee for COSPAR, nominated Robert Lin of the University of California, Berkeley, as the new U.S. representative. The NRC’s Executive Office ratified the nomination, and Dr. Lin will take over his new role on July 1, 2010.

Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (U.S. Representative to COSPAR) David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB (Executive Secretary for COSPAR) Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB

STANDING COMMITTEES

COMMITTEE ON ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, which operates under the joint auspices of the SSB and the BPA, continued to be on hiatus until the completion of the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey. A historical summary of reports from CAA and related committees is presented in Figure 2.1.

David Lang, Program Officer, BPA (from September) Brian D. Dewhurst, Program Officer, ASEB (through August)

COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES The Committee on Earth Studies did not meet during the first quarter. The committee met on April 16-17, 2009, in Washington, D.C., at the National Academies’ Keck Center. Highlights of the meeting included updates on activities at NASA’s Earth Science Division and at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS), which were provided by NASA Earth Science Division director Michael Freilich and NOAA assistant administrator for satellite and information services, Mary Kicza, respectively; a videoconference with Dan Baker and Peter Pilewskie from the University of Colorado on the potential role of small satellites in Earth observations; a discussion with Ed Crawley from MIT, who has developed a modeling tool that can be used to optimize investments in the 2007 Earth science and applications from space decadal survey; an update on GEOSS and CEOS activities, which was presented by committee member Jay Pearlman; a discussion with University of Wisconsin researcher Hank Revercomb on prospects for restoring sounding capabilities in next-generation GOES satellites; and updates on several prospective and ongoing NRC studies. The committee is currently engaged in follow-up discussions with NASA and NOAA on potential ad hoc studies or workshops that would be of mutual interest. Several members of the committee participated in the June 15-16, 2009, workshop “Geoengineering Options to Respond to Climate Change: Steps to Establish a Research Agenda,” which was organized by CES staff officer Art Charo. The workshop brought�� some 120 scientists, engineers, philosophers, political scientists, economists, and policy experts together to examine proposed “geoengineering” approaches, or interventions in the climate system,

12 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

A Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980s (1979)

Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980s (1982)

Institutional Arrangements for the Space Telescope (1976)

Institutional Arrangements The Explorer Program for Long-Lived Space Space Science in the Twenty- for the Space Telescope: A Astronomy and Observatories for Astronomy First CenturyAstronomy and Mid-Term Review (1985) Astrophysics (1986) and Astrophysics (1987) Astrophysics (1988)

The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics (1991)

A Scientific Assessment of A Strategy for Ground-Based Review of Gravity a New Technology Orbital Optical and Infrared Probe B (1995) Telescope (1995) Astronomy (1995)

A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy Ground-Based Solar Failed Stars and Super Federal Funding of and Astrophysics (1997) Research (1998) Planets (1998) Astronomical Research (2000)

Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (2000)

U.S. Astronomy and “Review of Science The Atacama Large Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos (2002) Astrophysics: Managing Requirements for the Millimeter Array (ALMA): an Integrated Program Terrestrial Planet Finder: Implications of a (2001) Letter Report” (2004) Potential Descope “The Review of Progress in (2005) Astronomy and Astrophysics Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy toward the Decadal Vision The Astrophysical Science Centers (2007) (The Mid-Course Review)” (2005) Context of Life (2005)

A Performance Assessment of NASA’s NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Astrophysics Program (2007) Architecture for Implementation (2007)

FIGURE 2.1 SSB-NRC advice on astronomy and astrophysics (1979-2007).

Figure 2.1 R01747 SSB Annual Report 2009

Board and Standing Committees 13

with an emphasis on the research needed to better understand the potential efficacy and consequences of the various approaches. Information from the workshop is being used to inform the work of the NRC’s “America’s Climate Choices” (��http://americasclimatechoices.org��) panels�� and steering committee. CES met on October 19-20 in Washington, D.C., and received briefings from Mary Kicza, NOAA assistant administrator for satellite and information services, and from Michael Freilich, director of NASA’s Earth Science Division. Committee discussions focused on issues related to the implementation of the 2007 decadal survey, Earth Science and Applications from Space, the status of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), and potential workshops or studies of interest to agency sponsors. The committee also received updates on several prospective and ongoing NRC studies. Members of the committee and staff have also participated in the development of a study, “Assessing Require- ments for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations,” which is being led by the NRC’s Ocean Studies Board and several members and staff are participating in this study and “America’s Climate Choices.” The chair of the committee, Berrien Moore, presented testimony before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science and Technology on June 18, 2009, for a hearing entitled, “Opportunities and Challenges for NASA Science Programs.” Committee member Antonio Busalacchi, Jr., testified on March 18, 2009, at a hearing entitled “Critical Satellite Climate Change Datasets” before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations. Members of the committee and staff also appeared in a number of forums to discuss issues related to implementation of the decadal survey. A historical summary of reports from CES and related committees is presented in Figure 2.2.

Membership Berrien Moore III, Climate Central (chair) Ruth S. DeFries, Columbia University (vice chair) Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University Richard A. Anthes, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Philip E. Ardanuy, Raytheon Information Solutions Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park Heidi M. Dierssen, University of Connecticut, Avery Point Hung-Lung Allen Huang, University of Wisconsin, Madison Anne W. Nolin, Oregon State University Jay S. Pearlman, Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Colorado State University

Staff Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Theresa M. Fisher, Program Associate, SSB (through May) Dionna Williams, Program Associate, SSB (from June)

COMMITTEE ON THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF LIFE The Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, which operates under the joint auspices of the SSB and the Board on Life Sciences, began 2009 with a major membership rotation to replace those individuals whose terms ended in 2008. Six new appointments were made, including that of J. Gregory Ferry (Pennsylvania State University), who was named the committee’s new life-sciences co-chair. COEL held its first meeting of 2009 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., on February 18-20, 2009. The meeting was primarily devoted to various aspects of the NASA Astrobiology Institute’s (NAI’s) activities, including presentations from Mary Voytek, acting director of NASA’s Astrobiology Program; Carl Pilcher, director of the NAI; and the principal investigators of the NAI teams at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the New York Center for Astrobiology. In addition, COEL was briefed on the process being used to identify the landing site for the Mars Science Laboratory and on the outcome of the NASA-European Space Agency prioritiza-

14 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

NASA's Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions (1999) “On Review of Scientific Aspects of the NASA Triana Mission” (2000)

The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs (2000)

Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPP and NPOESS Meteorological Satellites (2000) Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Issues in the Integration of Issues in the Integration of Strategy for 2000-2010 (2000) Research and Operational Satellite Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research—I. Systems for Climate Research—II. Science and Design (2000) Implementation (2001)

Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications (2001)

Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research (2002)

Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan (2002) Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Applications Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Program Plan (2002) Management and Decision Making (2003)

Satellite Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations (2003) “Assessment of NASA's Draft Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions (2004) 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy”(2003)

Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond (2004) Review of Goals and Plans for NASA's Space and Earth Sciences Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions (2005) (2005)

“A Review of NASA's 2006 Draft Science Plan: Letter Report” (2006)

Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation (2005) Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (2007)

Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: A Workshop Report (2007)*

Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring (2008)

Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop (2009)

*The edited and final version of this Workshop Summary is also included as Appendix B in Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft (2008)

FIGURE 2.2 SSB-NRC advice on Earth science and applications in space (1979-2009).

Board and Standing Committees 15

tion process for the outer solar system flagship missions. Finally, the committee heard a presentation from Frances Westall, COEL’s liaison with the European Space Science Committee, on the challenges of searching for traces of life in 3.5-billion-year-old rocks on Earth. Although COEL did not meet during the second quarter, the committee was engaged in defining a potential task related to planetary protection measures for spacecraft missions to the icy bodies of the outer solar system. The committee is also encouraging members of the astrobiology community to draft white papers to support the goals of the Planetary Science Decadal Survey. The committee met in Big Sky, Montana, on September 1-3 in order to allow for a site visit to Yellowstone National Park where the committee visited Lower Geyser Basin and Old Faithful. The committee also heard presentations from several local research groups, including the Idaho National Laboratory and Montana State University’s NAI teams and the Thermal Biology Institute. In addition, the committee heard about the latest developments in NASA’s Astrobiology program and the NAI. Finally, the committee heard several presentations relating to planetary protection issues for icy solar system satellites. COEL did not meet during the fourth quarter, as the December meeting was cancelled and replaced by a conference call held on December 3. In support of a potential future study project, a subset of committee members, including co-chair Robert Pappalardo, and committee staff participated in COSPAR’s Icy Satellites Planetary Pro- tection Workshop, held at the California Institute of Technology on December 9-10. A historical summary of reports from COEL and related committees is presented in Figure 2.3.

Membership

July 1, 2008–June 30, 2009 July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 Kenneth H. Nealson,† University of Southern J. Gregory Ferry,* Pennsylvania State University California (co-chair) (co-chair) Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (co-chair) California Institute of Technology (co-chair) Stanley M. Awramik, University of California, Santa Stanley M. Awramik, University of California, Santa Barbara Barbara Paul G. Falkowski, Rutgers, The State University of Katrina J. Edwards,* University of Southern California New Jersey Paul G. Falkowski, Rutgers, The State University of Antonio Lazcano, Universidad Nacional Autonoma New Jersey de Mexico Margo G. Haygood,* University of Colorado, Boulder Ralph D. Lorenz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Dante Lauretta,* University of Arizona Physics Laboratory Antonio Lazcano, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de John C. Priscu, Montana State University Mexico Sara Seager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ralph D. Lorenz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Everett Shock, Arizona State University Physics Laboratory ______Jeff Moersch,* University of Tennessee, Knoxville † Term ended on December 31, 2008. John C. Priscu, Montana State University Sara Seager, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Barbara Sherwood Lollar, University of Toronto Everett Shock, Arizona State University Cristina Takacs-Vesbach,* University of New Mexico ______*Term began on February 17, 2009.

Staff David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer, BPA Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB

16 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Planetary Protection

Mars Conference on Hazard of Planetary Contamination Due to Microbiological Contamination in the Interior of Spacecraft Components (1965)

Biology and the Exploration of Mars (1965) “Study on the Biological Quarantine of Venus ”(1967) Extraterrestrial Life—An “Review of the Anthology and Bibliography, Sterilization Astrobiology Supplementary to Biology and “Review of Planetary Parameter Probability the Exploration of Mars (1966) Quarantine Policy” of Growth (Pg)” (1972) (1970)

“On Contamination of the Life Sciences in Space (1970) Outer Planets by Earth Organisms”(1976) Post-Viking Biological Investigations of Mars (1977) “Recommendation on Quarantine Policy for Uranus, Neptune, and Titan” (1976)

Origin and Evolution of Life— Recommendations on Quarantine Policy for Mars, Jupiter, Implications for the Planets: A Scientific Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan (1978) Strategy for the 1980s (1981)

“On Categorization of the “On NASA Policy for Planetary The Search for Life’s Strategy for the Mars Orbiter Mission” (1985) Protection”(1985) Origins: Progress and Detection and Study of Future Directions in Other Planetary Planetary Biology and Systems and Extrasolar “On Categorization “Recommendation on Chemical Evolution (1990) Planetary Materials: of the Comet Planetary Protection 1990-2000 (1990) Categorization of the Comet Biological Contamination Rendezvous– Rendezvous-Asteroid Flyby of Mars: Issues and Asteroid Flyby Mission and the Titan- Recommendations (1992) Mission” (1986) Cassini Mission”(1988) An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995-2010 (1994) Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned (1997) from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making (1998) Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop (1999) Preventing the “On Scientific Forward Assessment of Options Contamination of for the Disposition of the The Quarantine and Certification Europa (2000) Galileo Spacecraft” of Martian Samples (2002) (2000)

Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques (2002)

Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and Preventing the Forward “Assessment of Planetary International Programs in Astrobiology (2003) Contamination of Mars (2006) Protection Requirements for Venus Missions” (2006) The Astrophysical Context of Life (2005) An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (2007) Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (2007) Assessment of Planetary The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (2007) Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (2007) (2009)

FIGURE 2.3 SSB-NRC advice on astrobiology and planetary protection (1965-2009).

Figure 2.3 R01747 SSB Annual Report 2009

Board and Standing Committees 17

COMMITTEE ON PLANETARY AND LUNAR EXPLORATION The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration is on hiatus until the completion of the planetary sciences decadal survey. A historical summary of reports from COMPLEX and related committees is presented in Figure 2.4.

Staff Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer, SSB

COMMITTEE ON SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS The Committee on Solar and Space Physics did not meet until the last quarter of the year, although members held several teleconferences and met in smaller groups at professional meetings and other forums. On December 3-4, the committee met in Washington, D.C. The meeting focused on planning for the upcoming solar and space physics (heliophysics) decadal survey, which will get underway in spring 2010. To that end, the committee received briefings from Richard Behnke, director of the Upper Atmosphere Research Section at the National Science Founda- tion (NSF); Tom Bogdan, director of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center; and Richard Fisher, director of the Heliophysics Division within NASA’s SMD. NASA, NSF, NOAA, and the Department of Defense (Air Force and Navy) were sponsors of the previous decadal survey in solar and space physics, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond, which was completed in 2003. The committee was also briefed by Space Studies Board member Andy Christensen, who chaired the recently completed heliophysics roadmap for NASA. Lessons learned from previous and ongoing NRC decadal surveys were discussed during briefings by several staff members of the SSB. As the quarter ended, the committee was engaged in extensive discussions with potential sponsors of the survey regarding its terms of reference, organization, and schedule. The March 3-5, 2010, meeting of the committee in Boulder, Colorado, will finalize plans for survey initiation; following this meeting, the committee will stand down for the duration of the survey. A historical summary of reports from CSSP and related committees is presented in Figure 2.5.

Membership* Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, chair Thomas H. Zurbuchen, University of Michigan, vice chair Joseph F. Fennell, Aerospace Corporation Maura E. Hagan, National Center for Atmospheric Research Randy Jokipii, University of Arizona Krishan Khurana, University of California, Los Angeles William S. Lewis, Southwest Research Institute Ramón E. López, University of Texas Kristina A. Lynch, Dartmouth College Richard A. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology Merav Opher, George Mason University Howard J. Singer, NOAA Space Environment Center Ronald E. Turner, ANSER Corporation ______*All terms ended on June 30, 2009.

Staff Brant L. Sponberg, Associate Director and Senior Program Officer, SSB Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Theresa M. Fisher, Program Associate, SSB (through May) Linda M. Walker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB (from May)

18 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

INNER PLANETS OUTER PLANETS PRIMITIVE BODIES

Lunar Exploration—Strategy for The Outer Solar System: A Research: 1969-1975 (1969) Program for Exploration (1969)

Venus: Strategy for Outer Planets Exploration: Exploration (1970) 1972-1985 (1971)

“Report of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration,” Section II of Report on Space Science—1975 (1976) Strategy for the Exploration of Strategy for Exploration of the A Strategy for Exploration Primitive Solar-System Inner Planets: 1977-1987 (1978) of the Outer Planets: Bodies—Asteroids, Comets, 1986-1996 (1986) and Meteoroids: 1980-1990 (1980) Update to Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets (1990)

An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995-2010 (1994)

Assessment of Mars A Science Strategy for the Exploring the Trans- Science and Mission Exploration of Europa (1999) Neptunian Solar Priorities (2001) System (1998)

The Quarantine and The Exploration of Certification of Martian Near-Earth Objects Samples (2001) (1998)

New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy (2002)

Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion (2005)

Assessment of NASA's Mars The Scientific Context for Architecture 2007-2016 (2006) Exploration of the Moon (2007)

An Astrobiology Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (2007) Strategy for the The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (2007) Exploration of Mars (2007) Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review (2008) Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity (2008)

Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA's Constellation System: Interim Report (2008) Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System (2009)

Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration (2009)

FIGURE 2.4 SSB-NRC advice on solar system exploration (1969-2009). Origins of life topics are covered in Figure 2.3.

Board and Standing Committees 19

Solar System Space Physics in the 1980’s: A Research Strategy (1980)

An International Discussion on A Strategy for the Explorer Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, The Physics of the Research in Solar and Space Program for Solar and Space Distribution, and Archiving (1984) Sun (1985) Physics (1983) Physics (1984)

An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics (1985)

Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015Solar and Space Physics (1988)

Assessment of Programs in Solar and Space Physics1991 (1991)

A Space Physics Paradox (1994)

A Science Strategy for Space Physics (1995)

Scientific Assessment of NASA’s Space Weather: An Assessment of the Solar and Space Physics Aspects of SMEX-MIDEX Space Physics A Research NASA’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan (1997) Mission Selections (1997) Perspective (1997)

Radiation and the Astronomy and Readiness for the Ground-Based Solar Research: International Space Station: Astrophysics in the Upcoming Solar An Assessment and Strategy for Recommendations to New Millennium Maximum (1998) the Future (1998) Reduce Risk (1999) (2000)

The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics (2002) The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: Panel Reports (2003) Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (2004)

Exploration of the Outer Solar and Space Physics Distributed Arrays of Small Heliosphere and the Local and Its Role in Space Instruments for Solar- Interstellar Medium: A Exploration (2004) Terrestrial Research: Report Workshop Report (2004) of a Workshop (2006) Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration: Report of a Workshop (2006)

Severe Space Weather Events Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report (2008)

A Performance Assessment of NASA's Heliophysics Program (2009)

FIGURE 2.5 SSB-NRC advice on solar and space physics (1980-2009). Figure 2.5 R01747 SSB Annual Report 2009

20 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

SPACE RESEARCH DISCIPLINES WITHOUT STANDING COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION Although there are no longer standing committees representing microgravity research or space biology and medicine, a life and microgravity decadal survey is being conducted (see Chapter 3). A historical summary of NRC- SSB advice in space biology and medicine is presented in Figure 2.6, and a historical summary of NRC-SSB advice microgravity research is presented in Figure 2.7.

SPACE BIOLOGY HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT STUDIES Science in Space: Biological Science and Space Research (1960)

Report on NASA Biology Program (1968) Physiology in the Space Radiobiological Factors in Environment , Vol. 1 and 2 Manned Spaceflight (1967) Space Biology (1970) (1968) Radiation Protection Life Sciences in Space: Report Guides and Infectious Disease of the Study to Review NASA Constraints for in Manned Life Sciences Programs (1970) Space-Mission and Spaceflight: Vehicle-Design Probabilities and Studies Involving Countermeasures Priorities for Space Research: Nuclear Missions (1970) 1971-1980 (1971) (1970)

Life Beyond the Earth's Scientific Uses of the HZE-Particle Effects in Manned Environment (1979) Space Shuttle (1974) Spaceflight (1973)

A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s (1987)

“On the Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Life Sciences (1988) Extended Duration Orbiter Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine1991 Medical (1991) “On Several Issues in the Research Space Life Sciences” Program” (1989) (1993) “On Continued Operation of the BEVALAC Facility” (1992) “On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program” (1994) Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues “On the Planned and Research Strategies (1996) “On Peer Review in National Space NASA Life Sciences Biomedical Programs”(1995) Research Institute” (1996)

A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century (1998)

Review of NASA's Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Biomedical Research Sciences on the International Space Station (2001) Program (2000)

Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences (2003)

Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006)

FIGURE 2.6 SSB-NRC advice on space biology and medicine (1960-2006). Figure 2.7 R01747 SSB Annual Report 2009

Board and Standing Committees 21

Materials Processing in Space (1978) Space Science in the Twenty-First Microgravity Science and Century: Applications: Report on a Imperatives for the Workshop (1986, Board on Decades 1995 to Physics and Astronomy) 2015. Fundamental Physics and Chemistry (1988) Toward a Microgravity Research Strategy (1992)

“On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program” (1994)

“On the Utilization of the Space Station” (1994)

Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s (1995)

“On Archiving An Initial Review of Clarification of Microgravity Microgravity Research in Issues in the Flight Data and Support of Human Exploration Opportunities Samples and Development of Space Report” (1995) (1996) (1997) “On Research Facilities Planning for the International Space Station” (1997) Future Biotechnology Research on the International Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Space Station Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies (2000) (2000)

The Mission of Microgravity and Physical Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Sciences Research at NASA (2001) Physical Sciences on the International Space Station (2001)

Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2003) for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences (2003)

Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2006)

FIGURE 2.7 SSB-NRC advice on microgravity research (1978-2006). Figure 2.6 R01747 SSB Annual Report 2009

3 Ad Hoc Study Committees: Activities and Membership

When a sponsor requests that the Space Studies Board (SSB) conduct a study, an ad hoc committee is estab lished for that purpose. The committee terminates when the study is completed. These study committees are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Section 15, because they provide advice and recommendations to the federal government. The SSB and/or one of its standing committees provide oversight for ad hoc study committee activities. Thirteen ad hoc committees were organized, met, or released studies during 2009. (Activities and member ship are summarized below.) In addition, one ad hoc committee produced a report in 2008 and was formally disbanded in 2009—the Com- mittee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System, formed under the auspices of SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB). The committee’s report, Launching Science: Science Oppor tunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System, was summarized in the 2008 annual report.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPEDIMENTS TO INTERAGENCY COOPERATION ON SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS The ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Sci- ence Missions was formed to assess impediments, including cost growth, to the successful conduct of interagency cooperation on Earth science and space science missions; to identify lessons learned and best practices from past interagency Earth science and space science missions; and to recommend steps to help facilitate successful interagency collaborations on Earth science and space science missions. The committee held its first meeting July 30-31 in Washington, D.C. The committee examined experiences in a number of recent multiagency programs, including National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite Sys- tem, Landsat, GOES-R, GLAST/Fermi, and the Joint Dark Energy Mission. Speakers at the meeting included Michael Freilich, Earth Science Division director, NASA Headquarters (HQ) (via videoconference); A. Thomas Young, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Corp. (retired); Tom Karl and Jeff Privette, director and staff scientist, respectively, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center; Robert Winokur, technical director, oceanographer of the Navy; Anne Kinney, director, Solar System Exploration Division, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC); Paul Hertz, chief scientist, Science Mission Directorate, NASA HQ; Robin Staffin, director for basic research, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Kathy Turner, Office of High Energy Physics, Department of Energy; Persis Drell, director, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (via teleconference); Pam Whitney, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee; Amy Kaminski, Office of Management and Budget; Damon Wells, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); Phil DeCola, OSTP; Darrel Williams and Jim Irons, NASA GSFC; Paul Menzel, University of Wisconsin (via videoconference); Colleen Hartman, George Washington University; Dana Johnson, Northrop Grumman; and Ronald Sega, Colorado State University.

Ad Hoc Study Committees 23

The committee’s second meeting was held September 30-October 1 in Washington, D.C. Speakers at the meeting included Richard Obermann, staff director, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee; Michael Freilich, Earth Science Division director, NASA HQ; Mary Kicza, NOAA assistant administrator for satellite and information services; and Geoffrey Pendleton, Dynetics Corporation. During closed session discussions, the committee finalized its report outline and discussed plans for completion of a short report in the Spring of 2010. No further meetings of the full committee were held in 2009; however, a subset of the committee participated in a November 2 meeting that was held in conjunction with the November 3-4 meeting of the Space Studies Board in Irvine, California; the committee also convened via frequent teleconferences.

Membership D. James Baker, The William J. Clinton Foundation (co-chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado at Boulder (co-chair) David A. Bearden, The Aerospace Corporation Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University Stacey Boland, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park Carlos E. Del Castillo, Johns Hopkins University Antonio L. Elias, Orbital Sciences Corporation Margaret Finarelli, George Mason University Todd R. La Porte, University of California, Berkeley Margaret S. Leinen, Climate Response Fund Scott N. Pace, George Washington University Mark R. Schoeberl,* NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Graeme L. Stephens, Colorado State University Annalisa L. Weigel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michael S. Witherell, University of California, Santa Barbara A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)

Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB ______*Resigned from committee August 28, 2009.

ASSESSMENT OF NASA LABORATORY CAPABILITIES Congress directed NASA to arrange for an independent assessment of NASA laboratory capabilities; as a result, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Laboratory Assessments Board, in collaboration with the SSB, formed the ad hoc Committee on Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities to carry out a review of NASA’s laboratories to determine whether they are equipped and maintained at a level adequate to support NASA’s fundamental science and engineering research activities. The committee held its first meeting on September 8-9 in Washington, D.C., at which personnel from NASA Headquarters and seven NASA centers described their laboratories and associated research activities. In closed sessions, the committee laid out the guidelines for site visits to NASA centers to view firsthand the major laboratories and facilities involved in fundamental research. The committee’s first site visit was to NASA GSFC in Greenbelt, Maryland, on September 9-10. Committee subgroups also visited Glenn Research Center on October 15-16; Langley Research Center on October 21-22; Ames Research Center (aeronautics activities only); and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) on November 9-10. At the second full committee meeting at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, on November 11-12, agreement was reached on the overall report philosophy, and format and writing assignments were made. The committee determined that additional site visits were needed, and committee subgroups visited Ames Research Center’s space activities on December 2-3 and the Marshall Space Flight Center

24 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

on December 10. The third and final committee meeting will be held on January 19-20, 2010, at the National Acad- emies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C.

Membership John T. Best, Arnold Engineering Development Center (co-chair) Joseph B. Reagan, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc. (retired) (co-chair) William F. Ballhaus, Jr., The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Peter M. Banks, Astrolabe Venture Partners Ramon L. Chase, ANSER (Analytic Services, Inc.) Ravi B. Deo, Northrop Grumman Corporation (retired) Neil A. Duffie, University of Wisconsin-Madison Michael G. Dunn, Ohio State University Blair B. Gloss, NASA (retired) Marvine P. Hamner, George Washington University Wesley L. Harris, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Basil Hassan, Sandia National Laboratories Joan Hoopes, Orbital Technologies Corporation William E. McClintock, University of Colorado at Boulder Edward D. McCullough, Boeing Phantom Works Todd J. Mosher, Sierra Nevada Corporation Eli Reshotko, Case Western Reserve University John C. Sommerer,* Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory James M. Tien, University of Miami Candace E. Wark, Illinois Institute of Technology

John F. Wendt, Senior Program Officer, ASEB (study director) James P. McGee, Director, LAB Arul Mozhi, Senior Program Officer, LAB Liza Hamilton, Administrative Coordinator, LAB Eva Labre, Program Associate, LAB ______*Resigned from committee January 18, 2010.

ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS DECADAL SURVEY COMMITTEE The Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), in cooperation with SSB, initiated the next decadal survey for astronomy and astrophysics, Astro2010, to survey the field of space- and ground-based astronomy and astrophysics, recommending priorities for the most important scientific and technical activities of the decade 2010-2020. The survey is taking place over eighteen months and comprises two overlapping phases. The first phase was mostly concerned with establishing a science program, fact-finding, and establishing a procedure for the second phase. The second phase is concerned with creating a prioritized, balanced, and executable series of research activities—that is, ground- and space-based research programs, projects, telescopes, and missions—that will define the forefront of astronomy and astrophysics for the decade 2011-2020. The Astro2010 Survey Committee is assisted in its work by a series of nine panels addressing various topics— five Science Frontiers panels and four Program Prioritization panels. The Survey Committee will be responsible for synthesizing the panel inputs, determining priorities and recommendations, and preparing the final report which will have two volumes (a main committee report and a volume that will contain reports from the panels). The Survey Committee and panels conducted over 30 meetings throughout 2009. Over 700 pieces of input from the community was received in the form of town hall meeting reports, white papers, position papers, and responses to requests for information. Seventeen Astro2010 town hall meetings were held across the U.S., including sessions on January 6 at the AAS meeting in Long Beach, California, and on May 4-5 at the American Physical Society meeting in Denver, Colorado.

Ad Hoc Study Committees 25

During the last quarter of 2009, five of the nine panel reports entered the NRC’s peer-review process. The remaining panel reports are scheduled to enter review in early 2010 and the Survey Committee plans to hold their last two (closed) meetings in January and February 2010. The Survey Committee’s report is scheduled to enter NRC review in the spring. The prepublication versions of the Survey Committee report and the panel reports are expected to be released in the summer of 2010. Further information and updates are available at http://www. nationalacademies.org/astro2010.

Survey Committee Membership Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University (chair) Lynne Hillenbrand, California Institute of Technology (executive officer) Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University (co-vice chair) John P. Huchra, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (co-vice chair) Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona (co-vice chair) Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Lars Bildsten, University of California, Santa Barbara John E. Carlstrom, University of Chicago Debra M. Elmegreen, Vassar College Joshua Frieman, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Fiona A. Harrison, California Institute of Technology Timothy M. Heckman, Johns Hopkins University Robert C. Kennicutt, Jr., University of Cambridge Jonathan I. Lunine, University of Rome Tor Vergata Claire E. Max, University of California, Santa Cruz Dan McCammon, University of Wisconsin-Madison Steven M. Ritz, SCIPP, University of California, Santa Cruz Juri Toomre, University of Colorado, Boulder Scott D. Tremaine, Institute for Advanced Study Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago Neil de Grasse Tyson, American Museum of Natural History Paul Adrian Vanden Bout, National Radio Astronomy Observatory A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)

Staff Donald C. Shapero, Director, BPA Michael H. Moloney, Associate Director BPA (study director) Richard Rowberg, Associate Director, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences (DEPS) Brant L. Sponberg, Associate Director and Senior Program Officer, SSB Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer, BPA Brian D. Dewhurst, Program Officer, ASEB (until August 2009) James Lancaster, Program Officer, BPA (from April 2009) David Lang, Program Officer, BPA Teri Thorowgood, Administrative Coordinator, BPA (from December 2009) Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB Caryn Knutsen, Research Associate, BPA LaVita Coates-Fogle, Senior Program Assistant, BPA (until October 2009) Beth Dolan, Financial Associate, DEPS

Panel on Cosmology and Fundamental Physics Membership David Spergel, Princeton University (chair) David Weinberg, Ohio State University (vice chair)

26 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Rachel Bean, Cornell University Neil Cornish, Montana State University Jonathan Feng, University of California at Irvine Alex Filippenko, University of California, Berkeley Wick Haxton, NAS, University of Washington Marc Kamionkowski, California Institute of Technology Lisa Randall, Harvard University Eun-Suk Seo, University of Maryland David Tytler, University of California, San Diego Clifford Will, Washington University

Panel on Planetary Systems and Star Formation Membership Lee Hartmann, University of Michigan (chair) Hector Arce, Yale University Claire Chandler, National Radio Astronomy Observatory David Charbonneau, Harvard University Eugene Chiang, University of California, Berkeley Suzan Edwards, Smith College Eric Herbst, Ohio State University David C. Jewitt, University of Hawaii James P. Lloyd, Cornell University Eve C. Ostriker, University of Maryland David Stevenson, California Institute of Technology Jonathan Tan, University of Florida Daniel M. Watson, University of Rochester

Panel on Stars and Stellar Evolution Membership Roger Chevalier, University of Virginia (chair) Robert Kirshner, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (vice chair) Deepto Chakrabarty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Suzanne Hawley, University of Washington Jeffrey Kuhn, University of Hawaii Stanley Owocki, University of Delaware Marc Pinsonneault, Ohio State University Eliot Quataert, University of California, Berkeley Scott Ransom, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Hendrik Schatz, Michigan State University Lee Anne Willson, Iowa State University Stanford Woosley, University of California, Santa Cruz

Panel on Galactic Neighborhood Membership Michael Shull, University of Colorado (chair) Leo Blitz, University of California, Berkeley Julianne Dalcanton, University of Washington Bruce Draine, Princeton University Robert Fesen, Dartmouth University Karl Gebhardt, University of Texas Juna Kollmeier, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Crystal Martin, University of California, Santa Barbara Jason Tumlinson, Space Telescope Science Institute

Ad Hoc Study Committees 27

Daniel Wang, University of Massachusetts Dennis Zaritsky, University of Arizona Stephen Zepf, Michigan State University

Panel on Galaxies Across Cosmic Time Membership Meg Urry, Yale University (chair) Mitchell Begelman, University of Colorado (vice chair) Andrew Baker, Rutgers University Neta Bahcall, Princeton University Romeel Davé, University of Arizona Tiziana di Matteo, Carnegie Mellon University Henric Krawczynski, Washington University Joseph Mohr, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Richard Mushotzky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Chris Reynolds, University of Maryland Alice Shapley, University of California, Los Angeles Tommaso Treu, University of California, Santa Barbara Jaqueline van Gorkom, Columbia University Eric Wilcots, University of Wisconsin

Panel on Radio, Millimeter and Submillimeter from the Ground Membership Neal Evans, University of Texas (chair) James M. Moran, Harvard University (vice chair) Crystal Brogan, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Aaron Evans, University of Virginia Sarah Gibson, National Center for Atmospheric Research High Altitude Observatory Jason Glenn, University of Colorado Nicholas Gnedin, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Cornelia C. Lang, University of Iowa Miguel Morales, University of Washington Maura McLaughlin, West Virginia University Lyman A. Page, Jr., Princeton University Jean Turner, University of California, Los Angeles David J. Wilner, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Panel on Optical and Infrared Astronomy from the Ground Membership Patrick S. Osmer, Ohio State University (chair) Michael Skrutskie, University of Virginia (vice chair) Charles Bailyn, Yale University Betsy Barton, University of California, Irvine Todd Boroson, National Optical Astronomy Observatory Daniel Eisenstein, University of Arizona Andrea Ghez, University of California, Los Angeles J. Todd Hoeksema, Stanford University Robert Kirshner, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Bruce Macintosh, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Piero Madau, University of California, Santa Cruz John Monnier, University of Michigan Iain Neill Reid, Space Telescope Science Institute Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota

28 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Panel on Electromagnetic Observations from Space Membership Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (chair) Michael Bay, Bay Engineering Innovations Alan Boss, Carnegie Institution of Washington Mark Devlin, University of Pennsylvania Megan Donahue, Michigan State University Brenna Flaugher, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Tom Greene, NASA Ames Research Center Puragra (Raja) GuhaThakurta, University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory Michael Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute Harold McAlister, Georgia State University Peter Michelson, Stanford University Ben Oppenheimer, American Museum of Natural History Frits Paerels, Columbia University Adam Reiss, Johns Hopkins University George Rieke, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Paul Schechter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Todd Tripp, University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Panel on Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation Membership Jacqueline Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Eric Adelberger, University of Washington Andreas Albrecht, University of California, Davis Elena Aprile, Columbia University Jonathan Arons, University of California, Berkeley Barry Barish, California Institute of Technology Joan Centrella, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Douglas Finkbeiner, Harvard University Kathy Flanagan, Space Telescope Science Institute Gabriela Gonzalez, Louisiana State University Jim Hartle, University of California, Santa Barbara Steve Kahn, Stanford University Jeremy Kasdin, Princeton University Teresa Montaruli, University of Wisconsin, Madison Angela Olinto, University of Chicago Rene Ong, University of California, Los Angeles Helen Quinn, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

COST GROWTH IN NASA EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS The ad hoc Committee on Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions was formed to review existing cost growth studies related to NASA space and Earth science missions and identify their key causes of cost growth and strategies for mitigating cost growth; assess whether those key causes remain applicable in the current environment and identifying any new major causes; and evaluate the effectiveness of current and planned NASA cost growth mitigation strategies and, as appropriate, recommend new strategies to ensure frequent mission opportunities. The committee’s first meeting, on September 1-2 in Washington, D.C., included discussions with NASA staff on past assessments of cost and schedule growth of NASA space and Earth science missions and committee deliberations on the current applicability of historic causes of cost and schedule growth and past strategies to deal with this problem. The second meeting, on October 14-16 at JPL in Pasadena, California, included discussions with personnel from NASA Headquarters, JPL, GSFC, the U.S. Air Force, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Labora- tory, and industry regarding the causes of cost and schedule growth and possible approaches for improvement.

Ad Hoc Study Committees 29

At its third meeting on December 3-4 in Washington, D.C., the committee focused on reviewing the report outline, developing consensus on findings and recommendations, and assigning draft sections of the report. Based on the progress at this meeting, the committee elected to schedule a fourth and final writing meeting for January 11-12, 2010, in Boulder, Colorado. The committee plans to have its draft report submitted for NRC review by late spring 2010; with delivery to NASA of a prepublication version expected in late May 2010. The final printed report is expected to be completed and released in July 2010.

Membership Ronald M. Sega, Colorado State University Research Foundation (chair) Vassilis Angelopoulos, University of California, Berkeley Robert E. Bitten,* The Aerospace Corporation Allan V. Burman, Jefferson Consulting Group, LLC Olivier L. de Weck, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Robert E. Deemer, Regis University Larry W. Esposito, University of Colorado, Boulder Joseph Fuller, Jr., Futron Corporation Joseph W. Hamaker, Science Applications International Corporation Victoria E. Hamilton, Southwest Research Institute John M. Klineberg, Loral Space and Communications, Ltd. (retired) Robert P. Lin,* University of California, Berkeley Bruce D. Marcus, TRW Inc. (retired) Emery I. Reeves, Independent Consultant William F. Townsend, Independent Consultant

Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer, ASEB (study director) Andrea M. Rebholz, Program Associate, ASEB ______*Resigned from committee in September 2009.

DECADAL SURVEY ON BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN SPACE The Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space was formed under the auspieces of the SSB and the ASEB in response to a congressional request for a study to establish priorities and provide recommendations for life and physical sciences space research, including research that will enable exploration missions in microgravity and partial gravity for the 2010-2020 decade. The decadal survey will define research areas, recommend a research portfolio and a timeline for conducting that research, identify facility and platform requirements as appropriate, provide rationales for suggested program elements, define dependencies between research objectives, identify terrestrial benefits, and specify whether the research product directly enables exploration or produces fundamental new knowledge. These areas will be catego- rized as either those that are required to enable exploration missions or those that are enabled or facilitated because of exploration missions. The steering committee held its first meeting on May 6-8 at the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, D.C. The first day and a half was devoted to discussions of the study goals with NASA and congressional staffers and obtaining necessary background briefings on topics such as NASA exploration capability needs and the current research program structure and content. During the closed portion of the meeting, the committee concentrated its efforts on determining how it would structure its seven focus panels and began the process of identifying appropriate expertise and membership for each panel. Work on panel development continued following the meeting, through both frequent internal discussions and consultations with members of the community. The steering committee held its second meeting on June 29-July 1 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. Additional briefings related to the various past research solicitation and management approaches used by NASA were obtained, however most of the meeting was devoted to detailed planning for the work of the committee and its panels. Following the meeting, the steering committee continued to work on the member-

30 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

appointment process for the seven study panels, planning for several town halls, solicitation of white papers through numerous announcements sent to various lists and organizations relevant to the NASA biological and physical sciences program, and the organization of a joint first meeting for the panels. The joint meeting of the panels was held on August 19-21 at the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, D.C., and six of the seven panels participated. The panels attending the meeting were the Plant and Microbial Biology Panel, the Animal and Human Biology Panel, the Human Behavior and Mental Health Panel, the Applied Physical Sciences Panel, the Integrative and Translational Research for the Human System Panel, and the Translation to Space Exploration Systems Panel. Approximately 70 attendees were given an overview of the study by steering committee co-chair Betsy Cantwell and heard detailed background briefings on NASA’s explora tion needs, research capabilities, and program status and history. Panels then met separately in closed sessions where they discussed the task and the various information resources that were, or would become, available during the study. Each panel developed preliminary strategies for addressing their task items, chapter outlines, and writing assignments. The seventh panel, the Fundamental Physical Sciences Panel, was unable to attend the joint meeting, but met on September 8-9 with an agenda and activities similar to those of the joint meeting. The steering committee met on October 14-16, in Washington, D.C., to hear presentations on the European and Japanese microgravity programs, as well as presentations on research opportunities that could potentially become available on commercial spacecraft. Most of the meeting was reserved for closed session discussions on the status of efforts to recruit community input, review of materials drafted by the panels, and report development and planning activities. A teleconference call was held with the seven panel chairs for this study during the meeting. Following the meeting, the steering committee continued to hold frequent joint teleconference calls with individual panels in order to provide input and guidance. After a broad canvassing of the relevant communities, the solicitation of white papers for this study was completed in mid-October, with the receipt of about 150 papers from the community (many with multiple authors). The white papers covered a wide number of disciplines relevant to the study and were subsequently reviewed by each of the seven study panels and the steering committee. Four town halls were held in conjunction with scientific society or technical meetings during this period—meetings of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology, the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. At each of these meetings, steering committee members presented information on the study and led discussions aimed at soliciting input on important research and programmatic issues. Nine additional meetings of the various study panels were held prior to the end of 2009 in order to gather and assess inputs from a wide range of sources, including invited presentations, and to continue development of chapters and recommendations for the report. In addition to regular meetings, the panels have continued to hold teleconference calls in order to address report development issues. Regular meetings of the panels will be completed by the end of January 2010. Updates and detailed information on the study are provided on the public Web site at http://sites. nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/ssb_050845.

Steering Committee Membership Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (co-chair) Wendy Kohrt, University of Colorado, Denver (co-chair) Lars Berglund, University of California, Davis Nicholas P. Bigelow, University of Rochester Leonard H. Caveny, Independent Consultant Vijay K. Dhir, University of California, Los Angeles Joel Dimsdale, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Nikolaos A. Gatsonis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Simon Gilroy, University of Wisconsin-Madison Benjamin D. Levine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Kathryn V. Logan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Philippa Marrack, National Jewish Health Gabor A. Somorjai, University of California, Berkeley Charles M. Tipton, University of Arizona

Ad Hoc Study Committees 31

Jose L. Torero, University of Edinburgh Robert Wegeng, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Gayle E. Woloschak, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer,* ASEB Ian W. Pryke, Senior Program Officer, SSB Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer,* BPA Maureen Mellody, Program Officer,* ASEB Regina North, Consultant Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Danielle Johnson,* Senior Program Assistant, Center for Economic, Governance, and International Studies Laura Toth,* Senior Program Assistant, National Materials Advisory Board Linda M. Walker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB Eric Whittaker,* Senior Program Assistant, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board ______*Staff from other NRC boards who are assisting with the survey.

Animal and Human Biology Panel Membership Kenneth M. Baldwin, University of California, Irvine (chair) Francois M. Abboud, University of Iowa, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine Peter R. Cavanagh, University of Washington V. Reggie Edgerton, University of California, Los Angeles Donna Murasko, Drexel University John T. Potts, Jr., Massachusetts General Hospital April E. Ronca, Wake Forest University School of Medicine Charles M. Tipton, University of Arizona Charles H. Turner, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis John B. West, University of California, San Diego

Applied Physical Sciences Panel Membership Peter W. Voorhees, Northwestern University (chair) Nikolaos A. Gatsonis, Worcester Polytechnic Institute Richard T. Lahey, Jr., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Richard M. Lueptow, Northwestern University John J. Moore, Colorado School of Mines Elaine S. Oran, Naval Research Laboratory Amy L. Rechenmacher, University of Southern California James T’ien, Case Western Reserve University Mark M. Weislogel, Portland State University

Fundamental Physics Panel Membership Robert V. Duncan, University of Missouri (chair) Nicholas P. Bigelow, University of Rochester Paul M. Chaikin, New York University Ronald G. Larson, University of Michigan W. Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado, Boulder Ronald Walsworth, Harvard University

32 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Human Behavior and Mental Health Panel Membership Thomas J. Balkin, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (chair) Joel E. Dimsdale, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine Nick Kanas, University of California, San Francisco Gloria Leon, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Lawrence A. Palinkas, University of California, San Diego Mriganka Sur, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Integrative and Translational Research for the Human System Panel Membership James A. Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University (chair) Alan R. Hargens, University of California, San Diego Robert L. Helmreich, University of Texas, Austin (retired) Joanne R. Lupton, Texas A&M University, College Station Charles M. Oman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Robertson, Vanderbilt University Suzanne M. Schneider, University of New Mexico Gayle E. Woloschak, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

Plant and Microbial Biology Panel Membership Terri L. Lomax, North Carolina State University (chair) Paul Blount, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas Robert J. Ferl, University of Florida Simon Gilroy, University of Wisconsin, Madison E. Peter Greenberg, University of Washington School of Medicine

Translation to Space Exploration Systems Panel Membership James P. Bagian, Veterans Health Administration (chair) Frederick R. Best, Texas A&M University, College Station Leonard H. Caveny, Independent Consultant Michael B. Duke, Colorado School of Mines (retired) John P. Kizito, North Carolina A&T State University David Y. Kusnierkiewicz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory E. Thomas Mahefkey, Jr., Heat Transfer Technology Consultants Dava J. Newman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard J. Roby, Combustion Science and Engineering, Inc. Guillermo Trotti, Trotti and Associates, Inc. Alan Wilhite, Georgia Institute of Technology

HELIOPHYSICS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT The ad hoc Heliophysics Performance Assessment Committee was formed to study the alignment of NASA’s Heliophysics Science Division with previous NRC advice—primarily the 2003 solar and space physics decadal survey, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics. In particular, the study focused on how well NASA’s current program addresses the strategies, goals, and priorities outlined in the decadal survey and other relevant NRC reports; NASA’s progress toward realizing these strategies, goals and priorities; and any actions that could be taken to optimize the science value of the program in the context of current and forecasted resources available. The study did not revisit or alter the scientific priorities or mission recommendations provided in the 2003 decadal survey, but provides guidance about implementing the recommended mission portfolio in preparation for the next decadal survey.

Ad Hoc Study Committees 33

The committee’s report, A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program, was delivered in pre publication form on February 17 and printed in March. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Membership* Stephen A. Fuselier, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center (co-chair) Roderick A. Heelis, University of Texas at Dallas (co-chair) Thomas Berger, Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory George Gloeckler,** University of Maryland, College Park Jack R. Jokipii, University of Arizona Krishan Khurana, University of California, Los Angeles Dana Warfield Longcope, Montana State University Gang Lu, High Altitude Observatory Kristina A. Lynch, Dartmouth College Frank B. McDonald, University of Maryland, College Park Michael Mendillo, Boston University Robert E. Palmer, Independent Consultant Gary P. Zank, University of California, Riverside

Brant L. Sponberg, Associate Director and Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB ______*All terms ended in June 2009. **Resigned from committee in 2008.

NASA’S SUBORBITAL RESEARCH CAPABILITIES The ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities conducted a study of suborbital flight activities, including the use of sounding rockets, aircraft (including the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy), balloons, and suborbital reusable launch vehicles, as well as opportunities for research, training, and education as set out in the 2007 report Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration. The committee met on May 20-21, 2009, at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., and the meeting included briefings on the NASA suborbital program (NASA staff); NASA workforce issues (David Black, co-chair of the NRC committee that authored Building a Better NASA Workforce); and NASA mission-enabling issues (Lennard Fisk, chair of the Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions, and staff officer Joseph Alexander). At its second meeting, on August 19-20, 2009, at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder, Colorado, the committee heard presentations from several researchers who conduct research in the suborbital realm. At the committee’s third and final meeting on September 23-25, 2009, at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, the committee heard from several researchers on their suborbital work and received a second briefing from Lennard Fisk and Joseph Alexander. A prepublication version of the report, Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing Workforce, was delivered to NASA on February 4, 2010. Briefings for congressional staff and NASA management were well received. The final, printed version of the report is expected to be released in mid-March 2010.

Membership Steven R. Bohlen, Texas A&M University (chair) Kristin A. Blais, The Boeing Company Mark A. Brosmer, The Aerospace Corporation

34 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Estelle Condon, NASA Ames Research Center (retired) Christine Foreman, Montana State University Adam P.-H. Huang, University of Arkansas Michael J. Kurylo III, Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center Robert P. Lin, University of California, Berkeley Franklin D. Martin, Martin Consulting Inc. R. Bruce Partridge, Haverford College Robert Pincus, RP Consultants W. Thomas Vestrand, Los Alamos National Laboratory Erik Wilkinson, Southwest Research Institute

Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer, BPA (study director) Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer, SSB Linda M. Walker, Senior Project Assistant, SSB

NEAR-EARTH OBJECT SURVEYS AND HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES An ad hoc Committee on Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies was formed under the auspices of the SSB and ASEB to undertake a two-phase study to review the two NASA reports, 2006 Near- Earth Object Survey and Detection Study and Near-Earth Object Survey and Deflection Analysis of Alternatives: Report to Congress, and other relevant literature and provide recommendations that will address two major issues: (1) determining the best approach to completing the near-Earth object (NEO) census required by Congress to identify potentially hazardous NEOs larger than 140 meters in diameter by the year 2020 and (2) determining the optimal approach to developing a deflection strategy and ensuring that it includes a significant international effort. Both tasks will include an assessment of the costs of various alternatives, using independent cost estimating. Task 1 was addressed by the Survey/Detection Panel, and Task 2 was addressed by the Mitigation Panel. The steering group held its first meeting at the National Academies’ Keck Center on December 9-11, 2008. In 2009, the steering group met on May 18-20 at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico; on August 10-11 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts; and on September 1-2 in Irvine, California. The Survey/Detection Panel met on January 28-30 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., on April 20-22 at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, where it visited the Catalina Sky Survey Telescope. On April 29-30, the chair of the Survey/Detection Panel and a member of the Mitigation Panel visited the Pan-STARRS-1 telescope facility on Maui. The Survey/Detection Panel met on July 13-15 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, for report writing. The Mitigation Panel met on March 30-April 1 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C.; on June 23-25 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts; and on July 29-31 in Boulder, Colorado, for report writing. The committee’s interim report, Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, was released in early August. The committee’s final report,Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report, entered NRC review in fall 2009 and the prepublication version was released to the public on January 22, 2010. The interim report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Steering Group Membership Irwin I. Shapiro, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (chair) Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland, College Park (vice chair) Faith Vilas, MMT Observatory at Mt. Hopkins, Arizona (vice chair) Andrew F. Cheng, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Frank Culbertson, Jr., Orbital Sciences Corporation David C. Jewitt, University of California, Los Angeles Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute H. Jay Melosh, Purdue University Joseph H. Rothenberg, Universal Space Network

Ad Hoc Study Committees 35

Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer, SSB (study director) Paul Jackson, Associate Program Officer, ASEB (study director) David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB Abigail A. Sheffer, Associate Program Officer, SSB Victoria Swisher, Research Associate, SSB (through August) Andrea Rebholz, Program Associate, ASEB Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB

Survey/Detection Panel Membership Faith Vilas, MMT Observatory at Mt. Hopkins, Arizona (chair) Paul Abell, Planetary Science Institute Robert F. Arentz, Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation Lance A.M. Benner, Jet Propulsion Laboratory William F. Bottke, Southwest Research Institute William E. Burrows, Independent Aerospace Writer and Historian Andrew F. Cheng, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Robert D. Culp, University of Colorado, Boulder Yanga Fernandez, University of Central Florida Lynne Jones, University of Washington Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute Amy Mainzer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Gordon H. Pettengill, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (retired) John Rice, University of California, Berkeley

Mitigation Panel Membership Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland, College Park (chair) Michael J.S. Belton, National Optical Astronomy Observatories Mark Boslough, Sandia National Laboratories Clark R. Chapman, Southwest Research Institute Sigrid Close, Stanford University James A. Dator, University of Hawaii, Manoa David S.P. Dearborn, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Keith A. Holsapple, University of Washington David Y. Kusnierkiewicz, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Paulo Lozano, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Edward D. McCullough, Boeing (retired) H. Jay Melosh, Purdue University David J. Nash, Dave Nash & Associates, LLC Daniel J. Scheeres, University of Colorado, Boulder Sarah T. Stewart-Mukhopadhyay, Harvard University Kathryn C. Thornton, University of Virginia

PLANETARY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR MARS SAMPLE-RETURN MISSIONS An ad hoc Committee on Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample-Return Missions was formed to review and update the 1997 NRC report Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations in the light of new findings about Mars and recent advances in the biological sciences. The committee completed all of its scheduled meetings in 2008 and completed an initial draft of its report in early December 2008. The committee spent the first 6 weeks of 2009 revising the draft report in response to comments provided by external reviewers. A prepublication version of the report was delivered to NASA in late April and the final report was printed in May 2009. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5.

36 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Membership* Jack D. Farmer, Arizona State University (chair) James F. Bell III, Cornell University Kathleen C. Benison, Central Michigan University William V. Boynton, University of Arizona Sherry L. Cady, Portland State University F. Grant Ferris, University of Toronto Duncan MacPherson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Margaret S. Race, SETI Institute Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, San Diego Meenakshi Wadhwa, Arizona State University

David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB ______*All terms expired on May 31, 2009.

PLANETARY SCIENCES DECADAL SURVEY The Planetary Sciences Decadal Survey was established to develop a comprehensive science and mission strategy for planetary science that updates and extends the Board’s 2003 solar system exploration decadal survey, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy. The new decadal survey will broadly canvas the planetary science community to determine the current state of knowledge and then identify the most important scientific questions expected to face the community during the interval 2013-2022. This 2-year study at the request of NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) began in 2009 with the appointment of the steering group and various outreach activities. Steering group chair Steven Squyres led a town hall session designed to inform the scientific community of the decadal survey’s goals and schedule at the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference (Houston, Texas, March 25). Committee staff conducted similar outreach activities at a variety of venues including the meetings of the Venus Exploration Analysis Group (Houston, Texas, February 25), the Mars Exploration Pro- gram Analysis Group (Arlington, Virginia, March 3-4), the Outer Planets Assessment Group (Bethesda, Maryland, March 9-10), the Royal Astronomical Society (London, England, March 13), and the Curation and Analysis Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (Houston, Texas, March 28-29). During 2009, the survey steering group met twice, on July 6-8 in Washington, D.C., and on November 16-18 in Irvine, California. The panels have held the following meetings: Giant Planets Panel, August 24-26, Washington, D.C. and October 26-28, Irvine, California; Inner Planets Panel, August 26-28, Washington, D.C., and October 26-28, Irvine, California; Mars Panel, September 9-11, Tempe, Arizona, and November 4-6, Pasadena, California; Primi- tive Bodies Panel, September 9-11, Washington, D.C., and October 28-30, Irvine, California; and Satellites Panel, August 24-26, Washington, D.C., and September 21-23 in Irvine, California. Additional community outreach activities in support of the decadal survey were held at a variety of venues, includ ing the meetings of the Outer Planets Assessment Group (Colombia, Maryland, July 14), the NASA Lunar Science Institute (Moffett Field, California, July 21-23), the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (Providence, Rhode Island, July 29-30), the European Planetary Science Congress (Potsdam, Germany, September 13-18), the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society (Fajardo, Puerto Rico, October 4-9), the American Geophysical Union (San Francisco, California, December 14-18), and the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference (The Woodlands, Texas, March 1-5, 2010). To assist its activities, the decadal survey has commissioned mission studies to be undertaken at the Applied Physics Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center, and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In a related activity, the decadal survey has engaged the services of the Aerospace Corporation to provide independent cost and technical evaluations of the highest-priority mission concepts resulting from these studies. Committee and panel meetings and community outreach activities continued in 2010. Updates from the steering group chair to the planetary community can be found at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_054187. Presentations at these and other meetings, together with meeting summaries and archived webcasts, are available at

Ad Hoc Study Committees 37

the decadal survey’s Web site at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CurrentProjects/ssb_052412. The decadal survey is scheduled to be delivered to NASA and NSF by the end of March 2011.

Steering Group Membership Steven W. Squyres, Cornell University (chair) Laurence A. Soderblom, U.S. Geological Survey (vice chair) Wendy M. Calvin, University of Nevada, Reno Dale Cruikshank, NASA Ames Research Center Pascale Ehrenfreund, George Washington University G. Scott Hubbard, Stanford University Wesley T. Huntress, Jr.,* Carnegie Institution of Washington Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California, Los Angeles B. Gentry Lee, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Jane Luu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee, Knoxville George A. Paulikas,* The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Amy Simon-Miller, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center David J. Stevenson, California Institute of Technology A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired)

David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer, SSB Abigail Sheffer, Associate Program Officer, SSB Dionna Williams, Program Associate, SSB Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB

Satellites Panel Membership John Spencer, Southwest Research Institute (chair) David J. Stevenson, California Institute of Technology (vice chair) Glenn Fountain, Johns Hopkins University Caitlin Ann Griffith, University of Arizona Krishan Khurana, University of California, Los Angeles Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center Francis Nimmo, University of California, Santa Cruz Louise M. Prockter, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Gerald Schubert, University of California, Los Angeles Thomas R. Spilker, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Elizabeth P. Turtle, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Hunter Waite, University of Michigan

Giant Planet Panel Membership Heidi B. Hammel, Space Science Institute (chair) Amy Simon-Miller, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (vice chair) Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University John R. Casani, Jet Propulsion Laboratory John Clarke, Boston University Bridgette Hesman,** National Radio Astronomy Observatory

38 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

William B. Hubbard, University of Arizona Mark S. Marley, NASA Ames Research Center Philip D. Nicholson, Cornell University R. Wayne Richie, NASA Langley Research Center (retired) Kunio M. Sayanagi, California Institute of Technology

Inner Planets Panel Membership Ellen R. Stofan, Proxemy Research (chair) Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute (vice chair) Barbara A. Cohen, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Martha S. Gilmore, Wesleyan University Lori Glaze, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center David H. Grinspoon, Denver Museum of Nature and Science Steven A. Hauck II, Case Western Reserve University Ayanna M. Howard, Georgia Institute of Technology Charles K. Shearer, University of New Mexico Douglas S. Stetson, Space Science and Exploration Consulting Group Edward M. Stolper, California Institute of Technology Allan H. Treiman, Lunar and Planetary Institute

Mars Panel Membership Philip R. Christensen, Arizona State University (chair) Wendy M. Calvin, University of Nevada, Reno (vice chair) Raymond E. Arvidson, Washington University Robert D. Braun,*** Georgia Institute of Technology Glenn E. Cunningham, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) David Des Marias, NASA Ames Research Center Linda T. Elkins-Tanton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Francois Forget, University of Paris John P. Grotzinger, California Institute of Technology Penelope King, University of New Mexico Philippe Lognonne, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris Paul R. Mahaffy, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Lisa M. Pratt, Indiana University

Primitive Bodies Panel Membership Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University (chair) Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee, Knoxville (vice chair) Eric Asphaug, University of California, Santa Cruz Michael E. Brown, California Institute of Technology Donald E. Brownlee, University of Washington Marc Buie, Southwest Research Institute Timothy J. McCoy, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Marc D. Rayman, Jet Propulsion Laborator��y Edward Reynolds, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Mark Sephton, Imperial College London Jessica Sunshine, University of Maryland, College Park Faith Vilas, MMT Observatory

Ad Hoc Study Committees 39

______*Dr. Huntress resigned in November 2009 to take up an appointment on the NASA Advisory Council; Dr. Paulikas was appointed in 2010 as his replacement. **Now at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. ***Resigned from committee on February 8, 2010, to take an appointment at NASA Headquarters.

RADIOISOTOPE POWER SYSTEMS The U.S. space program’s legendary successes include missions to circle the Earth, land on the Moon and Mars, orbit Jupiter and Saturn, and explore space beyond the limits of our solar system. Ensuring that space vehicles have adequate power presents special challenges in distant and extreme environments. Radioisotope power systems are currently the only available energy source for missions where solar power is not practical , and plutonium-238 (Pu-238 ), a nonweapons-grade material used solely by the space program, is the only practical isotope for fueling them. However, no Pu-238 has been produced in the United States since the late 1980s, and supplies are dwindling. The ad hoc Committee on Radioisotope Power Systems was formed under the auspices of the SSB and ASEB to assess the technical readiness and programmatic balance of NASA’s radioisotope power systems technology portfolio in terms of its ability to support NASA’s near- and long-term mission plans. In addition, the study examined related public and private infrastructure and the effectiveness of other federal agencies involved in relevant research and development. The study also reviewed strategies for reestablishing domestic production of Pu-238, which serves as the fuel for radioisotope power systems. The committee held its final committee meeting on January 12-13, 2009, at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, in Irvine, California. The committee subsequently prepared a complete draft of its report, Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration. A pre publication version of the report was released in May 2009, followed by the printed report in July. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5. Radioisotope Power Systems says that the fiscal year (FY) 2010 federal budget should provide funding to the Department of Energy to reestablish production of Pu-238 as soon as possible. Accordingly, the administration’s FY 2010 and 2011 budget requests for the Department of Energy have included funds for Pu-238 production.

Membership* William W. Hoover, Independent Consultant (co-chair) Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory (co-chair) Douglas M. Allen, Schafer Corporation Samim Anghaie, University of Florida Reta F. Beebe, New Mexico State University Warren W. Buck, University of Washington Beverly A. Cook, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Sergio B. Guarro, The Aerospace Corporation Roger D. Launius, Smithsonian Institution Frank B. McDonald, University of Maryland, College Park Alan R. Newhouse, Independent Consultant Joseph A. Sholtis, Jr., Sholtis Engineering and Safety Consulting Spencer R. Titley, University of Arizona Emanuel Tward, Northrop Grumman Space Technology Earl Wahlquist, U.S. Department of Energy (retired)

Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer, ASEB (study director) Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer, SSB Sarah M. Capote, Program Associate, ASEB (through November 2008) Celeste A. Naylor, Senior Program Assistant, SSB (through January 2009) Andrea M. Rebholz, Senior Program Assistant, ASEB (from February 2009) ______*All terms expired on September 1, 2009.

40 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

RATIONALE AND GOALS FOR THE U.S. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM An ad hoc Committee on Rationale and Goals for the U.S. Civil Space Program was organized under the auspices of the SSB and the ASEB, with funding support from The National Academies Presidents’ Committee, to prepare a report to advise the nation on key goals and critical issues in 21st century U.S. civil space policy. Following information-gathering and discussion meetings in 2008, the committee met on January 13-15, at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., for discussions with outside experts regarding public interests and attitudes about space exploration, alternative exploration approaches, commercial and economic aspects of space activities, and the implications of two National Academies reports, Rising Above the Gathering Storm and Beyond “Fortress America,” for the committee’s task. Following the January meeting, the committee began to organize its study report. Work on the draft report continued, including a committee teleconference on February 13 and a March 2 meeting in Washington, D.C. The committee’s report, America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, was submitted for external NRC review in April, released as a prepublication in July, and printed in September. The committee chair and both vice chairs testified at various congressional hearings where they summarized major conclusions from the report. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Membership* Lester L. Lyles, The Lyles Group (chair) Raymond S. Colladay, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired) (co-vice chair) Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan (co-vice chair) Jay Apt, Carnegie Mellon University James B. Armor, Jr., The Armor Group, LLC Wanda M. Austin, The Aerospace Corporation David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology Robert Bednarek, SES NEW SKIES Joseph A. Burns, Cornell University Pierre Chao, Renaissance Strategic Advisors Kenneth S. Flamm, University of Texas, Austin Joan Johnson-Freese, U.S. Naval War College Paul D. Nielsen, Carnegie Mellon University Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Colorado State University George T. Whitesides,** National Space Society

Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Brian D. Dewhurst, Program Officer, ASEB (through August) Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB Lewis Groswald, Policy Intern, SSB Victoria Swisher, Research Assistant, SSB (through August) ______*All terms expired on December 31, 2009. **Resigned from committee in 2008.

ROLE AND SCOPE OF MISSION-ENABLING ACTIVITIES IN NASA’S SPACE AND EARTH SCIENCE MISSIONS The ad hoc Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions was formed to provide strategic advice on activities that traditionally encompass much of NASA’s research and analysis programs and that include support for theory, modeling, and data analysis; suborbital flights and complementary ground-based programs; and advanced mission and instrumentation concept studies. The committee met on January 21-23 at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, and on March 11-13 at the National Academy of Sciences Building in Washington, D.C., to gather

Ad Hoc Study Committees 41

information from NASA program managers and other experts on aspects relevant to the study charge. At the March meeting the committee began to discuss approaches for responding to the study charge. At its final meeting on May 20-23 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., the committee discussed initial findings and recommendations and began work on the study report. The draft report was submitted for external NRC review in September and approved for release in November. A prepublication version of the report, An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, was delivered to NASA and congressional offices on November 30 and was released to the public on December 4. Final printed editions of the report were disseminated in February 2010. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Membership Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan (chair) Bruce H. Margon, University of California, Santa Cruz (vice chair) Mark R. Abbott, Oregon State University Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Yvonne C. Brill, Independent Consultant Donald E. Brownlee, University of Washington Richard Chapas, Battelle Eastern Science and Technology Center Martin H. Israel, Washington University Conilee G. Kirkpatrick, HRL Laboratories, LLC Jennifer A. Logan, Harvard University Robyn Millan, Dartmouth College Richard R. Paul, Boeing Phantom Works (retired) Guenter Riegler, NASA Ames Research Center (retired) Mark V. Sykes, Planetary Science Institute

Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Victoria Swisher, Research Associate, SSB (through August) Linda M. Walker, Senior Project Assistant, SSB

4 Workshops, Symposia, Meetings of Experts, and Other Special Projects

In 2009, although the Space Studies Board (SSB) did not convene any workshops, summary reports for three 2008 workshops were prepared for publication. In addition, a collection of selected lectures from the 2007-2008 Forging the Future of Space Science international public seminar series commemorating the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year and the SSB was prepared. Forging the Future of Space Science—The Next 50 Years. An International Public Seminar Series Organized by the Space Studies Board. Selected Lectures will be printed in 2010. The report of the ad hoc planning committee for the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events Workshop, formed in 2007 to organize the May 22-23, 2008, workshop to examine the nation’s current and future ability to manage the effects of space weather events on a wide range of critical infrastructures, and their resulting societal and economic impacts, was delivered to NASA in December 2008 and released to the public on January 5, 2009. This report was summarized in the 2008 annual report. Since its release, Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report has attracted broad media attention, much of which has been focused on the workshop discussion of the prolonged electrical grid outages that could result from a particularly severe event. Some of the articles were of a rather sensational nature, so the National Research Council’s Office of News and Public Information and SSB staff monitor the report press and field incoming requests for information and interviews. The committee chair, Dan Baker, briefed the report to NASA on March 25, 2009. Among its other impacts, NASA indicated that the workshop had created momentum for interagency talks on creating an operational solar monitoring capability. NASA has also requested a follow-on product from the report, essentially an expanded version of the report’s executive summary that can be used to educate policy makers and officials in other agencies.

FUTURE INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION AND COMPETITION IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD The ad hoc Planning Committee for the Future International Space Cooperation and Competition in a Glo- balizing World: A Workshop, under the auspices of the SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), organized a public workshop that took place on November 18-20, 2008, in Irvine, California, to review past and present cooperation and coordination mechanisms for space and Earth science research and space exploration, identify significant lessons learned, and discuss how those lessons could best be applied in the future. The workshop featured invited presentations, panel discussions, and four discussion groups dedicated to specific topics. Approximately 50 individuals participated, including the majority of SSB members and one member of the ASEB. Workshop rapporteur James V. Zimmerman and SSB staff prepared a report summarizing the panel sessions and the output of the four discussion groups. Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop was released in June 2009. The summary of the report is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Workshops, Symposia, Meetings of Experts, and Other Special Projects 43

Planning Committee Membership* Charles F. Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (chair) A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (vice chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado David Goldston, Princeton University Joan Johnson-Freese, Naval War College Richard H. Kohrs, Independent Consultant Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Joan Vernikos, Thirdage LLC Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Ian W. Pryke, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer, Space Studies Board Carmela J. Chamberlain, Program Associate, Space Studies Board ______*All terms expired in 2009.

UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT IN REMOTE SENSING OF CLIMATE DATA Under the auspices of the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), the Board on Mathematical Sciences and their Applications (BMSA), and the SSB, an ad hoc committee was formed to plan and conduct the Workshop on Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data that took place at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington, D.C., on December 4, 2008. Convened jointly by the Climate Research Committee, the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and the Committee on Earth Studies, the workshop explored uncertainty management in remote sensing of climate information. Through invited presentations and discussion, participants examined sources of uncertainty throughout satellite and other remote data collection systems, including issues of sampling, scale, processing, and validation; described the statistical methods currently used to quantify these sources of uncertainty for climate-relevant data; and explored how modern statistical methods might be used to provide a more powerful framework for characterizing and propagating these uncertainties. A summary report of the proceedings, Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop, was released in 2009; the summary of the report is reprinted in Chapter 5.

Planning Committee Membership Amy Braverman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (chair) Philip E. Ardanuy, Raytheon Information Solutions John J. Bates, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration James A. Coakley, Jr., Oregon State University Karen Kafadar, Indiana University Douglas Nychka, National Center for Atmospheric Research Joyce E. Penner, University of Michigan Steven E. Platnick, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Martha C. McConnell, Associate Program Officer, BASC (study director) Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Scott T. Weidman, Director, BMSA Katie Weller, Research Associate, BASC Shelly Freeland, Program Assistant, BASC

5 Summaries of Major Reports

This chapter reprints the summaries of reports that were released in 2009 (note that the official publication date may be 2010). One report was released in 2008 but published in 2009—Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System was reprinted in Space Studies Board Annual Report—2008.

Summaries of Major Reports 45

5.1 america’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs

A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program

Summary

From its inception in 1958, much of the U.S. space program was driven by opportunities to serve national interests in a geopolitical environment heavily colored by Cold War threats and fears. Originally, the true potential of space activities was largely speculative. In the ensuing decades, however, early expectations for discovery and technological accomplishment have been richly exceeded. Without a doubt, the first 50 years of the space age have been transformative. Astronauts have stood on Earth’s moon while millions watched. Commercial communications and remote sensing satellites have become part of the basic infrastructure of the world. Satellites support worldwide communications, providing a critical backbone for commerce—carrying billions of global financial transactions daily, for example. Direct broadcasting beams television signals into homes globally, delivering images that bring unprecedented awareness of events occurring throughout the world. Military global positioning satellites provide ubiquitous signals that support a stunning variety of services, from assisting in the navigation of civilian airplanes, shipping, and automobiles to transmitting timing signals that enable cell phone and power grid switching. Remote sensing satellites obtain high-resolution images of Earth’s surface, available now on the Internet for people worldwide to view and use, and provide critical information to monitor changes in our climate and their effects. Our understanding of every aspect of the cosmos has been profoundly altered, and in the view of many, we stand once again at the brink of a new era. Space observations have mapped the remnant radiation from the Big Bang that began our universe. We have discovered that the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate, driven by a force that we do not yet understand, and that there are large amounts of matter in the universe that we cannot yet observe. We have seen galaxies forming at the beginning of the universe and stars forming in our own galaxy. We have explored the wonders that abound in our solar system and have found locations where life might have occurred or might even now be present. We have discovered planets around other stars, so many that it is ever more likely that there are other Earths comparable to our own. What will the next 50 years bring? Today we live in a globalized world of societies and nations characterized by intertwined economies, trade commitments, and international security agreements. Mutual dependencies are much more pervasive and important than ever before. Many of the pressing problems that now require our best efforts to understand and resolve—from terrorism to climate change to demand for energy—are also global in nature and must be addressed through mutual worldwide action. In the judgment of the Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, the ability to operate from, through, and in space will be a key component of potential solutions to 21st-century challenges. As it has before, with the necessary alignment to achieve clearly articulated national priorities, the U.S. civil space program can serve the nation effectively in this new and demanding environment. In its initial discussions, the committee concluded that debates about the direction of the civil space program have too often focused on addressing near-term problems and issues without first putting those issues in the context of how a disciplined space program can serve larger national imperatives. In the committee’s view, characterizing the top-level goals of the civil space program and the connection between those goals and broad national priorities is necessary as a foundation on which the nation (both now and in the future) can devise sustainable solutions to nearer-term issues. Therefore, the committee focused on the long-term, strategic value of the U.S. civil space program, and its report does not address nearer-term issues that affect the conduct of U.S. space activities other than to provide a context in which more tactical decisions might be made.

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-8. The committee considered “civil space” to include all government, commercial, academic, and private space activities not directly intended for military or intelligence use.

46 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

The national priorities that informed the committee’s thinking include ensuring national security, providing clean and affordable energy, protecting the environment now and for future generations, educating an engaged citizenry and a capable workforce for the 21st century, sustaining global economic competitiveness, and working internationally to build a safer, more sustainable world. A common element across all these urgent priorities is the significant part that research and development can play in solving problems and advancing the national enterprise in each area. Instruments in space have documented an accelerating decline in arctic sea ice; mapped the circulation of the world’s oceans; enabled the creation of quantitative three-dimensional data sets to improve the quality of hurricane forecasting; and created new tools to address a host of agricultural, coastal, and urban resource management problems, to cite only a few examples. Such capabilities demonstrate what can be achieved when technologi- cally challenging space problems stimulate innovation that leads to long-term advances with applications beyond the space sector. Civil space activities are central to the R&D enterprise of the nation, often in a transformational way, and thus present powerful opportunities to help address major national objectives. Observations from space offering unique capabilities for global environmental and land-use monitoring are essential to informed decision making about energy production and climate change policies, and they help provide the understanding required for wise management. The high visibility of space activities attracts students’ attention to science, technology, and mathematics, and space activities are an exciting focus for teaching those subjects. Commercial space-related ventures now figure significantly in global economic competitiveness, and, while government investments to stimulate the nation’s fragile economy will have short-term impacts, R&D investments can be counted on to make longer-term sustainable contributions to the nation’s economic strength. As has countless times proved the case, research in and from space will continue to lead to important future, and not always currently predictable, benefits that hold the promise of progress toward realizing U.S. as well as shared international goals. The committee’s overall conclusion is that a preeminent U.S. civil space program with strengths and capabilities aligned for tackling widely acknowledged national challenges—environmental, economic, and strategic—is a national imperative today, and will continue to grow in importance in the future.

GOALS FOR THE CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM Structured and supported to match multiple responsibilities in serving key national objectives, the U.S. civil space program should be preeminent in the sense that it can influence, by example, nations’ use of space. To be a strategic leader in a globalized world requires that the United States have a civil space program whose breadth, competence, and level of accomplishment ensure that U.S. leadership is demonstrated, accepted, and welcomed. The committee identified six strategic goals that it regards as basic for guiding program choices and resources planning for U.S. civil space activities. The goals all serve the national interest, and steady progress in achieving each of them is necessary.

• To reestablish leadership for the protection of Earth and its inhabitants through the use of space research and technology. The key global perspective enabled by space observations is critical to monitoring climate change and testing climate models, managing Earth resources, and mitigating risks associated with natural phenomena such as severe weather and asteroids. • To sustain U.S. leadership in science by seeking knowledge of the universe and searching for life beyond Earth. Space offers a multitude of critical opportunities, unavailable in Earth-based laboratories, to extend our knowledge of the local and distant universe and to search for life beyond Earth. • To expand the frontiers of human activities in space. Human spaceflight continues to challenge technology, utilize unique human capabilities, bring global prestige, and excite the public’s imagination. Space provides almost limitless opportunities for extending the human experience to new frontiers. • To provide technological, economic, and societal benefits that contribute solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems. Space activities provide economic opportunities, stimulate innovation, and support services that improve the quality of life. U.S. economic competitiveness is directly affected by our ability to perform in this sector and the many sectors enabled and supported by space activities. • To inspire current and future generations. U.S. civil space activities, built on a legacy of spectacular achievements, should continue to inspire the public and also serve to attract future generations of scientists and engineers.

Summaries of Major Reports 47

• To enhance U.S. global strategic leadership through leadership in civil space activities. Because of the growing strategic importance of space, all nations that aspire to global political and economic leadership in the 21st century are increasing their space-faring capabilities. Continued U.S. global leadership is tied to continued U.S. leadership in space.

FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS To contribute to realizing critical national objectives, including those just listed, the U.S. space program, both the civil and the national security components, must have a strong foundation and adequate resources. While the breadth of the civil space program has grown, there is also a sense that the program has been unfocused, with corresponding impacts on the organizations and institutions that support it. The United States can no longer pursue space activities on the assumption of its unchallengeable dominance—as evidenced by the view of other nations that the United States is not the only, or in some cases even the best, option for space partnerships. U.S. leadership in space activities and their capacity to serve urgent national needs must be based on preeminent technical capabilities; ingenuity, entrepreneurialism, and a willingness to take risks; and recognition of mutual interdepen- dencies. The time has come to reassess, and, in some cases, reinvent the institutions, workforce, infrastructure, and technology base for U.S. space activities. The committee identified four foundational elements critical to a purposeful, effective, strategic U.S. space program, without which U.S. space efforts will lack robustness, realism, sustainability, and affordability.

1. Coordinated national strategies—implementing national space policy coherently across all civilian agencies in support of national needs and priorities and aligning attention to shared interests of civil and national security space activities; 2. A competent technical workforce—sufficient in size, talent, and experience to address difficult and pressing challenges; 3. An effectively sized and structured infrastructure—realizing synergy from the public and private sectors and from international partnerships; and 4. A priority investment in technology and innovation—strengthening and sustaining the U.S. capacity to meet national needs through transformational advances.

Efforts to establish each of these elements to ensure a strong foundation for the nation’s civil space program must overcome several impediments. The issues include a loss of focus on national imperatives, overly constrained resources, inadequate coordination across the federal government, missed opportunities to transition roles from government-led to private-sector-provided services, obstacles to international cooperation, weakened institutional partnerships, and lack of emphasis on advanced technology development programs. Awareness of such issues—and not an effort to resolve specific instances—guided the committee in its development of recommendations to NASA, NOAA, and the federal government at the highest levels.

RECOMMENDATIONS The committee found that, in spite of their promise and utility, components of the civil space program are not always aligned to fully capitalize on opportunities to serve the larger national interest. Decisions about civil space priorities, strategies, and programs, and the resources to achieve them, are not always made with a conscious view toward their linkages to broader national interests. Accordingly, the committee recommends as follows:

1. Addressing national imperatives. Emphasis should be placed on aligning space program capabilities with current high-priority national imperatives, including those where space is not traditionally considered. The U.S. civil space program has long demonstrated a capacity to effectively serve U.S. national interests. Recommendation 1 provides a broad policy basis on which the committee’s subsequent specific recommendations rest. The recommendations that follow address a set of actions, all of which are necessary to strengthen the U.S. civil space program and reinforce or enhance the contributions of civil space activities to broader national objectives.

48 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

2. Climate and environmental monitoring. NASA and NOAA should lead the formation of an international satellite-observing architecture capable of monitoring global climate change and its consequences and support the research needed to interpret and understand the data in time for meaningful policy decisions by a. Reversing the deterioration of the U.S. Earth observation infrastructure; b. Developing and implementing a plan for achieving and sustaining global Earth observations; c. Working with the international community to develop an integrated database for sensor information from all Earth-monitoring satellites; d. Aggressively pursuing technology development for future high-priority Earth observation missions; and e. Actively planning for transitions to continue demonstrably useful research observations on a sustained, or operational, basis.

3. Scientific inquiry. NASA, in cooperation with other agencies and international partners, should continue to lead a program of scientific exploration and discovery that a. Seizes opportunities to advance understanding of Earth, the objects of the solar system, including the Sun, and the vast universe beyond; b. Includes searches for evidence of life beyond Earth; c. Contributes to understanding how the universe works, who we are, where we came from, and what is the destiny of our star—the Sun—our solar system, and the universe, and of the physical laws that govern them; and d. Is guided by peer review, advisory committees, and the priorities articulated by the science communities in their strategic planning reports, such as the NRC’s decadal surveys.

4. Advanced space technology. NASA should revitalize its advanced technology development program by establishing a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)-like organization within NASA as a priority mission area to support preeminent civil, national security (if dual-use), and commercial space programs. The resulting program should a. Be organizationally independent of major development programs; b. Serve all civil space customers, including the commercial sector; c. Conduct an extensive assessment of the current state and potential of civil space technology; and d. Conduct cutting-edge fundamental research in support of the nation’s space technology base.

5. International cooperation. The government, under White House leadership, should pursue international cooperation in space proactively as a means to advance U.S. strategic leadership and meet national and mutual international goals by a. Expanding international partnerships in studies of global change; b. Leading an effort in which the United States and other major space-faring nations cooperate to develop rules for a robust space operating regime that ensures that space becomes a more productive global commons for science, commerce, and other activities; c. Rationalizing export controls so as to ensure ongoing prevention of inappropriate transfer of sensitive technologies to adversaries while eliminating barriers to international cooperation and commerce that do not contribute effectively to national security; d. Expanding international partnerships in the use of the International Space Station (ISS); e. Continuing international cooperation in scientific research and human space exploration; f. Engaging the nations of the developing world in educating and training their citizens to take advantage of space technology for sustainable development; and g. Supporting the interchange of international scholars and students.

The NRC decadal surveys have been widely used by the scientific community and by program decision makers because they (a) present explicit, consensus priorities for the most important, potentially revolutionary science that should be undertaken within the span of a decade; (b) develop priorities for future investments in research facilities, space missions, and/or supporting programs; (c) rank competing opportunities and ideas and clearly indicate which ones are of higher or lower priority in terms of the timing, risk, and cost of their implementation; and (d) make the difficult adverse decisions about other meritorious ideas that cannot be accommodated within realistically available resources.

Summaries of Major Reports 49

6. Human spaceflight. NASA should be on the leading edge of actively pursuing human spaceflight, to extend the human experience into new frontiers, challenge technology, bring global prestige, and excite the public’s imagination. These goals should be accomplished by a. Setting challenging objectives that advance the frontier, scientific and technological understanding, and the state of the art; b. Establishing clear goals for each step in a sequence of human spaceflight missions beyond low Earth orbit that will develop techniques and hardware that can be used in a next step further outward; c. Focusing use of the ISS on advancing capabilities for human space exploration; d. Using human spaceflight to enhance the U.S. soft power leadership by inviting emerging economic powers to join with us in human spaceflight adventures.

National space policy too often has been implemented in a stovepipe fashion that makes it difficult to recognize connections between space activities and pressing national challenges. Often, senior policy makers with broad portfolios have not been able to take the time to consider the space program in the broader national context. Rather, policies have been translated into programs by setting budget levels and then expecting agencies to manage to those budgets. The committee believes that the process of aligning roles and responsibilities for space activities, making resource commitments, and coordinating across departments and agencies needs to be carried out at a suf- ficiently high level so that decisions are made from the perspective of addressing the larger national issues whose resolution space activities can help achieve. How this process is accomplished might change from administration to administration, but the need for an approach that will elevate attention to the proper level remains essential.

7. Organizing to meet national needs. The President of the United States should task senior executive-branch officials to align agency and department strategies; identify gaps or shortfalls in policy coverage, policy implementation, and resource allocation; and identify new opportunities for space-based endeavors that will help to address the goals of both the U.S. civil and national security space programs. The effort should include the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and should consider the following elements: a. Coordinating budgetary guidance across federal departments and agencies involved in space activities; b. Coordinating responsibility and accountability for resource allocations for common services and/or infrastructure; c. Coordinating responsibility and accountability for stimulating, nurturing, and sustaining a robust space industrial base, including the commercial space industry; d. Coordinating responsibility and accountability for initiatives to recruit and develop a competent aerospace workforce of sufficient size and talent, anticipating future needs; e. Identifying, developing, and coordinating initiatives to address long-range technological needs for future programs; f. Identifying, developing, and coordinating initiatives to establish and strengthen international space relationships; g. Harmonizing the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies to eliminate gaps and unnecessary duplication in the nation’s space portfolio; and h. Regularly reviewing coordinated national space strategies and their success in implementing overall national space policy.

50 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.2 approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop

James V. Zimmerman, Rapporteur

Summary

With the end of the Cold War, space and Earth science research and space exploration were no longer dominated by competition between two superpowers. Numerous countries and regions now have very active space programs, and the number is increasing. These maturing capabilities around the world create a plethora of potential partners for cooperative space endeavors, while at the same time heightening competitiveness in the international space arena. In assessing the effectiveness of specific past and present cooperation or coordination mechanisms and in seeking to determine how best to proceed in the future, it is important to recognize that the world has become more globalized. International cooperation and coordination on both a bilateral and multilateral basis have played a significant role in civil space activities since the beginning of the space age. Generally speaking, cooperation involves two or more countries working together, each contributing to the execution of a single mission. Coordination involves two or more countries that keep each other apprised of their activities in order to minimize duplication of effort and to obtain the maximum return through complementary activities. International cooperation and coordination have occurred extensively in Earth and space science research, Earth applications from space, human spaceflight and microgravity science, and to a lesser extent satellite telecommunications, satellite navigation, and launchers. Currently, most space-faring nations have space-related aspirations that exceed the resources available to them individually. At the same time, more countries are working to enter the field. Thus, it is appropriate to review the models for international cooperation and coordination that have or have not worked in the past to identify the most effective approaches for the future, including how best to involve nations with an emerging space capability. There are also lessons to be learned from the competitive space arena that may have relevance to developing future modes of cooperation. In opening the November 2008 workshop, Space Studies Board chair Charles Kennel noted that the ongoing globalization in today’s world and the current global financial crisis have implications for space. He expressed the opinion that the international order is going to be restructured, with major shifts in international relationships that will impact space. In his view there will therefore be a need for the space community to respond by working to develop a global approach to space. While the workshop’s charge covered both cooperation and competition, workshop discussions tended to focus more on cooperation, given the backgrounds of the majority of participants.

WORKSHOP PLENARY DISCUSSIONS Following keynote presentations by former NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, entitled “Scientific and Technological Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World” (Appendix D), and historian Roger Launius of the National Air and Space Museum, entitled “Governmental Space Cooperation and Competition During and After the Cold War—Lessons Learned” (Appendix E), the workshop moved to panel sessions with four panels addressing different aspects of space cooperation and competition. The first panel on lessons learned from previous cooperative efforts emphasized space and Earth science cooperation, with the International Space Station (ISS) as one model; the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), seen as a space cooperation inhibitor; and international cooperation within the commercial sector. The second panel discussed lessons learned from past and present competitive activities. Speakers were drawn from commercial launch services and commercial remote sensing sectors.

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-5.

Summaries of Major Reports 51

The third panel addressed space and national security. Major issues that surfaced related to ITAR, attitudes of the U.S. Congress with regard to international cooperation, and the implications of seeking to engage China in future cooperative space activities. The fourth panel focused on the potential offered by space cooperation as a tool for the engagement of new and emerging space nations. Particular emphasis was placed on continuing activities within the Global Explora- tion Strategy/International Space Exploration Coordination Group, U.S.-Japanese space cooperation, and China’s emergence as a major space power. Following panel presentations, workshop participants collectively discussed the issues raised.

WORKSHOP DISCUSSION GROUPS Following the plenary discussions, workshop participants were divided into four parallel discussion groups that were each given one of the following topics to address:

• International space cooperation as a tool for engagement with emerging space power, • The role of international cooperation in the future of space exploration, • The role of Earth observations in supporting international efforts in climate and sustainability, and • New approaches to global space cooperation in a time of limited resources.

The views of discussion group participants were reported back to the final plenary session and are summarized below. They do not represent consensus findings or conclusions on the part of the National Research Council, the Space Studies Board, the workshop as a whole, or any other group.

Engaging New and Emerging Space Powers in International Cooperation The discussion group on engaging new and emerging space powers in international cooperation observed that new and emerging space powers may desire to cooperate with the United States on space projects for a variety of reasons including:

• Enhancement of their prestige; • Acceleration of their economic and technical development; and • Greater access to knowledge, experience, and technology.

From a U.S. perspective, the group identified benefits from collaboration that included:

• Support for U.S. foreign-policy goals; • Increased access to key decision makers; • Insight into capabilities, approaches, and plans; • Identification of new ideas and new technologies; • Reduction in U.S. costs; and • Expansion of instrument flight opportunities and data analysis capabilities.

Opportunities for the Future One particularly valuable effort, the group suggested, could involve the convening of forums through which existing space powers could engage in dialogue with new and emerging space powers. Such forums could provide opportunities to:

• Improve mutual understanding of capabilities, programs, and plans, • Assess the current state of cooperation, • Identify potential collaborative programs, • Recommend promising mechanisms for continued joint consultations, • Promote open participation, and • Develop personal and institutional relationships.

52 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

The discussion group members, including participants from Europe and Japan, noted that the Space Studies Board might wish to consider implementing such forums and to do so in a collaborative fashion that involves the European Space Science Committee and a counterpart organization in Japan.

International Cooperation in the Future of Space Exploration Participants in the discussion group on international cooperation in the future of space exploration observed that with the world becoming increasingly interdependent, space activities need to be conducted in a manner consistent with this reality. For international space activities to offer maximum benefits, they must be conducted in genuine partnerships, where benefits flow to all partners and interdependency underlies the relationships. The discussion group members also observed that increased space collaboration can provide broad benefits to the United States by making space a routine place for all nations to operate (thereby enhancing the security of space assets), by expanding the economic sphere into space, and by demonstrating that the United States is a cooperative society desiring to work productively with all nations (which could improve the U.S. image).

Opportunities for the Future The workshop group identified a number of steps that could be taken into account by the United States as it pursues future space exploration projects. These include:

• Assessing cooperative opportunities on their merits instead of excluding “critical path” roles for potential partners as a matter of policy; • Developing a workforce (at all levels) capable of and interested in working on international programs; and • Recognizing that U.S. partners need to be able to demonstrate the political and economic benefits of collaboration to the same extent as the United States.

The group observed that the ISS program offers opportunities for engaging new and emerging space powers with human spaceflight capabilities and/or interests. China presents a unique opportunity in this regard, the group observed. They added that if the station becomes a tool for engagement, then ISS operations would necessarily have to be extended beyond 2016—a step could provide greater opportunities for current ISS partners to achieve acceptable returns on investments. The consequences of expanding the ISS partnership to include China and the potential impact on NASA of continuing the program beyond 2016 engendered considerable discussion during the workshop, including the broader political context of U.S. engagement with China and the impact on other NASA program areas.

International Cooperation in Support of Climate Change and Sustainability Initial discussions in the workshop discussion group on international cooperation in support of climate change and sustainability concerned a redefinition of its title and mandate. The group decided that the topic should be “the role of Earth observations in supporting international efforts in climate change and sustainability,” which would be more consistent with overall workshop objectives. They observed that:

• Global warming is unequivocal and human actions are contributing to abrupt and irreversible climate changes and impacts; • Earth observations are national and global imperatives that are fundamental to monitoring and understanding climate change, achieving sustainability, and protecting our economy and society; and • Climate monitoring requires timely access and quality controlled, continuous measurements of the Earth system.

Opportunities for the Future The workshop group then elaborated a number of potential “paths forward” in international cooperation which included:

Summaries of Major Reports 53

• Allocating the necessary resources to establish a national Earth observing system, including vital research and operational elements, as part of a comprehensive global effort; • Continuing to provide U.S. leadership and support to the Group on Earth Observations (GEO), • Engaging other GEO member nations to provide adequate resources for space-based Earth-observation systems; • Supporting expanded GEO principles for full and open exchange of national data sets; • Pursuing, through the Committee on Earth Observations Satellites (CEOS), a global architecture for continu- ity and coherence of space segment data sets that includes, for example, virtual satellite constellations from multiple providers; • Encouraging, through GEO and CEOS among others, nations to promote open utilization of remote sensing data; • Seeking improved communications between GEO and industry through establishment of a mechanism for industry representation in GEO; and • Making the public aware of impending challenges posed by and consequences expected from global change as well as the necessity of space-based Earth observations to address those challenges.

Approaches to International Cooperation in a Time of Limited Resources The group discussing approaches to international cooperation in a time of limited resources initially considered several factors that might influence future approaches to global space cooperation and coordination, including the following:

• Additional country partners (e.g., China, India, and other countries), • New potential sponsors (philanthropic and military organizations), • New opportunities (e.g., space solar power and participatory technologies), and • Threats (e.g., global climate change and asteroids).

They noted that today’s global environment is different from the past. The growth of space capabilities around the world, including those of new players, means that it is not always clear which country is dominant in a particular sphere of space activity.

Opportunities for the Future The group reviewed various current and prospective models for international space cooperation, including the “benchmark” bilateral or multilateral government-to-government cooperation, and the advantages and disadvan- tages were noted. The group also discussed the potential for collaboration through public/private utilities (such as INTELSAT), military alliances, and philanthropic initiatives. Group participants noted that cooperation initiatives that are based on clear threats (e.g., near Earth objects and climate change) might be better served through the establishment of treaty-based collaborative mechanisms. They also noted three questions that merit further consideration, perhaps as discussion topics in a future Space Studies Board workshop:

• How will emerging space companies, philanthropic initiatives, and so on, interact with traditional organizations pursuing space cooperation? • How will participatory technologies be incorporated into space collaboration efforts? • Can evolutionary paths and approaches lead to better outcomes for space cooperation (e.g., could the ISS program evolve into a treaty organization and eventually into a public/private utility)?

1See http://www.earthobservations.org/. “Participatory technologies” refers to the popular Google Sky, Google Mars, and other examples of technological tools used as a means of “seeing” space and “almost being there,” from the three-dimensionality of the Google visualization. It also refers to opportunities to see images sent by the cameras on rovers such as Spirit and Opportunity—you can use your computer and pan around for different camera angles. In the future, perhaps people will be able to propose where they would like a rover to go and virtually “drive it” from their computer. In short, people could virtually be in space.

54 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS During the final workshop plenary session each of the participants offered concluding observations focused on the following themes:

• Pursuing a dialogue and exploring new opportunities to cooperate with new and emerging space powers. • Identifying roles for civil space programs that contribute to broader national goals (space cooperation offers unique opportunities in this regard, several participants noted); • Engaging youth in the pursuit of space cooperation; • Modifying the U.S. approach to leadership; and • Revising ITAR regulations to make them more efficient and effective.

Summaries of Major Reports 55

5.3 assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions

A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions

Summary

NASA maintains a planetary protection policy to avoid the forward biological contamination of other worlds by terrestrial organisms, and back biological contamination of Earth from the return of extraterrestrial materials by spaceflight missions. Forward-contamination issues related to Mars missions were addressed in a 2006 report of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Space Studies Board (SSB), Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars.1 However, it has been more than 10 years since back-contamination issues were last examined. Driven by a renewed interest in Mars sample return missions, this report reviews, updates, and replaces the planetary protection conclusions and recommendations contained in the NRC’s 1997 report Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations.2 It is the understanding of the Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions that its conclusions and recommendations will be developed at the tactical level by subsequent groups specifically charged with the development of implementable protocols for the collection, handling, transfer, quarantine, and release of martian samples. This is the approach that was taken by NASA after its receipt of the 1997 Mars report. Indeed, the development of broad strategic guidelines by SSB committees and the subsequent development of tactical plans for their implementation by NASA committees is a general approach that has served the space-science community well for most of the past 50 years. The specific issues addressed in this report include the following:

• The potential for living entities to be included in samples returned from Mars; • Scientific investigations that should be conducted to reduce uncertainty in the above assessment; • The potential for large-scale effects on Earth’s environment by any returned entity released to the environment; • Criteria for intentional sample release, taking note of current and anticipated regulatory frameworks; and • The status of technological measures that could be taken on a mission to prevent the inadvertent release of a returned sample into Earth’s biosphere.

IMPORTANCE OF MARS SAMPLE RETURN A sample-return mission is acknowledged to be a major next step in the exploration of Mars because it can address so many high-priority science goals. The NRC’s 2003 solar system exploration decadal survey, for example, highlighted three areas where unambiguous answers to key science issues are unlikely without a sample return mission:3

• The search for life; • Geochemical studies and age dating; and • Understanding of climate and coupled atmosphere-surface-interior processes.

Returning samples to Earth is desirable for a number of reasons, including the following:

• Complex sample-preparation issues relating to some high-priority activities are more readily tackled in terrestrial laboratories than they are by robotic means on Mars;

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-8.

56 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

• Instrumentation that is not amenable to spacecraft application because of its bulk, mass, or power requirements can be used on Earth to analyze samples; and • A greater diversity of instruments can be used on Earth to study samples than can be packaged to fit within the confines of any one robotic spacecraft or series of spacecraft, including instruments that were not available when the sample-return mission was launched.

REPORT ORGANIZATION Since the purpose of this document is to revise, update, and replace the NRC’s 1997 report Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, it is most logical to organize it around the basic question, What has changed since the release of the 1997 report? Changes is scientific understanding can be summarized in the following manner:

• New insights on the roles played by surface and subsurface water throughout martian history and the potential for habitable environments on Mars—Chapter 2; • Advances in microbial ecology that illuminate the limits of adaptability of life on Earth—Chapter 3; • New understanding of the physical and chemical mechanisms by which evidence of life might be preserved on Mars and how that life might be detected in martian samples—Chapter 4; and • New understanding of pathogenesis and the nature of biological epidemics, as well as additional insights as to the possibility that viable martian organisms might be transported to Earth by meteorites—Chapter 5.

The changes in the technical and/or policy environment can be organized as follows:

• A significant expansion of the size of the Mars exploration community and broadening of the scope of mission activities by both traditional and new space powers—Chapter 2; • Greater societal awareness of the potential for technical activities to cause harmful changes in the global environment—Chapter 5; • The de facto internationalization of a Mars sample return mission and subsequent sample-handling, sample- processing, sample-analysis, and sample-archiving policies—Chapter 6; • The drafting and publication by NASA, with the assistance of international partners, of initial Mars sample-handling and biohazard-testing protocols based on the recommendations in the NRC’s 1997 Mars report— Chapter 6; • The development of nondestructive methods of analysis that can be used to map the microscale spatial distribution of minerals and biological elements in samples—Chapter 6; and • The proliferation of biocontainment facilities driven by biosecurity concerns and associated changes in public policy and with public acceptance of such facilities—Chapter 7; and • Lessons learned about the practical and logistical aspects of Mars sample return from experience with the Genesis and Stardust missions as well as experience gained from the planning for and commissioning of new biocontainment facilities—Chapter 7.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The committee’s conclusions and recommendations are organized according to the task outlined in the charge it was given by NASA.

The Potential for Living Entities in Samples Returned from Mars The assessment of martian habitability made by the authors of the NRC’s 1997 Mars report led them to recommend that: “Samples returned from Mars by spacecraft should be contained and treated as though potentially hazardous until proven otherwise. No uncontained martian materials, including spacecraft surfaces that have been exposed to the martian environment, should be returned to Earth unless sterilized” (p. 3). The present committee finds that the knowledge gained from both orbital and landed missions conducted over the last decade, combined with findings from studies of martian meteorites, has enhanced the possibility

Summaries of Major Reports 57

that habitable environments were once widespread over the surface of Mars. In addition, the potential for modern habitable environments, both as transient surface environments and as stable habitats in the deep subsurface, is much better understood. Understanding the range of environmental conditions to which terrestrial life has adapted has directly shaped current views of martian habitability and the potential for samples returned from Mars to contain evidence of life. A substantial and growing body of evidence shows that life not only is present but also frequently thrives under extreme environmental conditions. Consideration of advances in microbial ecology over the past decade led the committee to reach the following conclusions:

• Biological studies have continued to expand the known environmental limits for life and have led to the discovery of novel organisms and ecosystems on Earth; • Some living species on Earth have been shown to survive under conditions of extreme radiation, sub freezing temperatures, high salinity, extremely high and low pH, and cycles of hydration to dehydration present on Mars today; • The discovery, in deep subsurface environments on Earth, of microbial ecosystems that are able to survive on inorganic sources of energy has greatly enhanced the potential for chemoautotrophic life in subsurface environments on Mars; and • Studies have confirmed the potential for the long-term viability of terrestrial microorganisms sequestered in deposits of some extreme terrestrial environments (e.g., ices and evaporates) that have high relevance for Mars exploration.

Advances in the knowledge of environmental conditions on Mars today and in the past, combined with advances in understanding of the environmental limits of life, reinforce the possibility that living entities could be present in samples returned from Mars. Therefore, the committee concurs with and expands on the 1997 recommendation that no uncontained martian materials should be returned to Earth unless sterilized.

Recommendation: Based on current knowledge of past and present habitability of Mars, NASA should continue to maintain a strong and conservative program of planetary protection for Mars sample return. That is, samples returned from Mars by spacecraft should be contained and treated as though potentially hazardous until proven otherwise. No uncontained martian materials, including spacecraft surfaces that have been exposed to the martian environment, should be returned to Earth unless sterilized.

The Potential for Large-Scale Effects on Earth’s Environment A key issue of concern is the possibility that a putative martian organism inadvertently released from containment could produce large-scale negative pathogenic effects in humans, or could have a destructive impact on Earth’s ecological systems or environments. The committee concurs with the basic conclusion of the NRC’s 1997 Mars study that the potential risks of large-scale effects arising from the intentional return of martian materials to Earth are primarily those associated with replicating biological entities, rather than toxic effects attributed to microbes, their cellular structures, or extracellular products. Therefore, the focus of attention should be placed on the potential for pathogenic-infectious diseases, or negative ecological effects on Earth’s environments. Like the 1997 committee, the present committee finds that the potential for large-scale negative effects on Earth’s inhabitants or environments by a returned martian life form appears to be low, but is not demonstrably zero. A related issue concerns the natural introduction of martian materials to Earth’s environment in the form of martian meteorites. Although exchanges of essentially unaltered crustal materials have occurred routinely throughout the history of Earth and Mars, it is not known whether a putative martian microorganism could survive ejection, transit, and impact delivery to Earth or would be sterilized by shock pressure heating during ejection or by radiation damage accumulated during transit. Likewise, it is not possible to assess past or future negative impacts caused by the delivery of putative extraterrestrial life, based on present evidence. Thus, the conclusion reached from assessment of large-scale effects resulting from intentional and natural sample return is that a conservative approach to both containment and test protocols remains the most appropriate response.

58 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Scientific Investigations to Reduce Uncertainties Uncertainties in the current assessment of martian habitability and the potential for the inclusion of living entities in samples returned from Mars might be reduced by continuing activities in the following general areas: spacecraft missions to Mars, combined with related laboratory, theoretical, and modeling activities; investigations of the ecological diversity and environmental extremes of terrestrial life; geobiological studies of both modern and ancient Mars-relevant environments on Earth, with particular emphasis on biosignature preservation; and studies relating to the interplanetary transport of viable organisms. The committee finds that the following activities are particularly relevant to reducing uncertainties:

• Remote-sensing and in situ exploration of Mars with the goal of answering questions relating to martian habitability, including those concerned with the presence of water in surface and subsurface environments through time, the distribution of biogenic elements, and the availability of redox-based energy sources (e.g., those based on the oxidation of ferrous iron and reduced sulfur compounds); • Studies of martian meteorites to help refine understanding of the history of interactions of Mars’s rock- water-atmosphere system throughout the planet’s history; • Studies of the metabolic diversity and environmental limits of microbial life on Earth; • Studies of the nature and potential for biosignature preservation in a wide range of Mars-analog materials on Earth; • Investigations of the prolonged viability of microorganisms in geological materials; • Evaluation of the impacts of post-depositional (diagenetic) processes (deep burial, impact shock, sub freezing temperatures) on the long-term retention of biosignatures in ancient geological materials; • Determination of reliable criteria for the definitive identification of biosignatures in ancient materials; • Assessment of the potential for impact-mediated interchanges of viable organisms between Earth and Mars; • Development of laboratory-based and in situ analytical approaches for biosignature analysis.

Criteria for Intentional Sample Release There is a broad consensus in the scientific community that samples collected on Mars and returned to Earth must be contained and treated as potentially biologically hazardous until they are declared safe for release from containment by applying recommended protocols, including rigorous physical and chemical characterization, life detection analyses, and biohazard testing. It is important to emphasize that the high level of containment recommended for the handling and testing of martian samples is based on a deliberate decision to adopt a conservative approach to planetary protection and is not because of the anticipated nature of pristine martian materials or organisms. If anything, however, the discoveries over the past decade about environmental conditions on Mars today and in the past and about terrestrial extremophiles have supported an enhanced potential for the presence of liquid water habitats and, perhaps, microbial life on Mars. Thus it is appropriate to continue this conservative approach. A factor that could potentially complicate the policies and protocols relating to sample containment and biohazard evaluation is the de facto internationalization of a Mars sample return mission. All serious planning for Mars sample return is founded on the premise that the scope, complexity, and cost of such a mission are beyond the likely resources of any one space agency. Although no major issues have arisen to date, the international interest in of Mars sample return raises the possibility that differences in national policies and legal frameworks of concerned parties might complicate issues relating to sample quarantine and biohazard certification. Changes to the requirements for sample containment or criteria for sample release were issues of concern in the NRC’s 1997 report Mars Sample Return, which recommended that: “The planetary protection measures adopted for the first Mars sample-return mission should not be relaxed for subsequent missions without thorough scientific review and concurrence by an appropriate independent oversight body” (p. 4). The present committee concurs with the spirit of that recommendation, with three provisos: first, that the protocols for sample containment, handling, testing, and release be articulated in advance of Mars sample return; second, that the protocols be reviewed regularly to update them to reflect the newest standards; and third, that international partners be involved in the articulation and review of the protocols.

Recommendation: Detailed protocols for sample containment, handling, and testing, including criteria for release from a sample-receiving facility (SRF), should be clearly articulated in advance of Mars sample return.

Summaries of Major Reports 59

The protocols should be reviewed periodically as part of the ongoing SRF oversight process that will incorporate new laboratory findings and advances in analytical methods and containment technologies. International partners involved with the implementation of a Mars sample return mission should be a party to all necessary consultations, deliberations, and reviews.

The NRC’s 1997 Mars report recommended that: “Controlled distribution of unsterilized materials returned from Mars should occur only if rigorous analyses determine that the materials do not contain a biological hazard. If any portion of the sample is removed from containment prior to completion of these analyses, it must . . . be sterilized” (p. 4). Subsequent NRC and NASA reports have made related, but in some cases conflicting, statements. Irrespective of these conflicts, there are critical issues concerning the selection of the aliquots for biohazard testing and the nature of the tests to be employed. The discussion of advances in geobiology and biosignature detection in Chapter 4 raises the possibility that viable organisms might be preserved over a prolonged span of time within certain geological deposits. The discussion in Chapter 6 led the committee to conclude that the distribution of extant and fossil organisms and biomolecules in rocks, soils, and ices is heterogeneous at microscopic scales of observation, and this heterogeneity requires careful consideration because it complicates the selection of representative aliquots for biohazards testing.

Recommendation: Future protocol guidelines should carefully consider the problems of sample heterogeneity in developing strategies for life detection analyses and biohazards testing in order to avoid sampling errors and false negatives.

The limited amount of material likely to be returned from Mars demands that nondestructive means of analysis be employed to the maximum extent possible in sample characterization and biohazards testing.

Recommendation: The best nondestructive methods must be identified for mapping the microscale spatial distributions of minerals, microstructures, and biologically important elements within returned martian samples.

It is highly likely that many of the appropriate nondestructive methods will require the use of techniques that cannot feasibly be implemented within the confines of an SRF. Thus, a critical issue concerns the design of secondary containers for transporting samples to outside laboratory facilities where they can be analyzed (under containment) using advanced analytic techniques.

Recommendation: Sample characterization in laboratories outside the primary sample-receiving facility will require the design of secondary containers for safely transporting samples and interfacing with a potentially wider variety of instruments.

Technological Measures to Prevent the Inadvertent Release of Returned Samples Planetary protection considerations require that martian materials be securely contained within a sample canister for their journey from Mars, through their collection and retrieval on Earth, and in subsequent transport and confinement in an SRF. With respect to the journey from Mars to an SRF, the NRC’s 1997 Mars report concluded that the integrity of the seal of the sample canister should be verified and monitored during all phases of a Mars sample return mission. The present committee found this requirement to be overly prescriptive. Establishing the technical means to verify containment has proven to be a stumbling block in past mission studies. Elaborate steps must be taken to guarantee that the sample canister is sealed at every stage of its journey from Mars to an SRF. Resources might be better spent in simply improving containment (e.g., by using multiple seals) rather than designing elaborate means of monitoring. The first priority should be to ensure that the samples remain reliably contained until opened in an SRF. The means by which this result is achieved will best be determined by those designing the implementation of a Mars sample return mission.

Recommendation: The canister(s) containing material returned from Mars should remain sealed during all mission phases (launch, cruise, re-entry, and landing) through transport to a sample-receiving facility where it (they) can be opened under strict containment.

60 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

No facility currently exists that combines all of the characteristics required for an SRF. However, the committee found that there is a long, well-documented history of both the successful biocontainment of pathogenic and infectious organisms and a capability for maintaining the scientific integrity of extraterrestrial and planetary materials. Thus, the committee concluded that the requirement for handling and testing returned martian materials in a single facility combining both biocontainment and integrity-maintaining functions is both appropriate and technically feasible, albeit challenging. The NRC’s 1997 Mars report contained a four-part recommendation relating to various aspects of the establishment and operation of an SRF. The first part concerned the need for such a facility: “A research facility for receiving, containing, and processing returned samples should be established as soon as possible after serious planning for a Mars sample-return mission has begun” (p. 5). Although the present committee supports the intent of this recommendation, it emphasizes that the initiation of planning for an SRF must also include the initiation of planning for, and development of, the activities that will take place there.

Recommendation: Because of the lengthy time needed for the complex development of a sample-receiving facility (SRF) and its associated biohazard-test protocol, instrumentation, and operations, planning for an SRF should be included in the earliest phases of the Mars sample return mission.

The second part of the 1997 recommendation discussed the timescale for the establishment of an SRF: “At a minimum the facility should be operational at least 2 years prior to launch [of a Mars sample return mission]” (p. 5). The phrase “2 years prior to launch” is ambiguous because it could imply launch from Earth or launch from Mars. More specificity is needed as to the duration of the SRF’s running-in period and the activities to be undertaken during that period. Recent experience with the design, construction, and/or commissioning of new BSL-4 facilities in the United States and overseas suggests that a 2-year running-in period is too optimistic. Facilities may become “operational” at BSL-2 or BSL-3 levels 2 years after completion but do not become fully operational as BSL-4 facilities for several additional years. Thus, it is essential to specify that an SRF be fully operational at least 2 years prior to the return of samples to Earth.

Recommendation: Construction and commissioning of a sample-receiving facility should be completed and fully operational at least 2 years prior to the return of samples to Earth, in order to allow ample time for integrated testing of the facility, the overall test protocol, and instrumentation well in advance of receiving returned martian materials.

The third part of the 1997 recommendation concerned the roles and responsibilities of an SRF’s staff: “The facility should be staffed by a multidisciplinary team of scientists responsible for the development and validation of procedures for detection, preliminary characterization, and containment of organisms (living, dead, or fossil) in returned samples and for sample sterilization” (p. 5). The present committee concurs with this recommendation.

Recommendation: A sample-receiving facility should employ multidisciplinary teams of scientists to develop, validate, and perform a rigorous battery of tests that will be used to determine whether and when unsterilized materials returned from Mars may be approved for controlled distribution, or full release from containment.

The final part of the NRC’s 1997 recommendation concerning an SRF dealt with scientific oversight: “An advisory panel of scientists should be constituted with oversight responsibilities for the facility” (p. 5). The committee concurs with this recommendation, but in addition recommends including technical issues relating to an SRF within the oversight committee’s terms of reference. The oversight committee’s independence should also be specified.

Recommendation: An independent science and technical advisory committee should be constituted with oversight responsibilities for materials returned by a Mars sample return mission.

Related Issues Two additional important issues not specifically related to an SRF concern independent oversight of planetary protection policies and public engagement in activities related to Mars sample return.

Summaries of Major Reports 61

The NRC’s 1997 Mars report saw a need for high-level oversight of all planetary protection requirements associated with Mars sample return: “A panel of experts, including representatives of relevant governmental and scientific bodies, should be established as soon as possible once serious planning for a Mars sample-return mission has begun, to coordinate regulatory responsibilities and to advise NASA on the implementation of planetary protection measures for sample-return missions. The panel should be in place at least 1 year prior to the establishment of the sample-receiving facility (i.e., at least 3 years prior to launch)” (pp. 5-6). The committee does not believe that this recommendation is appropriate given the potential conflicts between planetary protection concerns and scientific or operational issues inherent in NASA’s current advisory structure— i.e., with the Planetary Protection Subcommittee (PPS) reporting to the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) via the NAC’s Science Committee. There is a critical need for the PPS, or its equivalent, and the NASA planetary protection officer to be formally situated within NASA in a way that will allow for the verification and certification of adherence to all planetary protection requirements at each stage of a Mars sample return mission, including launch, re-entry and landing, transport to an SRF, sample testing, and sample distribution. Clear lines of accountability and authority at the appropriate levels within NASA should be established for both the PPS (or an equivalent group) and the planetary protection officer, in order to maintain accountability and avoid any conflict of interest with science and mission efforts.

Recommendation: To ensure independent oversight throughout the lengthy and complex process of planning and implementing a Mars sample return mission, planetary protection policy and regulatory oversight for all aspects of sample return should be provided by both the Planetary Protection Subcommittee (or an equivalent group) and the NASA planetary protection officer, each having suitable authority and accountability at an appropriate administrative level within NASA.

Finally, the NRC’s 1997 Mars report recommended that: “Throughout any sample-return program, the public should be openly informed of plans, activities, results, and associated issues” (p. 6). The present committee concurs with this recommendation and believes that it is also important to explicitly extend the policy of openness to encompass both the sample-return mission and the construction, testing, and operation of an SRF.

Recommendation: The public should be informed about all aspects of Mars sample return, beginning with the earliest stages of mission planning and continuing throughout construction, testing, and operation of a sample- receiving facility.

NOTES 1 . National Research Council, Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006. 2 . National Research Council, Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1997. 3 . National Research Council, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 198-199.

62 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.4 an Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Missions

A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions

Summary

NASA’s space and Earth science missions have achieved an extraordinary record of accomplishments during the 50-year history of the space age. Spacecraft have provided in-depth, global observations of Earth’s land surface, biosphere, cryosphere, oceans, and atmosphere; unraveled many mysteries about the behavior of the Sun and its influence on Earth and other solar system bodies; explored planets, comets, and asteroids and approached the region where the solar system interacts with the local interstellar medium; and carried astronomical observatories above Earth’s atmosphere to permit studies of the cosmos across the full electromagnetic spectrum. Much of the success of these spaceflight missions has been due to an underlying foundation of mission-enabling research and technology. Mission-enabling activities have framed the scientific questions on which plans for the flight missions have been based; developed advanced technologies that have made new, complex missions feasible; provided supporting terrestrial facilities and observations necessary to complement and interpret spaceflight data; and syn- thesized and translated the data from spaceflight missions into new scientific understanding. In 2007 Congress called for the National Research Council (NRC) to examine issues regarding balance between mission-enabling activities and spaceflight missions, and this report presents the conclusions of the NRC Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions, which was organized to undertake that task. The committee defined mission-enabling activities to be the ensemble of non-spaceflight-mission-specific programs that create the scientific and technological expertise and associated infrastructure necessary to define, execute, and benefit from the spaceflight missions. (See Box S.1.) In some cases these activities can lead directly to significant scientific accomplishments that advance the strategic goals of NASA without being linked to a spaceflight mission. All of these activities are managed by four science divisions—astrophysics, heliophysics, planetary science, and Earth science—within the NASA headquarters Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The same SMD divisions also manage the spaceflight missions for the corresponding scientific discipline areas. Chapter 1 of this report discusses each of the purposes of mission-enabling activities, relates them to specific elements of SMD’s programs, and provides examples of how mission-enabling activities have contributed to NASA space and Earth science programs. These activities play essential roles in maximizing the scientific return on investment in space and Earth science spaceflight missions and in providing a foundation for an effective and robust program for the future, and they also constitute an integral part of the nation’s overall research and development (R&D) effort. Therefore, the committee’s first major finding and recommendation are as follows:

Finding 1. The mission-enabling activities in SMD—including support for scientific research and research infrastructure, advanced technology development, and scientific and technical workforce development—are fundamen- tally important to NASA and to the nation.

Recommendation 1. NASA should ensure that SMD mission-enabling activities are linked to the strategic goals of the agency and of SMD and that they are structured so as to • Encompass the range and scope of activities needed to support those strategic goals, • Provide the broad knowledge base that is the context necessary to interpreting data from spaceflight missions and defining new spaceflight missions, • Maximize the scientific return from all spaceflight missions, • Supply a continuous flow of new technical capabilities and scientific understanding from mission- enabling activities into new spaceflight missions, and

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Missions, The National Academies Press, Wash- ington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-6.

Summaries of Major Reports 63

BOX S.1 Defining Mission-Enabling Activities

NASA’s space and Earth science program comprises two principal components:

1. Spaceflight projects, including the design, development, launch, and operations of Earth- orbiting and deep-space missions, and 2. Activities that are not dedicated to a single specific spaceflight mission but that provide a broad enabling foundation for NASA’s scientific spaceflight projects. The committee refers to this latter component as mission-enabling activities.

The principal purposes of mission-enabling activities are to provide

• A knowledge base that allows NASA and the scientific community to explore new frontiers in research and to identify, define, and design cost-effective space and Earth science missions required to address the strategic goals of the agency; • A wide range of technologies that enable NASA and the scientific community to equip and conduct spaceflight missions to pursue the agency’s scientific goals; and • A robust, experienced technical workforce to plan, develop, conduct, and utilize the scientific missions.

NASA’s principal programs to accomplish these purposes are as follows:

• Research projects (especially via the research and analysis grants programs) and special research facilities (including suborbital flight payloads and operations, ground-based telescopes and dedicated laboratories, and high-end computer systems and data archives); • Development of advanced sensors, research instruments, and spaceflight mission system technologies; • General data analysis (including archival data studies and synthesis of new and/or long- term data sets from multiple spaceflight missions); and • Earth science applications (including research to apply NASA Earth science results to fields such as agriculture, ecology, and public health and safety).

• Enable the healthy scientific and technical workforce needed to conduct NASA’s space and Earth science program.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT During its review of SMD’s mission-enabling activities the committee identified aspects of current approaches to managing science division research and technology portfolios where proven practices did not appear to be widely or adequately applied and where there appear to be opportunities for improvement so that mission-enabling activities can most effectively fulfill their roles. (See Chapter 2.) An effectively structured program would have the following attributes:

1. Mission-enabling activities, and the criteria for establishing their priorities and resource allocations, that are clearly traceable to division mission statements and strategic goals. 2. Portfolio allocations based on systematic criteria and metrics of program effectiveness. 3. Continual interaction with and assessment by the science community via a well-structured advisory apparatus.

64 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

4. Transparent budget structure in which all mission-enabling activities are aggregated into visible budget lines so as to facilitate more effective portfolio management decisions and communication about the value and impacts of mission-enabling programs. 5. Explicit statement of the role of mission-enabling activities in sustaining a capable technical workforce in the overall program strategy. 6. Adequate staff to devote an appropriate amount of time to the responsibilities of properly managing mission-enabling activities.

PRINCIPLES AND METRICS FOR EFFECTIVE MISSION-ENABLING PORTFOLIOS The committee was charged to make recommendations regarding portfolio allocation criteria and metrics of program effectiveness. In addressing this task, the central roles of mission-enabling activities enumerated in Recommendation 1 provide the basis for guiding principles to be considered in planning, conducting, and evaluating the program. Workable metrics also need to be framed and applied from the perspective of the following implementation principles:

1. Investment needs will be different across SMD divisions. Each SMD science division has distinct strategic goals, different kinds of spaceflight missions, and different dependencies on supporting research and data analysis. 2. Division-level mission statements should clearly articulate the division’s strategic priorities and should provide a rational framework for assessing how the division’s portfolio ensures support for the full range of activities. 3. Balance between mission-enabling and spaceflight mission portfolios is never rigid. The principle of balance does not mean using a fixed ratio across all programs; it does not mean that all components of an overall program should receive equal funding; and it need not be constant over time. 4. Programmatic relationships of mission-enabling activities to spaceflight programs should be clearly com- municated so that mission-enabling portfolios can be effectively prioritized and managed. 5. Balance within portfolios requires active management. Determining whether investments are appropriately balanced within schedule and budget constraints to achieve the intended near-, mid-, and far-term goals and objectives requires continuing assessment. 6. Budget transparency enhances active management by facilitating analysis, advocacy, and stability.

Performance metrics are essential tools for making effective portfolio management decisions. Establishing metrics for each component of mission-enabling activities also helps inform the administration, Congress, and the science community of the purpose of the component and the extent to which it is being successful. Such transparency, when properly established, provides justification for the essential roles of mission-enabling activities in the success of SMD, while also allowing the broad national science community to engage with NASA in providing the most effective mission-enabling program. The committee presents the following template for what should be provided by a metric for each of an SMD division’s mission-enabling activities:

1. A simple statement of what the component of the mission-enabling activity is intended to accomplish and how it supports the strategic or tactical plans of the division. 2. A statement as to how the component is to accomplish its task. 3. An evaluation of the success of the activity relative to the stated mission, unexpected benefits, and lessons learned. 4. A justification for the resource allocation that is being applied to the component vis-à-vis other mission- enabling activities within the division.

This report discusses examples of how this template could be applied to the different, individual kinds of mission-enabling activities.

Summaries of Major Reports 65

MAXIMIZING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS VIA STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT The committee identified several elements of an effective portfolio management approach that NASA officials should consider as they address concerns identified in the committee’s assessment of the mission-enabling programs. The committee’s second and third findings and recommendations address these items.

Finding 2. Adoption of an active portfolio management approach is the key to providing an effective program of mission-enabling activities that will satisfy the intent of this committee’s first finding and recommendation.

Recommendation 2. NASA’s Science Mission Directorate should develop and implement an approach to actively managing its portfolio of mission-enabling activities. Active portfolio management should include the following elements: • Clearly defined science division mission-enabling mission statements, objectives, strategies, and priorities that can be traced back to the overall strategic goals of NASA, SMD, and the division. • Flexibility to accommodate differences in the scientific missions and programmatic options that are most appropriate to the different science discipline divisions. • Clearly articulated relationships between mission-enabling activities and the ensemble of ongoing and future spaceflight missions that they support. • Clear metrics that permit program managers to relate mission-enabling activities to strategic goals, evaluate the effectiveness of mission-enabling activities, and make informed decisions about priorities, programmatic needs, and portfolio balance. • Provisions for integrating support for innovative high-risk/high-payoff research and technology, interdisciplinary research, and scientific and technical workforce development into mission-enabling program strategies. • Active involvement of the scientific community via an open and robust advisory committee process. • Transparent budgets that permit program managers to effectively manage mission-enabling activity portfolios and permit other decision makers and the research community to understand the content of mission-enabling activity programs.

Finding 3. The NASA SMD headquarters scientific and technical staff is not adequately sized to manage mission- enabling activities effectively.

Recommendation 3. NASA should increase the number of scientifically and technically capable program officers so that they can devote an appropriate level of attention to the tasks of actively managing the portfolio of research and technology development that enables a world-class space and Earth science program.

In making this recommendation the committee is convinced that having mission-enabling program managers divide their time between mission-enabling activities and duties related to spaceflight programs is desirable and that management of mission-enabling activities is properly a NASA headquarters, not a NASA field center, function.

66 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.5 Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report

A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Summary

The United States is currently the only country with an active, government-sponsored effort to detect and track potentially hazardous near-Earth objects (NEOs). At congressional direction, NASA funds several ground-based observatories primarily dedicated to conducting NEO surveys. Several new or proposed observatories with other non-NEO objectives can also contribute to the NEO survey task. Congress has mandated that NASA detect and track 90 percent of NEOs that are 1 kilometer in diameter or larger. These objects represent a great potential hazard to life on Earth and could cause global destruction. NASA is close to accomplishing this goal. Congress has more recently mandated that by 2020 NASA should detect and track 90 percent of NEOs that are 140 meters in diameter or larger, a category of objects that is generally recognized to represent a very significant threat to life on Earth if they strike in or near urban areas. Achieving this goal may require the building of one or more additional observatories, possibly including a space-based observatory. Congress directed NASA to ask the National Research Council to review NASA’s near-Earth object programs. This interim report addresses some of the issues associated with the survey and detection of NEOs. However, the Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies continues its information collection and deliberations and will address a broader range of issues in its final report, due for delivery at the end of 2009. During its study so far, the committee has determined that the issues of survey and detection and characterization and mitigation are closely linked and should be addressed as a whole. For example, NEOs detected by ground-based telescopes can be better tracked by the Arecibo Observatory when within its range. Thus this observatory plays a key role in determining physical characteristics of NEOs, important in determining how to mitigate the effects of NEOs on Earth. In part because of this interrelationship, and because the interim report does not address mitigation issues, the committee has deferred proposing an optimum approach to the survey and detection problem until its final report. The final report will contain findings and recommendations for survey and detection, characterization, and mitigation of near-Earth objects based on an integrated assessment of the problem. This interim report contains five findings:

Finding: Congress has mandated that NASA discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. The administration has not requested and Congress has not appropriated new funds to meet this objective. Only limited facilities are currently involved in this survey/discovery effort, funded by NASA’s existing budget.

Finding: The current near-Earth object surveys cannot meet the goals of the 2005 NASA Authorization Act directing NASA to discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020.

Finding: The orbit-fitting capabilities of the Minor Planet Center are more than capable of handling the observations of the congressionally mandated survey as long as staffing needs are met.

Finding: The Arecibo Observatory telescope continues to play a unique role in characterization of NEOs, providing unmatched precision and accuracy in orbit determination and insight into size, shape, surface

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-2. The committee notes that the statement of task uses the term “detect,” but detection includes spotting asteroids that have previously been discovered. The committee therefore uses the more appropriate term “discover” to refer to the locating of previously unknown objects. Characterization of a near-Earth object involves determining its physical characteristics, such as mass, density, porosity, composition, and so on.

Summaries of Major Reports 67

structure, multiplicity, and other physical properties for objects within its declination coverage and detection range.

Finding: The United States is the only country that currently has an operating survey/detection program for discovering near-Earth objects; Canada and Germany are both building spacecraft that may contribute to the discovery of near-Earth objects. However, neither mission will detect fainter or smaller objects than ground-based telescopes can detect.

68 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.6 a Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program

A Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Heliophysics Performance Assessment

Summary

Since the 1990s, the pace of discovery in the field of solar and space physics has accelerated, largely owing to prior and continuing NASA investments in its Heliophysics Great Observatory fleet of spacecraft. These enable researchers to investigate connections between events on the Sun and in the space environment by combining multiple points of view. The field of solar and space physics comprises the phenomenology and physics of space plasmas and neutral gases, both individually and as coupled, nonlinear interacting systems driven from the Sun to Earth, to other members of the solar system, and out to the very edge of the heliosphere. Through NASA’s current Heliophysics Great Observatory, researchers use 12 spacecraft to address the basic science of variable solar out- puts, their transmission to the geospace environment and beyond, and their impacts on technological systems. Solar and space physics requires synergy between observational and theoretical initiatives, and between basic research and targeted research programs. Investments by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Defense (DOD) in space weather instruments, ground-based observatories, research, technology, and education have been important to sustaining progress. Collectively, they enable humanity’s deepest understanding of our nearest star and its interactions with all members of the heliosphere, including the technologies that sustain and nurture our presence in geospace and beyond. Recognizing the importance of distributed observations of all elements of the Sun-to-Earth system and the syn- ergies between observation and theory and between basic and targeted research, the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) 2003 solar and space physics decadal survey laid out an integrated research strategy that sought to extend and augment what has now become the Heliophysics Great Observatory as well as to enhance NASA, NOAA, NSF, and DOD’s other solar and space physics research activities. The Integrated Research Strategy provided a prioritized list of flight missions and theory and modeling programs that would advance the relevant physical theories, incorporate those theories in models that describe a system of interactions between the Sun and the space environment, obtain data on the system, and analyze and test the adequacy of the theories and models. As directed by Congress in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, the purpose of this report is to assess the progress of NASA’s Heliophysics Division at the 5-year mark against the NASA goals and priorities laid out in the decadal survey. In addition to the Integrated Research Strategy, the decadal survey also considered non-mission-specific initiatives to foster a robust solar and space physics program. The decadal survey set forth driving science challenges as well as recommendations devoted to the need for technology development, collaborations and cooperation with other disciplines, understanding the effects of the space environment on technology and society, education and public outreach, and steps that could strengthen and enhance the research enterprise. Unfortunately, very little of the recommended NASA program priorities from the decadal survey’s Integrated Research Strategy will be realized during the period (2004-2013) covered by the survey. Mission cost growth, reordering of survey mission priorities, and unrealized budget assumptions have delayed or deferred nearly all of the NASA spacecraft missions recommended in the survey. As a result, the status of the Integrated Research Strategy going forward is in jeopardy, and the loss of synergistic capabilities in space will constitute a serious impediment to future progress. Some of these factors were largely outside NASA’s control, but as the assessments in Chapter 2 of this report detail, many factors were driven by subsequent NASA decisions about mission science content, mission size, and mission sequence. Overcoming these challenges, as well as other key issues like launch vehicle availability, will be critical if NASA is to realize more of the decadal survey’s priorities over the next 5 years as well as priorities

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-9. See Box 1.1 of this report for a detailed description of NASA’s Heliophysics Great Observatory. National Research Council, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003 (hereinafter called the “decadal survey” or the “2003 decadal survey”).

Summaries of Major Reports 69

in solar and space physics research in the long term. Chapter 3 of this report provides recommendations about how NASA can better fulfill the 2003 decadal survey and improve future decadal surveys in solar and space physics.

ASSESSMENT In Chapter 2 of this report the Committee on Heliophysics Performance Assessment evaluates NASA’s progress against the 2003 decadal survey recommendations. To make its assessment, the committee employed the following grading system:

A—Achieved or exceeded the goal established in the decadal survey. B—Made significant progress toward the goal. C—Made some progress toward the goal. D—Made little progress toward meeting the decadal goal. F—Made no progress toward meeting the decadal goal or actually regressed from it.

The committee developed a summary finding to support each grade in this report. Chapter 2 provides additional information supporting each grade, including reprintings of the specific recommendations from the decadal survey and a more detailed assessment of the NASA program response to those recommendations. Table S.1 summarizes the committee’s assessment, which consists of 21 grades, divided into 7 area assessments covering each chapter of the 2003 decadal survey and 14 program assessments covering the NASA program priorities recommended in the decadal survey.

TABLE S.1 Committee Assessment of NASA Progress Over 5 Years Against Recommendations Made in the 2003 Solar and Space Physics Decadal Survey

Area or Program Grade Areaa Milestones and Science Challenges B Integrated Research Strategy C Technology Development C Connections Between Solar and Space Physics and Other Disciplines F Effects of the Solar and Space Environment on Technology and Society C Education and Public Outreach C Strengthening the Solar and Space Physics Research Enterprise C Programb Solar Probe A Magnetospheric Multiscale B Geospace Network D Jupiter Polar Mission B Suborbital Program B Explorer Program C Small Programs A Vitality Programs B Supporting Research and Technology C Coupling Complexity Initiative C Solar and Space Physics Information System A Guest Investigator Program A Theory and Data Analysis Program B Virtual Sun B

aDecadal survey chapters and areas in which recommendations were made. bNASA programs recommended in Chapter 2, “Integrated Research Strategy for Solar and Space Physics,” of the 2003 decadal survey.

70 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Area Assessments Seven of the committee’s grades correspond to the seven chapters in the decadal survey, which covered the following areas:

1. Milestones and Science Challenges 2. Integrated Research Strategy 3. Technology Development 4. Connections Between Solar and Space Physics and Other Disciplines, 5. Effects of the Solar and Space Environment on Technology and Society 6. Education and Public Outreach (E/PO) 7. Strengthening the Solar and Space Physics Research Enterprise.

The committee provided a summary grade of NASA’s progress against the recommendations made in each chapter of the decadal survey. The grades and findings for each of these areas are as follows:

Milestones and Science Challenges Grade: B Finding: The highest-level objectives and research focus areas in the NASA Heliophysics Roadmap align with the decadal survey science challenges. However, there are several science questions in the decadal survey—most notably, coronal heating, magnetospheres and ionospheres of other planets, and interaction with the interstellar medium—that receive little or no attention in the roadmap.

Integrated Research Strategy Grade: C Finding: Progress in almost all the programs is seriously compromised by mission cost growth and rescoping and by reductions in funding for programs that provide regular mission opportunities. In addition, decisions to reorder the mission sequence recommended in the decadal survey undermined the Integrated Research Strategy set forth in the decadal survey, which was built around a set of spacecraft missions coordinated to afford opportunities to examine complex, interacting Sun-Earth subsystems from different regions simultaneously. The originally conceived program cannot be recovered before the next decadal survey. Thus, the status of the Integrated Research Strategy going forward is in jeopardy, with the potential for loss of synergistic space research capabilities.

Technology Development Grade: C Finding: NASA is planning to add new small and medium launch capabilities and has made some progress in developing advanced spacecraft systems and command-and-control and data acquisition technologies for spacecraft constellations. But NASA’s progress in developing solar sails is limited, and NASA has only recently begun studying the feasibility of advanced space nuclear power systems and the availability of the necessary radioactive isotopes. These technologies have been identified as strategic needs for upcoming missions. It is also unclear if the rate of technological progress in spacecraft systems can be sustained in the absence of a replacement for NASA’s canceled New Millennium Program, which provided a testbed for new technologies. NASA has also not followed up on decadal survey recommendations regarding advanced scientific instrumentation.

Connections Between Solar and Space Physics and Other Disciplines Grade: F Finding: NASA has taken no specific action on the connections recommendations, which remain valid. However, community interest in interdisciplinary interactions remains strong, and supporting research and technology programs continue to elicit interdisciplinary interest.

Summaries of Major Reports 71

Effects of the Solar and Space Environment on Technology and Society Grade: C Finding: NASA/NOAA/NSF joint efforts on modeling and simulations are excellent examples of successful and close interagency coordination. However, the use of scientific spacecraft like NASA’s Advanced Composition Explorer for operational purposes by other agencies at L1 is ill-advised and is a potential obstacle to an independent space weather monitoring program.

Education and Public Outreach Grade: C Finding: NASA’s E/PO programs are regarded as generally successful, with several notable successes among the mission-associated programs. However, NASA programs have emphasized elementary-school and public education despite the decadal survey recommendation that educational efforts should focus on college and university- level training, a goal that remains poorly addressed.

Strengthening the Solar and Space Physics Research Enterprise Grade: C Finding: Some initiatives to strengthen the solar and space physics enterprise have made progress. NASA has processes in place to capitalize on existing research assets, has allocated funding to revitalize the Suborbital Program, includes space physics instruments in Planetary Division missions, and continues to have an open-door data policy. However, there has been limited or no progress on other initiatives. Launch capabilities continue to be inadequate, NASA has not undertaken an independent review of its relationship with academia, and some Announcements of Opportunity could better tailor mission rules to mission scope. Moreover, International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) continue to hamper international cooperation on missions.

Program Assessments In its chapter on the Integrated Research Strategy, the decadal survey recommended a prioritized list of programs. The present committee graded NASA’s progress on 14 of the recommended programs that have entered formulation or implementation. For NASA programs that were recommended by the decadal survey but have not entered formulation, the committee provided no grade.

Solar Probe Program Grade: A Finding: NASA is to be commended for reconstituting the Solar Probe science definition team and producing a Solar Probe Plus mission implementation plan that could be conducted with a restricted cost profile. Although its mission design is promising, Solar Probe Plus sequencing is in conflict with the decadal survey, which con- ditioned Solar Probe implementation on the implementation of all the moderate missions recommended in the survey or on a budget augmentation to accelerate Solar Probe implementation. Neither condition has been met. Solar Probe received the highest possible grade due to efforts to control cost via intelligent mission redefinition. However, NASA has compromised the decadal survey’s mission sequence by advancing Solar Probe ahead of the fourth (Multi-Heliospheric Probes), fifth (Geospace Electrodynamic Connections), and seventh (Magnetospheric Constellation) moderate-mission priorities identified in the survey, an approach that has reduced the overall grade given to implementation of the Integrated Research Strategy.

Magnetospheric Multiscale Program Grade: B Finding: Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) is the number-one-priority moderate mission, with a science focus on reconnection as a fundamental plasma physical process. MMS is scheduled for launch in 2014 and has an

72 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

estimated cost of $990 million. The launch date places it outside the time frame addressed by the decadal survey (2004-2013), and the cost places it well outside the moderate mission category of the decadal survey. Changes in payload capability, launch vehicles, and project requirements have all contributed to the increases in time and cost. Although it is encouraging to see MMS moving forward, its problems have necessitated the re-programming of subsequent moderate missions.

Geospace Network Program Grade: D Finding: As originally conceived, the Geospace Network mission aimed at exploring the synergy and coupling between the radiation environment in the inner magnetosphere and the underlying ionosphere and thermosphere, key regions for space weather effects. It has not been implemented, and the present plan essentially eliminates it from consideration.

Jupiter Polar Mission Program Grade: B Finding: Although there are some limitations due to mission design, instrumentation on the recently selected New Frontiers Juno mission will allow the main objectives of the decadal survey Jupiter Polar Mission to be accomplished.

Suborbital Program Program Grade: B Finding: NASA significantly increased its funding request for the Suborbital Program in FY 2009 in response to multiple findings over the years from the community. If passed, this increase appears to be sufficient to bring the support level back above the critical threshold for a viable program. This increased support for operational engineering, infrastructure, and inventory is in line with the relevant recommendation from the decadal survey. Meeting the decadal survey recommendation for a revitalized Suborbital Program will also require an increase in science investigations to take advantage of the increased flight rate.

Explorer Program Program Grade: C Finding: The Explorer Program is characterized by high science return and a minimum of cost overruns and mission expansion. However, reductions in Explorer Program funding have reduced the mission flight rate from one or more missions per year at the time of the decadal survey to one mission every 4 years, with serious implications for the vitality and balance of programs within the Heliophysics Division. The reinstatement of the Small Explorer and Mission of Opportunity competition in 2007 reversed a downward trend but has not restored funding to levels assumed by the decadal survey.

Small Programs Program Grade: A Finding: Significant enhancements to scientific productivity in heliophysics are being achieved with relatively small resource commitments, including NASA cooperation on the European Space Agency’s Solar Orbiter mission.

Vitality Programs Program Grade: B Finding: Although some of the specific initiatives recommended by the decadal survey were not undertaken, NASA’s Research and Analysis budget has effectively addressed the needs of present and future flight programs while continuing to foster new ideas and innovation.

Summaries of Major Reports 73

Supporting Research and Technology Program Grade: C Finding: The decadal survey recommended that funding for the Supporting Research and Technology (SR&T) program be increased to maximize the productivity of existing resources and ensure a sound foundation for the development of future programs. However, funding for this key activity was cut severely in FY 2006. In FY 2008, funding amounts have only recovered to their levels at the time of the decadal survey.

Coupling Complexity Initiative Program Grade: C Finding: No federal agency has led the way in creating new, interagency theory and modeling programs, such as the Coupling Complexity Initiative recommended by the decadal survey. However, within constrained budgets, NASA has supported the development of some portion of these activities through existing programs, such as its Targeted Research and Technology (TR&T) and its Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC).

Solar and Space Physics Information System Program Grade: A Finding: The capabilities of a Solar and Space Physics Information System are being realized through the CCMC and the emerging capabilities of virtual observatories. However, these projects are in their infancy, and continuous, careful examination should be undertaken to identify needed capabilities and specific weaknesses that could hamper their productivity.

Guest Investigator Program Program Grade: A Finding: The importance of the Guest Investigator Program in maximizing scientific returns from mission data sets and from the Heliophysics Great Observatory by broadening the types and range of scientific investigations is well recognized by NASA, and funding has been increased to maximize the program’s effectiveness.

Theory and Data Analysis Program Program Grade: B Finding: The heliophysics Theory and Data Analysis Program has labored under an inflationary funding profile. To fulfill the program’s mission of supporting groups of critical mass without increasing resources, the number of awards made every 3 years has been decreased. While such funding at least stems deterioration of capabilities in theory and modeling, it cannot foster the bold advances envisioned by the decadal survey.

Virtual Sun Program Grade: B Finding: While no new program element has been created in response to the Virtual Sun recommendation, which proposes an interagency program to develop the theoretical and modeling framework to represent the major elements of the Sun-Earth system, some of the recommendation’s objectives have been achieved through existing programs. Living With a Star (LWS) TR&T, for example, supports elements of Virtual Sun that will eventually lead to improvements in space weather applications.

RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to assessing NASA’s progress against the decadal survey recommendations, the committee was charged with delivering guidance that could optimize the value of NASA’s heliophysics programs without altering the priorities and recommendations of the 2003 decadal survey and that could improve the next decadal survey.

74 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Based on the information and grades provided in Chapters 1 and 2 of this report, the committee makes nine recommendations and offers eight guidelines.

Recommendations to Fulfill the Integrated Research Strategy The central recommendation of the decadal survey was the Integrated Research Strategy. Although it would be extremely difficult now to restore all of the content anticipated in the Integrated Research Strategy, the committee makes five recommendations that could help restore key features before the end of the decade.

Recommendation 1: (a) If no budget augmentation is forthcoming that is large enough to support the planned Solar Probe launch date of 2017 without impacting other Heliophysics Division missions, NASA should consult with the community through a formal review mechanism (such as committees of the NASA Advisory Council or other independent, external, community priority-setting bodies) to determine Solar Probe’s priority relative to that of other decadal survey recommendations and its launch date. (b) An implementation plan for the science objectives of the Geospace Network that includes both ionosphere-thermosphere and magnetosphere components should be developed as soon as possible in advance of lower-ranked moderate missions in the 2003 decadal survey’s recommended mission queue.

Recommendation 2: Funding for the Heliophysics Explorer Program should be restored to recommended levels as rapidly as possible. The ramp-up in the current 5-year-projection budget is encouraging and should be accelerated as soon as possible.

Recommendation 3: Funding for the Solar-Terrestrial Probes flight program should be restored to enable the recommended coordination of investigations.

Recommendation 4: Future Solar-Terrestrial Probes and Living With a Star missions should reduce mission requirements that exceed those assumed in the decadal survey to match resource constraints.

Recommendation 5: The mission management mode (principal-investigator-led versus center-led) on future Solar-Terrestrial Probe and Living With a Star missions should match resource constraints. Changes in management mode and in associated overhead costs that depart from the original decadal survey should be matched by changes in mission budgets.

Other Recommendations to Fulfill the Decadal Survey In addition to the Integrated Research Strategy, the 2003 decadal survey provided guidance on science challenges and made other recommendations on technology development, societal effects, education and public outreach, and supporting activities. The committee makes four recommendations to improve NASA’s execution of the decadal survey recommendations in these areas.

Recommendation 6: NASA’s mission roadmapping activities should seek to retain the balance and synergy of the decadal survey’s Integrated Research Strategy.

Recommendation 7: NASA should continue to aggressively pursue the recovery of a range of launch capabilities, including replacement or restoration of the Delta II medium-lift launch vehicle, secondary payload capabilities, and access to foreign launch capabilities.

Recommendation 8: The future of key measurements at L1 needs to be resolved between NASA and NOAA at the earliest possible time.

Recommendation 9: NASA should emphasize the involvement of undergraduate and graduate students in educational outreach grants. NASA should also consider restoring facilitator positions for coordinating educational

Summaries of Major Reports 75

outreach efforts between researchers and NASA, and it should improve the coordination of education efforts between NASA’s Heliophysics Division and its Office of Education.

Guidance to Improve the Next Decadal Survey The committee provides eight guidelines to improve the quality of the next decadal survey in solar and space physics. These guidelines are not formal recommendations to NASA, but they do give important advice for nego- tiating the statement of task for the next decadal survey and its committee.

Guideline 1: Schedules for future NASA roadmapping exercises should be phased to follow future NRC decadal surveys and midterm assessments.

Guideline 2: The next decadal survey should reconsider any missions from the 2003 decadal survey that have not begun development at the time of the next decadal survey.

Guideline 3: The next decadal survey should incorporate cost thresholds beyond which NASA must consult with the community through a formal mechanism (such as committees of the NASA Advisory Council or other independent, external, community priority-setting bodies) to review a mission’s continued priority.

Guideline 4: The next decadal survey should develop a methodology to preserve mission coordination when mission coordination is equal to or greater than the importance of the missions themselves.

Guideline 5: In addition to refining cost estimates for mission development, the next decadal survey should improve cost estimates for mission operations and data analysis.

Guideline 6: The next decadal survey should explicitly budget for all recommendations, not just those associated with missions, mission operations and data analysis, and research.

Guideline 7: The next decadal survey should maintain the practice of providing a prioritized consensus list of program recommendations.

Guideline 8: The next decadal survey should include a sufficient number of scientists with spaceflight investiga- tion experience from each of the relevant subdisciplines.

76 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.7 radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration

A Report of the Ad Hoc Radioisotope Power Systems Committee

Summary

For nearly 50 years, the United States has led the world in the scientific exploration of space. U.S. spacecraft have circled Earth, landed on the Moon and Mars, orbited Jupiter and Saturn, and traveled beyond the orbit of Pluto and out of the ecliptic. These spacecraft have sent back to Earth images and data that have greatly expanded human knowledge, though many important questions remain unanswered. Spacecraft require electrical energy. This energy must be available in the outer reaches of the solar system where sunlight is very faint. It must be available through lunar nights that last for 14 days, through long periods of dark and cold at the higher latitudes on Mars, and in high-radiation fields such as those around Jupiter. Radioisotope power systems (RPSs) are the only available power source that can operate unconstrained in these environments for the long periods of time needed to accomplish many missions, and plutonium-238 (238Pu) is the only practical isotope for fueling them. The success of historic missions such as Viking and Voyager, and more recent missions such as Cassini and New Horizons, clearly show that RPSs—and an assured supply of 238Pu—have been, are now, and will continue to be essential to the U.S. space science and exploration program. Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (MMRTGs) are the only RPS currently available. MMRTGs convert the thermal energy that is released by the natural radioactive decay of 238Pu to electricity using thermocouples. This is a proven, highly reliable technology with no moving parts. The Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) is a new type of RPS that is still being developed. An ASRG uses a Stirling engine (with moving parts) to convert thermal energy to electricity. Stirling engine con- verters are much more efficient than thermocouples. As a result, ASRGs produce more electricity than MMRTGs, even though they require only one-fourth as much 238Pu. It remains to be seen, however, when development of a flight-qualified ASRG will be completed.

THE PROBLEM Plutonium-238 does not occur in nature. Unlike 239Pu, it is unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons. Plutonium- 238 has been produced in quantity only for the purpose of fueling RPSs. In the past, the United States had an adequate supply of 238Pu, which was produced in facilities that existed to support the U.S. nuclear weapons program. The problem is that no 238Pu has been produced in the United States since the Department of Energy (DOE) shut down those facilities in the late 1980s. Since then, the U.S. space program has had to rely on the inventory of 238Pu that existed at that time, supplemented by the purchase of 238Pu from Russia. However, Russian facilities that produced 238Pu were also shut down many years ago, and the DOE will soon take delivery of its last shipment of 238Pu from Russia. The committee does not believe that there is any additional 238Pu (or any operational 238Pu production facilities) available anywhere in the world. The total amount of 238Pu available for NASA is fixed, and essentially all of it is already dedicated to support several pending missions—the Mars Science Laboratory, Discovery 12, the Outer Planets Flagship 1 (OPF 1), and (perhaps) a small number of additional missions with a very small demand for 238Pu. If the status quo persists, the United States will not be able to provide RPSs for any subsequent missions. Reestablishing domestic production of 238Pu will be expensive; the cost will likely exceed $150 million. Previous proposals to make this investment have not been enacted, and cost seems to be the major impediment. However, regardless of why these proposals have been rejected, the day of reckoning has arrived. NASA is already making mission-limiting decisions based on the short supply of 238Pu. NASA is stretching out the pace of RPS-

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-4.

Summaries of Major Reports 77

powered missions by eliminating RPSs as an option for some missions and delaying other missions that require RPSs until more 238Pu becomes available. Procuring 238Pu from Russia or other foreign nations is not a viable option because of schedule and national security considerations. Fortunately, there are two viable approaches for reestablishing production of 238Pu in the United States. Both of these approaches would use existing reactors at DOE facilities at Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory with minimal modification, but a large capital investment in processing facilities would still be needed. Nonetheless, these are the best options in terms of cost, schedule, and risk for producing 238Pu in time to minimize the disruption in NASA’s space science and exploration missions powered by RPSs.

Immediate Action Is Required On April 29, 2008, the NASA administrator sent a letter to the secretary of energy with an estimate of NASA’s future demand for 238Pu. The committee has chosen to use this letter as a conservative reference point for determining the future need for RPSs. However, the findings and recommendations in this report are not con- tingent on any particular set of mission needs or launch dates. Rather, they are based on a conservative estimate of future needs based on various future mission scenarios. The estimate of future demand for 238Pu (which is about 5 kg/year) is also consistent with historic precedent. The orange line [hollow square data points] in Figure S.1 shows NASA’s cumulative future demand for 238Pu in a best-case scenario (which is to say, a scenario in which NASA’s future RPS-mission set is limited to those missions listed in the NASA administrator’s letter of April 2008, the 238Pu required by each mission is the smallest amount listed in that letter, and ASRGs are used to power OPF 1). The green line [solid square data points] shows NASA’s future demand if the status quo persists (which is to say, if OPF 1 uses MMRTGs). Once the DOE is funded to reestablish production of 238Pu, it will take about 8 years to begin full production of 5 kg/year. The red and blue lines [triangular data points] in Figure S.1 show the range of future possibilities for 238Pu balance (supply minus demand). A continuation of the status quo, with MMRTGs used for OPF 1 and no production of 238Pu, leads to the largest shortfall, and the balance curve drops off the bottom of the chart. The best-case scenario, which assumes that OPF 1 uses ASRGs and DOE receives funding in fiscal year (FY) 2010 to begin reestablishing its ability to produce 238Pu, yields the smallest shortfall (as little as 4.4 kg). However, it seems unlikely that all of the assumptions that are built into the best-case scenario will come to pass. MMRTGs are still baselined for OPF 1, there remains no clear path to fight qualification of ASRGs, and FY 2010 funding for 238Pu production remains more a hope than an expectation. Thus, the actual shortfall is likely to be somewhere between the best-case curve and the status-quo curve in Figure S.1, and it could easily be 20 kg or more over the next 15 to 20 years. It has long been recognized that the United States would need to restart domestic production of 238Pu in order to continue producing RPSs and to maintain U.S. leadership in the exploration of the solar system. The problem is that the United States has delayed taking action to the point that the situation has become critical. Continued inaction will exacerbate the magnitude and the impact of future 238Pu shortfalls, and it will force NASA to make additional, difficult decisions that will reduce the science return of some missions and postpone or eliminate other missions until a source of 238Pu is available. The schedule for reestablishing 238Pu production will have to take into account many factors, such as construction of DOE facilities, compliance with safety and environmental procedures, and basic physics. This schedule cannot be easily or substantially accelerated, even if much larger appropriations are made available in future years in an attempt to overcome the effects of ongoing delays. The need is real, and there is no substitute for immediate action.

HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. Plutonium-238 Production. The fiscal year 2010 federal budget should fund the Department of Energy (DOE) to reestablish production of 238Pu.

• As soon as possible, the DOE and the Office of Management and Budget should request—and Congress should provide—adequate funds to produce 5 kg of 238Pu per year. • NASA should issue annual letters to the DOE defining the future demand for 238Pu.

Letter from the NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin to Secretary of Energy Samuel D. Bodman, April 29, 2008 (reprinted in Appendix C).

78 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

120 Pu Balance = Supply − Demand

100 Pu demand (status quo) 80 8 -23

u 60 Pu demand P

f (best case) o

s 40 m a r Pu balance og

l 20 i (best case) K

0 Pu balance (status quo) -20 The Problem

-40 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 Calendar Year

Pu demand, status quo: OPF 1 uses MMRTGs Pu demand, best case: OPF 1 uses ASRGs Pu balance, status quo: OPF 1 uses MMRTGs, with no new Pu production Pu balance, best case: OPF 1 uses ASRGs, FY 2010 funding for Pu production

FIGURE S.1 Potential 238Pu demand and net balance, 2008 through 2028.

Development of a Flight-Ready AdvaS-1nced Stirling Radioisotope Generator Advanced RPSs are required to support future space missions while making the most out of whatever 238Pu is available. Until 2007, the RPS program was a technology development effort. At that time, the focus shifted to development of a flight-ready ASRG, and that remains the current focus of the RPS program. The program received no additional funds to support this new tasking, so funding for several other important RPS technologies was eliminated, and the budget for the remaining RPS technologies was cut. As a result, the RPS program is not well balanced. Indeed, balance is impossible given the current (FY 2009) budget and the focus on development of flight-ready ASRG technology. However, the focus on ASRG development is well aligned with the central and more pressing issue that threatens the future of RPS-powered missions: the limited supply of 238Pu. The RPS program should continue to support NASA’s mission requirements for RPSs while minimizing NASA’s demand for 238Pu. NASA should continue to move the ASRG project forward, even though this has come at the expense of other RPS technologies. Demonstrating the reliability of ASRGs for a long-life mission is critical, but it has yet to be achieved. The next major milestones in the advancement of ASRGs are to freeze the design of the ASRG, conduct system testing that verifies that all credible life-limiting mechanisms have been identified and assessed, and demonstrate that ASRGs are ready for flight. In lieu of any formal guidance or requirements concerning what constitutes

Summaries of Major Reports 79

flight readiness, ongoing efforts to advance ASRG technology and demonstrate that it is flight ready are being guided by experience gained from past programs and researchers’ best estimates about the needs and expectations of project managers for future missions. While this approach has enabled progress, the establishment of formal guidance for flight certification of RPSs in general and ASRGs in particular would facilitate the acceptance of ASRGs as a viable option for deep-space missions and reduce the impact that the limited supply of 238Pu will have on NASA’s ability to complete important space missions.

RECOMMENDATION. Flight Readiness. The RPS program and mission planners should jointly develop a set of flight-readiness requirements for RPSs in general and Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators in particular, as well as a plan and a timetable for meeting the requirements.

RECOMMENDATION. Technology Plan. NASA should develop and implement a comprehensive RPS technology plan that meets NASA’s mission requirements for RPSs while minimizing NASA’s demand for 238Pu. This plan should include, for example:

• A prioritized set of program goals. • A prioritized list of technologies. • A list of critical facilities and skills. • A plan for documenting and archiving the knowledge base. • A plan for maturing technology in key areas, such as reliability, power, power degradation, electrical interfaces between the RPS and the spacecraft, thermal interfaces, and verification and validation. • A plan for assessing and mitigating technical and schedule risk.,.,

RECOMMENDATION. Multi-Mission RTGs. NASA and/or the Department of Energy should maintain the ability to produce Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators.

HIGH-PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION. ASRG Development. NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) should complete the development of the Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG) with all deliberate speed, with the goal of demonstrating that ASRGs are a viable option for the Outer Planets Flagship 1 mission. As part of this effort, NASA and the DOE should put final-design ASRGs on life test as soon as possible (to demonstrate reliability on the ground) and pursue an early opportunity for operating an ASRG in space (e.g., on Discovery 12).

80 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

5.8 Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop

Martha McConnell and Scott Weidman, Rapporteurs

Introduction

Great advances have been made in our understanding of the climate system over the past few decades, and remotely sensed data have played a key role in supporting many of these advances. Improvements in satellites and in computational and data-handling techniques have yielded high quality, readily accessible data. However, rapid increases in data volume have also led to large and complex datasets that pose significant challenges in data analysis (NRC, 2007). Uncertainty characterization is needed for every satellite mission and scientists continue to be challenged by the need to reduce the uncertainty in remotely sensed climate records and projections. The approaches currently used to quantify the uncertainty in remotely sensed data, including statistical methods used to calibrate and validate satellite instruments, lack an overall mathematically based framework. An additional challenge is characterizing uncertainty in ways that are useful to a broad spectrum of end-users. In December 2008, three standing committees of the National Academies held a workshop to survey how statisticians, climate scientists, and remote sensing experts might address the challenges of uncertainty management in remote sensing of climate data. The emphasis of the workshop was on raising and discussing issues that could be studied more intently by individual researchers or teams of researchers, and on setting the stage for possible future collaborative activities. Issues and questions that were addressed at the workshop include the following:

1. What methods are currently used to compare time series at single points in space with instantaneous but sparsely sampled area averages to “validate” remotely sensed climate data? Are there more sophisticated or advanced methods that could be applied to improve validation tools or uncertainty estimates? Are there alternative means of measuring the same phenomena to confirm the accuracy of satellite observations? 2. How can fairly short-term, spatially dense remote sensing observations inform climate models operating at long time scales and relatively coarse spatial resolutions? Are there remotely sensed data that could, through the use of modern statistical methods, be useful for improving climate models or informing other types of climate research? 3. What are the practical and institutional barriers (e.g., lack of qualified statisticians working in the field) to making progress on developing and improving statistical techniques for processing, validating, and analyzing remotely sensed climate data?

In her introductory remarks at the workshop, planning team chair Amy Braverman from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory presented Table 1-1 to illustrate how statistical methods (rows) can help address three major challenges in the use of remotely sensed climate data (the columns). The first of these three major challenges is the validation of remote sensing retrievals. When a remote sensing instrument retrieves a measurement that is used to infer a geophysical value (e.g., atmospheric temperature), uncertainties exist both in the measured values and in the statistical model used to validate the remotely sensed parameter. The second challenge is improving the representation of physical processes within all types of climate models. Workshop participants stressed the need to better represent physical processes within global earth system models, a critical component to projecting future climate accurately, reducing uncertainty, and ultimately aiding policy decisions. The third major challenge in climate research where statistics plays an important role is aggregating the observed and modeled knowledge, each with their associated uncertainties, to develop a better understanding of the climate system that can lead to useful predictions. Complex and multifaceted relationships in the physics of the climate system contribute uncertainty over and above that which is normally present in making inferences from massive, spatio-temporal data. Isolating and quan- tifying these uncertainties in the face of multiple scales of spatial and temporal resolution, nonlinear relationships,

NOTE: “Introduction” reprinted from Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1-10.

Summaries of Major Reports 81

feedbacks, and varying levels of a priori knowledge poses major challenges to achieving the linkages shown in Table 1-1. A formal statistical model that articulates relationships among both known and unknown quantities of interest and observations can sharpen the picture and make the problem more tractable. Random variables can represent uncertain quantities and describe relationships through joint and conditional distributions. Random variables can also be infused into systems of physical equations, to carry information about uncertainties along with information provided by physical knowledge. Crafting such hybrid physical-statistical models to capture the essence of our understanding is not easy. The climate system is inherently nonlinear and includes feedback loops where variables directly and indirectly affect one another. Figure 1-1, presented at the workshop by William Rossow from the City College of New York, is a simple diagram of the energy and water cycles of the climate system that demonstrates how the system is interconnected. In order to gain a true understanding of climate feedbacks it is important to understand multiple variables in the climate system and their interactions. Clouds and precipitation, for example, play a crucial role in both the water cycle and the earth’s energy balance, affecting the sources and sinks of heat in the climate system. The release of latent heat during precipitation events provides energy that drives atmospheric circulations, and, in turn, atmospheric circulation processes that affect the distribution of water vapor and the formation of clouds have a pronounced effect on the transfer of radiation through the atmosphere. Therefore, analyzing the interrelationships between multiple variables in the climate system is key to understanding processes of interest. Large volumes of remote sensing data are available to assist in refining models of physical systems like that shown in Figure 1-1. Data provide information about physical mechanisms at work in the atmosphere, and also about the uncertainties or gaps in our understanding of how those mechanisms operate. To make use of data in this way, however, requires that inherent uncertainties and biases in the data themselves be known and quantified. Therefore, the problem requires a holistic approach to uncertainty management beginning with data collection and validation strategies that are cognizant of the uses of the data. These challenges can be addressed in two ways:

1. By identifying data collection and analysis methods that minimize the uncertainties; and 2. By identifying the contributions to uncertainty at the various steps in collection and analysis, thereby point- ing out the most promising targets for improvement.

TABLE 1-1 Three Major Challenges in the Use of Remotely Sensed Climate Data (Columns) and Three Roles Played by Statistical Methods (Rows)

Challenge: Challenge: Improving Challenge: Validation of remote sensing physical representations and Extrapolating to future retrievals understanding climate predictions

Role for statistics: Characterize spatio-temporal Develop new statistical Maximize value of limited Clarify and characterize mismatches, retrieval methods to make the most of data and hard-to-formalize sources of uncertainty in algorithm differences; address new data types to address new assumptions remote sensing sparseness or absence of science questions about relationships data ground truth among past, present, and future

Role for statistics: Develop Develop formal statistical Develop new methods to Develop formalisms for statistical methods to quantify error measures for both bias exploit massive datasets in an combining output from and reduce uncertainty and variance inferential setting different models in light of available data

Role for statistics: Overcome mismatches Pose problems as formal Combine physical Provide an overarching by statistical modeling questions of statistical and statistical models framework of relationships between inference observed and unobserved quantities. SOURCE: Table courtesy of Amy Braverman, JPL.

82 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

FIGURE 1-1 Schematic of energy and water cycles. Red represents transfers of energy while blue lines show transfers of water. Figure courtesy of William Rossow, City College of New York.

Uncertainty quantification, in the broadest sense, is to account for not only uncertainty in individual parameters within the models that are used, but 1-1also to account for the uncertainty inherent in the actual models themselves, which are only approximate representations of physical processes. Workshop participants emphasized that improving physical process representation is critical for both improving climate models and for better characterizing their uncertainties. Statistics can contribute to solving this problem by moving beyond linear analysis for individual parameters to capture more complex relationships that have a physical meaning. A good statistical model is built in a way that captures some of the physical processes that control elements of the climate system, or alternative hypotheses about those processes. The classical method, described at the workshop, for characterizing uncertainty in earth science modeling is through sensitivity analysis. Simply, this method includes changing parameter values in a model to learn how much that parameter affects the model output. This method does not account for the possibility that more than one process represented in the model might rely on the parameter itself, which will affect the uncertainty estimate. In addition, the compounding effect of different sources of uncertainty on different parameters is difficult to quantify through sensitivity analyses. Alternative statistical approaches define uncertainty through joint probability distributions of parameters. While it is difficult to use this approach to identify the correct parameters and distributions when datasets are small, advances in data collection, management, and processing technologies are increasingly resulting in large datasets. Statistical distributions and their parameters can be estimated accurately when large volumes of data are available. Scientists in the satellite era have this luxury, but are concomitantly faced with massive data volumes that create challenges for processing and analysis techniques. In principle, large, complex, and detailed datasets offer the promise of new knowledge from which to better understand the climate system. Statistical methods that are developed specifically for new data types can better exploit these large, complex datasets that traditional methods (i.e., sensitivity analysis) cannot. Understanding the uncertainties of different processes in the climate system requires a variety of approaches. Collaborations involving climate scientists and statisticians were identified at the workshop as an effective way to promote the development of targeted new methods that would aid the science community to question all aspects of the data, and geophysical and statistical models. Workshop participants also remarked that modern statistical methods can be useful for fusing data from two different instruments, which is a more challenging problem than

Summaries of Major Reports 83

is generally appreciated. For example, data assimilation techniques are one approach to addressing the spatial and temporal mismatch between models and observations (Daley, 1991; Luo et al., 2007). As described by workshop participant Anna Michalak from the University of Michigan, such approaches need to account for the spatial and temporal structure of the dataset to allow a better understanding of the physical processes that make up the climate system.

WHY WORRY ABOUT STATISTICAL STRUCTURE: AN EXAMPLE FROM MODELING SNOW DEPTH Anna Michalak at the University of Michigan described how the statistical properties in remote sensing datasets offer both a challenge and an opportunity. For example, understanding and accounting for statistical dependence, including spatial and temporal correlations, can improve the utility of observational datasets. The opportunity is that by skillfully handling these complexities, we can better take advantage of the full information content of the available data, and use this information to guide high-payout improvements in models of the Earth system. In some cases, statisticians and earth scientists use similar techniques to evaluate, and take advantage of, the spatial and temporal structure of observations of environmental parameters. For example, spatial statistical techniques allow one to interpolate (the earth scientist’s term) or predict (the statistician’s term) the value of specific environmental parameters at unsampled locations. The vast majority of environmental parameters (e.g., clouds, precipitation, winds) exhibit spatial and/or temporal correlation, with associated characteristics of scales of variability. As stated by Tobler as the “first law of geography”: “Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things” (Tobler, 1970). Both statisticians and earth sciences have used quantitative tools to assess the spatial autocorrelation exhibited by sampled data. Both use variograms and/or covariance functions to quantify the degree of spatial autocorrelation. An accurate assessment of the spatial variability of observed parameters can be used to better understand the underlying physical processes. Figure 1-2 illustrates how understanding and exploiting the spatial and temporal structure of data can be useful. In this example, a limited number of measurements that are clustered in a non-ideal way are used to estimate the mean snow depth in a valley. Simply averaging the ten measurements of snow depth does not provide a good representation of mean snow depth. Instead, the clustered observations in the left portion of the valley clearly need to be weighted less relative to the isolated observation in the right region. However, how much weight should be assigned to each data point? Spatial statistics methods can be used to determine the degree of spatial variability in the snow-depth distribution based on an analysis of how similar nearby measurements are to one another, and how dissimilar far-away measurements are to one another. This information, in turn, can be used to quantify the optimal weights to be assigned to each measurement. This simple method in spatial statistics allows one to calculate an unbiased estimate of mean snow depth in the valley based on an uneven distribution of measurements. In Figure 1-3, we look at a hypothetical dataset describing snow depth as a function of elevation, and assum- ing that the snow depth is also autocorrelated in space (top panel). These synthetic data were generated in such a way that, in reality, there is no overall trend of snow depth with elevation, and any observed trend is therefore the result of randomness introduced in generating the data. This hypothetical dataset is then used to test whether two competing approaches are able to correctly conclude that there is no relationship between snow depth and elevation (middle panel). In the first approach (red line), classical linear regression is used, which ignores the spatial correlation in the data. In the second approach (green line), the spatial correlation is accounted for in the estimation process. In the example shown in the figure, the classical approach incorrectly rejects the null hypothesis that there is no trend between snow depth and elevation, whereas the approach based on spatial statistics correctly does not reject this hypothesis at the 95 percent confidence level. As the experiment is repeated multiple times with new synthetic data (bottom panel), we observe that the linear regression approach incorrectly concludes that there is a trend between elevation and snow depth approximately 20 percent of the time, which is much too high given that the test was run in a way that should have yielded only a 5 percent chance of incorrectly concluding that there was a trend. The approach that accounts for spatial correlation, concludes that there is a trend 5 percent of the time, as expected. Overall, this example illustrates that statistical approaches that ignore spatial and/or temporal correlation inherent in environmental data carry with them an increased risk of erroneously concluding that significant relationships exist between physical phenomena (snow depth and elevation, in this case), and, more generally, yield biased estimates due to their assumption of independent observations.

84 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Map of an alpine basin

snow depth measurement

600

500 cm]

[ 400 h h

pt 300 unbiased estimate of mean snow

de depth (assumes spatial correlation) 200 now now s 100 mean of snow depth measurements (assumes spatial independence) 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 x [m]

FIGURE 1-2 Example of sampling snow depth in a watershed. Top: aerial map of an alpine basin with sample locations (•). Bottom: snow depth at sampling location versus distance from the left edge of the valley. The red line represents the biased estimate of average snow depth obtained from a simple average of the available observations. The green line represents the unbiased estimate obtained by assigning weights to the observations based on an understanding of the scales of spatial variability of the snow depth in the valley. Figure courtesy of Anna Michalak, University of Michigan. Original figure by Tyler Erickson, Michigan Tech Research Institute.

Summaries of Major Reports 85

H0 Rejected!

1.3 A bitmapped

H0 Not Rejected

1.3 B

5% H0 rejected

FIGURE 1-3 Hypothetical data on snow depth as a function of elevation. Top: illustrates one case of the generated data, and the estimated slope between snow depth and elevation, using simple linear regression (red line), and an approach that accounts for the spatial correlation of the data (green line). Middle: illustrates the probability distribution of the trend of snow depth 1.3 C bitmapped with elevation using the two approaches. Bottom: demonstrates that if the experiment were repeated many times, one would erroneously conclude that there was a relationship between snow depth and elevation too often if using simple linear regression. Figure courtesy of Anna Michalak, University of Michigan. Original figure by Tyler Erickson, Michigan Tech Research Institute.

6 Congressional Testimony

Members of Space Studies Board (SSB) committees may be invited to testify before committees of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate about the findings and recommendations of their reports. During 2009, six hearings were held where members of the SSB family testified to Congress. Links to their prepared statements are provided below. SSB Committee on Earth Studies member Antonio Busalacchi, Jr., testified on March 18 at a hearing entitled “Critical Satellite Climate Change Datasets” before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. Dr. Busalacchi’s prepared statement is available at http:// appropriations.house.gov/Calendar_Events/2009EventsCommerce.shtml. At the June 17 hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Inves- tigations and Oversight, SSB vice chair A. Thomas Young testified in his capacity as the chair of the NPOESS Independent Review Team. Mary Glackin, deputy undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere and deputy administrator, NOAA, and David Powner, director, Information Technology Management Issues, Government Account- ability Office, also testified. Their prepared statements are available at http://science.house.gov/publications/ hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2492. At the June 18 hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, SSB member and chair of the SSB Committee on Earth Studies Berrien Moore III and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) chair Raymond Colladay testified on their perspectives on the fiscal year (FY) 2010 NASA Budget Request. Kenneth Ford, chair, NASA Advisory Council; Robert M. Hanisee, chair, Audit and Finance Committee, NASA Advisory Council; John C. Marshall, member, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel; and J.P. Stevens, vice president for space systems, Aerospace Industries Association, also testified. Their prepared statements are available at http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2493. At the July 16 hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, General Lester L. Lyles, chair or the NRC’s Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, testified on enhancing the relevance of space to address national needs. Pattie Grace Smith, board of directors, The Space Foundation; Debbie Adler Myers, general manager, Science Channel/Discovery Communica- tions; and Miles O’Brien, journalist, also testified. Their prepared statements are available at http://science.house. gov/publications/hearings_markups_ details.aspx?NewsID=2544. Lennard A. Fisk, vice-chair for the NRC’s Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Pro- gram, testified at the October 21 hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Science and Space. Stephen I. Katz, director, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Scott Pace, director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School or Inter- national Affairs, George Washington University; Jeanne L. Becker, associate director, National Space Biomedical

Congressional Testimony 87

Research Institute, and Helen Greiner, CEO, The Droid Works, also testified. Their prepared statements are available at http://commerce.senate.gov/ public/index.cfm?p=Hearings. Raymond S. Colladay, chair of the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and vice chair for the NRC’s Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, and Robert D. Braun, co-chair of the NRC’s Committee to Review the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, testified before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics at the October 22 hearing on strengthening NASA’s technology development programs. Chris Scolese, NASA, also testified. All of the prepared statements are available at http://science.house.gov/ Publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2640.

7 Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports: 1958–2009

The following list presents the reports of the Space Science (later Space Studies) Board (SSB) and its com mittees by year of publication (which may differ from the report’s release date). The Board’s major reports have been published by the National Academy Press (as of mid-2002 the National Academies Press) since 1981; prior to this, publication of major reports was carried out by the National Academy of Sciences. Several of the SSB’s reports are written in conjunction with other National Research Council Boards, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST), the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR), the Board on Life Sciences (BLS), and the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA).

2009 America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop, James V. Zimmerman, Rapporteur [SSB and ASEB] Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions [Prepublication Version], SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program, SSB ad hoc Committee on Heliophysics Performance Assessment Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration, ASEB and SSB ad hoc Radioisotope Power Systems Committee Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report. Extended Summary. SSB ad hoc Committee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events: A Workshop Space Studies Board Annual Report—2008, Space Studies Board Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop, Martha McConnell and Scott Weidman, Rapporteurs [BASC, Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and SSB]

2008 Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Review of the NASA Astrobiology Institute Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measure- ment Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring, SSB ad hoc Committee on a Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Sensor Descopes and Demanifests on the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 89

Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review, SSB ad hoc Committee on Assessing the Solar System Exploration Program Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity, SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on New Opportunities in Solar System Exploration: An Evaluation of the New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Com- mittee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System Satellite Observations to Benefit Science and Society: Recommended Missions for the Next Decade[booklet], SSB ad hoc Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future and Robert Henson, Editor Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: Workshop Report, SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events: A Workshop Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop, Margaret G. Finarelli, Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur [SSB] Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007, Space Studies Board United States Civil Space Policy: Summary of a Workshop, Molly K. Macauley, Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur [SSB and ASEB]

2007 An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on an Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop, Jack D. Fellows, Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Editor Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System, SSB and BCST ad hoc Task Group on Organic Environments in the Solar System The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems and Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation, SSB and BPA ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: A Workshop Report, SSB ad hoc Panel on Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program, SSB and BPA ad hoc NASA Astrophysics Performance Assessment Committee Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers, SSB ad hoc Committee on NASA Astronomy Science Centers The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon Space Studies Board Annual Report—2006, Space Studies Board

2006 An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs, SSB ad hoc Committee on an Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016, SSB ad hoc Committee to Review the Next Decade Mars Archi- tecture [released on June 30 as a short report] Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research: Report of a Workshop, SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Research and Monitoring in Solar-Terrestrial Physics: A Workshop Issues Affecting the Future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars, SSB ad hoc Committee on Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences

90 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences, SSB Panel on Review of NASA Science Strategy Roadmaps Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station, SSB Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon: Interim Report,SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration: Report of a Workshop, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment and NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration: A Workshop Space Studies Board Annual Report—2005, Space Studies Board “Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions,” letter from Jack W. Szostak, chair of the NRC ad hoc Committee on Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions, to John D. Rummel, planetary protection officer, NASA Headquarters (February 8) “A Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan,” letter 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)

2005 Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope The Astrophysical Context of Life, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA): Implications of a Potential Descope, SSB and BPA ad hoc Committee to Review the Science Requirements for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, SSB ad hoc Com- mittee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Space Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—2004, Space Studies Board “Review of Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal Vision,” letter from C. Megan Urry, chair of the SSB/BPA ad hoc Committee to Review Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal Vision, to Alphonso V. Diaz, NASA associate administrator for science, and Michael S. Turner, assistant director, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation (February 11)

2004 Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy, Space Studies Board Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of the Role of Solar and Space Physics in NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative Space Studies Board Annual Report—2003, Space Studies Board Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics [booklet], SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond, SSB, ASEB, and BASC Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization “Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope,” letter from Louis J. Lanzerotti, chair of the SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope, to Sean O’Keefe, NASA administrator (July 13) “Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report,” letter from Wendy L. Freedman, chair of the SSB and BPA ad hoc Panel to Review the Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder, to Anne L. Kinney, director of the Universe Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters (September 23)

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 91

2003 Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences, SSB Task Group on Research on the International Space Station Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology, SSB and BLS Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration [booklet], SSB Solar System Exploration Survey Committee New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, SSB Solar System Exploration Survey Committee Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, SSB ad hoc Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations Space Studies Board Annual Report—2002, Space Studies Board The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, SSB ad hoc Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: Panel Reports, SSB Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making, SSB Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy to Edward J. Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for the Office of Space Science (May 29) “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter from Robert J. Serafin, chair of the Com- mittee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, and SSB chair John H. McElroy to Ghassem R. Asrar, NASA’s associate administrator for the Office of Earth Science (July 31)

2002 Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA’s Earth and Space Mission Data, SSB and BESR ad hoc Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA’s Space Mission Data The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan, SSB Committee to Review NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Applications Plan Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, SSB and BLS Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life Space Studies Board Annual Report—2001, Space Studies Board Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, SSB ad hoc Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization “Review of the Redesigned Space Interferometry Mission (SIM),” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy and BPA chair John P. Huchra to Edward Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (September 12)

2001 Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, BPA with SSB Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium—An Overview, BPA with SSB Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millenium: Panel Reports, BPA with SSB Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee The Mission of Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station, SSB ad hoc Task Group on Research on the International Space Station Space Studies Board Annual Report—2000, Space Studies Board Transforming Remote Sensing Data into Information and Applications, SSB ad hoc Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program, SSB and BPA Committee on the Organization and Management of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics “Scientific Assessment of the Descoped Mission Concept for the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST),” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy and BPA chair John P. Huchra to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (September 24)

92 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

2000 Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space Science Missions Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPP and NPOESS Meteorological Satellites, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Federal Funding of Astronomical Research, SSB and BPA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station, SSB ad hoc Task Group for the Evaluation of NASA’s Biotechnology Facility for the International Space Station Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: Part I. Science and Design, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research: Part II. Implementation, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Preventing the Forward Contamination of Europa, SSB ad hoc Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Review of NASA’s Biomedical Research Program, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, SSB ad hoc Committee to Review NASA’s ESE Science Plan The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Space Studies Board Annual Report—1999, Space Studies Board “On Review of Scientific Aspects of the NASA Triana Mission,” letter from Task Group chair James J. Duderstadt, SSB acting chair Mark Abbott, BASC chair Eric J. Barron, and BESR chair Raymond Jeanloz to Ghassem R. Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science (March 3) “On Continuing Assessment of Technology Development in NASA’s Office of Space Science,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Task Group chair Daniel J. Fink to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (March 15) “On Assessment of NASA’s 2000 Solar System Exploration Roadmap,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair John A. Wood to Carl Pilcher, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (April 21) “On the Space Science Enterprise Draft Strategic Plan,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (May 26) “On Scientific Assessment of Options for the Disposition of the Galileo Spacecraft,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair John A. Wood to John D. Rummel, NASA planetary protection officer (June 28) “Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Office of Space Science,” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy to Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (September 22)

1999 Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research, SSB Task Group to Review Alternative Institutional Arrange- ments for Space Station Research A Science Strategy for the Exploration of Europa, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration A Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms Space Studies Board Annual Report—1998, Space Studies Board U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation: Summary Report, SSB Committee on International Space Programs, Space Research Committee of the Science Council of Japan, and the European Space Science Com- mittee of the European Science Foundation “Assessment of NASA’s Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, Task Group chair Marvin A. Geller, BASC co-chairs Eric J. Barron and James R. Mahoney, and Board on Sustain- able Development chair Edward A. Frieman to Ghassem Asrar, NASA’s associate administrator for Earth science (April 8) “On the National Science Foundation’s Facility Instrumentation Program,” letter from BPA chair Robert Dynes and SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, on behalf of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, to Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (June 2) “On Antarctic Astronomy,” letter from SSB and BPA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs John P. Huchra and Thomas A. Prince to Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences, and Karl Erb, director of NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (August 19)

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 93

1998 Assessment of Technology Development in NASA’s Office of Space Science,SSB Task Group on Technology Develop- ment in NASA’s Office of Space Science Development and Application of Small Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radars, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making, SSB Task Group on Sample Return from Small Solar System Bodies The Exploration of Near-Earth Objects, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Exploring the Trans-Neptunian Solar System, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Failed Stars and Super Planets: A Report Based on the January 1998 Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects Ground-Based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future, SSB Task Group on Ground-Based Solar Research Readiness for the Upcoming Solar Maximum, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Report of the Workshop on Biology-Based Technology to Enhance Human Well-Being and Function in Extended Space Exploration, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Biology-Based Technology for Enhanced Space Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1997, Space Studies Board A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, SSB Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, SSB Committee on International Space Programs and the European Science Foundation’s European Space Science Committee “On ESA’s FIRST and Planck Missions,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, BPA chair Robert Dynes, and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs John Huchra and Thomas Prince, to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., NASA associate administrator for space science (February 18) “On Climate Change Research Measurements from NPOESS,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Com- mittee on Earth Studies chair Mark Abbott to Ghassem Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science, and Robert S. Winokur, NOAA, director of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (May 27) “Assessment of NASA’s Mars Exploration Architecture,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Carl Pilcher, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (November 11)

1997 An Assessment of the Solar and Space Physics Aspects of NASA’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, SSB Com- mittee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research The Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration An Initial Review of Microgravity Research in Support of Human Exploration and Development of Space, SSB Com- mittee on Microgravity Research Lessons Learned from the Clementine Mission, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, SSB Task Group on Issues in Sample Return A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions: Proceedings of a Workshop, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science and Applications Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration Scientific Assessment of NASA’s SMEX-MIDEX Space Physics Mission Selections, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1996, Space Studies Board Space Weather: A Research Perspective, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research “On Research Facilities Planning for the International Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn, and Committee on Microgravity Research former chair Martin E. Glicksman to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (July 8) “On NASA’s Office of Space Science Draft Strategic Plan,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (August 27)

94 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

1996 Archiving Microgravity Flight Data and Samples, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Assessment of Recent Changes in the Explorer Program, SSB Panel to Review the Explorer Program Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies, SSB Task Group on Biological Effects of Space Radiation Review of NASA’s Planned Mars Program, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1995, Space Studies Board “On Optimum Phasing for SIRTF,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, BPA chair David N. Schramm, and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs Marcia J. Rieke and Marc Davis to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (February 2) “On Internet Access to Astronaut Biomedical Data,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Arnauld Nicogossian, acting associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (July 24) “On Scientific Assessment of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Roadmap,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Jurgen H. Rahe, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (August 23) “On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research Institute,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Arnauld Nicogossian, acting associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (October 10) “On NASA Mars Sample-Return Mission Options,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Jurgen H. Rahe, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (December 3)

1995 Earth Observations from Space: History, Promise, and Reality, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Managing the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on the Future of Space Science Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Review of Gravity Probe B, SSB Task Group on Gravity Probe B The Role of Small Missions in Planetary and Lunar Exploration, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration A Science Strategy for Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research A Scientific Assessment of a New Technology Orbital Telescope, SSB Task Group on BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory Setting Priorities for Space Research: An Experiment in Methodology, SSB Task Group on Priorities in Space Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1994, Space Studies Board A Strategy for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy, SSB and BPA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics “On NASA Field Center Science and Scientists,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (March 29) “On a Scientific Assessment for a Third Flight of the Shuttle Radar Laboratory,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Earth Studies chair John H. McElroy to Charles Kennel, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth (April 4) “On Clarification of Issues in theOpportunities Report,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Microgravity Research chair Martin E. Glicksman to Robert Rhome, director of NASA’s Microgravity Science and Applications Division (April 19) “On Peer Review in NASA Life Sciences Programs,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Joan Vernikos, director of NASA’s Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications Division (July 26) “On the Establishment of Science Institutes,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (August 11) “On the International Space Station,” letter from SSB Committee on the Space Station chair Thomas Young to Wilbur Trafton, NASA deputy associate administrator for space flight (November 29) “On ‘Concurrence’ and the Role of the NASA Chief Scientist,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Com- mittee on the Future of Space Science chair John A. Armstrong to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (December 12)

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 95

1994 An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995-2010, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Office of Naval Research: Research Opportunities in Upper Atmospheric Sciences, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration A Space Physics Paradox, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1993, Space Studies Board “On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti, Com- mittee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek and Committee on Microgravity Research chair William A. Sirignano to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (February 25) “On the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (April 21) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility and Cassini Saturn Probe,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and former chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to presidential science advisor John Gibbons (July 5) “On the Utilization of the Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek, and Committee on Microgravity Research chair William A. Sirignano to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (July 26)

1993 Improving NASA’s Technology for Space Science, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Space Science Technology Planning Scientific Prerequisites for the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1992, Space Studies Board “On the Space Station and Prerequisites for the Human Exploration Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (March 19) “On Several Issues in the Space Life Sciences,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek to Harry Holloway, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (April 26) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and accompanying report of the Task Group on AXAF to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator of NASA’s Office of Space Science (April 28)

1992 Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations, SSB Task Group on Planetary Protection Setting Priorities for Space Research: Opportunities and Imperatives, SSB Task Group on Priorities in Space Research—Phase I Space Studies Board Annual Report—1991, Space Studies Board Toward a Microgravity Research Strategy, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research “On the Solar System Exploration Division’s 1991 Strategic Plan,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (January 14) “Letter to the NASA Administrator,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (March 30) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (March 30) “On the CRAF/Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti transmitting a report of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (March 30) “On the Space Station Freedom Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Arnold D. Aldrich, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Systems Development (March 30) “An Interim Report on the Earth Observing System and Data and Information System,” letter from SSB Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans chair Charles Zraket and SSB chair Frank Press to Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator (April 9) “On NOAA Requirements for Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites,” letter from SSB Committee on Earth Studies chair John H. McElroy to Russell Koffler, assistant deputy administrator for NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (April 30)

96 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

“On Continued Operation of the BEVALAC Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek to Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins and NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (August 20) “On the NASA/SDIO Clementine Moon/Asteroid Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Simon P. Worden, deputy for technology of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, and Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of NASA’s Solar System Explora- tion Division (August 21) “On Robotic Lunar Precursor Missions of the Office of Exploration,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Michael D. Griffin, associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Division (August 21) “On the Earth Observing Data and Information System,” letter from SSB Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans chair Charles Zraket to Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator (September 30) “On the Restructured Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Joseph A. Burns to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (October 19)

1991 Assessment of Programs in Solar and Space Physics—1991, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine—1991, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Assessment of Satellite Earth Observation Programs—1991, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Assessment of Solar System Exploration Programs—1991, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration “On the Proposed Redesign of Space Station Freedom,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (March 14) “On the NASA Earth Observing System,” letter and attached position from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (July 10) “Results of the 103rd SSB meeting,” letter from SSB chair Louis Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (July 18) “On Research Uses of LANDSAT,” letter from Committee on Earth Studies chair Byron D. Tapley to Shelby Tilford, director of NASA’s Earth Science and Applications Division, and Russell Koffler, deputy assistant administrator of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (September 12)

1990 International Cooperation for Mars Exploration and Sample Return, Committee on Cooperative Mars Exploration and Sample Return The Search for Life’s Origins: Progress and Future Directions in Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution Strategy for the Detection and Study of Other Planetary Systems and Extrasolar Planetary Materials: 1990-2000, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Summary and Principal Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, SSB Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program Update to Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration “On Principal Issues and Concerns Raised During the Space Studies Board’s March 1990 and May 1990 Meetings,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (June 8) “On the Scientific Viability of a Restructured CRAF Science Payload,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (August 10) “On Results of the Space Studies Board Meeting Held on July 31-August 2, 1990,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (September 28) “On Space Station Freedom User Issues,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Joseph K. Alexander, assistant associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (December 12)

1989 The Field of Solar Physics: Review and Recommendations for Ground-Based Solar Research, SSB Committee on Solar Physics Strategy for Earth Explorers in Global Earth Sciences, SSB Committee on Earth Sciences “On the Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Research Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair L. Dennis Smith to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (December 20)

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 97

1988 Selected Issues in Space Science Data Management and Computation, SSB Committee on Data Management and Computation Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Task Group on Astronomy and Astrophysics Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Fundamental Physics and Chemistry, SSB Task Group on Fundamental Physics and Chemistry Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Life Sciences, SSB Task Group on Life Sciences Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Mission to Planet Earth, SSB Task Group on Earth Sciences Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Overview, SSB Steering Group on Space Science in the Twenty-First Century Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Planetary and Lunar Exploration, SSB Task Group on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Solar and Space Physics, SSB Task Group on Solar and Space Physics “Recommendation on Planetary Protection Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous-Asteroid Flyby Mission and the Titan-Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold Klein to John D. Rummel, chief of NASA’s Planetary Quarantine Program (July 6) “Assessment of Impact on Integrated Science Return from the 1992 Mars Observer Mission,” letter from SSB Com- mittee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (July 12) “Assessment of the CRAF and Cassini Science Missions,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (September 1)

1987 Long-Lived Space Observatories for Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine “On Changes to the Explorer Program,” letter from SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics chair Blair Savage to Burton Edleson, associate administrator, NASA Office of Space Sciences (January 13) “On Mixed Launch Fleet Strategy and Policy Option,” letter from Space Science Board chair Thomas M. Donahue to Dr. James Fletcher, NASA administrator (February 11) “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the CRAF Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 27) “On Life Sciences Facilities for Space Station Freedom,” letter from SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair L. Dennis Smith to Andrew Stofan, NASA associate administrator for the Office of Space Station (July 21) “On the Decision to Place the High Resolution Solar Observatory Project on Hold,” letter from SSB chair Thomas Donahue to Dr. James Fletcher, NASA administrator (September 21)

1986 The Explorer Program for Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics Issues and Recommendations Associated with Distributed Computation and Data Management Systems for the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on Data Management and Computation Remote Sensing of the Biosphere, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution A Strategy for Exploration of the Outer Planets: 1986-1996, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration United States and Western Europe Cooperation in Planetary Exploration, Joint Working Group on Cooperation in Planetary Exploration of the SSB/NRC and the Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation “On the Nation’s Space Program Position Paper,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to James C. Fletcher, NASA administrator (May 12) “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the LGO, MAO, and NEAR Missions,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 14) “On Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous–Asteroid Flyby Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold P. Klein to Arnauld E. Nicogossian, director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division (May 16) “On the Challenger Accident Impact on Space Science,” news conference statement by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue (May 21) “On the Balance of Shuttle and ELV Launches,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to James C. Fletcher, NASA administrator (June 11)

98 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

“On the Implementation of CODMAC 1 & 2,” letter from SSB Committee on CODMAC chair Christopher T. Russell to Burton Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (October 1)

1985 An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics—Executive Summary, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Institutional Arrangements for the Space Telescope—A Mid-Term Review, Space Telescope Science Institute Task Group and SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics The Physics of the Sun, Panels of the Space Science Board A Strategy for Earth Science from Space in the 1980’s and 1990’s—Part II: Atmosphere and Interactions with the Solid Earth, Oceans, and Biota, SSB Committee on Earth Sciences “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the CRAF Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin and past chair D.M. Hunten to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 31) “On Categorization of the Mars Orbiter Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold P. Klein to Arnauld E. Nicogossian, director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division (June 6) “On the Shuttle Science Payload Program,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (June 20) “On NASA Policy for Planetary Protection,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton I. Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (November 22)

1984 Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution, and Archiving, Joint Data Panel of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research A Strategy for the Explorer Program for Solar and Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics “On Biological Processing in Space,” memorandum from SSB’s director Dean Kastel to CPSMR director R. Kasper, forwarded by NRC executive officer Philip M. Smith to John P. McTague, deputy director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (August 22) “On the SIRTF Facility Phase B Study and Programmatic Procedures for the Explorer Program,” two resolutions forwarded by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton I. Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (December 14)

1983 An International Discussion on Research in Solar and Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics The Role of Theory in Space Science, SSB Theory Study Panel “Space Telescope Science Issues,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (June 8) “Space Science Board Assessment of the Scientific Value of a Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (September 9) “On the Continued Development of the Gravity Probe B Mission,” SSB position statement transmitted by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (December 9) and Burton I. Edelson, NASA Headquarters (December 1)

1982 Data Management and Computation—Volume I: Issues and Recommendations, SSB Committee on Data Management and Computation A Strategy for Earth Science from Space in the 1980s—Part I: Solid Earth and Oceans, SSB Committee on Earth Sciences “On Effective Utilization of the Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (September 13) “On the Venus Radar Mapper mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair D.M. Hunten to Jesse W. Moore, director, NASA Earth & Planetary Exploration Division (December 3)

1981 Origin and Evolution of Life—Implications for the Planets: A Scientific Strategy for the 1980s, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution Strategy for Space Research in Gravitational Physics in the 1980s, SSB Committee on Gravitational Physics

1980 Solar-System Space Physics in the 1980’s: A Research Strategy, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Strategy for the Exploration of Primitive Solar-System Bodies—Asteroids, Comets, and Meteoroids: 1980-1990, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 99

1979 Life Beyond the Earth’s Environment—The Biology of Living Organisms in Space, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine The Science of Planetary Exploration, Eugene H. Levy and Sean C. Solomon, members of SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Plasma Physics—The Study of Solar-System Plasmas, Volume 2, Working Papers, Part 1, Solar-System Magnetohydrodynamics, SSB Study Committee and Advocacy Panels Space Plasma Physics—The Study of Solar-System Plasmas, Volume 2, Working Papers, Part 2, Solar-System Plasma Processes, SSB Study Committee and Advocacy Panels A Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics for the 1980s, SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics

1978 Recommendations on Quarantine Policy for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution Space Plasma Physics—The Study of Solar-System Plasmas, Volume 1, SSB Study Committee and Advocacy Panels Space Telescope Instrument Review Committee—First Report, National Academy of Sciences SSB and European Science Foundation Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets: 1977-1987, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration

1977 Post-Viking Biological Investigations of Mars, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution

1976 Institutional Arrangements for the Space Telescope—Report of a Study at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, July 19-30, 1976, Space Science Board An International Discussion of Space Observatories, Report of a Conference Held at Williamsburg, Virginia, January 26-29, 1976, Space Science Board Report on Space Science—1975, Space Science Board “On Contamination of the Outer Planets by Earth Organisms,” SSB Panel on Exobiology (March 20) “Recommendations on Quarantine Policy for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan,” SSB Panel on Exobiology (May 24)

1975 Opportunities and Choices in Space Science, 1974, Space Science Board

1974 Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle, Space Science Board

1973 HZE-Particle Effects in Manned Spaceflight, Radiobiological Advisory Panel, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine

1972 Human Factors in Long-Duration Spaceflight, Space Science Board “Review of Planetary Quarantine Policy,” SSB Ad Hoc Committee for Review of Planetary Quarantine Policy (February 3-4)

1971 Outer Planets Exploration: 1972-1985, Space Science Board Priorities for Space Research: 1971-1980, Report of a Study on Space Science and Earth Observations Priorities, Space Science Board

1970 Infectious Disease in Manned Spaceflight—Probabilities and Countermeasures, Space Science Board Life Sciences in Space—Report of the Study to Review NASA Life Sciences Programs, Space Science Board Radiation Protection Guides and Constraints for Space-Mission and Vehicle-Design Studies Involving Nuclear Systems, SSB Radiobiological Advisory Panel of the Committee on Space Medicine Space Biology, Space Science Board Venus Strategy for Exploration, Space Science Board “Review of Sterilization Parameter Probability of Growth (Pg),” Ad Hoc Committee on Review of the Sterilization Parameter Probability of Growth (July 16-17).

1969 Lunar Exploration—Strategy for Research: 1969-1975, Space Science Board The Outer Solar System—A Program for Exploration, Space Science Board Report of the Panel on Atmosphere Regeneration, SSB Life Sciences Committee Scientific Uses of the Large Space Telescope, SSB Ad Hoc Committee on the Large Space Telescope Sounding Rockets: Their Role in Space Research, SSB Committee on Rocket Research

100 Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

1968 Physics of the Earth in Space—A Program of Research: 1968-1975, Report of a Study by the Space Science Board, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 11-24, 1968, Space Science Board Physiology in the Space Environment: Volume I—Circulation, Space Science Board Planetary Astronomy—An Appraisal of Ground-Based Opportunities, SSB Panel on Planetary Astronomy Planetary Exploration 1968-1975, Space Science Board Report on NASA Biology Program, SSB Life Sciences Committee

1967 Physiology in the Space Environment: Volume II—Respiration, Space Science Board Radiobiological Factors in Manned Space Flight, Space Radiation Study Panel of the SSB Life Sciences Committee Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Water Quality Standards for Long-Duration Manned Space Missions, Space Science Board “Study on the Biological Quarantine of Venus,” SSB Ad Hoc Panel on Quarantine of Venus (January 9).

1966 Biology and the Exploration of Mars: Report of a Study Held Under the Auspices of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1964-1965, Space Science Board Extraterrestrial Life: An Anthology and Bibliography, Supplementary to Biology and the Exploration of Mars, Report of a Study Held Under the Auspices of the Space Science Board, Study Group on Biology and the Exploration of Mars, Space Science Board Space Research: Directions for the Future, Space Science Board

1965 Biology and the Exploration of Mars: Summary and Conclusions of a Study by the Space Science Board, Space Science Board Conference on Hazard of Planetary Contamination Due to Microbiological Contamination in the Interior of Spacecraft Components, Space Science Board Report of the Working Group on Gemini-Apollo MOL Experimentation, SSB Life Science Committee

1964 Conference on Potential Hazards of Back Contamination from the Planets, Space Science Board Report of the Panel on Gravity, SSB Committee on Environmental Biology

1963 The Biological Action of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Magnetic Fields, SSB Panel on Magnetic, Radio frequency and Other Field Effects of the Environmental Biology Committee Position Paper on Theoretical Aspects of Radiobiology as Applied to the Space Program, SSB Panel on Radiation Biology of the Environmental Biology Committee Working Group on Gaseous Environment for Manned Spacecraft: Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee Working Group on Nutrition and Feeding Problems: Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee Working Group on Problems of Weightlessness in Space Flight: Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee

1962 A Review of Space Research, Space Science Board Working Group on Radiation Problems: First Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee “Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on NASA/University Relationships” (July 11)

1961 The Atmospheres of Mars and Venus, SSB Ad Hoc Panel on Planetary Atmospheres Science in Space, Space Science Board Symposium on Impact Acceleration Stress: Abstracts, SSB Man in Space Committee “Policy Positions on (1) Man’s Role in the National Space Program and (2) Support of Basic Research for Space Science [March 27],” letter from SSB chair L.V. Berkner to NASA administrator James E. Webb (March 31) “NASA Tracking and Orbit Computation Services, and Distribution of Tracking and Orbital Data to the Scientific Com- munity,” letter from SSB chair Lloyd Berkner to NASA deputy administrator Hugh L. Dryden (November 6)

1960 “Review of Data Exchange Policy in IGY Rockets & Satellites Program: Report to NASA,” letter from SSB executive director Hugh Odishaw to NASA deputy administrator Hugh L. Dryden (December 22)

1959 International Cooperation in Space Activities: Advisory Paper for US Delegation to United Nations Committee, Space Science Board Scientific Research in Space, Space Science Board Summary Report of WESTEX, Space Science Board, WESTEX ad hoc committee

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 101

1958 “National Academy of Sciences Establishes Space Science Board,” News from National Academy of Sciences- National Research Council (August 3) “Recommendation of the Space Science Board for Space Experiments,” letter from SSB executive director Hugh Odishaw to National Aeronautics and Space Administration administrator, the National Science Foundation director, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency director (December 1)