Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010 Space Studies Board; National Research Council ISBN 978-0-309-21785-9 130 pages...

Author: Space Studies Board | National Research Council

36 downloads 881 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010 Space Studies Board; National Research Council ISBN 978-0-309-21785-9

130 pages

8 1/2 x 11

2011 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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board

Annual Report 2010

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 and by the National Science Foundation grant AGS-1050550. Cover: Courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Solar Dynamics Observatory/Atmospheric Imaging Assembly.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

From the Chair

2010 was the best of years for the Space Studies Board, if not for NASA. As predicted in last year’s annual report, 2010 was a busy year for the Space Studies Board with four decadal surveys underway, and one, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (joint with the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), http://www.nap.edu/catalog. php?record_id=12951), released in August. During the course of the year the steering committee and panels of the planetary sciences decadal were very active gathering information from the community and setting priorities and formulating recommendations. Their report, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (http://www.nap. edu/catalog.php?record_id=13117), although released in March 2011, is another major accomplishment for the SSB in 2010. Similarly the committee and panels of the first-ever decadal survey of life and microgravity sciences in space—a joint study with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB)—completed much of their work in 2010, including the release of an interim report, Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (http://www. nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12944). Their final report Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13048) was released in April 2011 but is essentially a product of 2010. Finally, the decadal survey on solar and space physics, got underway in 2010, and it is expected to be completed in the Spring of 2012. As well as being a busy year, 2010 was a year of innovation for the SSB. With the exception of the life and physical sciences survey, which did not prioritize missions, the decadal survey committees and panels assessed for the first time the interrelated issues of engineering and technical readiness, managerial complexity, and cost a ppraisals as they made their recommendations. Framing their recommended programs within budget scenarios, the surveys were not able to recommend a long list of worthy but unaffordable missions. They had to work hard to evaluate each individual proposal, and they had to work even harder to choose among them. The net result was that the planetary science and astronomy and astrophysics decadal surveys made fewer but more concentrated recommendations. Only truly first priority recommendations survived. Never has there been a more complete assessment of NASA space sciences. Never have so many labored so much and so well on strategies whose chances of realization were more uncertain than now. iii



The first challenges appeared only a few days after New Worlds New Horizons (NWNH) was released. The NWNH report recognized that even in its optimistic budget scenario of a flat inflation-adjusted budget, only one of its recommended large-scale missions could be realized before 2020—the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope (WFIRST), which is for studies devoted to dark energy in cosmology, galaxies, and planetary detection. However, the financial outlook on which the relatively modest WFIRST recommendation was based was overtaken by events. Unexpected and very large cost and schedule overruns in the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) project were emerging alongside, at best, a flat-flat budget outlook for NASA’s astrophysics program. NASA, not wanting to see the United States scientific community shut out of dark energy research, was exploring with the European Space Agency (ESA) the possibility of a 20 percent participation in ESA’s Euclid mission. While the NWNH report did indeed recognize that there could be value in NASA-ESA collaboration on a joint program if that resulted in all the WFIRST science being done in a timely manner and in cost savings to NASA and as long as the United States played “a leading role.” The survey committee did not define what “a leading role” meant. However, in October 2010, the president’s Office of Science and Technology Policy requested that the Academy evaluate the consistency of the WFIRST-Euclid proposal with the NWNH recommendations. Given ESA’s short decision time and the president’s approaching budget request for fiscal year 2012, the study, which was co-chaired by myself and the chair of the NRC’s Board on Physics and Astronomy, had to be done quickly. This is when an avalanche of work started. A hardy band of heroes—committee members and BPA and SSB staff—working days, nights, and weekends, completed this report in 8 weeks. You can read the panel’s report at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13045. The panel’s report did not make any recommendations, but it did assess the various options for implementing a WFIRST-Euclid joint program. At present, NASA and ESA uncertainties persist, although we believe a good faith effort will be made to achieve the scientific objectives set forth in NWNH. The president’s 2012 budget request includes actions on many of the other NWNH recommendations, including an augmentation to the Explorer program and increases in support for theory. I have dwelled at length on this event because it is an omen for the future. For NASA, the events of 2010 portend that its programs are caught in a self-reinforcing budgetary spiral. The profound changes taking place in the human exploration program and the need to reduce the federal budget deficit makes NASA’s financial outlook uncertain at best and most likely bleak. Finally, NASA’s costs for large programs are inflating with unanticipated speed. For SSB, it likely means that we will have to do things like this quick study again. Would we do it again if we had to? You bet. Only next time, the SSB will be better prepared, and we would hope the schedule would not be quite so compressed. In this regard we are exploring how to improve the NRC stewardship of our decadal surveys after they have been released. Our recent adventure emphasizes how important that function is. We have to put all this in perspective. Our decadal surveys each make the point that the space sciences have never been so effective, so rich in possibility. We have been in a golden age of space research. This was also made clear at SSB’s workshop Sharing the Adventure with the Public: The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration. Held in Irvine, California, on November 8-10, it featured some of the international space science world’s most thoughtful communicators, along with leaders of the media—traditional and modern. Together we reviewed the achievements of the past 50 years and shared our visions for the next 50 years. We c elebrated together the significance of the space enterprise, not only to science, but also to civilization. The next 2 or 3 years promise to be equally busy for the SSB. Now that our decadal surveys are virtually completed, we will review lessons learned and, in particular, examine how our engineering and cost assessments functioned and impacted our judgments of scientific value. In 2011 we are beginning the last of the current round of midterm assessments of the implementation of the surveys, with an assessment of the Earth sciences decadal implementation. In addition, the SSB and the ASEB will have a major responsibility to human spaceflight. In 2010, the Senate and House passed a NASA Authorization Act, which was quickly signed into law by the president. This legislation contains a special request to NASA to “contract with the National Academies for a review of the goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight.” Many people have remarked that human exploration lacks the kinds of long-range goals that stabilize NASA’s science programs; we will now have a chance to address this issue in depth. Together with the ASEB in 2010 we started to plan how to carry out this mandate. At this early stage, it is difficult to say what the study scope will be, other than that it likely to be very diverse, more so perhaps than many other projects undertaken by either the SSB or the ASEB to date. Some have called it “a generational survey.” All in all, 2010 was an extraordinary year for the SSB. Michael Moloney hit the ground running as our new iv



board director. He had to. He and the entire SSB staff had one of the most productive years of accomplishment in SSB history. Thanks to each and every one. Thanks to my old friend, Dick Rowberg, who filled in admirably as interim board director until Michael finished his work with the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey. Thanks to Ray Colladay and the ASEB he chairs for working so well with the SSB in 2010. The entire country owes its thanks to Tom Young, who ended his term of service as SSB vice chair in 2010. The SSB was only one of Tom’s responsibilities. No one has rendered more or better advice to the government on aerospace matters than Tom Young over the past decade. We have been very lucky. When the NRC invited John Klineberg to be nominated to join the board as the SSB vice chair, John remarked that no one could fill Tom Young’s shoes—Tom being the outgoing incumbent. That was beyond a shadow of a doubt true, I told him at the time, adding that they would say the same thing about John when he finished his term of office. Welcome aboard, John. Charles F. Kennel Chair Space Studies Board

v





Space Studies Board Chairs and Vice Chairs

SPACE STUDIES BOARD 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– SPACE STUDIES BOARD VICE CHAIRS George A. Paulikas, The Aerospace Corporation (retired), 2003–2006 A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), 2006–2010

vii





Contents

FROM THE CHAIR 1

iii

CHARTER AND ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 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, 6 Outreach and Dissemination, 7 Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Internship, 7

2 BOARD AND STANDING COMMITTEES: ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIP 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, 15 Committee on Solar and Space Physics, 18 Space Research Disciplines without Standing Committee Representation, 18 3

AD HOC STUDY COMMITTEES: ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIP Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations, 22 Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions, 23 Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities, 24 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey, 24 Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, 29 Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics), 29 Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space, 31 NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities, 34 ix


1

8

22


x Contents

Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, 35 Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey, 37 Planetary Protection Standards for Icy Bodies in the Solar System, 37 Planetary Sciences Decadal Survey, 38

4 WORKSHOPS, SYMPOSIA, MEETINGS OF EXPERTS, AND OTHER SPECIAL PROJECTS Sharing the Adventure with the Public—The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration, 41 5

41

SUMMARIES OF MAJOR REPORTS 43 5.1 Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions, 44 5.2 Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, 48 5.3 Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, 52 5.4 Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, 58 5.5 Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, 63 5.6 New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 65 5.7 Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 70 5.8 Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey, 101 5.9 Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce, 103

6

CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY

105

7

CUMULATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SSB REPORTS: 1958-2010

106



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 assess1



2

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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 2012. 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, industrialists, 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 2010, there were 22 to 23 Board members, with 29 individuals serving on the Board at some time. 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 2010 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 s cience 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 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. In 2010, the topic was “Sharing the Adventure with the Public”—The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration (see Chapter 4).



3

Charter and Organization of the Board

U.S. Representative to COSPAR

Space Studies Board

Committee on Earth Studies

Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics

Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life

Executive Committee

Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration

Committee on Solar and Space Physics

Board on Life Sciences

Board on Physics and Astronomy

Ad Hoc Study Committees Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations

Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Ocean Studies Board

Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities

NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Laboratory Assessments Board

Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey

Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey Board on Physics and Astronomy

Board on Physics and Astronomy

Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions

Planetary Protection Standards for Icy Bodies in the Solar System

Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics) Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

Planetary Science Decadal Survey

Workshop Sharing the Adventure with the Public—The Value and Excitement of "Grand Questions" of Space Science and Exploration Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Denotes Collaborations

FIGURE 1.1 Organization of the Space Studies Board, its standing committees, ad hoc study committees, and special projects in 2010. Shaded boxes denote activities performed in cooperation with other National Research Council units.

International Representation 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. See Chapter 2 for a summary of COSPAR’s 2010 activities. 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



4


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. 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 2010, 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 planning 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 2010 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 SPACE STUDIES BOARD REPORTS A major contributor to the quality of the SSB reports (Table 1.1 lists the 2010 releases) is the requirement that NRC reports be peer-reviewed. Except for the Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009, 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



5


TABLE 1.1 Space Studies Board Reports Released in 2010 Principal Federal Agency Audiencesb Report Title

Sponsors

Oversight Boarda

NASA/ NASA/ SMD ESMD NOAA NSF

Other

Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions [prepublication version]

NASA

SSB

X

X

DOE

Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research

NASA

LAB

Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions

NASA

SSB

X

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

NASA

SSB

X

Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report

NASA

SSB

New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics

NASA

BPA-led

X

X

DOE

Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [prepublication version]

NASA

BPA-led

X

X

DOE

Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey [prepublication version]

NASA

BPA-led

X

Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce

NASA

SSB

X

X

X


NASA

SSB

X

X

X

X

DOE USGS

X X

X

NOTE: NAS, National Academy of Sciences; NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NSF, National Science Foundation. aOversight board within the National Research Council: BPA Board on Physics and Astronomy LAB Laboratory Assessments Board SSB Space Studies Board bFederal 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 United States Geological Survey

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 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) that is knowledgeable about the report’s issues. In some cases, there is a second independent arbiter (called a coordinator) that 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 any 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. 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 2010 are presented in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. During 2010, a total of



6


277 individuals from 81 colleges and universities and 54 other public or private organizations served as formally appointed members of the Board and its committees. More than 306 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 2010, 57 different external reviewers contributed to critiques of draft reports. Overall, more than 634 individuals from 84 academic institutions, 73 industry or nonprofit organizations, and 27 government agencies or offices participated in SSB activities. That number included 48 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. 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 Directorate (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.

TABLE 1.2 Experts Involved in the Space Studies Board and Its Committees, January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010 Number of Board and Committee Members Academia Government and national facilities Private industry Nonprofit and othera Totalb,c

124 31 32 19 206

Number of Institutions or Agencies Represented 22 13 9 8 52

aOther

includes foreign institutions and entities not classified elsewhere. 35 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine members. cIncludes 28 Board members, 249 committee members. bIncludes

TABLE 1.3 Summary of Participation in Space Studies Board Activities, January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010

Board/committee members Guest experts Reviewers Workshop participants Total

Academia

Government and National Facilities

124 29 4 63 220

31 61 0 12 104

Private Industry

Nonprofit and Other

32 10 12 38 92

19 10 6 62 97

NOTE: Counts of individuals are subject to an uncertainty of ±3 due to possible miscategorization. Total number of NAS, NAE, and/or IOM members Total number of non-U.S. participants Total number of countries represented, including United States Total number of different institutions represented Academia Government and national facilities Industry Nonprofit and other

41 8 5 59 12 12 12


Total Individuals 206 110 22 175 513


7


OUTREACH AND DISSEMINATION Enhancing outreach to a variety of interested communities and improving dissemination of SSB reports is a high priority. In 2010, 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 Appli cations from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond) continue to be widely distributed to the science community and the general public. More than 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 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 2010, 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 Space Studies Board held its 160th meeting at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., on March 8-10. The meeting was devoted to a discussion of the fiscal year 2011 budget and the outlook for the various agencies. The first day of the meeting was a joint session with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), at which the boards heard from Chris Scolese, NASA Office of the Administrator; Ed Weiler, NASA Science Mission Directorate; Doug Cooke, NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate; David Radzanowski, NASA Space Operations Mission Directorate; Paul Shawcross and Brian Dewhurst, Office of Management and Budget; Richard Leshner and Johannes Loschnigg, Office of Science and Technology Policy; and congressional representatives, including Dick Obermann, Ed Feddeman, and Jeff Bingham. On day two the ASEB and SSB met separately, and the SSB heard from Tim Killeen, NSF/Directorate for Geosciences, and Mary Kicza, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NOAA/ NESDIS). The SSB did not meet during the second or third quarter, however, the SSB executive committee (XCOM) did meet on August 23-25 at the J. Erik Jonsson Woods Hole Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, for its annual strategic planning session. The XCOM met with Marc Allen of NASA and congressional representatives Dick Obermann and Jeff Bingham. The discussion between XCOM and the government representatives included the impacts of recent reports, future areas of study for the Board, and the role of the Board and standing committees. XCOM members also discussed lessons learned and impacts from the decadal surveys, the midterm assessments of the decadal survey process, and the cost and technical risk assessments that have been done for the recent decadal surveys. The XCOM also discussed potential workshop activities and met with Jean Pierre Swings (European Space

8



9

Board and Standing Committees

Sciences Committee Chair) and Jean-Claude Worms (European Science Foundation) via teleconference for a discussion on a possible European Space Sciences Committee-SSB joint forum series. The SSB met November 8, 2010, for their 161st meeting at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California, for a short executive session. The Board then attended and participated in the workshop “Sharing the Adventure with the Public: The Value and Excitement of ‘Grand Questions’ of Space Science and Exploration,” which is described in more detail in Chapter 4 of this report. SPACE STUDIES BOARD MEMBERSHIP July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) A. Thomas Young,1 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 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

July 1, 2010–June 30, 2011 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) John M. Klineberg,2 Space Systems/Loral (retired) (vice chair) Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering Yvonne C. Brill, Aerospace Consultant Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Andrew B. Christensen, Dixie State College and Aerospace Corporation Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution Jack D. Fellows, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Heidi B. Hammel, Space Science Institute Fiona A. Harrison, California Institute of Technology Anthony C. Janetos, University of Maryland Joan Johnson-Freese, Naval War College Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future John F. Mustard, Brown University Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology James Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University Soroosh Sorooshian, University of California, Irvine David N. Spergel, Princeton University Joan Vernikos, Thirdage LLC Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research Charles E. Woodward, University of Minnesota Thomas H. Zurbuchen, University of Michigan

Ex Officio and Liaison Members Raymond S. Colladay, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired) (ex-officio, chair, NRC Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board) Jean-Pierre Swings, Université de Liège (liaison, chair of the European Space Science Committee) Jay S. Pearlman, IEEE (ex-officio, member of the NRC Ocean Studies Board) Robert P. Lin, University of California, Berkeley (U.S. Representative to COSPAR; from July 1) Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (U.S. Representative to COSPAR; through June 30) 1 2

Term ended in December 2010. Term began in February 2011.



10


Membership of the SSB Executive Committee July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) A. Thomas Young,3 Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (vice chair) Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder Charles L. Bennett, Johns Hopkins University Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, Inc. Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology James A. Pawelczyk, Pennsylvania State University Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University

July 1, 2010–June 30, 2011 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) John M. Klineberg,4 Space Systems/Loral (retired) (vice chair) Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Fiona A. Harrison, California Institute of Technology Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future, Inc. Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Joan Vernikos, Thirdage LLC Thomas H. Zurbuchen, University of Michigan

Staff in 2010 Michael H. Moloney, Director (joined SSB in April) Richard E. Rowberg, Interim Board Director (through March) 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,5 Senior Program Officer, BPA David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer John Wendt,5 Senior Program Officer, ASEB Dwayne A. Day, Program Officer Paul Jackson,5 Program Officer, ASEB David Lang,5 Program Officer, BPA Abigail A. Sheffer, Associate Program Officer Lewis Groswald, Research Associate Celeste A. Naylor, Information Management Associate Tanja E. Pilzak, Manager, Program Operations Christina O. Shipman, Financial Officer Sandra Wilson, Financial Assistant Catherine A. Gruber, Editor Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator Andrea Rebholz,5 Program Associate, ASEB Dionna Williams, Program Associate Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant Linda M. Walker, Senior Program Assistant Consultant Regina North

3

Term ended in December 2010. Term began in February 2011. 5 Staff from other NRC Boards who are shared with the SSB. 4



11


Space Policy Interns and Fellows Jason Callahan, 2010 Fall Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Dara Fisher, 2010 Summer Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Andreas Frick, 2010 Summer Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Gabriele Betancourt Martinez, 2010 Fall Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern Bruno Sánchez-Andrade Nuño, 2010 Fall Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow Heather Smith, Winter 2011 Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow U.S. NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COSPAR The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) of the International Council of Science held its annual business meetings at COSPAR’s Paris headquarters on March 22-25. Edward Stone, the U.S. representative to COSPAR and COSPAR vice president, and U.S. National Committee staff participated. Dr. Stone’s term as U.S. representative ended on June 30, and he was succeeded by Robert P. Lin, a professor of physics of the University of California, Berkeley (UCB) and the former director of the UCB Space Sciences Laboratory, on July 1. The COSPAR Council elected new officers during its meeting in Bremen, Germany, on July 17. Dr. Lin was elected as one of the vice presidents of the COSPAR Council. The council also selected Moscow, Russia, as the provisional host of the 2014 COSPAR Scientific Assembly. The 38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly was held in Bremen, Germany, on July 18-25, 2010. Scientific awards and medals for 2010 were presented on July 19. COSPAR will hold its next scientific assembly in Mysore, India, on July 14-22, 2012. The annual business meetings will be held at COSPAR’s Paris headquarters on March 21-24, 2011. U.S. Representative to COSPAR Robert P. Lin, University of California, Berkeley (from July 1) Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology (through June 30) Staff 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 through completion of the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey in August 2010. The NRC is exploring the reestablishment of the CAA with a modified charge following the release of the decadal survey. A historical summary of reports from CAA and related committees is presented in Figure 2.1. Staff David Lang, Program Officer, BPA COMMITTEE ON EARTH STUDIES The Committee on Earth Studies held its only meeting of 2010 on July 7-8 in Washington, D.C. Agenda items for this meeting included briefings by NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) officials on the implementation of the decadal survey in Earth science and applications from space and the implications of a major restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System program for climate-related



12


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 for the Space Telescope: A Mid-Term Review (1985)

The Explorer Program for Astronomy and Astrophysics (1986)

Long-Lived Space Observatories for Astronomy and Astrophysics (1987)

Space Science in the TwentyFirst CenturyAstronomy and Astrophysics (1988)

The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Astrophysics (1991)

Review of Gravity Probe B (1995)

A Scientific Assessment of a New Technology Orbital Telescope (1995)

A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (1997)

A Strategy for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy (1995)

Ground-Based Solar Research (1998)

Failed Stars and Super Planets (1998)

Federal Funding of Astronomical Research (2000)

Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (2000) U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program (2001)

“Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report” (2004)

Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers (2007)

Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos (2002) “The Review of Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics toward the Decadal Vision (The Mid-Course Review)” (2005)

A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program (2007)

The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA): Implications of a Potential Descope (2005) The Astrophysical Context of Life (2005)

NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation (2007)

New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (2010) Panel ReportsNew Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (prepublication, 2010) Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey (prepublication, 2010)

FIGURE 2.1 SSB-NRC advice on astronomy and astrophysics (1979-2010).




13

measurements, including continuity of climate data records. As is customary, the committee also met with agency officials to discuss issues of mutual interest, including potential NRC studies or workshops. A subject of particular interest to the CES is the yet-to-be requested study on the “governance” of Earth observations, which was mandated by the 2005 NASA Authorization Act. To discuss prospects for the study, a tele conference was convened in August for members of the CES; NRC staff, including the directors of the SSB and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; and representatives from Office of Science and Technology Policy, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and NASA. Also during the third quarter, SSB staff and members of the committee met with representatives from the USGS Geography Division to discuss a potential study on the value of developing an operational land remote sensing capability. A preliminary statement of task for this study was developed, and revisions were underway as the quarter ended. Planning continued during the fourth quarter as SSB staff met with senior officials at the USGS Geography Division, members of CES reviewed a preliminary statement of task for this study, and a study proposal to the NRC was prepared. Members of the committee were also involved in developing a statement of task for a congressionally mandated study that will assess Earth science programs at NASA at the mid-point of the decadal survey cycle (the first NRC decadal survey in Earth science, Earth Science and Applications from Space, published in January 2007). Also during 2010, members of the CES and SSB staff attended the June 28-30, Irvine, California, meeting of the NRC Committee on Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations, a shared activity of the Ocean Studies Board and the SSB. 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 Dionna Williams, Program Associate, SSB 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, held its first meeting of 2010 at the University of Southern California on February 17-19. The committee’s current activities remained focused on the initiation of a study for NASA concerning the planetary protection requirements for spacecraft missions to the icy bodies of the outer solar system. A formal request to initiate such a study was received from NASA on May 20. The ad hoc Committee for Planetary Standards for Icy Body Protection in the Outer Planets was appointed and will begin meeting in 2011 to address their statement of task (see Chapter 3). COEL held its second meeting of 2010 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C., on June 3-4. The main focus of the meeting was a series of presentations and discussions on virtual institutes—their role, operation, and criteria for success.



14


"On Review of Scientific Aspects of the NASA Triana Mission" (2000)

NASA's Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions (1999)

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) Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research—I. Science and Design (2000)

Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research—II. Implementation (2001)

Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010 (2000)

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 Program Plan (2002)

Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government :Information for 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 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy” (2003)

Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions (2004) Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond (2004) Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions (2005)

Review of Goals and Plans for NASA's Space and Earth Sciences (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)

Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions [prepublication] (2010) *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 (1979-2010).



15


COEL’s last meeting of 2010 was at the National Academies’ Jonsson Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on October 13-15. Discussions at this meeting included astrobiology, life on the titanian ocean, and life in extreme environments. A historical summary of reports from COEL and related committees is presented in Figure 2.3. Membership July 1, 2009–June 30, 2010 J. Gregory Ferry, Pennsylvania State University (co-chair) Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (co-chair) Stanley M. Awramik, University of California, Santa Barbara Katrina J. Edwards, University of Southern California Paul G. Falkowski,6 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Margo G. Haygood, University of Colorado, Boulder Dante Lauretta, University of Arizona Antonio Lazcano, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Ralph D. Lorenz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Jeff Moersch, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 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

July 2010–June 30, 2011 J. Gregory Ferry, Pennsylvania State University (co-chair) Robert T. Pappalardo, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (co-chair) Stanley M. Awramik, University of California, Santa Barbara Katrina J. Edwards, University of Southern California Margo G. Haygood, University of Colorado, Boulder Dante Lauretta, University of Arizona Antonio Lazcano, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Ralph D. Lorenz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Jeff Moersch, University of Tennessee, Knoxville John C. Priscu, Montana State University Gary Ruvkin,7 Masachusetts General Hospital Barbara Sherwood Lollar, University of Toronto Everett Shock, Arizona State University Cristina Takacs-Vesbach, University of New Mexico

European Space Science Committee Liaison Frances Westall, CNRS Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire, Orleans, France Staff David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB 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 6 7

Term ended in December 2010. Term ended in October 2010.



16


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) Extraterrestrial Life—An Anthology and Bibliography, Supplementary to Biology and the Exploration of Mars (1966)

Astrobiology

“Study on the Biological Quarantine of Venus ” (1967) “Review of Planetary Quarantine Policy” (1972)

“On Contamination of the Outer Planets by Earth Organisms” (1976)

Life Sciences in Space (1970) Post-Viking Biological Investigations of Mars (1977) Origin and Evolution of Life— Implications for the Planets: A Scientific Strategy for the 1980s (1981) The Search for Life’s Origins: Progress and Future Directions in Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution (1990)

Strategy for the Detection and Study of Other Planetary Systems and Extrasolar Planetary Materials: 1990-2000 (1990)

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

“Review of the Sterilization Parameter Probability of Growth (Pg)” (1970)

“Recommendation on Quarantine Policy for Uranus, Neptune, and Titan” (1976) Recommendations on Quarantine Policy for Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Titan (1978) “On NASA Policy for Planetary Protection” (1985)

“On Categorization of the Mars Orbiter Mission” (1985)

Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations (1992) Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations (1997)

Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop (1999)

The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples (2002)

“On Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous– Asteroid Flyby Mission” (1986)

“Recommendation on Planetary Protection Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous-Asteroid Flyby Mission and the TitanCassini Mission” (1988)

Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making (1998) Preventing the Forward Contamination of Europa (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 International Programs in Astrobiology (2003)

Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars (2006)

The Astrophysical Context of Life (2005)

An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (2007)

“Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions” (2006)

Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (2007) The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (2007) Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute (2007)

Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions (2009)

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


“On Scientific Assessment of Options for the Disposition of the Galileo Spacecraft” (2000)


17


INNER PLANETS

OUTER PLANETS

Lunar Exploration— Strategy for Research: 1969-1975 (1969) Venus: Strategy for Exploration (1970)

PRIMITIVE BODIES

The Outer Solar System: A Program for Exploration (1969) Outer Planets Exploration: 1972-1985 (1971)

“Report of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration,” Section II of Report on Space Science—1975 (1976) Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets: 1977-1987 (1978)

A Strategy for Exploration of the Outer Planets: 1986-1996 (1986)

Update to Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets (1990)

Strategy for the Exploration of Primitive Solar-System Bodies—Asteroids, Comets, and Meteoroids: 1980-1990 (1980)

An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995-2010 (1994) A Science Strategy for the Exploration of Europa (1999)

Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities (2001)

Exploring the TransNeptunian Solar System (1998) The Exploration of Near-Earth Objects (1998)

The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples (2001)

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 Architecture 2007-2016 (2006) An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (2007)

The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (2007)

Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (2007) The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems (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.



18


COMMITTEE ON SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS The Committee on Solar and Space Physics met on March 3-5 in Boulder, Colorado, at the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics to continue its planning for the initiation of the Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics), a comprehensive science and mission strategy for heliophysics research for a 10-year period beginning in approximately 2013 (see Chapter 3 for details about the survey). For the remainder of 2010, CSSP was on hiatus until the completion of the decadal survey. A historical summary of reports from CSSP and related committees is presented in Figure 2.5. Staff Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Linda M. Walker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB

SPACE RESEARCH DISCIPLINES WITHOUT STANDING COMMITTEE REPRESENTATION Although there are no longer standing committees representing microgravity research or space biology and medicine, a decadal survey on biological and physical sciences in space was 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.



19


Solar System Space Physics in the 1980’s: A Research Strategy (1980) An International Discussion on Research in Solar and Space Physics (1983)

A Strategy for the Explorer Program for Solar and Space Physics (1984)

The Physics of the Sun (1985)

Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution, and Archiving (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 SMEX-MIDEX Space Physics Mission Selections (1997) Readiness for the Upcoming Solar Maximum (1998)

Space Weather: A Research Perspective (1997)

Ground-Based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future (1998)

An Assessment of the Solar and Space Physics Aspects of NASA’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan (1997) Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk (1999)

Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (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 Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report (2004)

Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration (2004)

Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for SolarTerrestrial Research: Report 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).



20

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010 HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT STUDIES

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

Radiobiological Factors in Manned Spaceflight (1967)

Report on NASA Biology Program (1968)

Physiology in the Space Environment , Vol. 1 and 2 (1968)

Space Biology (1970) Life Sciences in Space: Report of the Study to Review NASA Life Sciences Programs (1970) Priorities for Space Research: 1971-1980 (1971) Life Beyond the Earth's Environment (1979)

Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle (1974)

Radiation Protection Guides and Constraints for Space-Mission and Vehicle-Design Studies Involving Nuclear Missions (1970)

Infectious Disease in Manned Spaceflight: Probabilities and Countermeasures (1970)

HZE-Particle Effects in Manned Spaceflight (1973)

A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s (1987) Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Life Sciences (1988) "On Several Issues in the Space Life Sciences“ (1993)

Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine1991 1991)

"On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program“ (1994) "On Peer Review in NASA Life Sciences Programs“ (1995)

"On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research Institute“ (1996)

"On the Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Research Program“ (1989)

"On Continued Operation of the BEVALAC Facility“ (1992)

Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies (1996)

A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century (1998) Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station (2001)

Review of NASA's Biomedical Research 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)

Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (2010)

FIGURE 2.6 SSB-NRC advice on space biology and medicine (1960-2010).



21


Materials Processing in Space (1978) Space Science in the Twenty-First Century: Imperatives for the Decades 1995 to 2015. Fundamental Physics and Chemistry (1988)

Microgravity Science and Applications: Report on a Workshop (1986, Board on Physics and Astronomy)

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)

An Initial Review of Microgravity Research in Support of Human Exploration and Development of Space (1997) Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station (2000)

"On Clarification of Issues in the Opportunities Report“ (1995)

Archiving Microgravity Flight Data and Samples (1996) "On Research Facilities Planning for the International Space Station“ (1997)

Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies (2000)

The Mission of Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2001)

Readiness Issues Related to Research in the Biological and Physical Sciences on the International Space Station (2001)

Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2003)

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)

Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report (2010)

FIGURE 2.7 SSB-NRC advice on microgravity research (1978-2010).



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 established 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. Twelve ad hoc study committees were organized, met, or released studies during 2010. (Activities and membership are summarized below.) In addition, one ad hoc committee produced a report in 2009 and was formally disbanded in 2010—the report of the ad hoc Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions, An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, was summarized in the 2009 annual report. Also in 2010, work began to form the Committee on the Assessment of NASA’s Earth Science Programs, an ad hoc committee to review the alignment of NASA’s Earth Science Division’s program with previous NRC advice, primarily the 2007 NRC decadal survey report, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. ASSESSING REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINED OCEAN COLOR RESEARCH AND OPERATIONS The Ocean Studies Board formed the ad hoc Committee on Assessing Requirements for Sustained Ocean Color Research and Operations, in collaboration with the SSB, to identify the ocean color data needs for a broad range of end users, develop a consensus for the requirements, and outline options to meet these needs on a sustained basis. The committee held the following meetings: February 11-12 via teleconference; April 20-22, Keck Center, Washington D.C., June 28-30, Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center, Irvine, California; October 14, Keck Center, Washington D.C.; November 2-4, Keck Center, Washington D.C.; and December 7-9, Miami, Florida. Members of the SSB Committee on Earth Studies and SSB staff attended the June 28-30 meeting. A report of the committee is expected to be released in Summer 2011. Membership James A. Yoder, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (chair) David Antoine, Laboratoire d’Oceanographie de Villefranche Carlos E. Del Castillo, Johns Hopkins University Robert H. Evans, Jr., University of Miami Curtis Mobley, Sequoia Scientific, Inc. 22



23

Ad Hoc Study Committees

Jorge L. Sarmiento, Princeton University Shubha Sathyendranath, Bedford Institute of Oceanography Carl F. Schueler, Raytheon Company (retired) David A. Siegel, University of California, Berkeley Cara Wilson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Staff Claudia Mengelt, Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board (study director) Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB 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 Science 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. During the first half of 2010, the committee finalized its draft report, which entered external peer review in July. A prepublication version of the report, Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions, was issued in November and briefed to NASA officials and to staff of the House Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Further briefings are planned for the first quarter of 2011. The Executive Summary of this report is reproduced in Chapter 5 of this report. 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 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) Staff Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer, SSB Abigail A. Sheffer, Associate Program Officer, SSB Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB



24


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 (LAB), in collaboration with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and 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 third and final meeting on January 18-19 to develop its final report. Consensus was achieved on February 23, and a draft report was submitted for NRC review on February 26. The final report, Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, was submitted to the sponsor, NASA, on April 28 and released to the public on May 11. Briefings were provided during the month of May to NASA, House and Senate staffers, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5. Membership John T. Best, U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center (co-chair) Joseph B. Reagan, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) (co-chair) William F. Ballhaus, Jr., The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Peter M. Banks, Astrolabe Ventures Ramon L. Chase, Booz Allen Hamilton Ravi B. Deo, EMBR Neil A. Duffie, University of Wisconsin, Madison Michael G. Dunn, Ohio State University Blair B. Gloss, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (retired) Marvine P. Hamner, LeaTech, LLC; George Washington University; Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute Wesley L. Harris, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Basil Hassan, Sandia National Laboratories Joan Hoopes, Orbital Technologies Corporation William E. McClintock, University of Colorado Edward D. McCullough, The Boeing Company (retired) Todd J. Mosher, Sierra Nevada Corporation Eli Reshotko, Case Western Reserve University John C. Sommerer,1 Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory James M. Tien, University of Miami Candace E. Wark, Illinois Institute of Technology Staff 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 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS DECADAL SURVEY The SSB and the NRC’s Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), initiated the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey, 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 took place over 18 months and comprised two overlapping phases. The first phase was mostly concerned with establishing 1 Resigned

from committee January 18, 2010.



25


a science program, fact-finding, and establishing a procedure for the second phase. The second phase was 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 define the forefront of astronomy and astrophysics for the decade 2011-2020. The Astro2010 survey committee was assisted in its work by a series of nine panels addressing various t opics— five science frontiers panels and four program prioritization panels. The survey committee was responsible for synthesizing the panel outputs, determining priorities and recommendations, and preparing the final report, which has two volumes (a main committee report and a volume that contains reports from the panels). During 2010, the nine panel reports went through the NRC’s peer-review process, and the survey committee held their last two (closed) meetings in January and February. The survey committee’s report entered NRC review in May. The main committee report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, was released as a prepublication on August 13 and printed in December. The Executive Summary of New Worlds, New Horizons is reproduced in Chapter 5. The reports of the panels are contained in Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, which was released as a prepublication on August 30. The summaries of the panel reports are also reproduced in Chapter 5. Following release of the survey, the Office of Science and Technology Policy requested that the NRC convene a panel to consider whether NASA’s Euclid proposal is consistent with achieving the priorities, goals, and recommendations, and with pursuing the science strategy, articulated in the survey (see the section below entitled, “Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey”). Survey Committee Membership Roger D. Blandford, Stanford University (chair) Martha P. Haynes, Cornell University (vice chair) John P. Huchra, Harvard University (vice chair) Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona (vice chair) Lynne Hillenbrand, California Institute of Technology (executive officer) 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 Arizona and University of Rome, Tor Vergata Claire E. Max, University of California, Santa Cruz Dan McCammon, University of Wisconsin Steven M. Ritz, University of California, Santa Cruz Juri Toomre, University of Colorado Scott D. Tremaine, Institute for Advanced Study Michael S. Turner, University of Chicago Neil deGrasse Tyson, Hayden Planetarium, American Museum of Natural History Paul A. Vanden Bout, National Radio Astronomy Observatory A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Staff Donald C. Shapero, Director, BPA Michael H. Moloney, Director, SSB (study director) Robert L. Riemer, Senior Program Officer, BPA David Lang, Program Officer, BPA Teri Thorowgood, Administrative Coordinator, BPA



26


Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB Caryn J. Knutsen, Research Associate, BPA Beth Dolan, Financial Associate, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences SCIENCE FRONTIERS PANELS Panel on Cosmology and Fundamental Physics Membership David N. Spergel, Princeton University (chair) David Weinberg, Ohio State University (vice chair) Rachel Bean, Cornell University Neil Cornish, Montana State University Jonathan Feng, University of California, Irvine Alex V. Filippenko, University of California, Berkeley Wick C. Haxton, University of California, Berkeley Marc P. Kamionkowski, California Institute of Technology Lisa Randall, Harvard University Eun-Suk Seo, University of Maryland David Tytler, University of California, San Diego Clifford M. Will, Washington University Panel on Galactic Neighborhood Membership Michael J. Shull, University of Colorado (chair) Julianne Dalcanton, University of Washington (vice chair) Leo Blitz, University of California, Berkeley Bruce T. 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 Daniel Wang, University of Massachusetts Dennis Zaritsky, University of Arizona Stephen Zepf, Michigan State University Panel on Galaxies across Cosmic Time Membership C. Megan Urry, Yale University (chair) Mitchell C. Begelman, University of Colorado (vice chair) Andrew J. Baker, Rutgers University Neta A. Bahcall, Princeton University Romeel Davé, University of Arizona Tiziana Di Matteo, Carnegie Mellon University Henric S.W. Krawczynski, Washington University Joseph Mohr, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Richard F. Mushotzky, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Chris S. Reynolds, University of Maryland Alice Shapley, University of California, Los Angeles Tommaso Treu, University of California, Santa Barbara Jaqueline H. van Gorkom, Columbia University Eric M. Wilcots, University of Wisconsin



27


Panel on Planetary Systems and Star Formation Membership Lee W. Hartmann, University of Michigan (chair) Dan M. Watson, University of Rochester (vice 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 California, Los Angeles James P. Lloyd, Cornell University Eve C. Ostriker, University of Maryland David J. Stevenson, California Institute of Technology Jonathan C. Tan, University of Florida Panel on Stars and Stellar Evolution Membership Roger A. 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 R. 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 E. Woosley, University of California, Santa Cruz PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION PANELS Panel on Electromagnetic Observations from Space Membership Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington (chair) Michael Bay, Bay Engineering Innovations Alan P. 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 G. Hauser, Space Telescope Science Institute Harold McAlister, Georgia State University Peter F. Michelson, Stanford University Ben R. Oppenheimer, American Museum of Natural History Frits Paerels, Columbia University Adam Reiss, Johns Hopkins University George H. Rieke, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona Paul L. Schechter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Todd Tripp, University of Massachusetts, Amherst



28


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 A. Boroson, National Optical Astronomy Observatory Daniel Eisenstein, University of Arizona Andrea M. Ghez, University of California, Los Angeles J. Todd Hoeksema, Stanford University Robert P. 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 Panel on Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation Membership Jacqueline N. Hewitt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chair) Eric G. Adelberger, University of Washington Andreas Albrecht, University of California, Davis Elena Aprile, Columbia University Jonathan Arons, University of California, Berkeley Barry C. 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 James B. Hartle, University of California, Santa Barbara Steven M. Kahn, Stanford University N. Jeremy Kasdin, Princeton University Teresa Montaruli, University of Wisconsin, Madison Angela V. Olinto, University of Chicago Rene A. Ong, University of California, Los Angeles Helen R. Quinn, SLAC National Laboratory (retired) Panel on Radio, Millimeter and Submillimeter from the Ground Membership Neal J. Evans, University of Texas (chair) James M. Moran, Harvard University (vice chair) Crystal Brogan, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Aaron S. Evans, University of Virginia Sarah Gibson, National Center for Atmospheric Research, High Altitude Observatory Jason Glenn, University of Colorado, Boulder Nickolay Y. Gnedin, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Cornelia C. Lang, University of Iowa Maura McLaughlin, West Virginia University Miguel Morales, University of Washington Lyman A. Page, Jr., Princeton University Jean L. Turner, University of California, Los Angeles David J. Wilner, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory



29


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 met for the fourth and final time in Boulder, Colorado, on January 11-12 to focus on development of the final report. The draft report was submitted for NRC review in April. The final report, Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, was released to the public on July 13. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5. Membership Ronald M. Sega, Colorado State University (chair) Vassilis Angelopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles 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, Aerospace Consultant Bruce D. Marcus, TRW Inc. (retired) Emery I. Reeves, Independent Consultant William F. Townsend, Independent Consultant Staff Alan C. Angleman, Senior Program Officer, ASEB (study director) Andrea M. Rebholz, Program Associate, ASEB Linda Walker, Senior Project Assistant, SSB DECADAL STRATEGY FOR SOLAR AND SPACE PHYSICS (HELIOPHYSICS) The Decadal Strategy for Solar and Space Physics (Heliophysics) was formed to conduct a broadly based assessment decadal survey of the scientific priorities of the U.S. solar and space physics research enterprise for the period 2013-2022. During the first half of 2010, the NRC approved the study prospectus, agreement had been reached with agency sponsors regarding the survey’s terms of reference, and appointments to the various survey committees occurred. The survey is composed of a steering committee supported by three discipline-oriented study panels: the Panel on Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions, Panel on Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interactions, and the Panel on Solar and Heliospheric Physics. In addition, five “national capabilities working groups,” made up of community members who are willing to serve as unpaid consultants, assist the steering committee and panels in gathering information and providing context to the survey’s work in the following focus areas: Theory and Modeling and Data Exploitation; Explorers, Suborbital, and Other Platforms; Innovations: Technology, Instruments, Data Systems; Research to Operations/Operations to Research; and Workforce and Education. The steering committee for the survey held its first meeting on September 1-3 at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, the study panels and working groups were formed and planning occurred for several town hall events. During the third quarter of 2010, a solicitation to the community for mission concepts and related activities that might be undertaken in the coming decade drew 288 responses, all of which are posted on the survey’s Web site.



30


Representatives from the survey also conducted town hall meetings and outreach events at the University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Berkeley; University of Maryland; National Center for Atmospheric Research; University of New Hampshire; University of Michigan; Arecibo Observatory; Southwest Research Institute; University of Texas, Dallas; and at the National Science Foundation (NSF) Upper Atmosphere Facilities Fall 2010 Meeting in Roanoke, Virginia. The final town hall event of 2010 occurred in December at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. The three discipline-oriented study panels first met in November. The survey’s five cross-disciplinary working groups were constituted, and one—Theory, Modeling, and Data Exploitation—held a meeting in Boulder, Colorado. As the quarter ended, planning was underway for the 2011 meetings of the disciplinary panels and working groups and related events. Finally, many activities were underway in connection with the planned cost and technical evaluation of selected mission concepts. The final report of the committee is anticipated by the end of the first quarter of 2012. Steering Committee Membership Daniel Baker, University of Colorado, Boulder (chair) Thomas Zurbuchen, University of Michigan (vice chair) Brian H. Anderson, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Steven J. Battel, Battel Engineering James F. Drake, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan Marvin Geller, State University of New York at Stony Brook Sarah Gibson, National Center for Atmospheric Research Michael A. Hesse, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center J. Todd Hoeksema, Stanford University David L. Hysell, Cornell University Mary K. Hudson, Dartmouth College Thomas Immel, University of California, Berkeley Justin Kasper, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Judith L. Lean, Naval Research Laboratory Ramon E. Lopez, University of Texas, Arlington Howard J. Singer, NOAA Space Weather Prediction center Harlan E. Spence, University of New Hampshire Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology Staff Arthur A. Charo, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Maureen Mellody, Program Officer, ASEB Abigail Sheffer, Associate Program Officer, SSB Linda Walker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Terri Baker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB Panel on Atmosphere-Ionosphere-Magnetosphere Interactions Membership Jeffrey M. Forbes, University of Colorado, Boulder (chair) James H. Clemmons, The Aerospace Corporation (vice chair) Odile de la Beaujardiere, Air Force Research Laboratory John V. Evans, COMSAT Corporation (retired) Roderick A. Heelis, University of Texas, Dallas Thomas Immel, University of California, Berkeley Janet U. Kozyra, University of Michigan



31


William Lotko, Dartmouth College Gang Lu, High Altitude Observatory Kristina A. Lynch, Dartmouth College Jens Oberheide, Clemson University Larry J. Paxton, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Robert F. Pfaff, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Joshua Semeter, Boston University Jeffrey P. Thayer, University of Colorado, Boulder Panel on Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Interactions Membership Michelle F. Thomsen, Los Alamos National Laboratory (chair) Michael Wiltberger, National Center for Atmospheric Research (vice chair) Joseph Borovsky, Los Alamos National Laboratory Joseph F. Fennell, The Aerospace Corporation Jerry Goldstein, Southwest Research Institute Janet C. Green, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Donald A. Gurnett, University of Iowa Lynn M. Kistler, University of New Hampshire Michael W. Liemohn, University of Michigan Robyn Millan, Dartmouth College Donald G. Mitchell, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Tai D. Phan, University of California, Berkeley Michael Shay, University of Delaware Harlan E. Spence, University of New Hampshire Richard M. Thorne, University of California, Los Angeles Panel on Solar and Heliospheric Physics Membership Richard A. Mewaldt, California Institute of Technology (chair) Spiro K. Antiochos, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (vice chair) Timothy S. Bastian, National Radio Astronomy Observatory Joe Giacalone, University of Arizona George Gloeckler, University of Maryland, College Park John W. Harvey, National Solar Observatory Russell A. Howard, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Justin Kasper, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Robert P. Lin, University of California, Berkeley Glenn M. Mason, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Eberhard Moebius, University of New Hampshire Merav Opher, George Mason University Jesper Schou, Stanford University Nathan A. Schwadron, Boston University Amy Winebarger, Alabama A&M University Daniel Winterhalter, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Thomas N. Woods, University of Colorado, Boulder DECADAL SURVEY ON BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN SPACE The Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space was formed under the auspices 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, recom-



32


mend 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 categorized as either those that are required to enable exploration missions or those that are enabled or facilitated because of exploration missions. The steering committee met on February 15-17, in Irvine, California, to begin the integration of the completed draft chapters from each of the panels, continue development of the steering committee chapters, and begin laying out an integrated research plan and priorities. Additional meetings of five of the study panels were held in the first quarter to gather additional information and complete drafts of individual chapters. All of the panels held discussions via e-mail and teleconference as integration of their chapters continued. The last town hall for the study was held in conjunction with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics meeting in Orlando, Florida, on January 6. In early 2010, guidance was provided to NASA in the fiscal year 2011 presidential budget request that would extend the lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS) to 2020, which prompted NASA and the survey steering committee to discuss the need for an interim report that would provide key, near-term input relevant to ISS and programmatic issues. Discussions and planning continued regarding the scope of the interim report and schedule of the final report. The steering committee met on March 31-April 2, in Irvine, California, to draft an interim report that would identify both organizational and management issues important to the success of the life and microgravity research enterprise at NASA and near-term research opportunities for the ISS. In developing this document, the committee relied heavily on inputs and analyses that had previously been collected or performed as part of the work on the full decadal survey. The steering committee continued work on the interim report following the meeting, and the final draft was submitted to external peer review in early May. Review and editing of the interim report were completed in June, and the interim report, Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, was released to the public on July 14 (the interim report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5). Co-chairs Betsy Cantwell and Wendy Kohrt briefed NASA and congressional staff in separate meetings. Following the completion of its work on the interim report, the committee returned its full attention to the final report and held its last report development meeting on July 28-30 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The study panels also worked extensively throughout the third quarter of 2010 to complete work on issues raised by the steering committee. The completed report draft entered external review on September 16. The steering committee held its final meeting on October 14-15 at the Keck Center in Washington, D.C., to consider comments from the external reviewers of the decadal study. Although most of the reviews had not arrived by the requested date, based on early inputs the committee identified and discussed some overarching issues and recurrent themes, made plans for working with the panels to address the most prominent issues in the panel chapters, and developed preliminary feedback for a large number of the review comments. Most of the remaining comments from the 40 external reviewers had arrived by early November, at which time the committee and the panels began making integrated changes to the report. The comments were quite extensive, and work by the committee and panels continued through the remainder of this period, with completion of the review in early 2011 and final printing in July 2011. Steering Committee Membership Elizabeth R. Cantwell, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (co-chair) Wendy M. 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



33


Philippa Marrack,2 National Jewish Health Gabor A. Somorjai, University of California, Berkeley Charles M. Tipton, University of Arizona Jose L. Torero, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Robert Wegeng, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Gayle E. Woloschak, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Staff Sandra J. Graham, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Alan C. Angleman,3 Senior Program Officer, ASEB Ian W. Pryke, Senior Program Officer, SSB Robert L. Riemer,3 Senior Program Officer, BPA Maureen Mellody,3 Program Officer, ASEB Regina North, Consultant Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Danielle Johnson,3 Senior Program Assistant, Center for Economic, Governance, and International Studies Laura Toth,3 Senior Program Assistant, National Materials Advisory Board Linda M. Walker, Senior Program Assistant, SSB Eric Whittaker,3 Senior Program Assistant, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board Animal and Human Biology Panel Membership Kenneth M. Baldwin, University of California, Irvine (chair) François 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,4 Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis 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 S. 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 __________________ 2 Through

mid-May 2010. from other NRC boards who are assisting with the survey. 4 Deceased July 2010. 3 Staff



34


Ronald G. Larson, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor W. Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado, Boulder Ronald Walsworth, Harvard University 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 R. Leon, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Lawrence A. Palinkas, University of California, San Diego 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, U.S. Air Force (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 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 NRC report Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration.



35


A prepublication version of the committee’s report, Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing S cience, Driving Innovation, and Developing Workforce, was delivered to NASA on February 4. Briefings for congressional staff and NASA management were well received. The final, printed version of the report was released in March. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5. Membership Steven R. Bohlen, Texas A&M University (chair) Kristin A. Blais, The Boeing Company Mark A. Brosmer, The Aerospace Corporation Estelle Condon, NASA Ames Research Center (retired) Christine M. 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 Staff 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 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 to 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 included 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 committee’s interim report, Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, was released in August 2009. The committee’s final report, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, was released to the public on January 22, 2010, and printed in final form in May 2010. Report briefings were held with NASA, congressional staff, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget. The final 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 Mount 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



36


H. Jay Melosh, Purdue University Joseph H. Rothenberg, JHR Consulting Staff 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 Lewis Groswald, Research Associate, SSB Andrea M. Rebholz, Program Associate, ASEB Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB Survey/Detection Panel Membership Faith Vilas, MMT Observatory at Mount 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, Belton Space Exploration Initiatives, LLC 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, The Boeing Company (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



37


PANEL ON IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM NEW WORLDS NEW HORIZONS DECADAL SURVEY Following release of the Astro2010 survey report, the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey was formed to respond to the Office of Science and Technology Policy request that the NRC convene a panel to consider whether NASA’s Euclid proposal is consistent with achieving the priorities, goals, and recommendations, and with pursuing the science strategy, articulated in the survey. The panel also investigated what impact such participation might have on the prospects for the timely realization of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope mission and other activities recommended by the Astro2010 survey in view of the projected budgetary situation. The panel convened a workshop on November 7, 2010, and a prepublication version of the panel’s report, Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey, was released in December. The report’s Summary is reprinted in Chapter 5. A printed report is expected in June 2011. Membership Adam S. Burrows, Princeton University (co-chair) Charles F. Kennel, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego (co-chair) Alan Dressler, Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science Debra M. Elmegreen, Vassar College Fiona A. Harrison, California Institute of Technology Lynne Hillenbrand, California Institute of Technology Steven M. Ritz, University of California, Santa Cruz A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Staff Donald C. Shapero, Director, BPA Michael H. Moloney, Director, SSB David B. Lang, Program Officer, BPA (study director) Caryn J. Knutsen, Associate Program Officer, BPA Teri Thorowgood, Administrative Coordinator, BPA Beth Dolan, Financial Associate, BPA PLANETARY PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR ICY BODIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM The ad hoc Committee on Planetary Protection Standards for Icy Bodies in the Solar System was established in September, following formal NRC project approval in July and arrival of NASA funding in August. The study will develop and recommend planetary protection standards for future spacecraft missions, including orbiters, landers, and subsurface probes, to the icy bodies in the outer solar system (asteroids, satellites, Kuiper belt objects, and comets) in light of current scientific understanding and ongoing improvements in mission-enabling capabilities and technologies. The committee’s meetings will begin in 2011. The report is scheduled for delivery to NASA in early 2012. Membership Mitchell L. Sogin, Marine Biological Laboratory (chair) Geoffrey Collins, Wheaton College (vice chair) Amy Baker, Technical Administrative Services John A. Baross, University of Washington Amy C. Barr,5 Southwest Research Institute __________________ 5Appointed

to the committee in January 2011.



38


William V. Boynton, University of Arizona Charles S. Cockell, Open University Michael J. Daly, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Joseph R. Fragola, Valador, Inc. Rosaly M. Lopes, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Southern California Douglas S. Stetson, Space Science and Exploration Consulting Group Mark H. Thiemens, University of California, San Diego Staff David H. Smith, Senior Program Officer, SSB (study director) Joseph K. Alexander, Senior Program Officer, SSB Rodney N. Howard, Senior Program Assistant, SSB 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 2003 solar system exploration decadal survey, New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy. The new decadal survey is designed to 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 NSF began in 2009 with the appointment and meetings of the steering group and panels and extensive outreach activities. To assist its activities, the decadal survey 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. The steering group met in Irvine, California, on February 22-24. Members of the panels and steering group participated in a community- outreach event at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, in The Woodlands, Texas, on March 1-5. The panels held their final meetings to discuss and finalize their sections for the report on the following dates: Satellites, April 12-14, Boulder, Colorado; Mars, April 14-16, Boulder, Colorado; Inner Planets, April 21-23, Boulder, Colorado; Primitive Bodies, April 26-28, Knoxville, Tennessee; and Giant Planets, May 5-7, Boston, Massachusetts. The steering committee held its final two meetings in Washington, D.C., on July 13-15 and August 3-4 to continue its work on integrating the panel findings into a final draft report for submission to review. The report draft entered review in October, and the committee responded to nearly 1,600 comments from 18 reviewers. The decadal survey’s report, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, was delivered to NASA and NSF in prepublication form in late February 2011 and was released to the public on March 7 at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Texas. 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 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



39


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) Staff 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 Membership6 John Spencer, Southwest Research Institute (chair) David J. Stevenson, California Institute of Technology (vice chair) Glenn Fountain, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory 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, Southwest Research Institute Giant Planets Panel Membership6 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 Brigette Hesman, University of Maryland 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 Membership6 Ellen R. Stofan, Proxemy Research (chair)

__________________ 6 Except

for the chair and vice chair, all terms ended by October 2010.



40


Stephen Mackwell, Lunar and Planetary Institute (vice chair) Barbara A. Cohen, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Martha S. Gilmore, Wesleyan University Lori Glaze, Proxemy Research 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 Membership7 Philip R. Christensen, Arizona State University (chair) Wendy M. Calvin, University of Nevada, Reno (vice chair) Raymond E. Arvidson, Washington University Robert D. Braun,8 Georgia Institute of Technology Glenn E. Cunningham, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) David Des Marais,9 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, Goddard Institute for Space Studies Lisa M. Pratt, Indiana University Primitive Bodies Panel Membership7 Joseph F. Veverka, Cornell University (chair) Harry Y. McSween, Jr., University of Tennessee, Knoxville (vice chair) Erik 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 Laboratory Edward Reynolds, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory Mark Sephton, Imperial College London Jessica Sunshine, University of Maryland, College Park Faith Vilas, MMT Observatory

7 Except

for the chair and vice chair, all terms ended by October 2010. ended February 8, 2010. 9 Term ended August 1, 2010. 8 Term



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

In 2010, the Space Studies Board convened one workshop and was forming an organizing committee for a workshop on the effects of solar variability on Earth’s climate that is expected to take place in the Summer of 2011. SHARING THE ADVENTURE WITH THE PUBLIC—THE VALUE AND EXCITEMENT OF “GRAND QUESTIONS” OF SPACE SCIENCE AND EXPLORATION The importance of conveying an understanding and appreciation for the “grand questions” of space science and exploration that motivate the majority of NASA’s programs, such as, How is the universe evolving? Are we alone? Will the Earth remain a hospitable home for humanity in the future? What could the future hold for humans in space?, was the topic of a workshop held on November 8-10 at the National Academies’ Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The workshop, organized by an ad hoc planning committee and held under the auspices of the Space Studies Board, involved prominent space scientists and communications professionals and attracted an audience of more than 160. A report on the discussions that took place will be released in 2011. Workshop details can be found on the SSB Web site at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/index.htm, along with videos of each session. Planning Committee Membership1 Charles F. Kennel, University of California, San Diego (chair) Linda Billings, George Washington University Margaret Finarelli, George Mason University Lennard A. Fisk, University of Michigan Molly K. Macauley, Resources for the Future Edward C. Stone, California Institute of Technology A. Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired) Workshop Rapporteur Marcia Smith, Space and Technology Policy Group, LLC

__________________ 1All

terms expire on March 31, 2011.

41



42


Staff Ian W. Pryke, Senior Program Officer, SSB Carmela J. Chamberlain, Administrative Coordinator, SSB



5 Summaries of Major Reports

This chapter reprints the summaries of Space Studies Board (SSB) reports that were released in 2010 (note that the official publication date may be 2011). Reports are often written in conjunction with other National Research Council Boards, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), or the Laboratory Assessments Board (LAB), as noted. One report was released in 2009 but published in 2010—An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Mission—its Summary was reprinted in Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009.

43



44


5.1 Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions A Report of the SSB Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions

Executive Summary Through an examination of case studies, agency briefings, and existing reports, and drawing on personal knowledge and direct experience, the Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions found that candidate projects for multiagency collaboration1 in the development and implementation of Earth-observing or space science missions are often intrinsically complex and, therefore costly, and that a multiagency approach to developing these missions typically results in additional complexity and cost. Advocates of collaboration have sometimes underestimated the difficulties and associated costs and risks of dividing responsibility and accountability between two or more partners; they also discount the possibility that collaboration will increase the risk in meeting performance objectives. This committee’s principal recommendation is that agencies should conduct Earth and space science projects independently unless: • It is judged that cooperation will result in significant added scientific value to the project over what could be achieved by a single agency alone; or • Unique capabilities reside within one agency that are necessary for the mission success of a project managed by another agency; or • The project is intended to transfer from research to operations necessitating a change in responsibility from one agency to another during the project; or • There are other compelling reasons to pursue collaboration, for example, a desire to build capacity at one of the cooperating agencies. Even when the total project cost may increase, parties may still find collaboration attractive if their share of a mission is more affordable than funding it alone. In these cases, alternatives to interdependent reliance on another government agency should be considered. For example, agencies may find that buying services from another agency or pursuing interagency coordination of spaceflight data collection is preferable to fully interdependent cooperation. LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION Important lessons for national interagency collaboration efforts may also be learned from experiences with international collaboration (i.e., more than one country working together). In particular, the committee found that the U.S. experience in international collaborative projects is instructive with regard to the degree of upfront planning involved to define clear roles, responsibilities, and interfaces consistent with each entity’s strategic plans. Experience has shown that collaborative projects almost invariably lead to increased costs. When additional participants join a project, the basic costs remain, but the costs of duplicating management systems and of managing interactions must be added. It is also important to recognize that even though the overall cost of the program may increase, the cost to each partner is often decreased, thus making a program more affordable to each partner. With NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-4, released in prepublication form on November 23, 2010. 1In this report, “collaboration” is used as an overarching term that refers to more than one agency working together, and four types of collaboration are defined by the committee, based on the degrees of interdependency between collaborating entities. Although the committee’s name refers to “cooperation,” which is taken from the congressional call for this study, the committee treated “cooperation” as one of the four types of collaboration in which two or more agencies collaborate in such as way that makes each agency dependent on the other for the project’s success.



45

Summaries of Major Reports

international cooperation, the cost of a program to the U.S. government can be decreased, since a foreign government is absorbing some of the basic costs. With interagency cooperation, the cost to the government inevitably rises, because the basic cost plus the additional costs must all be absorbed by the participating U.S. agencies. A prerequisite for a successful international collaboration is that all parties believe the collaboration is of mutual benefit. Proposals for interagency collaboration within the United States should receive similar serious attention as part of each agency’s strategic decision-making process prior to proceeding with technical commitments and procurements. As with international agreements, interagency agreements should not be entered into lightly and should be undertaken only with full assessment of the inherent complexities and risks. IMPEDIMENTS TO INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION Impediments to interagency collaboration can result from sources both internal and external to the agencies themselves. Internal sources can include conflicts that result from differing agency goals, ambitions, cultures, and stakeholders, and agency-unique technical standards and processes. External sources can include the differing budget cycles for agencies—especially for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which must first submit its budget to the Department of Commerce—each of which has different congressional authorization and appropriation subcommittees, budget instability, and changes in policy direction from the administration and Congress. These impediments manifest themselves as impacts to mission success and as changes in cost, schedule, performance, and associated risks. The most serious impediments to collaboration are external to the agencies. They are typically symptoms of conflicting policies that are often not made explicit at the beginning of proposed cooperative efforts. Such impediments manifest themselves as different budget priorities by agencies, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Congress toward the same collaborative activity. While there may be acknowledgement of the value of collaboration at a national level, at the implementation level decision makers can be unwilling to prioritize collaboration above other agency mission assignments and constraints. As detailed in Chapter 3 of this report, many of the impediments to interagency collaboration, both internal and external, manifest themselves as impediments to good systems engineering. Good systems engineering and project management techniques2 are important in any space mission, but especially when multiple organizations are involved. The inevitable creation of seams (i.e., divisions of responsibility and/or accountability between participants for planning, funding, decision making, and project execution) as a result of interagency collaboration is a source of technical and programmatic risks. Such risks could include failure to meet agreed technical performance requirements, compromised system reliability, unacceptable schedule delays, or cost overruns, and mitigating such shortfalls requires proactive management and attention. The committee identified a number of impediments that should be considered and addressed prior to the start of collaboration, and it outlines below a number of best practices to mitigate risk at various stages of mission devel opment. From its consideration of numerous case studies (Appendix C), the committee found that interagency collaboration based on working-level collaborations among the agencies’ technical staff is preferred to top-down direction to pursue collaboration (e.g., via policy edict), because top-down direction may be burdened from the beginning with a lack of working-level buy-in. Successful collaboration was also found to be more likely when each agency considers the partnership one of its highest priorities; such an understanding should be codified in signed agreements that also document the terms of the collaboration’s management and operations. GOVERNANCE AND INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION To facilitate interagency collaborations, there is a need for coordinated oversight by the executive and legislative branches. Because the current roles of OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) are not suited to this kind of day-to-day operational oversight, some other governance mechanism may be needed to facilitate

2By systems engineering the committee means the process by which the performance requirements, interfaces, and interactions of multiple elements of a complex system such as a spacecraft are analyzed, designed, integrated, and operated so as to meet the overall requirements of the total system within the physical constraints on and resources available to the system. By project management the committee means the overall management of the budget, schedule, performance requirements, and assignments of team member roles and responsibilities for the development of a complex system such as a scientific spacecraft.



46


accountable decision making across multiple agencies while providing senior administration and congressional support for those decisions. The committee recommends that if OSTP, OMB, or the Congress wishes to encourage a particular interagency research collaboration, then specific incentives and support for the interagency project should be provided. Such incentives and support could include facilitating cross-cutting budget submissions; protecting funding for interagency projects; providing freedom to move needed funds across appropriation accounts after approval of a cross-cutting budget; multiyear authorizations; lump-sum appropriations for validated independent cost estimates; minimization of external reviews that are not part of the project’s approved implementation plans; and unified reporting to Congress and OMB, as opposed to separate agency submissions. The committee also investigated the particular problems associated with NASA-NOAA collaboration in support of climate research. Ensuring the continuity of measurements of particular climate variables, sustaining measurements of the climate system, and developing and maintaining climate data records are long-standing problems rooted in the mismatch of agency charters and budgets. As noted in the 2007 National Research Council decadal survey, Earth Science and Applications from Space,3 the nation’s civil space institutions, including NASA and NOAA, have responsibilities that are in many cases mismatched with their authorities and resources: institutional mandates are inconsistent with agency charters, budgets are not well matched to emerging needs, and shared r esponsibilities are supported inconsistently by mechanisms for cooperation. This committee concurs with the decadal survey committee, which concluded that solutions to these issues will require action at a level of the federal government above that of the agencies. FACILITATING SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATIONS Successful interagency collaborations (i.e., those that have achieved their mission objectives and satisfied sponsor goals) share many common characteristics that are, in turn, the result of realistic assessment of agency self-interests and capabilities before and during the collaboration, and involve a disciplined attention to systems engineering and project management best practices.4 The committee recommends that the following key elements be incorporated in every interagency Earth and space science collaboration agreement: • A small and achievable priority list. Projects address a sharply focused set of priorities and have clear goals. Agreement is based on specific projects rather than general programs. • A clear process to make decisions and settle disputes. Project decision making is driven by an intense focus on mission success. This is facilitated by formal agreement at the outset on explicitly defined agency roles and responsibilities and should involve agreed processes for making management decisions, single points of accountability (i.e., not committees), and defined escalation paths to resolve disputes. Long-term planning, including the identification of exit strategies, is undertaken at the outset of the project and includes consideration of events that might trigger a reduction-in-scope or cancellation review and associated fallback options if there are unexpected technical difficulties or large cost overruns that make the collaboration untenable. • Clear lines of authority and responsibility for the project. Technical and organizational interfaces are simple and aligned with the roles, responsibilities, and relative priorities of each collaborating entity. Project roles and responsibilities are consistent with agency strengths and capabilities. Expert and stable project management has both the time and the resources available to manage the collaboration. Specific points of contact for each agency are identified. Agency and project leadership provides firm resistance to changes in scope. When possible, one of the collaborating agencies should be designated as the lead agency with ultimate responsibility and accountability for executing the mission within the agreed set of roles and responsibilities, command structure, and dispute resolution process defined in a Memorandum of Understanding. In some cases the lead agency might change as a function of time, as for missions in which the lead agency differs between the implementation and operations phases. • Well-understood participation incentives for each agency and its primary stakeholders. All parties share a common commitment to mission success and are confident in and rely on the relevant capabilities of each collaborating agency. Each agency understands how it benefits from the cooperation and recognizes that collabora3National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, The

National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11820. 4The committee’s views on best-practice approaches to systems engineering and project management are outlined below in the section entitled “Mitigating the Risks of Interagency Collaboration.”



47


tive agreements may need to be revisited at regular intervals in response to budgetary and political changes. There is buy-in from political leadership (e.g., senior administration, Congress, and agency-level administrators), which can help projects past the inevitable rough spots. There is a general spirit of intellectual and technical commitment from the agency workforce and contractors to help projects mitigate the disruptive effects of technical and programmatic problems that are likely to occur. Early and frequent stakeholder involvement throughout the mission keeps all stakeholders informed, manages expectations, and provides appropriate external input. • Single acquisition, funding, cost control, and review processes. There is a single agency with acquisition authority, and each participating entity accepts financial responsibility for its own contributions to joint projects. Reliance on multiple appropriation committees for funding is avoided or reduced to the smallest possible extent. Cost control is ideally the responsibility of a single stakeholder or institution, because without a single point of cost accountability, shared costs tend to grow until the project is in crisis. Single, independent technical and management reviews occur at major milestones, including independent cost reviews at several stages in the project life cycle. • Adequate funding and stakeholder support to complete the task. Funding adequacy is based on technically credible cost estimates with explicitly stated confidence levels. In summary, engaging in collaboration carries significant cost and schedule risks that need to be actively mitigated. Agencies are especially likely to seek collaborators for complex missions so that expected costs can be shared. However, as the committee observed from historical experience and interviews, inefficiencies arise when collaborating agencies’ goals, authorities, and responsibilities are not aligned. Thus, collaborations require higher levels of coordination, additional management layers, and greater attention to mechanisms for conflict resolution.



48


5.2 Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research A Report of the LAB, SSB, and ASEB Ad Hoc Committee on the Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities

Summary The National Research Council (NRC) selected and tasked the Committee on the Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities to assess the status of the laboratory capabilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and to determine whether they are equipped and maintained to support NASA’s fundamental research activities. Over the past 5 years or more, there has been a steady and significant decrease in NASA’s laboratory capabilities, including equipment, maintenance, and facility upgrades. This adversely affects the support of NASA’s scientists, who rely on these capabilities, as well as NASA’s ability to make the basic scientific and technical contributions that others depend on for programs of national importance. The fundamental research community at NASA has been severely impacted by the budget reductions that are responsible for this decrease in laboratory capabilities, and as a result NASA’s ability to support even NASA’s future goals is in serious jeopardy. This conclusion is based on the committee’s extensive reviews conducted at fundamental research laboratories at six NASA centers (Ames Research Center, Glenn Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center), discussions with a few hundred scientists and engineers, both during the reviews and in private sessions, and in-depth meetings with senior technology managers at each of the NASA centers. Several changes since the mid-1990s have had a significant adverse impact on NASA’s funding for laboratory equipment and support services: • Control of the research and technology “seed corn” investment was moved from an associate administrator focused on strategic technology investment and independent of important flight development programs’ short-term needs, to an associate administrator responsible for executing such flight programs. The predictable result was a substantial reduction over time in the level of fundamental—lower technology readiness level, TRL—research budgets, which laboratories depend on to maintain and enhance their capabilities, including the procurement of equipment and support services. The result was a greater emphasis on higher TRL investments, which would reduce project risk. • A reduction in funding of 48 percent for the aeronautics programs over the period fiscal year (FY) 2005-FY 2009 has significantly challenged NASA’s ability to achieve its mission to advance U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics in partnership with industry, academia, and other government agencies that conduct aeronautics-related research and to keep U.S. aeronautics in the lead internationally. • Institutional responsibility for maintaining the health of the research centers was changed from the associate administrator responsible for also managing the technology investment to the single associate administrator to whom all the center directors now report. • NASA changed from a budgeting and accounting system in which all civil service manpower was covered in a single congressional appropriation to one in which all costs, including manpower, had to be budgeted and accounted for against a particular program or overhead account. NASA personnel at the centers reported that reductions in budgets supporting fundamental research have had several consequences:

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-4.



49


• Equipment and support have become inadequate. • Centers are unable to provide adequate and stable funding and manpower for the fundamental science and technology advancements needed to support long-term objectives. • Research has been deferred. • Researchers are expending inordinate amounts of time writing proposals seeking funding to maintain their laboratory capabilities. • Efforts are diverted as researchers seek funding from outside NASA for work that may not be completely consistent with NASA’s goals. The institutional capabilities of the NASA centers, including their laboratories, have always been critical to the successful execution of NASA’s flight projects. These capabilities have taken years to develop and depend very strongly on highly competent and experienced personnel and the infrastructure that supports their research. Such capabilities can be destroyed in a short time if not supported with adequate resources and the ability to hire new people to learn from those who built and nurtured the laboratories. Capabilities, once destroyed, cannot be reconstituted rapidly at will. Laboratory capabilities essential to the formulation and execution of NASA’s future missions must be properly resourced. In the Strategic Plan for the Years 2007-2016, NASA states that it cannot accomplish its mission and vision without a healthy and stable research program. The fundamental research community at NASA is not provided with healthy or stable funding for laboratory capabilities, and therefore NASA’s vision and missions for the future are in jeopardy. The innovation and technologies required to advance aeronautics, explore the outer planets, search for intelligent life, and understand the beginnings of the universe have been severely restricted by a short-term perspective and funding. The changes in the management of fundamental research represent a structural impediment to resolving this problem. Despite all these challenges, the NASA researchers encountered by the committee remain dedicated to their work and focused on NASA’s future. Approximately 20 percent of all NASA facilities are dedicated to research and development: on average, they are not state of the art: they are merely adequate to meet current needs. Nor are they attractive to prospective hires when compared with other national and international laboratory facilities. Over 80 percent of NASA facilities are more than 40 years old and need significant maintenance and upgrades to preserve the safety and continuity of operations for critical missions. A notable exception to this assessment is the new science building commissioned at GSFC. NASA categorizes the overall condition of its facilities, including the research centers, as “fairly good,” but deferred maintenance (DM) over the past 5 years has grown substantially. Every year, NASA is spending about 1.5 percent of the current replacement value (CRV) of its active facilities on maintenance, repairs, and upgrades,1 but the accepted industry guideline is between 2 percent and 4 percent of CRV.2 Deferred maintenance grew from $1.77 billion to $2.46 billion from 2004 to 2009, presenting a staggering repair and maintenance bill for the future. The facilities that house fundamental research activities at NASA are typically old and require more maintenance than current funding will permit. As a result, they are crowded and often lack the modern layouts and utilities that improve operational efficiency. The equipment and facilities of NASA’s fundamental research laboratories are inferior to those witnessed by committee members at comparable laboratories at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), at top-tier U.S. universities, and at many corporate research institutions and are comparable to laboratories at the Department of Defense (DOD). If its basic research facilities were equipped to make them state of the art, NASA would be in a better position to maintain U.S. leadership in the space, Earth, and aeronautical sciences and to attract the scientists and engineers needed for the future. The committee believes that NASA could reverse the decline in laboratory capabilities cited above by restoring the balance between funding for long-term fundamental research and technology development and short-term, mission-focused applications. The situation could be significantly improved if fundamental long-term research and advanced technology development at NASA were managed and nurtured separately from short-term mission programs. Moreover, in the light of recent significant changes in direction, NASA might wish to consider re-evaluating its strategic plan and developing a tactical implementation plan that will create, manage, and financially support the 1NASA FY 2008 Budget. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/FY2008.html. 2Statement made by William L. Gregory, member of the NRC Committee to Assess Techniques for Developing Maintenance and Repair

Budgets for Federal Facilities, to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Material and Pipeline Transportation, April 29, 1999.



50


needed research capabilities and associated laboratories, equipment, and facilities. NASA is increasingly relying on a contractor-provided technician workforce to support those needs. If this practice continues, and if a strategy to ensure the continuity and retention of technical knowledge as the agency increasingly relies on a contractorprovided technician workforce is not currently in place, then such a strategy should be considered. Researchers in the smaller laboratories are forced to buy necessary laboratory equipment from their modest research grants, and it is not unusual for researchers in the larger laboratories to operate them at reduced throughput or not at all because the sophisticated and expensive research equipment for maintaining state-of-the-art capabilities is not being procured in sufficient quantities. Mechanisms need to be found that will provide the equipment and support services required to conduct the high-quality fundamental research befitting the nation’s top aeronautics and space institution. The specific findings and recommendations of this report are as follows: Finding 1. On average, the committee classifies the facilities and equipment observed in the NASA laboratories as marginally adequate, with some clearly being totally inadequate and others being very adequate. The trend in quality appears to have been downward in recent years. NASA is not providing sufficient laboratory equipment and support services to address immediate or long-term research needs and is increasingly relying on the contract technician workforce to support the laboratories and facilities. Researchers in the smaller laboratories are forced to buy needed laboratory equipment from their modest research grants, while it is not unusual for researchers in the larger laboratories/facilities to operate facilities at reduced capabilities or not at all due to lack of needed repair resources. The sophisticated and expensive research equipment needed to achieve and maintain state-of-the-art capabilities is not being procured. Recommendation 1A. Sufficient equipment and support services needed to conduct high-quality funda mental research should be provided to NASA’s research community. Recommendation 1B. If a strategy is not currently in place to ensure the continuity and retention of technical knowledge as the agency increasingly relies on a contractor-provided technician workforce, then such a strategy should be considered. Finding 2. The facilities that house fundamental research activities at NASA are typically old and require more maintenance than funding permits. As a result, research laboratories are crowded and often lack the modern layouts and utilities that improve operational efficiency. The lack of timely maintenance can lead to safety issues, particularly with large, high-powered equipment. A notable exception is the new science building commissioned at Goddard Space Flight Center in 2009. Recommendation 2A. NASA should find a solution to its deferred maintenance issues before catastrophic failures occur that will seriously impact missions and research operations. Recommendation 2B. To optimize limited maintenance resources, NASA should implement predictiveequipment-failure processes, often known as health monitoring, currently used by many organizations. Finding 3. Over the past 5 years or more, the funding of fundamental research at NASA, including the funding of facilities and equipment, has declined dramatically, such that unless corrective action is taken soon, the fundamental research community at NASA will be unable to support the agency’s long-term goals. For example, if funding continues to decline, NASA may not be able to claim aeronautics technology leadership from an international and in some areas even a national perspective. Recommendation 3A. To restore the health of the fundamental research laboratories, including their equipment, facilities, and support services, NASA should restore a better funding and leadership balance between long-term fundamental research/technology development and short-term mission-focused applications. Recommendation 3B. NASA must increase resources to its aeronautics laboratories and facilities to attract and retain the best and brightest researchers and to remain at least on a par with international aeronautical research organizations in Europe and Asia.



51


Finding 4. Based on the experience and expertise of its members, the committee believes that the equipment and facilities at NASA’s basic research laboratories are inferior to those at comparable DOE laboratories, top-tier U.S. universities, and corporate research laboratories and are about the same as those at basic research laboratories of DOD. Recommendation 4. NASA should improve the quality and equipping of its basic research facilities, to make them at least as good as those at top-tier universities, corporate laboratories, and other better-equipped government laboratories in order to maintain U.S. leadership in the space, Earth, and aeronautic sciences and to attract the scientists and engineers needed for the future.



52


5.3 Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions A Report of the SSB Ad Hoc Committee on Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions

Summary STUDY BACKGROUND Cost growth in Earth and space science missions conducted by the Science Mission Directorate (SMD) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a longstanding problem with a wide variety of interrelated causes. To address this concern, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422) directed the NASA administrator to sponsor an “independent external assessment to identify the primary causes of cost growth in the large-, medium-, and small-sized Earth and space science spacecraft mission classes, and make recommendations as to what changes, if any, should be made to contain costs and ensure frequent mission opportunities in NASA’s science spacecraft mission programs.” NASA subsequently requested that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct a study to: • Review the body of existing 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 identify any new major causes; and • Evaluate effectiveness of current and planned NASA cost growth mitigation strategies and, as appropriate, recommend new strategies to ensure frequent mission opportunities. As part of this effort, NASA also asked the NRC to “note what differences, if any, exist with regard to Earth science compared with space science missions.” COST GROWTH—MAGNITUDE AND CAUSES NASA identified 10 cost studies and related analyses that this study uses as its primary references (listed in the References chapter and in Table 1.1). The committee generally concurs with the consensus viewpoints expressed in these studies as a whole, but in some areas, the studies reached different conclusions. For example, the prior studies calculated values for average cost growth ranging from 23 percent to 77 percent. Different studies reach different conclusions because they examine different sets of missions and calculate cost growth based on different criteria. By definition, cost growth is a relative measure reflecting comparison of an initial estimate of mission costs against costs actually incurred at a later time. But studies use initial estimates made at different points in mission life cycles (see Figure S.1), as well as cost estimates that cover different phases of mission life cycles. For example, some studies consider only development costs (up to but not including launch), but other studies consider all costs through the end of each mission. In general, the earlier the initial estimate, the more the cost will grow. In addition, including a larger share of the later phases of a mission (such as launch, operations, and analysis of data collected by a mission) increases the total cost assigned to each mission and the absolute value of the cost growth (in dollars). These differences make it very difficult to derive a single, reliable value for the average cost growth of NASA Earth and space science missions on the basis of previous studies. The primary references also indicate that most cost growth occurs after critical design review. This implies that the required level of cost reserves remains substantial, even late in the development process. In addition, a relatively small number of missions cause most of the total cost growth. For one large set of 40 missions, 92 percent of the total cost growth (in dollars) was caused by only 14 missions (one-third of the total number). Conversely, the 26 missions with the least cost growth (two-thirds of the total number) accounted for only 8 percent of the total cost growth (see Figure S.2). NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-7.



53


Approval NASA LifeCycle Phases

Project LifeCycle Phases

Formulation Pre-Phase A: Concept Studies

Selected Mission Reviews

Phase A: Concept and Technology Development

Implementation Phase B: Preliminary Design and Technology Completion

System Requirements Review

Phase C: Final Design and Fabrication

Phase D: System Assembly, Integration, Test, and Launch

Phase E: Operations and Sustainment

Preliminary Critical Design Design Review Review

Phase F: Closeout

End of Mission

FIGURE S.1 NASA mission life cycle. SOURCE: Based on NASA Procedural Requirements 7120.5D (NASA, 2007).

$950M $900M $850M $800M

These 14 missions together account for 92% of the total cost growth for all 40 missions in this figure

Initial cost—directed missions Initial cost—AO missions Cost growth—14 missions with most cost growth Cost growth—26 missions with least cost growth

Initial Cost Estimate / Absolute Cost Growth

$750M $700M $650M $600M $550M $500M $450M $400M $350M

These 26 missions together account for just 8% of the total cost growth for all 40 missions in this figure

$300M $250M $200M $150M $100M $50M $0M 2 00 ,2 ua Aq S- 997 EO , 1 996 E 1 AC R, 98 EA 19 7 N S, 99 96 G , 1 99 19 8 M M 19 er, 199 M st, d r, TR rdu hfin cto a at e St s P osp ar Pr 98 M ar 19 7 n , 0 Lu E 20 AC S, 0 TR MI 200 E , TH GE 01 A 0 00 IM , 2 0 98 2 AP II, 19 M E- L, 3 ET P 0 H /M 20 O C E, M RC 996 1 02 SO T, 20 S E, FA AC 999 R 1 G E, 98 IR 9 W 1, 1 999 S- 1 02 D , 0 SE I, 2 02 FU SS 20 1 E , H r 0 R tou , 20 on is 3 C es 200 en , 8 G EX 99 AL , 1 1 G AS 200 04 , 20 SWED a, M ur TI -A 05 S 0 3 5 0 EO , 2 20 200 O R T, t, M SA pac 99 E m 19 IC p I -7, ee t 4 6 D sa 00 00 nd , 2 , 2 La IFT AT 6 S 0 D 0 SW U , 2 LO O C E 0 ER 200 ST 1, 03 004 - 0 2 2 EO R, er, 06 004 E g 0 2 M sen , 2 B, es SO e M LIP rob A P 3 C vity 00 ra , 2 G TF R SI

-$50M

FIGURE S.2 Ranking of 40 NASA science missions in terms of absolute cost growth in excess of reserves in millions of dollars, excluding launch, mission operations, and data analysis, with initial cost and launch date for each mission also shown. NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix D. SOURCE: Based on data from Tom Coonce, NASA Headquarters, e-mail to committee member Joseph W. Hamaker, December 21, 2009.



54


The primary references identify a wide range of factors that contribute to cost and schedule growth of NASA Earth and space science missions. The most commonly identified factors are the following: • • • •

Overly optimistic and unrealistic initial cost estimates, Project instability and funding issues, Problems with development of instruments and other spacecraft technology, and Launch service issues.

Additional factors identified in the primary references include schedule growth that leads to cost growth. Schedule growth and cost growth are well correlated because any problem that causes schedule growth contributes to and magnifies total mission cost growth. Furthermore, cost growth in one mission may induce organizational replanning that delays other missions in earlier stages of implementation, further amplifying overall cost growth. Effective implementation of a comprehensive, integrated cost containment strategy, as recommended herein, is the best way to address this problem. COMPREHENSIVE, INTEGRATED STRATEGY FOR COST AND SCHEDULE CONTROL NASA sets the strategic direction of its Earth and space science programs using decadal surveys, the SMD science plan, and supporting road maps. A comprehensive, integrated approach to cost and schedule growth is also essential. The primary references identify dozens of specific causes, make dozens of specific recommendations, and include dozens of additional findings concerning cost growth. The primary references, as a whole, are generally consistent and comprehensive, and so the individual causes of cost growth and the necessary corrective actions are not a mystery. However, rather than simply picking and choosing from among the many suggested causes, findings, and recommendations, development of a comprehensive, integrated strategy offers the best chance that future actions will work in concert to minimize or eliminate cost and schedule growth. An effective strategy would substantially reduce cost growth (beyond reserves) on individual missions and programs so that whatever growth does occur is offset by other missions and programs completed for less than the budgeted amount. This approach would allow NASA to execute the Earth and space science mission portfolio for the appropriated budget. Achieving this goal will require NASA to address both internal and external factors. Internally, a comprehensive, integrated cost containment strategy would improve the definition of baseline costs and enhance the utility of NASA’s independent cost-estimating capabilities. Early development of technologies and more effective program reviews would improve the ability to identify and effectively manage risks and uncertainties. Externally, NASA has the opportunity to collaborate with other federal agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress to sustain and improve critical capabilities and expertise in the industrial base and the nation’s science and engineering workforce; to address cost and schedule risk associated with launch vehicles; and to improve funding stability. Successful implementation of a comprehensive, integrated strategy to control cost and schedule growth of NASA Earth and space science missions would benefit both NASA and the nation, while enabling NASA to more efficiently and effectively carry out these critical missions. Finding. Comprehensive, Integrated Cost Containment Strategy. Recent changes by NASA in the development and management of Earth and space science missions are promising. These changes include budgeting programs to the 70 percent confidence level1 and specifying that decadal surveys include independent cost estimates. However, it is too early to assess the effectiveness of these actions, and NASA has not taken the important step of developing a comprehensive, integrated strategy. Recommendation. Comprehensive, Integrated Cost Containment Strategy. NASA should develop a comprehensive, integrated strategy to contain cost and schedule growth and enable more frequent science opportuni-

1 If

programs are budgeted at the 70 percent confidence level, there is a 70 percent probability that all of the missions included in the program can be completed without exceeding mission and program reserves.



55


ties. This strategy should include recent changes that NASA has already implemented as well as other actions recommended in this report. KEY PROBLEMS In addition to developing a comprehensive, integrated cost containment strategy, and as detailed below, NASA should address specific issues related to cost realism and the development process for Earth and space science missions. Cost Realism Cost Estimates NASA project staff generally estimate mission costs using detailed engineering analyses of labor and material requirements, vendor quotes, subcontractor bids, and the like. Non-advocate independent cost estimates in NASA are generally parametric cost estimates using statistical cost-estimating relationships based on historical relationships among cost and technical and programmatic variables (mass, power, complexity, and so on). In both cases, mission cost estimates are created by summing costs at lower levels of a project’s work breakdown structure to obtain total project costs. Parametric cost models rely on observations rather than opinion, are an excellent tool for answering “what-if” questions quickly, and provide statistically sound information about the confidence level of cost estimates. In contrast, the process used within NASA to generate cost estimates on the basis of detailed engineering assessments does not provide a statistical confidence level and, in retrospect, has generally been less accurate than parametric cost models in estimating the cost of NASA Earth and space science missions.2 A project manager or principal investigator who is personally determined to control costs can be of great assistance in avoiding cost growth. People and organizations tend to optimize their behavior based on the environment in which they operate. Unfortunately, instead of motivating and rewarding vigilance in accurately predicting and controlling costs, the current system incentivizes overly optimistic expectations regarding cost and schedule. For example, competitive pressures encourage (overly) optimistic assessments of the cost and schedule impacts of addressing uncertainties and overcoming potential problems. As a result, initial cost estimates generally are quite optimistic, underestimating final costs by a sizable amount, and that optimism sometimes persists well into the development process. Recommendation. Independent Cost Estimates. NASA should strengthen the role of its independent costestimating function by • Expanding and improving NASA’s ability to conduct parametric cost estimates, and • Obtaining independent parametric cost estimates at critical design review (in addition to system requirements review and preliminary design review), comparing them to other estimates available from the project and reconciling significant differences. Cost Growth Methodology The measurement of cost growth has been inconsistent across programs, NASA centers, and Congress. The Government Accountability Office and Congress generally consider the baseline to be the first time a mission appears as a budget line item in an appropriations bill, which is often before preliminary design review. The contents of NASA estimates also differ—some estimates include Phase A and B, some start with Phase C, some (but not all) include launch costs and/or mission operations, and some include NASA oversight and internal project management costs. These differences make it difficult to develop a clear understanding of trends in cost and schedule growth.

2 A

detailed list of the strengths and weaknesses of various cost-estimating methods appears in 2008 NASA Cost Estimating Handbook. Washington, D.C.: NASA.



56


Recommendation. Measurement of Cost Growth. NASA, Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget should consistently use the same method to quantify and report cost. In particular, they should use as the baseline a life-cycle cost estimate (that goes through the completion of prime mission operations) produced at preliminary design review. Development Process Management of Announcement of Opportunity Missions and Directed Missions NASA implements two separate and distinct classes of Earth and space science missionsannouncement of opportunity (AO) missions and directed missions. NASA headquarters competitively selects AO missions from proposals submitted in response to periodic AOs by teams led by a principal investigator (PI), who is commonly affiliated with a university but may work in industry or for NASA. NASA headquarters determines the scientific goals and requirements for directed missions, which are sometimes referred to as facility class missions or flagship missions. Headquarters then directs a particular NASA center, usually Goddard Space Flight Center or the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to implement the mission. The differing nature and goals of directed and AO missions call for different management approaches. AO missions are on average much smaller than directed missions are, and the impact of cost growth in AO missions, which are managed within a mission budget line (e.g., Discovery), is limited to other missions within the line. Flagship missions, however, are typically much larger than AO missions are, and so cost growth in these missions has a much greater potential to diminish NASA’s Earth and space science enterprise as a whole. ecommendation. Management of Large, Directed Missions. NASA headquarters’ project oversight function R should pay particular attention to the cost and schedule of its larger missions (total cost on the order of $500 million or more), especially directed missions (which form a single line item). Recommendation. Management of Announcement of Opportunity (AO) Missions. NASA should continue to emphasize science in the AO mission selection process, while revising the AO mission selection process to allocate a larger percentage of project funds for risk reduction and improved cost estimation prior to final selection. ecommendation. Incentives. NASA should ensure that proposal selection and project management processes R include incentives for program managers, project managers, and principal investigators to establish realistic cost estimates and minimize or avoid cost growth at every phase of the mission life cycle, for both directed missions and announcement of opportunity missions. Technology and Instrument Development NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, requires that “during formulation, the project establishes performance metrics, explores the full range of implementation options, defines an affordable project concept to meet requirements specified in the Program Plan, develops needed technologies, and develops and documents the project plan” (NASA, 2007, Section 2.3.4). However, despite these requirements, the primary references identify an ongoing need to improve technical and programmatic definition at the beginning of a project. The limited time and resources typically available in phases A and B to mature new technology and solidify system design parameters contribute to cost growth through higher risk and unrealistic cost estimates. Instrument technology is particularly important because Earth and space science missions generally require special-purpose, one-of-a-kind components. Delays and cost increases for instrument development are pervasive and impact a large number of missions. This problem is exacerbated by shrinkage of the U.S. industrial base that supports space system development. Recommendation. Technology Development. NASA should increase the emphasis in phases A and B on technology development, risk reduction, and realism of cost estimates.



57


Recommendation. Instrument Development. NASA should initiate instrument development well in advance of starting other project elements and establish a robust instrument technology development effort relevant to all classes of Earth and space science missions to strengthen and sustain the nation’s instrument development capability. Recommendation. Decadal Surveys. NASA should ensure that guidance regarding the development of instruments and other technologies is included in decadal surveys and other strategic planning efforts. In particular, future decadal surveys should prioritize science mission areas that could be addressed by future announcements of opportunity and the instruments needed to carry out those missions. Major Reviews NASA has increased the size and number of external project reviews to the point that some reviews are counterproductive and disruptive, especially for small missions. Large numbers of reviews diffuse responsibility and accountability, creating an environment where NASA senior managers can become dependent on review teams with many outside members who sometimes do not understand NASA, the field center in question, and/or the mission being reviewed. In addition, major reviews are sometimes conducted as scheduled even though a project may not have progressed as rapidly as expected and, as a result, cannot achieve the intended review criteria, programmatically and/or technologically.3 Recommendation. External Project Reviews. NASA should reassess its approach to external project reviews to ensure that (1) the value added by each review outweighs the cost (in time and resources) that it places on projects; (2) the number and the size of reviews are appropriate given the size of the project; and (3) major reviews, such as preliminary design review and critical design review, occur only when specified success criteria are likely to be met. Launch Vehicles Problems with the procurement of launch vehicles and launch services are a significant source of cost growth. Specific factors include increases in the cost of expendable launch vehicles, vendor issues such as strikes, weatherrelated issues at the launch site, problems with launch-site-facility capabilities, and delays in the availability of a given launch vehicle. In addition, if a mission is required to change launch vehicles, the costs can be substantial. Recommendation. Launch Vehicles. Prior to preliminary design review, NASA should minimize missionunique launch site processing requirements. NASA should also select the launch vehicle with appropriate margins as early as possible and minimize changes in launch vehicles. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS Different classes of missions face different challenges. Earth science missions typically have more complex, more costly, and more massive instruments than do space science missions, because Earth science missions also have more stringent requirements in terms of pointing accuracy, resolution, stability, and so on, although astrophysics missions also have stringent pointing requirements, and planetary spacecraft and instrument technology must be able to survive long cruise phases and radiation environments that are sometimes quite extreme. Space science missions that leave Earth orbit have greater incentives to minimize spacecraft mass and power, and the average cost and average spacecraft mass of these missions are lower than those for Earth science missions. However, the size of the cost growth of Earth and space science missions has been comparable. Both Earth and space science missions have shown good correlation between (1) instrument schedule growth and instrument cost growth, (2) instrument cost/schedule growth and mission cost/schedule growth, and (3) the absolute costs of instruments and instrument complexity.

3 General

preliminary design review and critical design review readiness criteria exist within NPR 7120.5D (NASA, 2007). More detailed criteria are provided in center directives such as Criteria for Flight Project Critical Milestone Reviews (NASA/GSFC, 2009).



58


5.4 Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies A Report of the SSB and ASEB Ad Hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies

Summary The United States spends about $4 million annually searching for near-Earth objects (NEOs), according to NASA.1 The goal is to detect those that may collide with Earth. The funding helps to operate several observatories that scan the sky searching for NEOs, but, as explained below, it is insufficient to detect the majority of NEOs that may present a tangible threat to humanity. A smaller amount of funding (significantly less than $1 million per year) supports the study of ways to protect Earth from such a potential collision (“mitigation”). Congress established two mandates for the search for NEOs by NASA. The first, in 1998 and now referred to as the Spaceguard Survey, called for the agency to discover 90 percent of NEOs with a diameter of 1 kilometer or greater within 10 years. An object of this limiting size is considered by many experts to be the minimum that could produce global devastation if it struck Earth. NASA is close to achieving this goal and should reach it within a few years. However, as the recent (2009) discovery of an approximately 2- to 3-kilometer-diameter NEO demonstrates, there are still large objects to be detected. The second mandate, established in 2005, known as the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act,2 called for NASA to detect 90 percent of NEOs 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. As the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies noted in its August 2009 interim report (NRC, 2009): inding: Congress has mandated that NASA discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in F 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. inding: The current near-Earth object surveys cannot meet the goals of the 2005 George E. Brown, F Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act directing NASA to discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objects 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. THE SURVEY AND DETECTION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS The charge from Congress to the NRC committee was stated as two tasks (see the Preface for the full statement of task). The first asks for the “optimal approach” to completing the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey. The second asks for the same approach to developing a capability to avert an NEO-Earth collision and for options that include “a significant international component.” The committee concluded that there is no way to define “optimal” in this context in a universally acceptable manner: there are too many variables involved that can be both chosen and weighted in too many plausible ways. Recognizing this fact, the committee first took a broad look at all aspects of the hazards to Earth posed by NEOs and then decided on responses to the charge. The body of this report contains extensive discussions of these many NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-6. 1“NEO” denotes “near-Earth object,” which has a precise technical meaning but can be usefully thought of as an asteroid or comet whose orbit approaches Earth’s orbit to within about one-third the average distance of Earth from the Sun. These objects are considered to be the only ones potentially capable of striking Earth, at least for the next century, except for comets that can enter the inner solar system from the outer system through the “slingshot” gravitational action of Jupiter. 2National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), January 4, 2005, Section 321, George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act.



59


issues. This summary concentrates on responses to the charge and at the end provides a few comments on some of the other main conclusions drawn from the report. Regarding the first task of its charge, the committee concluded that it is infeasible to complete the NEO census mandated in 2005 on the required time scale (2020), in part because for the past 5 years the administration has requested no funds, and the Congress has appropriated none, for this purpose. The committee concludes that there are two primary options for completing the survey: inding: The selected approach to completing the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey will F depend on nonscientific factors: • If the completion of the survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline is considered more important, a space mission conducted in concert with observations using a suitable ground-based telescope and selected by peer-reviewed competition is the better approach. This combination could complete the survey well before 2030, perhaps as early as 2022 if funding were appropriated quickly. • If cost conservation is deemed more important, the use of a large ground-based telescope is the better approach. Under this option, the survey could not be completed by the original 2020 deadline, but it could be completed before 2030. To achieve the intended cost-effectiveness, the funding to construct the telescope must come largely as funding from non-NEO programs. Multiple factors will drive the decision on how to approach completion of this survey. These factors include, but are not limited to, the perceived urgency for completing the survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline, the availability of funds to complete the survey, and the acceptability of the risk associated with the construction and operation of various ground- and space-based options. Of the ground-based options, the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System, mentioned in the statement of task, and the additional options submitted to the committee in response to its public request for suggestions during the beginning of this study, the most capable appears to be the LSST. The LSST is to be constructed in Chile and has several science missions as well as the capability of observing NEOs. Although the primary mirror for the LSST has been cast and is being polished, the telescope has not been fully funded and is pending prioritization in the astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey of the NRC that is currently underway. Unless unexpected technical problems interfere, a space-based option should provide the fastest means to complete the survey. However, unlike ground-based telescopes, space options carry a modest launch risk and a more limited lifetime: ground-based telescopes have far longer useful lifetimes and could be employed for continued NEO surveys and for new science projects. (Ground-based telescopes generally have an annual operating cost that is approximately 10 percent of their design and construction costs.) The committee notes that objects smaller than 140 meters in diameter are also capable of causing significant damage to Earth. The best-known case from recent history is the 1908 impact of an object at Tunguska in the Siberian wilderness that devastated more than 2,000 square kilometers of forest. It has been estimated that the size of this object was on the order of approximately 70 meters in diameter, but recent research indicates that it could have been substantially smaller (30 to 50 meters in diameter), with much of the damage that it caused being due to shock waves from the explosion of the object in Earth’s atmosphere. (See, e.g., Chyba et al., 1993; Boslough and Crawford, 1997, 2008.) The committee strongly stresses that this new conclusion is preliminary and must be independently validated. Since smaller objects are more numerous than larger ones, however, this new result, if correct, implies an increase in the frequency of such events to approximately once in three centuries. All told, the committee was struck by the many uncertainties that suffuse the subject of NEOs, including one other related example: Do airbursts from impactors in this size range over an ocean cause tsunamis that can severely damage a coastline? This uncertainty and others have led the committee to the following recommendation: ecommendation: Because recent studies of meteor airbursts have suggested that near-Earth objects R as small as 30 to 50 meters in diameter could be highly destructive, surveys should attempt to detect as many 30- to 50-meter-diameter objects as possible. This search for smaller-diameter objects should not be allowed to interfere with the survey for objects 140 meters in diameter or greater.



60


In all cases, the data-reduction and data-analysis resources necessary to achieve the congressional mandate would be covered by the survey projects themselves and by a continuation of the current funding of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s Minor Planet Center, as discussed in the report. CHARACTERIZATION AND THE ARECIBO AND GOLDSTONE OBSERVATORIES Obtaining the orbits and the physical properties of NEOs is known as characterization and is primarily needed to inform planning for any active defense of Earth. Such defense would be carried out through a suitable attack on any object predicted with near certainty to otherwise collide with Earth and cause significant damage. The apparently huge variation in the physical properties of NEOs seems to render infeasible the development of a comprehensive inventory through in situ investigations by suitably instrumented spacecraft: the costs would be truly astronomical. A spacecraft reconnaissance mission might make good sense to conduct on an object that, without human intervention, would hit Earth with near certainty. Such a mission would be feasible provided there was sufficient warning time for the results to suitably inform the development of an attack mission to cause the object to miss colliding with Earth. In addition to spacecraft reconnaissance missions as needed, the committee concluded that vigorous, groundbased characterization at modest cost is important for the NEO task. Modest funding could support optical observations of already-known and newly discovered asteroids and comets to obtain some types of information on this broad range of objects, such as their reflectivity as a function of color, to help infer their surface properties and mineralogy, and their rotation properties. In addition, the complementary radar systems at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico and the Goldstone Solar System Radar in California are powerful facilities for characterization within their reach in the solar system, a maximum of about one-tenth of the Earth-Sun distance. Arecibowhich has a maximum sensitivity about 20-fold higher than Goldstone’s but does not have nearly as good sky coverage as Goldstonecan, for example, model the three-dimensional shapes of (generally very odd-shaped) asteroids and estimate their surface characteristics, as well as determine whether an asteroid has a (smaller) satellite or satellites around it, all important to know for planning active defense. Also, from a few relatively closely spaced (in time) observations, radar can accurately determine the orbits of NEOs, which has the advantage of being able to calm public fears quickly (or possibly, in some cases, to show that they are warranted). inding: The Arecibo and Goldstone radar systems play a unique role in the characterization of NEOs, F providing unmatched accuracy in orbit determination and offering insight into size, shape, surface structure, and other properties for objects within their latitude coverage and detection range. ecommendation: Immediate action is required to ensure the continued operation of the Arecibo ObserR vatory at a level sufficient to maintain and staff the radar facility. Additionally, NASA and the National Science Foundation should support a vigorous program of radar observations of NEOs at Arecibo, and NASA should support such a program at Goldstone for orbit determination and the characterization of physical properties. For both Arecibo and Goldstone, continued funding is far from assured, not only for the radar systems but for the entire facilities. The incremental annual funding required to maintain and operate the radar systems, even at their present relatively low levels of operation, is about $2 million at each facility (see Chapter 4). The annual funding for Arecibo is approximately $12 million. Goldstone is one of the three deep-space communications facilities of the Deep Space Network, and its overall funding includes additional equipment for space communications. MITIGATION “Mitigation” refers to all means of defending Earth and its inhabitants from the effects of an impending impact by an NEO. Four main types of defense are discussed in this report. The choice of which one(s) to use depends primarily on the warning time available and on the mass and speed of the impactor. The types of mitigation are these: 1. Civil defense. This option may be the only one feasible for warning times shorter than perhaps a year or two, and depending on the state of readiness for applying an active defense, civil defense may be the only choice for even longer times.



61


2. “Slow-push” or “slow-pull” methods. For these options the orbit of the target object would be changed so that it avoided collision with Earth. The most effective way to change the orbit, given a constraint on the energy that would be available, is to change the velocity of the object, either in or opposite to the direction in which it is moving (direct deflection—that is, moving the object sideways—is much less efficient). These options take considerable time, on the order of decades, to be effective, and even then they would be useful only for objects whose diameters are no larger than 100 meters or so. 3. Kinetic impactors. In these mitigation scenarios, the target’s orbit would be changed by the sending of one or more spacecraft with very massive payload(s) to impact directly on the target at high speed in its direction, or opposite to its direction, of motion. The effectiveness of this option depends not only on the mass of the target but also on any net enhancement resulting from material being thrown out of the target, in the direction opposite to that of the payload, upon impact. 4. Nuclear explosions. For nontechnical reasons, this would likely be a last resort, but it is also the most powerful technique and could take several different forms, as discussed in the report. The nuclear option would be usable for objects up to a few kilometers in diameter. For larger NEOs (more than a few kilometers in diameter), which would be on the scale that would inflict serious global damage and, perhaps, mass extinctions, there is at present no feasible defense. Luckily such events are exceedingly rare, the last known being about 65 million years ago. Of the foregoing options, only kinetic impact has been demonstrated (by way of the very successful Deep Impact spacecraft that collided with comet Tempel-1 in July 2006). The other options have not advanced past the conceptual stage. Even Deep Impact, a 10-kilometer-per-second impact on a 6-kilometer-diameter body, was on a scale far lower than would be required for Earth defense for an NEO on the order of 100 meters in diameter, and it impacted on a relatively large—and therefore easier to hit—object. Although the committee was charged in its statement of task with determining the “optimal approach to developing a deflection capability,” it concluded that work in this area is relatively new and immature. The committee therefore concluded that the “optimal approach” starts with a research program. FURTHER RESEARCH Struck by the significant unknowns in many aspects of NEO hazards that could yield to Earth-based research, the committee recommends the following: ecommendation: The United States should initiate a peer-reviewed, targeted research program in R the area of impact hazard and mitigation of NEOs. Because this is a policy-driven, applied program, it should not be in competition with basic scientific research programs or funded from them. This research program should encompass three principal task areas: surveys, characterization, and mitigation. The scope should include analysis, simulation, and laboratory experiments. This research program does not include mitigation space experiments or tests that are treated elsewhere in this report. NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION Responding effectively to hazards posed by NEOs requires the joint efforts of diverse institutions and i ndividuals, with organization playing a key role. Because NEOs are a global threat, efforts to deal with them could involve inter national cooperation from the outset. (However, this is one area in which one nation, acting alone, could address such a global threat.) The report discusses possible means to organize, both nationally and internationally, responses to the hazards posed by NEOs. Arrangements at present are largely ad hoc and informal here and abroad, and they involve both government and private entities. The committee discussed ways to organize the national community to deal with the hazards of NEOs and also recommends an approach to international cooperation: ecommendation: The United States should take the lead in organizing and empowering a suitable inR ternational entity to participate in developing a detailed plan for dealing with the NEO hazard.



62


One major concern with such an organization, especially in the area of preparing for disasters, is the maintenance of attention and morale, given the expected exceptionally long intervals between harmful events. Countering the tendency to complacency would be a continuing challenge. This problem would be mitigated if, for example, the civil defense aspects were combined in the National Response Framework with those for other natural hazards. RECENT NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT-RELATED EVENTS The U.S. Department of Defense, which operates sensors in Earth orbit capable of detecting the high-altitude explosion of small NEOs, has in the past shared this information with the NEO science community. The committee concluded that this data sharing is important for understanding issues such as the population size of small NEOs and the hazard that they pose. This sharing is also important for validating airburst simulations, characterizing the physical properties of small NEOs (such as their strength), and assisting in the recovery of meteorites. ecommendation: Data from NEO airburst events observed by the U.S. Department of Defense satellites R should be made available to the scientific community to allow it to improve understanding of the NEO hazards to Earth. In 2008, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act3 calling for the Office of Science and Tech nology Policy to determine by October 2010 which agency should be responsible for conducting the NEO survey and detection and mitigation program. Several agencies are possible candidates for such a role. During its deliberations the committee learned of several efforts outside the United States to develop spacecraft to search for categories of NEOs. In particular, Canada’s Near-Earth-Object Surveillance Satellite, or NEOSSat, and Germany’s AsteroidFinder are interesting and capable small-scale missions that will detect a small percentage of specific types of NEOs, those primarily inside Earth’s orbit. These spacecraft will not accomplish the goals of the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005. However, they highlight the fact that other countries are beginning to consider the NEO issue seriously. Such efforts also represent an opportunity for future international cooperation and coordination in the search for potentially hazardous NEOs. In addition, the committee was impressed with the European Space Agency’s early development of the Don Quijote spacecraft mission, which would consist of an observing spacecraft and a kinetic impactor. This mission, though not funded, would have value for testing a mitigation technique and could still be an opportunity for international cooperation in this area. Finally, the committee points out a current estimate of the long-term average annual human fatality rate from impactors: slightly under 100 (Harris, 2009). At first blush, one is inclined to dismiss this rate as trivial in the general scheme of things. However, one must also consider the extreme damage that could be inflicted by a single impact; this presents the classic problem of the conflict between “extremely important” and “extremely rare.” The committee considers work on this problem as insurance, with the premiums devoted wholly toward preventing the tragedy. The question then is: What is a reasonable expenditure on annual premiums? The committee offers a few possibilities for what could perhaps be accomplished at three different levels of funding (see Chapter 8); it is, however, the political leadership of the country that determines the amount to be spent on scanning the skies for potential hazards and preparing our defenses. REFERENCES Boslough, M., and D. Crawford. 2008. Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat. International Journal of Impact Engineering 35:1441-1448. Boslough, M.B.E., and D.A. Crawford. 1997. Shoemaker-Levy 9 and plume-forming collisions on Earth. Near-Earth Objects, the United Nations International Conference: Proceedings of the International Conference held April 24-26, 1995, in New York, N.Y. (J.L. Remo, ed.). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 822:236-282. Chyba, C.F., P.J. Thomas, and K.J. Zahnle. 1993. The 1908 Tunguska explosion—Atmospheric disruption of a stony asteroid. Nature 361:40-44. Harris, A.W., Space Science Institute. 2009. The NEO population, impact risk, progress of current surveys, and prospects for future surveys, presentation to the Survey/Detection Panel of the NRC Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, January 28-30, 2009. NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12738, pp. 1-2. 3Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2008 (Public Law 110-161), Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropria-

tions Act, 2008. December 26, 2007.



63


5.5 Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report A Report of the SSB and ASEB Ad Hoc Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space

Executive Summary In early 2009 the National Research Council’s Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space began work on a study to establish priorities and recommendations for life and physical sciences research in microgravity and partial gravity for the decade 2010-2020. This effort represents the first decadal survey conducted for these fields. The committee is being assisted in this work by seven appointed panels, each focused on a broad area of life and physical sciences research. The study is considering research in two general categories: (1) research enabled by unique aspects of the space environment as a tool to advance fundamental and applied scientific knowledge and (2) research that enables the advances in basic and applied knowledge needed to expand exploration capabilities. The project’s statement of task calls for delivery of two reports—an interim report and a final survey report. PURPOSE OF THIS INTERIM REPORT During the period of the decadal survey’s development, NASA received guidance in the fiscal year 2011 presidential budget request that directed it to extend the lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS) to 2020. This step considerably altered both the research capacity and the role of the ISS in any future program of life and physical sciences microgravity research. In addition, the budget initiated other potential changes that might affect both the organization and the scale of these programs at NASA. The purpose of this interim report is to provide timely input to the ongoing reorganization of programs related to life and physical sciences microgravity research, as well as to near-term planning or replanning of ISS research. Although the development of specific recommendations is deferred until the final report, this interim report does attempt to identify programmatic needs and issues to guide near-term decisions that the committee has concluded are critical to strengthening the organization and management of life and physical sciences research at NASA. This report also identifies a number of broad topics that represent near-term opportunities for ISS research. Topics discussed briefly in this interim report reflect the committee’s preliminary examination of a subset of the issues and topics that will be covered in greater depth in the final decadal survey report. PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES FOR STRENGTHENING THE RESEARCH ENTERPRISE As the result of major reorganizations and shifting priorities within the past decade at NASA, there is currently no clear institutional home within the agency for the various scientific endeavors that are focused on understanding how biological and physical systems behave in low-gravity environments. As NASA moves to rebuild or restructure programs focused on these activities, it will have to consider what elements to include in that program. In its preliminary analysis, the committee has identified a number of critical needs for a successful renewed research endeavor in life and physical sciences. These include: • Elevating the priority of research in the agenda for space exploration; • Selecting research likely to provide value to an optimal range of future mission designs; • Developing a comprehensive database that is accessible to the scientific community; • Implementing a translational science component to ensure bidirectional interactions between basic science and the development of new mission options; and NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-2.



64


• Encouraging, and then accommodating, team science approaches to what are inherently complex multidisciplinary challenges. In addition, as noted repeatedly by the scientific community that has provided input to this study, reasonable stability and predictability of research funding are critical to ensuring productive and sustained progress toward research goals in any program. In the context of an institutional home for an integrated research agenda, the committee noted that program leadership and execution are likely to be productive only if aggregated under a single management structure and housed in a NASA directorate or other key organization that understands the value of science and has the vision to see its potential application in future exploration missions. Ultimately, any successful research program would need to be directed by a leader of significant gravitas who is in a position of authority within the agency and has the communication skills to ensure that the entire agency understands and concurs with the key objective to support and conduct high-fidelity, highquality, high-value research. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES The International Space Station provides a unique platform for research, and past studies have noted the critical importance of its research capabilities to support the goal of long-term human exploration in space.1 Although it is difficult to predict the timing for the transition of important research questions from ground- to space-based investigations, the committee identifies in this interim report a number of broad topics that represent near-term opportunities for ISS research. These topics, which are not prioritized, fall under the following general areas: • Plant and microbial research to increase fundamental knowledge of the gravitational response and potentially to advance goals for the development of bioregenerative life support; • Behavioral research to mitigate the detrimental effects of the spaceflight environment on astronauts’ functioning and health; • Human and animal biology research to increase basic understanding of the effects of spaceflight on biological systems and to develop critically needed countermeasures to mitigate the negative biological effects of spaceflight on astronauts’ health, safety, and performance; • Physical sciences research to explore fundamental laws of the universe and basic physical phenomena in the absence of the confounding effects of gravity; and • Translational and applied research in physical sciences that can provide a foundation of knowledge for the development of systems and technologies enabling human and robotic exploration. This report contains discussion of various topics within each of these areas. The committee notes, however, that although the ISS is a key component of research infrastructure that will need to be utilized by a biological and physical research sciences program, it is only one component of a healthy program. Other platforms will play an important role and, in particular, research on the ISS will need to be supported by a parallel ground-based program to be scientifically credible.

1See,

for example, National Research Council, Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.



65


5.6 New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics A Report of the BPA and SSB Ad Hoc Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics

Executive Summary Our view of the universe has changed dramatically. Hundreds of planets of startling diversity have been discovered orbiting distant suns. Black holes, once viewed as an exotic theoretical possibility, are now known to be present at the center of most galaxies, including our own. Precision measurements of the primordial radiation left by the big bang have enabled astronomers to determine the age, size, and shape of the universe. Other astronomical observations have also revealed that most of the matter in the universe is dark and invisible and that the expansion of the universe is accelerating in an unexpected and unexplained way. Recent discoveries, powerful new ways to observe the universe, and bold new ideas to understand it have created scientific opportunities without precedent. This report of the Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics proposes a broad-based, integrated plan for space- and ground-based astronomy and astrophysics for the decade 2012-2021. It also lays the foundations for advances in the decade 2022-2031. It is the sixth in a sequence of National Research Council (NRC) decadal studies in this field and builds on the recommendations of its predecessors. However, unlike previous surveys, it reexamines unrealized priorities of preceding surveys and reconsiders them along with new proposed research activities to achieve a revitalized and timely scientific program. Another new feature of the current survey is a detailed analysis of the technical readiness and the cost risk of activities considered for prioritization. The committee has formulated a coherent program that fits within plausible funding profiles considering several different budget scenarios based on briefings by the sponsoring agencies—the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy. As a result, recommended priorities reflect an executable balance of scientific promise against cost, risk, and readiness. The international context also played an important role in the committee’s deliberations, and many of the large projects involve international collaboration as well as private donors and foundations. The priority science objectives chosen by the survey committee for the decade 2012-2021 are searching for the first stars, galaxies, and black holes; seeking nearby habitable planets; and advancing understanding of the fundamental physics of the universe. These three objectives represent a much larger program of unprecedented opportunities now becoming within our capability to explore. The discoveries made will surely lead to new and sometimes surprising insights that will continue to expand our understanding and sense of possibility, revealing new worlds and presenting new horizons, the study of which will bring us closer to understanding the cosmos and our place within it. This report recommends a program that will set the astronomy and astrophysics community firmly on the path to answering some of the most profound questions about the cosmos. In the plan, new optical and infrared survey telescopes on the ground and in space will employ a variety of novel techniques to investigate the nature of dark energy. These same telescopes will determine the architectures of thousands of planetary systems, observe the explosive demise of stars, and open a new window on the time-variable universe. Spectroscopic and highspatial-resolution imaging capabilities on new large ground-based telescopes will enable researchers to discern the physical nature of objects discovered at both shorter and longer wavelengths by other facilities in the committee’s recommended program. Innovative moderate-cost programs in space and on the ground will be enhanced so as to enable the community to respond rapidly and flexibly to new scientific discoveries. Construction will begin on a space-based observatory that employs the new window of gravitational radiation to observe the merging of distant black holes and other dense objects and to precisely test theories of gravity in new regimes that we can never hope to study on Earth. The foundations will be laid for studies of the hot universe with a future X-ray telescope that will search for the first massive black holes, and that will follow the cycling of gas within and beyond galaxies. Scientists will conduct new ground-based experiments to study the highest-energy photons emitted by cosmic sources. At the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum, radio techniques will become powerful enough to view the epoch when the very first objects began to light up the universe, marking the transition from a protracted dark age to one of NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-8, released in prepublication form on August 13, 2010.



66


self-luminous stars. The microwave background radiation will be scrutinized for the telltale evidence that inflation actually occurred. Perhaps most exciting of all, researchers will identify which nearby stars are orbited by planets on which life could also have developed. Realizing these and an array of other scientific opportunities is contingent on maintaining and strengthening the foundations of the research enterprise that are essential in the cycle of discovery—including technology development, theory, computation and data management, and laboratory experiments, as well as, and in particular, human resources. At the same time, the greatest strides in understanding often come from bold new projects that open the universe to new discoveries, and such projects thus drive much of the strategy of the committee’s proposed program. This program requires a balance of small, medium, and large initiatives on the ground and in space. The large and medium elements within each size category are as follows: • In Space: (Large-scale, in priority order) Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)—an observatory designed to settle essential questions in both exoplanet and dark energy research, and which will advance topics ranging from galaxy evolution to the study of objects within our own galaxy. The Explorer Program—augmenting a program that delivers a high level of scientific return on relatively moderate investment and that provides the capability to respond rapidly to new scientific and technical breakthroughs. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA)—a low-frequency gravitational wave observatory that will open an entirely new window on the cosmos by measuring ripples in space-time caused by many new sources, including nearby white dwarf stars, and will probe the nature of black holes. International X-ray Observatory (IXO)—a powerful X-ray telescope that will transform our understanding of hot gas associated with stars and galaxies in all evolutionary stages. (Medium-scale, in rank order) New Worlds Technology Development Program—a competed program to lay the technical and scientific foundation for a future mission to study nearby Earth-like planets. Inflation Probe Technology Development Program—a competed program designed to prepare for a potential next-decade cosmic microwave-background mission to study the epoch of inflation. • On the Ground: (Large-scale, in priority order) Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)—a wide-field optical survey telescope that will transform observation of the variable universe and will address broad questions that range from indicating the nature of dark energy to determining whether there are objects that may collide with Earth. Mid-Scale Innovations Program augmentation—a competed program that will provide the capability to respond rapidly to scientific discovery and technical advances with new telescopes and instruments. Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT)—a large optical and near-infrared telescope that will revolutionize astronomy and provide a spectroscopic complement to the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Atacama Large Millimeter/ submillimeter Array (ALMA), and LSST. Atmospheric Čerenkov Telescope Array (ACTA)—participation in an international telescope to study very high energy gamma rays. (Medium-scale) CCAT (formerly the Cornell-Caltech Atacama Telescope)—a 25-meter wide-field submillimeter telescope that will complement ALMA by undertaking large-scale surveys of dust-enshrouded objects. These major new elements must be combined with ongoing support of the core research program to ensure a balanced program that optimizes overall scientific return. To achieve that return the committee balances the program with a portfolio of unranked smaller projects and augmentations to the core research program, funded by all three agencies. These elements include support of individual investigators, instrumentation, laboratory astrophysics, public access to privately operated telescopes, suborbital space missions, technology development, theoretical investigations, and collaboration on international projects. This report also identifies unique ways that astronomers can contribute to solving the nation’s challenges. In addition, the public will continue to be inspired with images of the cosmos and descriptions of its contents, and students of all ages will be engaged by vivid illustrations of the power of science and technology. These investments will sustain and improve the broad scientific literacy vital to a technologically advanced nation as well as providing spin-off technological applications to society. The committee notes with appreciation the striking level of effort and involvement in this survey contributed by the astronomy and astrophysics community. The vision detailed in this report is a shared vision.



67


RECOMMENDED PROGRAM Maintaining a balanced program is an overriding priority for attaining the overall science objectives that are at the core of the program recommended by the survey committee. More detailed guidance is provided in the report, but optimal implementation is the responsibility of agency managers. The small-scale projects recommended in Table ES.1 are unranked and are listed in alphabetical order. The highest-priority ground-based elements in the medium (Table ES.2) and large (Table ES.3) categories are listed in priority order, and the highest-priority spacebased elements in the medium (Table ES.4) and large (Table ES.5) categories are also listed in priority order. All cost appraisals are in FY2010 dollars.

TABLE ES.1 Space and Ground: Recommended Activities—Small Scale (Alphabetical Order) Budget,a 2012-2021

Cross-Reference in Chapter 7

Recommendation

Agency

Science

(Augmentation to) Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation

NSF

Broad; key opportunities in advanced instrumentation, especially adaptive optics and radio instrumentation

$5M/year additional

Page 236

(Augmentation to) Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants Program

NSF

Broad realization of science from observational, empirical, and theoretical investigations, including laboratory astrophysics

$8M/year additional

Page 236

(Augmentation to) Astrophysics Theory Program

NASA

Broad

$35M additional

Page 219

(Definition of) a future ultraviolet-optical space capability

NASA

Technology development benefiting a future ultraviolet telescope to study hot gas between galaxies, the interstellar medium, and exoplanets

$40M

Page 219

(Augmentation to) the Gemini international partnership

NSF

Increased U.S. share of Gemini; science opportunities include exoplanets, dark energy, and early-galaxy studies

$2M/year additional

Page 236

(Augmentation to) Intermediate Technology Development

NASA

Broad; targeted at advancing the readiness of technologies at technology readiness levels 3 to 5

$2M/year additional, increasing to $15M/year additional by 2021

Page 220

(Augmentation to) Laboratory Astrophysics

NASA

Basic nuclear, ionic, atomic, and molecular physics to support interpretation of data from JWST and future missions

$2M/year additional

Page 220

(U.S. contribution to JAXA-led) SPICA mission

NASA

Understanding the birth of galaxies, stars, and planets; cycling of matter through the interstellar medium

$150M

Page 218

(Augmentation to) the Suborbital Program

NASA

Broad, but including especially cosmic microwave background and particle astrophysics

$15M/year additional

Page 221

(Augmentation to) the Telescope System Instrument Program

NSF

Optical-infrared investments to leverage privately operated telescopes and provide competitive access to U.S. community

$2.5M/year additional

Page 236

Theory and Computation Networks

NASA NSF DOE

Broad; targeted at high-priority science through key projects

$5M/year NASA $2.5M/year NSF $2M/year DOE

Page 222

a

Recommended budgets are in FY2010 dollars and are committee-generated and based on available community input.



68


TABLE ES.2 Ground: Recommended Activities—Medium Scale

Recommendationb

Science

CCAT —Science early 2020s —University-led, 33% federal share

Submillimeter surveys enabling broad extragalactic, galactic, and outer-solar-system science

Technical Riskc Medium

Appraisal of Costs Through Constructiona (U.S. Federal Share, 2012-2021)

Appraisal of Annual Operations Costsd (U.S. Federal Share)

CrossReference in Chapter 7

$140M ($37M)

$11M ($7.5M)

Page 234

a The survey’s construction-cost appraisal for CCAT is based on the survey’s cost, risk, and technical readiness evaluation (i.e., the cost appraisal

and technical evaluation, or CATE, analysis) and project input, in FY2010 dollars. b The survey’s appraisal of the schedule to first science is based on CATE analysis and project input. c The risk scale used was low, medium low, medium, medium high, and high. d The survey’s appraisal of operations costs, in FY2010 dollars, is based on project input.

TABLE ES.3 Ground: Recommended Activities—Large Scale (Priority Order)

Technical Riskc

Appraisal of Costs Through Constructiona (U.S. Federal Share, 2012-2021)

Appraisal of Annual Operations Costsd (U.S. Federal Share)

CrossReference in Chapter 7

$42M ($28M)

Page 223

Recommendationb

Science

1. LSST —Science late 2010s —NSF/DOE

Dark energy, dark matter, time-variable phenomena, supernovae, Kuiper belt and near-Earth objects

Medium low

$465M ($421M)

2. Mid-Scale Innovations Program —Science mid-to-late 2010s

Broad science; peerreviewed program for projects that fall between the NSF MRI and MREFC limits

N/A

$93M to $200M

3. GSMT —Science mid-2020s —Immediate partner choice for ~25% federal share

Studies of the earliest galaxies and galactic evolution; detection and characterization of planetary systems

Medium to medium high

$1.1B to $1.4B ($257M to $350M)

$36M to $55M ($9M to $14M)

Page 228

4. ACTA —Science early 2020s —NSF/DOE; U.S. join European Cˇerenkov Telescope Array

Indirect detection of dark matter; particle acceleration and active galactic nucleus science

Medium low

$400M ($100M)

Unknown

Page 232

Page 225

a

The survey’s construction-cost appraisals for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT), and Atmospheric Cˇerenkov Telescope Array (ACTA) are based on the survey’s cost, risk, and technical readiness evaluation (i.e., the cost appraisal and technical evaluation, or CATE, analysis) and project input, in FY2010 dollars; cost appraisals for the Mid-Scale Innovations Program augmentation are committee-generated and based on available community input. For GSMT the cost appraisals are $1.1 billion for the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) and $1.4 billion for the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). Construction costs for GSMT could continue into the next decade, at levels of up to $95 million for the federal share. The share for the U.S. government is shown in parentheses when it is different from the total. b The survey’s appraisals of the schedule to first science are based on CATE analysis and project input. c The risk scale used was low, medium low, medium, medium high, and high. d The contractor had no independent basis for evaluating the operations cost estimates provided for any ground-based project. The survey’s appraisals for operations costs, in FY2010 dollars, were constructed by the survey committee on the basis of project input and the experience and expertise of its members. For GSMT the range in operations costs is based on estimates from GMT ($36 million) and TMT ($55 million). The share for the U.S. government is shown in parentheses when it is different from the total.



69


TABLE ES.4 Space: Recommended Activities—Medium-Scale (Priority Order) Recommendation

Science

Appraisal of Costsa


1. New Worlds Technology Development Program

Preparation for a planet-imaging mission beyond 2020, including precursor science activities

$100M to $200M

Page 215

2. Inflation Probe Technology Development Program

Cosmic microwave background (CMB)/inflation technology development and preparation for a possible mission beyond 2020

$60M to $200M

Page 217

a

The survey’s cost appraisals are in FY2010 dollars and are committee-generated and based on available community input.

TABLE ES.5 Space: Recommended Activities—Large-Scale (Priority Order) Appraisal of Costsa Recommendation

Launch Dateb

Science

Technical Riskc

Total (U.S. Share)

U.S. Share, 2012-2021


1. WFIRST —NASA/DOE collaboration

2020

Dark energy, exoplanets, and infrared survey-science

Medium low

$1.6B

$1.6B

Page 205

2. Augmentation to Explorer Program

Ongoing

Enable rapid response to science opportunities; augments current plan by 2 Medium-scale Explorer (MIDEX) missions, 2 Small Explorer (SMEX) missions, and 4 Missions of Opportunity (MoOs)

Low

$463M

$463M

Page 208

3. LISA —Requires ESA partnershipd

2025

Open low-frequency gravitational-wave window for detection of black-hole mergers and compact binaries and precision tests of general relativity

Mediume

$2.4B ($1.5B)

$852M

Page 209

4. IXO —Partnership with ESA and JAXAd

2020s

Black-hole accretion and neutronstar physics, matter/energy life cycles, and stellar astrophysics

Medium high

$5.0B ($3.1B)

$200M

Page 213

a The survey’s cost appraisals for Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), and International

X-ray Observatory (IXO) are based on the survey’s cost, risk, and technical readiness evaluation (i.e., the cost appraisal and technical evaluation, or CATE, analysis) and project input, in FY2010 dollars for phase A costs onward; cost appraisals for the Explorer augmentation and the medium elements of the space program are committee-generated, based on available community input. The share for the U.S. government is shown in parentheses when it is different from the total. The U.S. share is based on the United States assuming a 50 percent share of costs and includes an allowance for extra costs incurred as a result of partnering. b The survey’s appraisal of the schedule to launch is the earliest possible based on CATE analysis and project input. c The risk scale used was low, medium low, medium, medium high, and high. d Note that the LISA and IXO recommendations are linked—both are dependent on mission decisions by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). e Technical risk assessment of “medium” is contingent on a successful LISA Pathfinder mission.



70


5.7 Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics A Report of the BPA and SSB Ad Hoc Science Frontiers Panels; Program Prioritization Panels; and Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics

Report of the Panel on Cosmology and Fundamental Physics SUMMARY Astronomical observations have become a vital tool for studying fundamental physics, and advances in fundamental physics are now essential for addressing the key problems in astronomy and cosmology. The past 15 years have been a period of tremendous progress in cosmology and particle physics: • There is now a simple cosmological model that fits a host of astronomical data. Fifteen years ago, cosmologists considered a wide range of possible models; their best estimates of the Hubble constant differed by nearly a factor of two, and estimates of the mass density of the universe differed by as much as a factor of five. Today, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model is remarkably successful in explaining current observations, and the key cosmological parameters in this model have been measured by multiple techniques to better than 10 percent. • Measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), supplemented by observations of large-scale structure (LSS), suggest that the very early universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion that is likely to be attributable to a period of cosmological “inflation.” The inflationary model predicts that the universe is nearly flat and that the initial fluctuations were Gaussian, nearly scale-invariant, and adiabatic. Remarkably, all of these predictions have now been verified. • The astronomical evidence for the existence of dark matter has been improving for more than 60 years. Within the past decade, measurements of acoustic peaks in the CMB have confirmed the predictions of big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) that the dark matter must be nonbaryonic. Gravitational lensing measurements have directly mapped its large-scale distribution, and the combination of lensing and X-ray measurements has severely challenged many of the modified-gravity alternatives to dark matter. • Supernova data, along with other cosmological observations, imply that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. This surprising result suggests either a breakdown of general relativity on the scale of the observable universe or the existence of a novel form of “dark energy” that fills space, exerts repulsive gravity, and dominates the energy density of the cosmos. • The discovery that neutrinos oscillate between their electron, muon, and tau flavors as they travel, and hence that they have mass, provides evidence for new physics beyond the standard model of particle physics. The effects of oscillations were seen in the first experiment to measure solar neutrinos, and the interpretation was confirmed by measurements of atmospheric neutrinos produced by cosmic rays and by new solar neutrino experiments with flavor sensitivity. • In the past few years, a cutoff has been seen in the energy spectrum of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) consistent with that predicted to arise from interactions with the CMB. UHECRs have become a powerful tool for probing the active galactic nuclei (AGN), galaxy clusters, or radio sources responsible for accelerating such particles. Looking forward to the coming decade, scientists anticipate further advances that build on these results. The Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panel on Cosmology and Fundamental Physics was tasked to identify and articulate the scientific themes that will define the frontier in cosmology and fundamental physics (CFP) research in the 2010-2020 decade. The scope of this report encompasses cosmology and fundamental physics, including the early universe; the cosmic microwave background; linear probes of large-scale structure using galaxies, intergaNOTE: Summaries from each panel report are reprinted, without figures or tables, from the prepublication version of Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., which was released on August 30, 2010.



71


lactic gas, and gravitational lensing; the determination of cosmological parameters; dark matter; dark energy; tests of gravity; astronomical measurements of physical constants; and fundamental physics derived from astronomical messengers such as neutrinos, gamma rays, and ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. In response to its charge, the panel identified four central questions that are ripe for answering and one general area in which there is unusual discovery potential: • • • • •

How did the universe begin? Why is the universe accelerating? What is dark matter? What are the properties of neutrinos? Discovery Area: Gravitational wave astronomy. How Did the Universe Begin?

Did the universe undergo inflation, a rapid period of accelerating expansion within its first moments? If so, what drove this early acceleration, when exactly did it occur, and how did it end? When introduced in the early 1980s, the inflationary paradigm made a number of generic observational predictions: we live in a flat universe seeded by nearly scale-invariant, adiabatic, Gaussian scalar fluctuations. Over the past decade, cosmological observations have confirmed these predictions. Over the coming decade, it may be possible to detect the gravitational waves produced by inflation, and thereby infer the inflationary energy scale, through measurements of the polarization of the microwave background. It may also be possible to test the physics of inflation and distinguish among models by precisely measuring departures from the predictions of the simplest models. Why Is the Universe Accelerating? Is this acceleration the signature of the breakdown of general relativity on the largest scales, or is it due to dark energy? The current evidence for the acceleration of the universe rests primarily on measurements of the relationship between distance and redshift based on observations of supernovae, the CMB, and LSS. Improved distance measurements can test whether the distance-redshift relationship follows the form expected for vacuum energy or whether the dark energy evolves with redshift. Measurements of the growth rate of LSS provide an independent probe of the effects of dark energy. The combination of these measurements tests the validity of general relativity on large scales. The evidence for cosmic acceleration provides further motivation for improving tests of general relativity on laboratory, interplanetary, and cosmic scales, and for searching for variations in fundamental parameters. What Is Dark Matter? Astronomical observations imply that the dark matter is nonbaryonic. Particle theory suggests several viable dark matter candidates, including weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs)1 and axions. Over the coming

decade, the combination of accelerator experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), direct and indirect dark matter searches, and astrophysical probes are poised to test these and other leading candidates and may identify the particles that constitute dark matter. Successful detections would mark the dawn of dark matter astronomy: the use of measurements of dark matter particles or their annihilation products to probe the dynamics of the galaxy and the physics of structure formation. What are the Properties of Neutrinos? What are the masses of the neutrinos? What are their mixing angles and couplings to ordinary matter? Is the universe lepton number symmetric? Solar neutrino astronomy determined the Sun’s central temperature to 1 percent and provided the first evidence for neutrino oscillations. Neutrino events from Supernova 1987A confirmed scien1WIMPs

are hypothetical particles serving as one possible solution to the dark matter problem. These particles interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity, and possibly through other interactions no stronger than the weak force. Because they do not interact with electromagnetism, they cannot be seen directly, and because they do not interact with the strong nuclear force, they do not react strongly with atomic nuclei.



72


tists’ basic ideas about stellar core collapse and placed important new constraints on neutrino properties. Owing to rapid advances in neutrino-detection technologies, over the coming decade astronomers will be able to use neutrinos as precise probes of solar and supernova interiors and of ultra-high-energy cosmic accelerators. Cosmological measurements of structure growth offer the most sensitive probe of the neutrino mass scale, with the potential to reach the 0.05 eV lower limit already set by oscillation experiments. The next generation of neutrino detectors could detect the cosmic background of neutrinos produced over the history of star formation and collapse. Ultra-high-energy neutrino detectors will record the neutrino by-products of the interactions of UHECRs with CMB photons, the same interactions that degrade the energy of the charged particles and cause the high-energy cutoff. These experiments offer a unique probe of physics at and beyond the TeV scale. Improved measurements of light-element abundances might relieve the current tension between the predictions of BBN and observations, or they might amplify this tension and point the way to a revised model of neutrino physics or the early universe. Discovery Area: Gravitational Wave Astronomy With upcoming and prospective experiments about to open a new window on the universe, gravitational wave astronomy is an area of unusual discovery potential that may yield truly revolutionary results. Gravitational waves, on the verge of being detected, can be used both to study astrophysical objects of central importance to current astronomy and to perform precision tests of general relativity. The strongest known sources of gravitational waves involve extreme conditions— black holes and neutron stars (and especially the tight binary systems containing them), core-collapse supernovae, evolving cosmic strings, and early-universe fluctuations—and studies of these phenomena can advance the understanding of matter at high energy and density. General relativity predicts that gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light and produce a force pattern that is transverse and quadrupolar. Observations of black hole mergers with high signal-to-noise ratios will make possible extremely precise tests of many predictions of general relativity in the strong-field regime, such as whether black holes really exist and whether the warped space-time that surrounds them obeys the theorems developed by Hawking, Penrose, and others. And since merging black hole binaries act as “standard sirens,” there is a well-understood relationship between their waveform and their intrinsic luminosity. If their optical counterparts can be detected, they will enable a novel approach to absolute distance measurements of high-redshift objects. A worldwide network of terrestrial laser interferometric gravitational wave observatories is currently in operation, covering the 10-1000 Hz frequency range. This network may soon detect neutron star–black hole mergers and stellar mass black hole–black hole mergers. Operating in the much lower nanohertz (10-9 Hz) frequency range are pulsar timing arrays. The low-frequency range, between 10-5 and 10-1 Hz, is believed to be rich in gravitational wave sources of strong interest for astronomy, cosmology, and fundamental physics. This portion of the gravitational wave spectrum can only be accessed from space. Space-based detections can achieve much higher precision measurements of black hole mergers and thus much stronger tests of general relativity. Theoretical and Computational Activities Theory and observation are so closely intertwined in investigations of cosmology and fundamental physics that it is often difficult to define the border between them. Many of the ideas that are central to the next decade’s empirical investigations originated decades ago as theoretical speculations. Many of the tools now being used for these investigations grew out of theoretical studies that started long before the methods were technically feasible. Theory plays an important role in designing experiments, optimizing methods of signal extraction, and understanding and mitigating systematic errors. Theoretical advances often amplify the scientific return of a data set or experiment well beyond its initial design. More-speculative, exploratory theory may produce the breakthrough that leads to a natural explanation of observed phenomena or a prediction of extraordinary new phenomena. In all these areas, high-performance computing plays a critical and growing role. Robust development of a wide range of theoretical and computational activities is essential in order to reap the return from the large investments in observational facilities envisioned over the next decade.



73


Key Activities Identified by the Panel The panel identified the following key activities as essential to realizing the scientific opportunities within the decade 2010-2020 (the list is unranked): Inflation and Acceleration • Measure the amplitude of the initial scalar fluctuations across all observationally accessible scales through measurements of CMB E-mode polarization, the LSS of galaxies, weak lensing of galaxies and the CMB, and fluctuations in the intergalactic medium. • Search for ultra-long-wavelength gravitational waves through measurements of CMB B-mode polarization, achieving sensitivities to the tensor-scalar ratio at the level set by astronomical foregrounds. Detection of these gravitational waves would determine the energy scale of inflation. • Search for isocurvature modes, non-Gaussian initial conditions, and other deviations from the fluctuations predicted by the simplest inflationary models. • Measure the curvature of the universe to precision of 10–4, the limit set by horizon-scale fluctuations. • Determine the history of cosmic acceleration by measuring the distance-redshift relation and Hubble parameter to sub-percent accuracy over a wide range of redshifts. • Determine the history of structure growth by measuring the amplitude of matter clustering to sub-percent accuracy over a wide range of redshifts. • Improve measurements that test the constancy of various physical constants and the validity of general relativity. Dark Matter • Probe both spin-independent and spin-dependent dark matter scattering cross sections with searches that explore much of the parameter space of WIMP candidates, through both underground experiments and searches for dark matter annihilating to neutrinos. Although a review of laboratory dark matter detection methods is outside the scope of this panel’s charge, progress in this area (as well as progress at the LHC) is critical for determining the properties of dark matter. As noted in the NRC report entitled Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time,2 the proposed International Linear Collider may turn out to be an essential tool for studying dark matter. • Carry out indirect searches for dark matter that probe the annihilation cross sections of weakly interacting thermal relics. Identifying “smoking gun” signals is essential for detecting dark matter annihilation products above the astronomical backgrounds. Improve astrophysical constraints on the local dark matter density and structure on subgalactic scales to test the par• adigm of cold, collisionless, and stable dark matter and to look for evidence for alternative dark matter candidates. These astronomical observations, particularly of dwarf galaxies, help optimize dark matter search strategies and will be critical for determining the implications of dark matter signals for the particle properties of dark matter. Neutrinos • Develop the sensitivity to detect and study the ultra-high-energy (UHE) neutrinos that can be expected if the cosmic-ray energy cutoff is due to protons annihilating into neutrinos and other particles. The detection of UHE neutrino fluxes above those expected from the GZK mechanism would be the signature of new acceleration processes. • Measure the neutrino mass to a level of 0.05 eV, the lower limit implied by current neutrino mixing measurements, through its effects on the growth of structure. • Enable precision measurement of the multiflavor neutrino “light curves” from a galactic supernova. • Improve measurements of light-element abundances in combination with big bang nucleosynthesis theory to test neutrino properties and dark matter models. 2National

Research Council, Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time: Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.



74


Gravitational Waves • Detect gravitational waves from mergers of neutron stars and stellar mass black holes. • Detect gravitational waves from inspiral and mergers of supermassive black holes at cosmological distances. • Achieve high signal-to-noise ratio measurements of black hole mergers to test general relativity in the strongfield, highly dynamical regime. • Identify electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational wave sources. • Open a radically new window on the universe, with the potential to reveal new phenomena in stellar-scale astrophysics, early-universe physics, or other unanticipated areas. Theory • Advance theoretical work that provides the foundation for empirical approaches, through the development of methods, design of experiments, calculation of systematic effects, and statistical analysis. • Advance theoretical work that provides interpretation of empirical results in terms of underlying physical models. • Push the frontiers of exploratory theory, which can lead to breakthrough ideas needed to address the deep mysteries of cosmology and fundamental physics.

Report of the Panel on the Galactic Neighborhood SUMMARY The galactic neighborhood occupies a key role in our quest to understand the universe. Extending from the Milky Way and the Local Group out to redshifts z ≈ 0.1, the galactic neighborhood contains galaxies of all morphological types, metallicities, masses, histories, environments and star-formation rates. However, unlike galaxies seen at greater distances, those within the galactic neighborhood can be probed with parsec-scale resolution down to faint luminosities. The resulting sensitivity permits the dissection of galaxies into their individual components, reaching the scale of individual stars and gas clouds. Moreover, these constituents can be studied in their proper context and with full knowledge of their galactic environment, allowing one to connect the stars and gas to the larger structure within which each formed. Thus, only in the galactic neighborhood can galaxies be studied as the complex, interconnected systems that they truly are, governed by microphysical processes. Probing this complexity involves studying processes that connect galaxies to extended gaseous systems: the interstellar medium (ISM), circumgalactic medium (CGM), and intergalactic medium (IGM). The detailed observations possible in the galactic neighborhood also make it the critical laboratory for constraining the physics that governs the assembly and evolution of galaxies and their components across cosmic time. Indeed, almost every field of astrophysics—from the evolution of stars to the structure of dark matter halos, from the formation of supermassive black holes to the flows of gas in and out of galaxies—benefits from the detailed physical constraints that are possible to achieve only in the galactic neighborhood. Not surprisingly, these constraints have been woven into the modern theoretical framework for galaxy formation and evolution. To appreciate the impact of the galactic neighborhood, first consider studies of the universe on the largest scales. The interpretation of observations of the most distant galaxies is built on a foundation of knowledge established in the galactic neighborhood, including knowledge about the evolution of stellar populations, the existence of dark matter, the scaling relations of supermassive black holes, the effects of feedback from supernovae, the importance of accretion, the relationship between star formation and gas density, and the stellar initial mass function, among many others. Likewise, the evidence for dark energy from high-redshift supernovae was predicated on years of characterization of the properties of supernovae in nearby galaxies, along with more mundane constraints on the properties of dust extinction and exhaustive calibrations of the local distance scale. The impact of the galactic neighborhood has been equally significant on smaller scales. The galaxies of the Local Group offer millions of observationally accessible stars, assembled into systems with a common distance and foreground extinction. The resulting samples of stars, their ancestors, and their descendants (e.g., planetary



75


nebulae, supernova remnants, variable stars, transients, supernovae, molecular clouds, H II regions, X-ray binaries, etc.) can be analyzed with fewer uncertainties than in the Milky Way, where unknown distances and reddenings present challenging obstacles to assembling large samples. Moreover, such samples span a wide range of environment and metallicity, adding these new dimensions to the understanding of the physics of stellar evolution and the interstellar medium. The galactic neighborhood is also the only region where one can study the smallest scales of galaxy formation, revealing the presence of galaxies whose masses are scarcely more than a globular cluster. This fact is particularly important for assessing processes of feedback from star formation to the ISM, CGM, and IGM. In assessing the scientific potential of the galactic neighborhood over the coming decade, the Panel on the Galactic Neighborhood faced a difficult task, given that the galactic neighborhood is the arena within which the interaction of nearly all astrophysical systems can be witnessed. Thus, narrowing down the scientific potential to only four key questions involved both the exclusion of research areas and unavoidable overlap with the scientific realms covered by other Science Frontiers Panels participating in the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Astronomy and Astrophysics (Astro2010) Survey. This panel chose to focus its questions on areas in which the constraints from the galactic neighborhood are most powerful and unique. As a result, the four science questions developed by the panel exploit the use of the galactic neighborhood as a venue for studying interconnected astrophysical systems, for constraining complex physical processes, and for probing small scales. The key science questions are as follows: • What are the flows of matter and energy in the circumgalactic medium? This question concerns the understanding of the circumgalactic medium that is needed to understand the mass, energy, and chemical feedback cycle that appears to shape the growth of galaxies and the metal enrichment of the universe. In this report the panel identifies a program of detailed observations of the accretion and outflow processes in nearby galaxies that can inform the understanding of these processes at all epochs and mass scales. • What controls the mass-energy-chemical cycles within galaxies? This question explores the rich system of gas and stellar physics that shapes, and is shaped by, the interstellar medium. The panel outlines multiwavelength and theoretical studies of gas, dust, and magnetic fields within galaxies. Such studies can unravel the complexities of the gaseous ecosystem, with a level of detail critical to isolating the relevant physics but that cannot be obtained outside the galactic neighborhood. • What is the fossil record of galaxy assembly from first stars to present? This question focuses on probes of the fossil record of star formation, galaxy assembly, and the first stars. The panel identifies the value of surveys for resolved stars at high spatial resolution, with spectroscopic follow-up of stellar populations and metal-poor halo stars providing high-impact science unique to the galactic neighborhood. Furthermore, this fossil record promises to reveal the properties of galaxies at epochs where they cannot be seen directly. • What are the connections between dark and luminous matter? This question addresses the use of the galactic neighborhood as a laboratory of fundamental physics. The local universe offers the opportunity to isolate the nearest and smallest dark matter halos and to study astrophysically “dark” systems at high spatial resolution. The panel discusses the many observational and theoretical advances that could be expected as a result of these unique capabilities. The prospects for advances in the coming decade are especially exciting in these four areas, particularly if supported by a comprehensive program of theory and numerical calculation, together with laboratory astrophysical measurements or calculations. The sections that follow this Summary describe the unresolved scientific issues in more detail, highlighting specific observational and theoretical programs that offer significant opportunities for advancing scientific understanding. Also highlighted is the discovery potential of time-domain astronomy and astrometry for capitalizing on powerful new techniques and facilities that provide precise connections among stars, galaxies, and newly discovered transient events. Highlights of Top Activities Identified by the Panel To make significant progress in addressing the four science questions, the panel suggests a broad program of ground-based and space-based science, together with theoretical studies. In the highest overview, galactic neighborhood science uses the local universe as a laboratory for fundamental physics and astrophysics, galactic and dark matter structures, gas flows in and out of galaxies, and the fossil record of galaxy assembly. The astronomical goal is toward an understanding of how gas gets into galaxies, arranges itself to form stars, and returns to the galactic surroundings, reprocessed in the form of radiative, mechanical, and chemical “feedback.”



76


The science goals discussed in this panel’s report depend on the ability to trace the interconnected, multiphase nature of galaxies and their surroundings. This complexity naturally leads to a very broad range of desired observational and theoretical capabilities. Tables 2.1 through 2.4 at the end of this panel report summarize in some detail many of the possible capabilities that are mentioned in the sections following the Summary. The panel recommends powerful new ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray missions for spectroscopic studies of these gaseous structures, chemical abundances, and flows. Studying processes within the galaxies requires capability at longer wavelengths (infrared [IR], submillimeter, millimeter, radio) to probe the processes that transform accreted gas into stars. Measuring the fossil record requires the identification of large numbers of stars through photometric and kinematic surveys and the subsequent study of their chemical content. Studies of the star-formation histories through color-magnitude diagrams require both high spatial resolution on large optical/infrared (OIR) telescopes in space and high-resolution stellar spectroscopy on very large telescopes on Earth. Pursuing the connections between dark and luminous matter requires kinematic and abundance studies of dwarf galaxies and their stars, as well as of black holes that reside in many galactic nuclei, particularly in the Milky Way center. Progress in the areas of discovery potential identified by the panel can be made with new OIR and radio facilities that follow the transient universe and with powerful astrometric facilities.

Report of the Panel on Galaxies Across Cosmic Time I get wisdom day and night Turning darkness into light. —St. Paul Irish Codex, translated by Robin Flower SUMMARY The study of galaxies across cosmic time encompasses the main constituents of the universe across 90 percent of its history, from the formation and evolution of structures such as galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the “cosmic web” of intergalactic matter, to the stars, gas, dust, supermassive black holes, and dark matter of which they are composed. Matter accretes into galaxies, stars form and evolve, black holes grow, supernovae and active galactic nuclei expel matter and energy into the intergalactic medium (IGM), galaxies collide and merge—and what seemed a static world of island universes only a few decades ago turns out to be a lively dance of ever-changing elements. Across all epochs, these processes are coupled in a complicated evolutionary progression, from the relatively smooth, cold universe at high redshift (z > 40 or so) to the highly structured cosmos of galaxies and intergalactic matter today. The Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panel on Galaxies Across Cosmic Time began its deliberations by reading the extensive set of white papers submitted by the astronomical community to the National Research Council (NRC) at the request of the Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics. The panel reviewed the substantial advances in the understanding of galaxy and structure evolution that have occurred over the past decade or two. It then identified the four key questions and one discovery area that it believes will form the focus for research in the coming decade: • • • • •

How do cosmic structures form and evolve? How do baryons cycle in and out of galaxies, and what do they do while they are there? How do black holes grow, radiate, and influence their surroundings? What were the first objects to light up the universe and when did they do it? Unusual discovery potential: the epoch of reionization.

To maximize progress in addressing these issues, the panel considered the wide array of observational and theoretical programs made possible by current or future facilities. Observational programs were discussed in sufficient detail to allow an understanding of the requirements (numbers of objects, sensitivity, area, spatial resolution, energy resolution, etc.) so that this panel could provide the most useful input to the study’s Program Prioritization Panels (PPPs; see the Preface for further information on this process); however, any assessment of the suitability of existing or proposed facilities to the key science issues outlined here is left to the PPPs and the survey committee.



77


This report describes the scientific context for the area “galaxies across cosmic time,” and identifies the key science questions in this area for the next decade and a set of science programs—observational and theoretical—that will answer the most important questions in the field. Some of these programs would require new observational facilities, whereas others could be done with existing facilities, possibly with a reprogramming of resources. In order to provide more useful input to the Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010 (Astro2010) Survey, the top science programs selected by the panel for purposes of this report are identified in three categories: most important, very important, and important. The panel considered many other programs that were eventually excluded from its list but that remain valuable ways to make progress, and it anticipates that significant progress will also come from unexpected directions. This Summary addresses each of the four key questions in turn, listing only the programs ranked “most important,” plus those “very important” activities that represent unique capabilities. The full set of the panel’s top-ranked science programs is summarized in Table 2.1 at the end of this Summary and is presented with rankings and further details in the body of the report. How Do Cosmic Structures Form and Evolve? The answer starts with an understanding of the structure of dark matter halos on all of those scales. The nowstandard lambda cold dark matter—LCDM— cosmology provides a detailed foundation on which a theory of galaxy formation and evolution can be built and which in turn can be tested by data. LCDM does seem to be validated on the largest scales of the cosmic web and superclusters, but some of its predictions seem to deviate seriously from observations on smaller scales, from clusters of galaxies, down to galaxies themselves. Specifically, theory predicts that, even after small clumps of dark matter have merged to form ever-larger structures, many of the small clumps should survive intact, embedded within the merged halos. Yet observations appear to indicate that the dark matter in halos is much less “lumpy” than predicted by the straightforward calculations. Direct constraints on the dark matter distribution can be derived from observations of gravitational lenses, both weak and strong. The panel therefore concluded: • It is most important to obtain Hubble Space Telescope (HST)-like imaging to determine the morphologies, sizes, density profiles, and substructure of dark matter, on scales from galaxies to clusters, by means of weak and strong gravitational lensing, in lens samples at least an order-of-magnitude larger than currently available. HST can make an important start on this problem, but to develop large statistical samples will require a much larger field of view or more observing time than HST affords. The best current calculations of cluster formation suggest that gas in the densest regions should cool more than is observed, and that more stars should form in cluster cores, especially in the richest clusters. Perhaps the physical processes that affect baryons in clusters need to be better understood, or perhaps extra energy is injected from super novae, an active nucleus, or some other source. One critical missing piece of information concerns the dynamics of the hot intracluster gas: how turbulent is the gas, how does it flow through the cluster, what is its ionization and velocity structure, and how do these properties depend on cluster richness and cosmic epoch (redshift)? The panel concluded: • High-energy resolution, high-throughput X-ray spectroscopic studies of groups and clusters to z ~ 2 are most important for understanding the dynamics, ionization and temperature structure, and metallicity of the hot intracluster gas, as well as for studying the growth of structure and the evolution of the correlations among cluster properties. Much is still not known about how galaxies were assembled. The well-defined correlations observed among the shapes, sizes, velocity structures, and compositions of galaxies, observed mainly in the local universe, are poorly understood. A Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)-size spectroscopic survey at z ~ 1-3 would provide essential information about the evolution of galaxy correlations and should provide essential clues to the process of galaxy formation and evolution. The panel concluded: • It is very important to obtain moderate-resolution multi-slit spectroscopy of SDSS-size galaxy samples at z ~ 1-3, in the optical for z 1.5 (with resolution [R] ~ 5000 to allow



78


e ffective removal of night skylines in the near-IR). For a representative subset of hundreds of galaxies, high-angularresolution integral field unit (IFU) spectroscopy in the optical or near-IR would help calibrate the slit spectra. To select targets for spectroscopy requires optical/IR pre-imaging over a large area. How Do Baryons Cycle in and out of Galaxies and What Do They Do While They Are There? Along with galaxies, clusters, and dark matter, this diffuse baryonic gas is a key part of the cosmic web; indeed, it represents most of the baryonic mass in the universe. The metal enrichment of the gas indicates that a great deal of it was processed through stars in the past, yet little is understood about how galaxies acquire gas across cosmic time, convert it to stars, and eject it back into the IGM. To understand this process will require the kind of detailed study of galaxies in the young universe that was done for the local universe with large surveys such as the SDSS and the Two-degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey. To create a full evolutionary picture for galaxies, study of the following is needed: the star-formation rate, Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) activity, star-formation history, stellar mass, and stellar and gas-phase metallicity in galaxies at z ~ 1-3, when the cosmic star formation and black hole growth rates peaked. Quantifying the correlations of these properties with one another and with the larger-scale environment, astronomers can trace the evolution of galaxies and the baryons within them from the galaxies’ origins to the present day. These detailed galaxy properties are accessible through rest-frame optical spectra that have sufficient resolution to measure dynamical and stellar population parameters, sufficient continuum sensitivity to measure absorption lines, and sufficient emission-line sensitivity to measure low levels of star formation (see Figure 3.13 later in this report). The galaxy samples must be large enough to disentangle the covariances among galaxy properties such as luminosity, mass, age, morphology, and metallicity, over volumes large enough to sample representative galaxy environments. A wide-area survey would trace luminous galaxies, while a smaller-volume survey could probe deeper in order to study the fainter progenitors of typical galaxies today. To develop a complete view of galaxies in the peak epoch of galaxy formation, comparable to the understanding of galaxies in the local universe, the panel concluded: • It is most important to carry out an SDSS-size near-infrared spectroscopic survey of galaxies at 1

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

OECD Annual Report 2010: The Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers

Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2010

Haskell Language Report 2010

T2 fund 2010 annual letter

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume I

INDIA 2010 -A REFERENCE ANNUAL

Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review (Volume VII, 2010)

National Security Space Launch Report

Trade and Development Report 2010

Trends in International Migration: Annual Report 2004

2006 Annual Report on Operations Evaluation

World Report 2010 (Human Rights Watch World Report)

Intensive Care Medicine: Annual Update 2010

VLSI 2010 Annual Symposium: Selected papers

The Global Competitiveness Report 2009 - 2010

Planning the 2010 Census: Second Interim Report

Global tuberculosis control WHO Report 2010

Human Development Report 2010: 20th Anniversary Edition

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2005

Human Development Report 2010: 20th Anniversary Edition

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2007

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2004

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2006

Yearbook on Space Policy 2009 2010: Space for Society

Technology Issues for Financial Executives - 2007 Annual Report

Bulletin Board

Annual Review of Jazz Studies, Volume 14

Board Resolution

Bulletin Board

International Migration Outlook 2008: Annual Report (International Migration Outlook)

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

OECD Annual Report 2010: The Secretary-General’s Report to Ministers

Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises 2010

Haskell Language Report 2010

T2 fund 2010 annual letter

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume I

INDIA 2010 -A REFERENCE ANNUAL

Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review (Volume VII, 2010)

National Security Space Launch Report

Trade and Development Report 2010

Trends in International Migration: Annual Report 2004

2006 Annual Report on Operations Evaluation

World Report 2010 (Human Rights Watch World Report)

Intensive Care Medicine: Annual Update 2010

VLSI 2010 Annual Symposium: Selected papers

The Global Competitiveness Report 2009 - 2010

Planning the 2010 Census: Second Interim Report

Global tuberculosis control WHO Report 2010

Human Development Report 2010: 20th Anniversary Edition

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2005

Human Development Report 2010: 20th Anniversary Edition

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2007

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2004

Report of the International Narcotics Control Board 2006

Yearbook on Space Policy 2009 2010: Space for Society

Technology Issues for Financial Executives - 2007 Annual Report

Bulletin Board

Annual Review of Jazz Studies, Volume 14

Board Resolution

Bulletin Board

International Migration Outlook 2008: Annual Report (International Migration Outlook)

Recommend Documents