DOCSLIB.ORG

Planetary Science's Defining Moment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Planetary Science's Defining Moment N EWS F OCUS 65 64 63 Internecine battles have tarnished the reputation of planetary scientists in Washington, D.C. 62 Researchers hope they can win back respect with a consensus long-range plan 61 60 59 58 Planetary Science’s 57 56 55 54 Defining Moment IRVINE,CALIFORNIA— But this expansion also comes in the NRC previously drew up long-term plans The stark message midst of bitter rivalries among subdisciplines, for astronomy and astrophysics, providing from the black box on friction between labs and their political back- clear priorities that those communities have the conference table ers, and rancor between Washington players turned into an effective lobbying tool. left many of the dozen like Isakowitz and bench scientists with their In the past, planetary scientists have or so scientists visibly own agendas. “We’re in a mess right now,” rather relished the rough-and-tumble spar- shaken. “It would be sighs Andrew Nagy, an NRC panel member ring over NASA’s budget. Just a few years SOLAR SYSTEM very easy for this Ad- and space physicist at the University of ago, advocates of a Mars lander fought with EXPLORATION ministration to walk Michigan, Ann Arbor. Things came to a head those who preferred a mission to a nearby The world’s planetary away from the plane- last fall during a successful campaign by re- asteroid. The infighting seems inevitable, be- science programs, cen- tary program,” said searchers to win congressional approval to cause one mission can never please every- tered in the U.S., Japan, the voice from Wash- revive a Pluto mission that NASA had one. “Solar system missions are the opposite and Europe, are setting ington, D.C. The shelved. The $30 million appropriation, of astronomy missions; they are narrowly ambitious goals—and speaker was Steve a mere down payment on what could be a tailored and specifically targeted,” notes Isakowitz, who over- Mark Sykes, an astronomer at the facing a host of trials on March 12, 2012 University of Arizona in Tucson. The and tribulations, ranging sees space and science Hubble Space Telescope may study from skeptical politi- programs at the pow- erful White House Of- the birth of stars, black holes, and cians to bureaucratic fice of Management extrasolar planets all in the space of a reshufflings to techno- and Budget (OMB). week, but a mission to Mars offers lit- logical challenges. The stunned audience tle of interest to a researcher studying UNITED STATES members were part of gas giant planets. Even within the a National Research Mars community, a mission that fo- JAPAN Council (NRC) team cuses on geology would not attract EUROPE working on the first those who study atmospheric chem- www.sciencemag.org TECHNOLOGY long-term science istry or the magnetosphere. plan for solar system The stakes were raised in 2000, 53 exploration. “The planetary community is however, when NASA’s then-new 52 fractured, and we don’t have a clear vision,” space science chief Ed Weiler learned 51 chimed in fellow budgeteer Brant Sponberg about dramatic cost overruns on two 50 during the 15 November teleconference. “And missions—one to Pluto and one to 49 that makes you guys very, very vulnerable.” Europa—planned by the Jet Propul- Downloaded from 48 The crisis in NASA’s solar system effort is On ice? The status of a Europa orbiter that would sion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, 47 forcing a painful reckoning for researchers provide better closeups of the Jupiter moon is unclear. California. With the total cost jump- 46 who study planets, moons, asteroids, and ing from $654 million to $1.49 bil- 45 comets. “I shiver at the idea of this nation $500 million effort, angered NASA officials lion, Weiler was forced to choose between 44 abandoning exploration of the outer planets,” and their political paymasters, who don’t the two. “I had no clear priority, so I used 43 says Wesley Huntress, an NRC panel mem- think the nation can afford such a voyage. the best information I had,” he recalls, and 42 ber and geophysicist at the Carnegie Institu- Now both the Pluto mission and a separate halted work on the Pluto mission. There was 41 tion of Washington. Ironically, the trouble trip to study Jupiter’s moon Europa are on the also heavyweight support behind the Europa 40 comes at a time when the field is booming. chopping block. Unless planetary scientists mission: The Galileo spacecraft had found 39 Public support is strong, and flotillas of U.S., make some prudent choices, say OMB offi- evidence for an ocean beneath the icy skin 38 European, and Japanese spacecraft are cials, the future of U.S. exploration beyond of the Jovian moon, and the Clinton White 37 planned, on their way, or already gathering Mars is highly uncertain. House was intrigued by the possibility of 36 data in the far corners of the solar system. life there, fueled by 1996 claims—still con- 35 NASA’s $800 million planetary science bud- Pluto and Pasadena troversial—that a martian meteorite con- 34 get is slated to top $1.3 billion by 2005. Academic researchers, NASA officials, and tained evidence of fossils. 33 Meanwhile, many U.S. companies, private policy-makers alike are counting on the Weiler’s decision infuriated backers of the 32 and public labs, and individual scientists are NRC panel to rescue the field from that un- Pluto mission. Public groups such as Pasa- 31 scrambling to get a piece of an area that was certainty by providing a set of scientific ob- dena’s Planetary Society joined scientific ad- 30 once the domain of a few privileged institu- jectives and associated missions for the next vocates in arguing that Pluto was the more 29 tions and researchers. decade on which everyone can agree. The urgent target, because its orbit was taking it CREDITS: TO ESA;BOTTOM) (TOP NASA 32 4 JANUARY 2002 VOL 295 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org N EWS F OCUS 65 64 63 Lab Rivalry Spices Up Solar ters decided to open up portions of the Mars exploration effort to 62 competition, and spiraling costs on the proposed Pluto and Europa 61 System Exploration missions sparked a political furor in Washington. 60 PASADENA, CALIFORNIA—The battle over who will build the next The crises have contributed to sagging morale and a sense of be- 59 round of U.S. missions to explore the solar system is a classic ing under siege, say JPL employees. But Stone’s successor, Charles 58 match-up between the grizzled veteran and the young and hungry Elachi, says the new competition should be seen as a sign of the lab’s 57 challenger. But the real winner, if NASA officials and scientists can success, not failure. “We opened the frontiers of planetary explo- 56 be believed, will be science and the public. ration,” he says. “And like anybody who opens new frontiers, other 55 To many, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) here is planetary sci- people are going to follow.” Those include not just APL but also pri- 54 ence. Its star-studded cast of nearly two dozen missions includes vate companies such as Lockheed Martin and Ball Aerospace. 53 Mariner 2, which flew past Venus JPL can draw on its 4 decades of experience, a $1.4 billion 52 in 1962 in our first encounter annual budget, and some 5300 people at its sprawling facili- 51 with another planet; the Viking ties in the Pasadena hills. The lab has two spacecraft orbiting 50 orbiters, which mapped Mars in Mars, another on its way to Saturn, and a fourth en route to a 49 the mid-1970s; and the Voyager comet with hopes of bring back material from its nucleus. It 48 1 and 2 missions now leaving operates NASA’s Deep Space Network, the critical link in 47 the solar system. every planetary mission, and loans out its crack team of 46 So when Maryland’s Applied navigators—even to help APL on the tricky NEAR mission. 45 Physics Laboratory (APL) in Lau- “Clearly, JPL continues to be the flagship lab for NASA’s plan- 44 rel, part of Johns Hopkins Uni- etary exploration program,” acknowledges Krimigis. “We have 43 versity and traditionally a Navy no plans to duplicate JPL.” 42 contractor, offered to build an NASA space science chief 41 asteroid-rendezvous mission in Ed Weiler, who has criticized the 40 the early 1990s for less than Pasadena lab for under- 39 $150 million, it was seen as Making history. JPL’s Mariner 2 to estimating mission costs, says, 38 something of an upstart. “Every- Venus (right) provided first closeups “Whether or not some people 37 body laughed,” recalls Tom of another planet; upstart APL want to admit it, this country on March 12, 2012 36 Krimigis, APL’s space chief. APL wants to get personal with Mercury. needs JPL.” That means building 35 got the NASA contract, for $120 spacecraft as well as helping 34 million, after JPL engineers estimated it would cost them three times with navigation and communi- 33 as much. Although controllers had to abort the first attempt at ren- cations. “I have to find ways to 32 dezvous, the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft be- keep JPL doing real engineering 31 gan orbiting Eros 2 years ago and last year landed on its surface. science,” he says. 30 APL’s bold proposal led NASA to create a competitive planetary Although APL and JPL are now cooperating on several missions, 29 program called Discovery. Last year alone, APL won two contracts the underlying rivalry seems unlikely to lose its edge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Planetary Report
    A Publication of THEPLANETA SOCIETY o o o • o -e o o Board of Directors CARL SAGAN NORMAN R. AUGUSTI NE President Chairman and CEO, Director, Martin Marietta Corporation Laboratory for Planetary Studies, Cornelf University JOHN E. BRYSON Chairman and CEO, BRUCE MURRAY Southern California Edison Vice President Professor of Planetary Science, JOSEPH RYAN California Institute of Technology O'Melveny & Myers LOU IS FRIEDMAN STEVEN SPI ELBERG A WARNING FROM YOUR EDITOR Bringing People Together Through Executive Director director and producer You may soon be getting a phone call Planetary Science-Page 13-Education Board of Advisors from me. No, I won't be asking you for has always been close to the hearts of DIANE ACKERMAN JOHN M. LOGSDON donations or nagging you about a missed Planetary Society members, and we have poet and author Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University deadline (a common fear among planetary sponsored many programs to promote sci­ BUZZ ALDRIN Apollo 11 astronaut HANS MARK scientists). Instead, I will be asking for ence education around the world. We've The University of Texas at Austin RICHARD BERENDZEN your opinion about The Planetary Report. gathered together reports on three projects educator and astrophysicist JAMES MICHENER author JACQUES BLAMONT Each month our computer will randomly now completed and one just beginning. Chief Scientist, Centre MARVIN MINSKY Nationa! d'Etudes Spatia/es, Toshiba Professor of Media Arts select several members whom I will call to A Planetary Readers' Service-Page 16- France and Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology discuss the contents of our latest issue-or For most of its history, the science we call RAY BRADBURY poet and author PHILIP MORRISON any other topic related to our publications.
    [Show full text]
  • ,.II Launch in Late 2001 Pasadena, California Vol
    c SIRTF gets 0 - - - go-ahead Design, development phase now under way; .._,.II launch in late 2001 Pasadena, California Vol. 28, No. 7 April 3, 1998 By MARY BETH MURRILL NASA Administrator Dan Goldin last week authorized the start of work on the IPL-man­ aged Space Infrared Telescope Facility MGS will target imaging areas (SIRTF), an advanced orbiting observatory that will give astronomers unprecedented views of phenomena in the universe that are invisible to Attempts will include other types of telescopes. The authorization signals the start of the design and development phase of the SIRTF Pathfinder and project. Scheduled for launch in December 2001 on a Delta7920-H rocket from Cape Viking landing sites, Canaveral, Fla., SIRTF represents the culmina­ tion of more than a decade of planning and Cydonia region design to develop an infrared space telescope with high sensitivity, low cost and long lifetime. "The Space Infrared Telescope Facility will do By DIANE AINSWORTH for infrared astronomy what the Hubble Space Telescope has done in its unveiling of the visible JPL's Mars Global Surveyor project has universe, and it will do it faster, better and cheaper resumed scientific observations of the surface than its predecessors," said Dr. Wesley Huntress, of Mars and has scheduled opportunities to NASA's associate administrator for space science. image four selected sites: the Viking l and 2 "By sensing the heat given off by objects in landing sites, the Mars Pathfinder landing site space, this new observatory will see behind the and the Cydonia region. cosmic curtains of dust particles that obscure Three opportunities to image each of the Target areas for Mars Global Surveyor imaging include the landing sites of Pathfinder (near much of the visible universe," Huntress said.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa Advisory Council
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL February 18~19, 2010 NASA Headquarters Washington, DC MEETING MINUTES ~~7(~ P. Diane Rausch Kenneth M. Ford Executive Director Chair NASA Advisory Council February 18-19. 2010 NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL NASA Headquarters Washington, DC February 18-19, 2010 Meeting Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Announcements and Opening Remarks 2 NASA Administrator Remarks 2 The President's FY 2011 Budget Request for NASA 4 NASA Exploration Update 6 Aeronautics Committee Report 8 Audit, Finance & Analysis Committee Report 9 Commercial Space Committee Report II Education & Public Outreach Committee Report II Non-Traditional International Partnerships 12 IT Infrastructure Committee Report 13 Science Committee Report 14 Space Operations Committee Report 17 Technology & Innovation Committee Report 18 Council Roundtable Discussion 19 Appendix A Agenda AppendixB Council Membership AppendixC Meeting Attendees AppendixD List of Presentation Material Meeting Report Prepared By: David J. Frankel 1 NASA Advisory Council February 18-19. 2010 NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL NASA Headquarters Washington, DC February 18-19, 2010 February 18,2010 Announcements and Opening Remarks Ms. Diane Rausch, NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Executive Director, called the meeting to order and welcomed the NAC members and attendees to Washington, DC, and NASA Headquarters. She reminded everyone that the meeting was open to the public and held in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements. All comments and discussions should be considered to be on the record. The meeting minutes will be taken by Mr. David Frankel, and will be posted to the NAC website: www.nasa.gov/offices/nac/, shortly after the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of the Discovery Program, 1989-1993
    Space Policy 30 (2014) 5e12 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Space Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol Transforming solar system exploration: The origins of the Discovery Program, 1989e1993 Michael J. Neufeld National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, United States article info abstract Article history: The Discovery Program is a rarity in the history of NASA solar system exploration: a reform program that Received 18 October 2013 has survived and continued to be influential. This article examines its emergence between 1989 and Accepted 18 October 2013 1993, largely as the result of the intervention of two people: Stamatios “Tom” Krimigis of the Johns Available online 19 April 2014 Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), and Wesley Huntress of NASA, who was Division Director of Solar System Exploration 1990e92 and the Associate Administrator for Space Science 1992 Keywords: e98. Krimigis drew on his leadership experience in the space physics community and his knowledge of Space history its Explorer program to propose that it was possible to create new missions to the inner solar system for a NASA Space programme organization fraction of the existing costs. He continued to push that idea for the next two years, but it took the influence of Huntress at NASA Headquarters to push it on to the agenda. Huntress explicitly decided to use APL to force change on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the planetary science community. He succeeded in moving the JPL Mars Pathfinder and APL Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) mission proposals forward as the opening missions for Discovery. But it took Krimigis’s political skill and access to Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Advisory Council Science Committee Meeting, March 6-7, 2012
    NASA Advisory Council Science Committee Meeting, March 6-7, 2012 Table of Contents Welcome and Introduction 3 Science Mission Directorate (SMD) 4 Planetary Science Division (PSD) 7 Astrophysics Division (APD) 9 Heliophysics Division (HPD) 12 Earth Science Division (EDP) 14 Planetary Protection 16 James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) 18 Launch Services 19 Discussion with NAC Chair 20 Discussion of findings/recommendations 20 Appendix A- Attendees Appendix B- Membership roster Appendix C- Presentations Appendix D- Agenda Prepared by Joan M. Zimmermann 2 NASA Advisory Council Science Committee Meeting, March 6-7, 2012 March 6, 2012 Welcome and Introduction Dr. Wesley Huntress, Chair for the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Science Committee (SC) opened the meeting, welcoming the new Acting Chair for the Heliophysics Subcommittee (HPS) Robert McPherron, and William McKinnon representing the Planetary Science Subcommittee (PSS). He welcomed Dr. Barbara Giles as the newly named as Director of the Heliophysics Division (HPD). Other changes include a newly appointed Chair for the NAC, Dr. Steven Squyres, an exceptional planetary scientist, and Chair of the Steering Committee for the National Research Council’s 2011 Planetary Science Decadal Survey. Dr. John Grunsfeld has taken the place of Dr. Edward Weiler as Associate Administrator (AA) of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD). Dr. Grunsfeld is an astrophysicist and astronaut with great experience and knowledge in human spaceflight and robotic exploration. Noting that Dr. Weiler had retired abruptly in response to the FY13 budget, Dr. Huntress expressed regret at the loss of an effective AA, but was pleased to see Dr. Grunsfeld take the new position. Dr. T.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Solar System Exploration: the Origins of the Discovery Program, 1989E1993
    Space Policy 30 (2014) 5e12 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Space Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spacepol Transforming solar system exploration: The origins of the Discovery Program, 1989e1993 Michael J. Neufeld National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, United States article info abstract Article history: The Discovery Program is a rarity in the history of NASA solar system exploration: a reform program that Received 18 October 2013 has survived and continued to be influential. This article examines its emergence between 1989 and Accepted 18 October 2013 1993, largely as the result of the intervention of two people: Stamatios “Tom” Krimigis of the Johns Available online 19 April 2014 Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), and Wesley Huntress of NASA, who was Division Director of Solar System Exploration 1990e92 and the Associate Administrator for Space Science 1992 Keywords: e98. Krimigis drew on his leadership experience in the space physics community and his knowledge of Space history its Explorer program to propose that it was possible to create new missions to the inner solar system for a NASA Space programme organization fraction of the existing costs. He continued to push that idea for the next two years, but it took the influence of Huntress at NASA Headquarters to push it on to the agenda. Huntress explicitly decided to use APL to force change on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the planetary science community. He succeeded in moving the JPL Mars Pathfinder and APL Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) mission proposals forward as the opening missions for Discovery. But it took Krimigis’s political skill and access to Sen.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapters 11-14
    At NASA, hopes for a new planetary mission to Saturn had been in the works since the early 1980s. Scientists had long sought to visit the second-largest planet in the solar system, with its fascinating system of rings, numerous moons, and unique magnetic field. 11 140 Visiting Saturn 11 The Cassini Mission s the 1980s drew to a close, the DOE Office of Special Applica- tions had its hands full with space nuclear power system work. Although assembly and testing of four GPHS-RTGs (including Aone spare) for the Galileo and Ulysses missions were complete, other projects filled the time. Ongoing assessment and development of DIPS, begun under SDI, continued on a limited basis under SEI. e SP- 100 space reactor program and TFE verification program were in the midst of ongoing development and testing. DOE also continued supporting DoD in development of a space nuclear thermal propulsion system that had begun under the auspices of SDI. At NASA, hopes for a new planetary mission to Saturn had been in the works since the early 1980s. Scientists had long sought to visit the second-largest planet in the solar system, with its fascinating system of rings, numerous moons, and unique magnetic field. Flybys of Saturn by the RTG-powered Pioneer 11 spacecraft in 1979 and the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft in 1980 and 1981, respectively, provided information that further piqued that interest. Efforts to acquire a Saturn mission finally came to fruition in 1989 with the authorization of Congressional funding. Conceived as an international partnership with the ESA and Italian Space Agency, the Cassini-Huygens mission (alternately the Cassini mission) began in 1990 and consisted of an orbiter (Cassini) and a probe (Huygens).
    [Show full text]
  • Data Management, Preservation and the Future of Pds
    DATA MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION AND THE FUTURE OF PDS Reta Beebe - New Mexico State University, Las Cruces NM Telephone: 575-646-1938 Email: [email protected] Co-Authors Acton, Charles - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA Arvidson, Raymond - Washington University, St Louis MO Bell, Jim -Cornell University, Ithaca NY Boice, Dan - Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio TX Bolton, Scott - Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio TX Bougher, Steven -University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI Boynton, William -University of Arizona, Tucson AZ Britt, Daniel -University of Central Florida, Orlando FL Buie, Marc - Southwest Research Institute, Boulder CO Burns, Joseph - Cornell University, Ithaca NY Capria, Maria Teresa – IASF-INAF-Roma/Past chair of IPDA, Rome IT Coradini, Angioletta - IFSI-Roma/PI of Juno/JIRAM, Rosetta/VIRTIS & DAWN/VIR Rome IT Crichton, Daniel - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA Ford, Peter - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA French, Richard - Wellesley College, Wellesley MA Gaddis, Lisa - U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff AZ Gierasch, Peter - Cornell University, Ithaca NY Gladstone, Randy - Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio TX Gordon, Mitch - SETI Institute, Mountain View CA Greeley, Ronald - Arizona State University, Tempe AZ Hansen, Kenneth - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI Jakosky, Bruce - University of Colorado, Boulder CO Kasaba, Yasumara - Tohoku University/Current Chair of IPDA, Sendai City, JP Khurana, Krishan - University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles CA Kurth, William - University of Iowa, Iowa City IA Law, Emily - Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA Lorenz, Ralph - JHU Applied Physics Lab, Baltimore MD Nixon, Conor - Goddard/Univ. of Maryland, Greenbelt. College Park MD Paranicus, Chris - JHU Applied Physics Lab, Baltimore MD Pryor, Wayne - Central Arizona College.
    [Show full text]
  • New Frontiers in the Solar System
    New Frontiers in The Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy Solar System Exploration Survey Space Studies Board National Research Council 9 July 2002 Members of Survey • Michael Belton (Chair) – Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC • Carolyn Porco (Vice Chair) – Southwest Research Institute • David H Smith (Study Director) - NRC • Michael A’Hearn – Univ. Maryland • David Jewitt – Univ. Hawaii • John Mustard – Brown Univ. • Joseph Burns - Cornell University • Andrew Nagy - Univ. Michigan • Ronald Greeley – Arizona State Univ. • Dimitri Papanatassiou -JPL • James Head III – Brown Univ. • Robert Pappalardo - Univ. Colorado • Wesley Huntress – Carnegie Inst. • Mitchell Sogin - Marine Bio. Lab. • Andrew Ingersoll – Cal. Inst. Tech • A. Thomas Young – Retired Mars panel (COMPLEX) – John Wood Primitive Bodies Panel – Dale Cruikshank Inner Planets Panel – Carlé Pieters Large Satellites Panel – Alfred McEwen Giant Planets Panel – Reta Beebe Ad hoc Astrobiology Panel (COEL) - Jonathan Lunine/John Baross 9 July, 2002 NRC Solar System Exploration Survey 2 The Charge to the Survey: • Define a "big picture" of solar system exploration: what it is, how it fits into other scientific endeavors, and why it is a compelling goal today. • Conduct a broad survey of the current state of knowledge about our solar system today. • Identify the top-level scientific questions that should provide the focus for solar system exploration today; these will be the key scientific inputs to the roadmapping activity to follow. • Draft a prioritized list of the most promising avenues for flight investigations and supporting ground-based activities. 9 July, 2002 NRC Solar System Exploration Survey 3 Solar System Mission Priorities: • Small Class (<$325M) 1. Discovery missions at one launch every 18 months 2.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA Advisory Council Science Committee, April 20-21, 2010
    NASA Advisory Council Science Committee, April 20‐21, 2010 Table of Contents Welcome and Introduction 3 Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Welcome 3 NASA SMD Science Plan 6 Lunch talk 7 PSS Update 8 PSD Science Highlights 8 Status of Pu‐238 9 ESS Update 9 ESD Update 9 Operating missions 10 NASA Technology Initiative 10 Q&A with SMD AA 11 APD/APS Update 12 APD Science Highlights 12 Kepler Data Release Policy 13 HPS Update 13 HPD Status 14 NMP Lessons Learned 14 ISS Utilization 15 Discussion 16 Public Comments 17 Findings and Recommendations 17 Appendix A‐ Attendees Appendix B‐ Membership roster Appendix C‐ Presentations Appendix D‐ Agenda Prepared by Joan M. Zimmermann Harris Corp. 2 NASA Advisory Council Science Committee, April 20‐21, 2010 Welcome and Introduction Dr. Wesley T. Huntress, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) Science Committee, opened the proceedings, thanking the director of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) for hosting the meeting. T. Jens Feeley, Executive Secretary made some brief logistical announcements. Dr. Huntress alluded to President Obama’s April 15, 2010, visit to the Kennedy Center, welcomed the new NASA funding contained in the FY11 budget request, as well as a clear plan with timeframes for destinations. He briefly reviewed three recommendations that had been transmitted to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, namely strong NAC Science Committee support for the development of a new technology program, a proposed re-initiation of Pu-238 production in the U.S., and the establishment of various new NAC Science Subcommittee analysis groups. Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) Welcome Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Studies Board Chairs
    Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11322.html Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu i Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11322.html 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 and task groups was provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract NASW-01001, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contract DG133R04CQ0009, and National Science Foundation Grants ATM-0109283 and AST-0075757. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2004 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11322.html From the Chair In the foreword for the 2003 Annual Report of the Space Studies Board, we predicted that 2004 would be yet another pivotal year for the space program. Indeed, 2004 saw the release of a new presidential policy for NASA, and for human spaceflight in particular, and the beginning of the implementation of that policy. All the advice given, decisions made, and priorities established as a consequence will determine the direction of the space program for decades to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments
    Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1999 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
    [Show full text]