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

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1

8

22

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

4

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

5

Charter and Organization of the Board

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

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

6

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Total Individuals 206 110 22 175 513

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

7

Charter and Organization of the Board

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

10

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

11

Board and Standing Committees

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

12

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Board and Standing Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

14

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

"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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

15

Board and Standing Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

16

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

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

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

17

Board and Standing Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

18

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

19

Board and Standing Committees

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

21

Board and Standing Committees

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

24

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

25

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

26

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

27

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

28

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

29

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

30

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

31

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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-

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

32

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

33

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

34

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

35

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

36

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

37

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

38

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

39

Ad Hoc Study Committees

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

40

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

42

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

44

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

46

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.”

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

47

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

48

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

49

Summaries of Major Reports

• 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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

50

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

51

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

52

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

53

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

54

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

55

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

56

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

57

Summaries of Major Reports

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).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

58

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

59

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

60

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

61

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

62

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

63

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

64

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

• 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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

65

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

66

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

67

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

68

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

69

Summaries of Major Reports

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

Science

Appraisal of Costsa

Cross-Reference in Chapter 7

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

Cross-Reference in Chapter 7

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

70

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

71

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

72

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

73

Summaries of Major Reports

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

74

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

75

Summaries of Major Reports

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.”

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

76

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

77

Summaries of Major Reports

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, and in the near-infrared (IR) for z > 1.5 (with resolution [R] ~ 5000 to allow

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

78

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

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 < z < 3 using multi-object spectrographs. This will require near-infrared pre-imaging in the J, H, and K bands (at 1, 1.6, and 2 microns) to select targets for spectroscopy. Properly designed, the same large near-IR spectroscopic survey could serve the first key question as well. To probe baryons when they are in and around and between galaxies, one can use absorption spectra of background sources along lines of sight passing near galaxies. Such techniques probe both the gas distribution and its velocity field and will yield insights into gas accretion, outflows, chemical enrichment, and the overall cycle of matter between galaxies and the IGM. Theoretical simulations will be critical for connecting such one-dimensional probes to the three-dimensional gas distribution. At z < 1.5, the principal absorption lines of gas outflowing from galaxies and quasars are in the ultraviolet (UV). UV absorption-line spectroscopy also provides an alternative to X-rays in searching for the “missing baryons” thought to comprise a warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM). It may also be possible to image the WHIM directly using IFUs in the UV. The panel therefore concluded: • It is most important to use extremely large optical/infrared telescopes (ELOITs) to map metal- and hydrogenline absorption from circumgalactic and dense filamentary intergalactic gas, at moderate resolution toward background galaxies and at higher resolution toward background quasars. • A 4-meter-class UV-optimized space telescope, equipped with a high-resolution spectrograph and an IFU for spectral mapping, is very important for characterizing outflows from galaxies and AGN at z < 1.5 and for mapping the WHIM. A complete inventory of cold gas in and around galaxies is also crucial for understanding baryon cycling. ­ olecular gas traced by carbon monoxide (CO), neutral carbon atoms (C I), and higher-density probes provides M the raw material for star formation. Neutral atomic gas in the circumgalactic medium likely feeds the growth of galaxy mass. Direct observations of cold gas will make it possible to test theoretical models for complex gas physics and predictions for the evolution of gas content. For the construction of a seamless picture of how gas is processed

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

79

Summaries of Major Reports

into stars during the epoch 1 < z < 3, when roughly half of the stellar mass in the universe was formed, a complete inventory of cold gas in and around galaxies is needed. The panel therefore concluded: • It is most important to detect CO emission from a representative sample of typical star-forming galaxies from z ~ 1-3, to develop technology for faster spectroscopic follow-up in the (sub)millimeter, and to develop largecollecting-area facilities to study neutral hydrogen (H I) in emission at z ~ 1-3. Accurately characterizing star formation that is obscured by dust is critical for obtaining a complete view of baryon processing during the epoch of galaxy formation. Complementing z ~ 1-3 rest-frame optical spectroscopy with radio and submillimeter imaging, as well as far-IR spectroscopy of the dustiest systems, would provide a complete synthesis. The panel concluded: • It is very important to do sensitive radio and (sub)millimeter continuum mapping over large areas, preferably coincident with a near-IR (rest-frame optical) spectroscopic survey such as the one described above, and to carry out far-IR spectroscopy of luminous dusty galaxies. How Do Black Holes Grow, Radiate, and Influence Their Surroundings? Supermassive black holes (SMBHs), a prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, are ubiquitous within our galaxy and throughout the universe. Observations over the past decade suggest that they play an important role in the evolution of galaxies and clusters. It is still uncertain how and when these black holes form, grow, produce relativistic jets, and feed energy back into the environment. The strong correlation between black hole mass and galaxy mass hints at tightly coupled coevolution and possibly a strong regulatory effect of one on the other. In ­galaxy clusters, there is equally intriguing evidence that energy liberated by accreting black holes—carried by jets or winds—regulates the thermal evolution of the intracluster gas. Gas swirling into SMBHs in luminous AGN apparently forms a nearly Keplerian, thin accretion disk, much as predicted more than 30 years ago. X-rays reflected from the disk are imprinted with spectral signatures that encode the dynamical state of the gas and the relativistic curvature of space-time around the black hole. Coupled with sophisticated computer simulations, these signatures can be used to probe the physics of black holes and accretion disks directly and to determine the spin distribution function of the local SMBH population. The structure of AGN accretion disks and jets can also be explored through X-ray polarization measurements. To understand the details of accretion onto supermassive black holes, jet formation, and energy dissipation, the panel concluded: • It is most important to have sensitive X-ray spectroscopy of actively accreting black holes (AGN) to probe accretion disk and jet physics close to the black hole as well as to determine the spin distribution function of the local SMBH population. The effective area should be sufficient to detect the iron Ka emission line on dynamical timescales in a modest sample of the brightest AGN, yielding both spin and mass. In order to disentangle the ­effects of absorption in AGN spectra, high resolution (R > 2000) is required. The same capabilities will yield timeaveraged line profiles of more than a hundred AGN with sufficient signal-to-noise ratios to derive the black hole spin distribution. Most of the evidence for black hole feedback into the intracluster medium (ICM) is either morphological or based on low-spectral-resolution temperature measurements. But since such feedback is thought to occur primarily by way of the kinetic energy of jets and winds, kinematic measurements would provide a more direct test. Highthroughput, high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy will reveal bulk motions and turbulence in the ICM, allowing the AGN/ICM coupling to be explored. In order to seek evidence of black hole feedback, the panel concluded: • It is most important to measure turbulence and/or bulk flows using X-ray imaging spectroscopy of the ICM of nearby galaxy clusters and groups, with sufficient image quality, field of view, energy resolution, and signal to noise to provide ionization and velocity maps on the scale of the interaction between the AGN outflow (e.g., radio source) and the gas.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

80

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

A census of black holes across cosmic time is fundamentally important for understanding when and how black holes formed and grew and for assessing whether the energy liberated is adequate to the feedback task. ­Various multi­wavelength survey techniques have been effective at sampling large fractions of the SMBH population, ­although no one technique yields a full census. Hard X-rays are most directly connected to the energy-generation mechanism in AGN and penetrate all but the highest line-of-sight column densities; IR observations effectively capture radiation reprocessed by dust; optical narrow-line surveys find faint AGN, even when heavily obscured; and radio surveys are completely insensitive to obscuration and can readily detect jets. The panel concluded: • It is very important to do complementary multiwavelength surveys to track the growth of black holes across cosmic time. A hard X-ray all-sky survey for AGN is an essential complement to the deep pencil-beam surveys of active galaxies expected from the upcoming NuSTAR Explorer. Long-wavelength IR surveys capture the total energy output, and rest-frame optical spectroscopic surveys allow black hole mass determinations. The next decade offers the prospect of detecting gravitational radiation from merging SMBHs in the 105–107 MSun range out to z ~ 10. While the restricted mass range and the possibility of small-number statistics will prevent a detailed reconstruction of the SMBH merger tree, such observations can discriminate between smalland large-seed scenarios for early SMBH growth and determine the masses and spins of some objects. The panel concluded: • The search for gravitational radiation from merging supermassive black holes, at lower frequencies than are probed with the Laser Interferometer Gravity Observatory, is very important for an understanding of the buildup of supermassive black holes. What Were the First Objects to Light Up the Universe and When Did They Do It? —and Discovery Area: The Epoch of Reionization Concerning the first objects to light up the universe, when and where did these objects form? When did the first galaxies emerge and what were they like? How was the universe reionized? This very early phase of galaxy evolution occurred during the epoch of reionization, which the panel designates as its discovery area because of its great discovery potential. This epoch lies at the frontier of astronomy and astrophysics for the next decade. The first objects to light up the universe could be stars, black holes, galaxies, and/or something less obvious, such as dark matter annihilation. What these objects are and when and where they formed are almost completely unknown. They and subsequent generations provided enough light to reionize the universe by a redshift of z ~ 6, but the topology of the ionization is unconstrained at present. The expectations of astronomers are guided almost entirely by theory. The first stars should have been essentially metal-free and extremely massive (M > 100 MSun), with a radiation field that is very efficient at ionizing hydrogen and helium. For redshifts z < 11, key emission features will appear in the J band. While individual stars will be much too faint (AB ~ 38-40) to be detected directly with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) or an ELOIT, aggregates of stars may be visible in JWST deep fields, especially with the aid of gravitational lensing. Hypernovae and/or gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), which may be the first individual stellar objects to be observed, can be found through time-domain surveys. GRBs can be used as a probe of the high-redshift intergalactic medium provided that several dozen with z > 8 are detected; this would take several years for a facility with an order-of-magnitude-higher detection rate (which depends on the product of field of view and sensitivity) than is possible with the Swift satellite. To find and characterize the first-generation aggregates of stars, the panel concluded: • It is most important to use JWST to make deep surveys, followed up with near-IR spectroscopy on an ELOIT. • It is very important to develop a next-generation GRB observatory to search for the first explosions, with an order-of-magnitude-greater GRB detection rate than is possible with Swift, augmented by a rapid follow-up capability for infrared spectroscopy of faint objects. • It is very important to do time-domain surveys to identify the first stars from their supernova or hypernova explosions.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

81

Summaries of Major Reports

One of the most tantalizing probes of the epoch of reionization is the redshifted 21-cm HI line. Ionization pockets in the cold intergalactic gas are expected to cause fluctuations in the 21-cm brightness temperature. Existing experiments (e.g., the Low Frequency Array for radio astronomy [LOFAR], the Murchison Widefield Array [MWA]) may be able to detect these fluctuations to z ~ 10. Ultimately, with future large-area low-frequency radio arrays, it should be possible to map the entire history of reionization by means of an all-sky map of redshifted 21-cm emission. Absorption-line spectroscopy along sightlines toward the first stars, GRBs, or supernovae will allow the ­detection of the presence of metals and the ionization level throughout the epoch of reionization. Such observations require the collecting area and spectroscopic capability of an ELOIT. The panel concluded that to explore the discovery area of the epoch of reionization: • It is most important to develop new capabilities to observe redshifted 21-cm HI emission, building on the legacy of current projects and increasing sensitivity and spatial resolution to characterize the topology of the gas at reionization. • It is very important to do near-infrared absorption-line spectroscopy with JWST, ELOITs, and 10-meterclass telescopes to probe the conditions of the IGM during the epoch of reionization. Although this discussion has so far focused on the first objects, it is very important to find and identify objects residing in the later stages of the epoch of reionization, including radio-loud AGN, quasars, galaxies, supernovae, and GRBs. The panel concluded: • It is very important to do multiwavelength surveys to detect galaxies, quasars, and GRBs residing in the late stages of reionization at 6 < z < 8, including near-infrared surveys for galaxies and quasars, hard X-ray or gammaray monitoring for GRBs, and time-variability surveys for supernovae or hypernovae. Theory and Laboratory Astrophysics in the Next Decade Underlying all of astronomy and astrophysics is critical work in theory and other intellectual infrastructure, such as laboratory astrophysics. Theory is at the heart of astronomical inference, connecting observations to underlying physics within the context of a cohesive physical model. The past decade has seen great advances in theoretical aspects of galaxy formation and black hole astrophysics, particularly in the computational arena, which is driven by technological advances (much as with observations). To understand the universe better, to reap the full value of new observational capabilities as they become available, and to guide the next observations, the panel concludes that investments are needed in the following theoretical areas: • Cosmological context. Hydrodynamical simulations within a hierarchical structure-formation context, expand­ing the dynamic range to study detailed galaxy and cluster assembly within a representative volume. • Galactic flows and feedback. Central to galaxy assembly; requires understanding of the associated twophase interfaces and instabilities as gas moves through the inhomogeneous intergalactic medium and of how energy, ­momentum, and relativistic particles feed back into ambient gas. • Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) and plasma physics. Studies of how magnetic fields channel and transport energy over a large dynamic range, including developing a better understanding of magnetic reconnection, particle acceleration, and cosmic-ray transport. • Radiation processes. Coupling radiative transfer models to dynamical galaxy-formation simulations, and incorporating radiation hydrodynamics and nonthermal processes into models of jets and accretion disks. Summary of the Panel’s Conclusions The panel’s conclusions and top-rated science programs are summarized in Table 2.1.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

82

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

Report of the Panel on Planetary Systems and Star Formation SUMMARY Only one generation in the history of the human species is privileged to live during the time those great discoveries are first made; that generation is ours. —Carl Sagan There is an opportunity in the coming decade to make fundamental advances in understanding the origins of stars and planets, and to ascertain the frequency of potentially habitable worlds. These compelling scientific opportunities have far-reaching implications in areas ranging from cosmic evolution and galaxy formation to the origins of life. The paths by which star-forming clouds produce stars and planet-forming disks have become much clearer over the past decade, and a startling diversity of planets orbiting nearby stars has been discovered. We now stand on the verge of determining whether habitable worlds are common in the galaxy. Moreover, there exists the immediate possibility of identifying any such worlds circling nearby very cool stars and of characterizing their physical properties and atmospheres as the search for signs of habitation is carried out. Now is the time to take advantage of this progress to answer some of the key questions of our cosmic origins that have inspired scientists and fascinated the public. The Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panel on Planetary Systems and Star Formation was charged to consider science opportunities in the domain of planetary systems and star formation—including the perspectives of astrochemistry and exobiology—spanning studies of molecular clouds, protoplanetary and debris disks, and extrasolar planets, and the implications for such investigations that can be gained from ground-based studies of solar system bodies other than the Sun.3 The panel identifies four central questions that are ripe for answering and one area of unusual discovery potential, and it offers recommendations for implementing the technological advances that can speed us on our way. The questions and the area of unusual discovery potential are these: • • • • •

How do stars form? How do circumstellar disks evolve and form planetary systems? How diverse are planetary systems? Do habitable worlds exist around other stars, and can we identify the telltale signs of life on an exoplanet? Discovery area: Identification and characterization of a nearby habitable exoplanet How Do Stars Form?

The process of star formation spans enormous ranges of spatial scales and mass densities. The first stage involves the formation of dense structures that constitute only a small fraction of the volume and mass of a typical molecular cloud. Knowing how these dense regions form and evolve is vital to understanding the initiation of star formation, and it has implications for galactic and cosmic evolution. Yet the mechanisms controlling these processes are not well understood. To make further progress in characterizing the internal dynamical states of molecular clouds over a wide range of spatial scales and environments, the panel recommends the following: • Extensive dust and molecular-line emission surveys of massive giant molecular clouds spanning spatial scales from 100 to 0.1 pc at distances greater than 5 kpc, and • Complementary studies of the young stellar populations spawned in these regions, conducted by means of infrared surveys with spatial resolution at least 0.1 arcsec to reduce source confusion in clusters, with probing sufficiently faint to detect young brown dwarfs. In the next stage of star formation, the dense structures in molecular clouds fragment into self-gravitating “cores” that are the direct progenitors of stars. There is mounting evidence from nearby star-forming regions that 3The

Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010 Survey of which this panel report is a part does not address solar system exploration, which is the subject of a parallel decadal survey.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

83

Summaries of Major Reports

the distribution of core masses may be directly related to the resulting distribution of stellar masses, although some subsequent fragmentation likely produces binaries and very low mass objects. This may occur especially during the final stage of star formation through disk accretion. To explore this evolution and to improve core-mass spectra and characterize the core properties that may lead to subsequent fragmentation into stars, the panel recommends the following: • Deep surveys of cores down to sizes of 0.1 pc at millimeter and submillimeter wavelengths in diverse starforming environments out to distances of several kiloparsec (kpc), using both interferometers and large single-dish telescopes, far-infrared imaging and spectroscopy from spaceborne telescopes, and polarimetry to determine the role of magnetic fields. An essential test of the understanding of star formation requires a definitive answer to the question of whether the initial mass function (IMF)—that is, the relative frequency with which stars of a given mass form—is independent of environment. This is a topic of great importance to an understanding of the development of galaxies and the production of heavy elements over cosmic time (see the discussion in Chapter 2, “Report of the Panel on Galaxies Across Cosmic Time”) in this volume. Initial investigations of massive young clusters using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and other large instruments have suggested that the IMF may be “top-heavy” (with larger fractions of massive stars) in very dense regions, such as might prevail in starburst galaxies. To explore IMFs in more extreme environments, such as dense galactic regions and the nearest low-metallicity systems (the Magellanic Clouds), the panel recommends the following: • Near-infrared surveys with less than 0.1 arcsec resolution to limit source confusion in the galaxy and 0.01 arcsec resolution for the Magellanic Clouds. Major theoretical efforts will be necessary to develop a fundamental understanding of these new observations, including improved treatment of thermal physics for an understanding of fragmentation and the origin of the IMF, along with better models for the chemical evolution of collapsing protostellar cores. More realistic calculations of the effects of massive stars on their environments (most dramatically in supernova explosions) are also needed to contribute to an understanding of how this feedback limits star-formation efficiencies. To facilitate these advances in the theoretical understanding of star formation and to enable the interpretation of complex data sets, the panel recommends the following: • The development of improved algorithms, greater computational resources, and investments in laboratory astrophysics for the study of the evolution of dynamics, chemistry, and radiation simultaneously in time-dependent models of star-forming regions. How Do Circumstellar Disks Evolve and Form Planetary Systems? Circumstellar disks are the outcome of the collapse of rotating protostellar cores. Both central stars and planets are assembled from disks. Major advances were made over the past decade in characterizing evolutionary time­ scales of protoplanetary disks, but their masses and structure are much less certain. In the coming decade, improved ­angular resolution will routinely yield resolved images of disks, providing keys to their mass, physical and chemical structure, and mass and angular momentum transport mechanisms, crucial to the understanding of both star and planet formation. The superb new high-resolution, high-contrast imaging capabilities of the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and large optical/infrared ground-based telescopes with adaptive optics (AO) will revolutionize the present understanding of disks. Resolved submillimeter-wavelength measurements of dust emission will help constrain dust opacities and improve the understanding of disk masses and mass distributions. The direct detection of spiral density waves from gravitational instabilities would enable independent estimates of disk masses and establish their role in mass and angular momentum transport. Spiral waves and gaps can also be produced by forming planets; the latter may be directly detected within these gaps owing to their high luminosities during formation. Detections of forming planets would enable monumental advances in the understanding of planet formation. To achieve these goals, the panel recommends the following:

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

84

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

• Studies of protoplanetary disks in nearby star-forming regions at resolutions below 100 milliarcsec, with every effort to achieve 10 milliarcsec resolution, at millimeter, submillimeter, infrared, and optical wavelengths, in order to map disk structure on spatial scales of approximately 1-10 AU; • Searches for infant planets in disk gaps using JWST, extreme-AO near-infrared imaging on 8- to 10-m-class telescopes, and eventually extreme-AO imaging with 30-m-class telescopes. Improved imaging will also revolutionize the understanding of later-stage debris disks, illuminating planetary system architectures through the detection of structure in the debris formed by the collisions of numerous solid ­bodies undergoing dynamical evolution. To exploit these possibilities, the panel recommends the following: • Imaging debris disks in optical and near-infrared scattered light on 8-m-class telescopes and in thermal dust emission at submillimeter wavelengths with ALMA and other interferometric arrays in order to search for resonant structures, gaps, and other features caused by the gravitational perturbations of planets, allowing the inference of unseen bodies and constraining their masses. Similar dynamical instabilities also occurred early in the evolution of our own solar system, as indicated by resonant structures in the Kuiper Belt. To improve vastly the understanding of the evolution of our solar system as well as to provide an essential link to the understanding of extrasolar debris disk systems, the panel recommends the following: • Systematic, whole-sky, synoptic study to R magnitude ≥24 of Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs). The physics and chemistry of disks, particularly those in the protoplanetary phase, are extremely complex. To make progress in understanding these topics, the panel recommends the following: • Expanded theoretical efforts and simulations, with a detailed treatment of observational tracers to test t­ heories, for developing an understanding of mass transport within disks and the processes of coagulation and accre­ tion that lead to planet formation; and • Major new efforts in chemical modeling and laboratory astrophysics to contribute to the understanding of the chemistry underlying molecule formation in the wide-ranging conditions in disks. In particular, laboratory ­studies of molecular spectra in the poorly studied far-infrared and submillimeter-wavelength regions of the spectrum are urgently needed to allow understanding and interpretation of the vast new array of spectral lines that are being detected by the Herschel mission and will be found by ALMA. How Diverse Are Planetary Systems? The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in the knowledge of the population and properties of planets orbiting nearby stars. Many more than 300 such exoplanets are now known, along with direct estimates of the densities and atmospheric temperatures for several dozen of these worlds. What has been learned from these exoplanets— mostly gas and ice giants—makes it clear that planetary systems are far from uniform. Yet these results apply just to the 14 percent of stars with close-in giant planets detectable with current techniques. The actual frequency of planetary systems in the galaxy and the full extent of their diversity, especially for small, rocky worlds similar to Earth, await discovery in the coming decade. The recently commissioned Kepler mission is expected to yield the first estimate for the population of terrestrial exoplanets. However, the scientific return will be fully realized only if mass estimates can be obtained for a significant number of such planets. Therefore, the panel recommends the following: • Both a substantial expansion of the telescope time available to pursue radial-velocity work, and the development of advanced radial-velocity techniques with a target precision sufficient to detect an Earth-mass planet orbiting a Sun-like star at a distance of 1 AU. This investment in radial-velocity precision will also augment the understanding of more massive worlds ­located at distances of 1–10 AU from their stars, which is the region of giant planets in our own solar system. Another

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

85

Summaries of Major Reports

promising approach is the detection of microlensing, which does not require that data be gathered over a full orbital cycle and can thus relatively rapidly provide detailed statistics on the masses and orbital separations of planets in the outer as well as inner reaches of planetary systems. Thus the findings from Kepler combined with the results of a space-based microlensing survey will provide the essential statistics to test astronomers’ grand picture of how planetary systems form and whether the solar system is a commonplace occurrence or a cosmic rarity. Although the fundamental basis for understanding exoplanet ­diversity rests on measuring orbits and masses, and radii when possible, the chemistries, structures, and dynamics of exoplanet atmospheres can be explored with spectra. Therefore, the panel recommends the following: • Extension of the eclipsing techniques currently employed with HST and the Spitzer Space Telescope to JWST, and • Extreme-contrast-ratio imaging with both the extant ground-based observatories and the next generation of giant segmented-mirror telescopes (GSMTs) in order to image planets with dynamical mass estimates and to calibrate models predicting emission from planets as a function of mass and age. Do Habitable Worlds Exist Around Other Stars, and Can We Identify the Telltale Signs of Life on an Exoplanet? One of the deepest and most abiding questions of humanity is whether there exist inhabited worlds other than Earth. Discovering whether or not such a planet exists within the reach of Earth’s astronomical observatories will have ramifications that surpass simple astronomical inquiry to impact the foundations of many scholarly disciplines and irrevocably to alter our essential picture of Earth and humanity’s place in the universe. The goal of detecting life on other worlds poses daunting technological challenges. A Sun-like star would be 100 times larger, 300,000 times more massive, and 10 million to 10 billion times brighter than a terrestrial planet with an atmosphere worthy of studying. Although several techniques have been proposed to achieve detection of biomarkers, it is currently premature to decide the technique and scope of such a mission. Rather, the panel endorses the finding of the National Science Foundation-National Aeronautics and Space Administration-U.S. Department of Energy (NSF-NASA-DOE) Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (AAAC) Exoplanet Task Force4 that two key questions that will ultimately drive the technical design must first be addressed: 1. What is the rate of occurrence of Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars, and hence at what distance will the target sample lie? 2. What is the typical brightness of the analogs of the zodiacal light disks surrounding solar analogs; in particular, do a significant fraction of stars have dust disks that are so bright as to preclude the study of faint Earth-like planets? Kepler will address the first question, but the means to answer the second, perhaps through ground-based interferometry or space-based coronagraphy, has yet to be fully developed. Provided that Earth analogs are sufficiently common, the panel recommends the following as the preferred means to identify targets with appropriate masses: • A space-based astrometric survey of the closest 100 Sun-like stars with a precision sufficient to detect terrestrial planets in the habitable zones. The characterization effort lies beyond the coming decade, but it could be achieved in the decade following, provided that the frequency of Earth analogs is not too low. The panel recommends the following: • A strong program to develop the requisite technologies needed for characterization should be maintained over the coming decade.

4The full report, Worlds Beyond: A Strategy for the Detection and Characterization of Exoplanets, Report of the ExoPlanet Task Force Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C., May 22, 2008, is available at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac/exoplanet_task_force/reports/exoptf_final_report.pdf.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

86

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

Discovery Area: Identification and Characterization of a Nearby Habitable Exoplanet An exciting possibility in the coming decade is the detection of possibly habitable, large, rocky planets (superEarths) orbiting the abundant and nearby stars that are much less massive than the Sun (less than 0.3 solar masses). The panel deems this to be the single greatest area for unusual discovery potential in the coming decade, as it can be carried out with current methods provided that the necessary resources are made available. The low luminosities of these cool, low-mass stars in the solar neighborhood ensure that the conditions for liquid water on the surface of an orbiting planet occur at a small separation of planet and star. The small stellar size, low stellar mass, and small orbital separation for habitable conditions all conspire to facilitate the discovery of super-Earths by a combination of the two detection methods that have proven the most successful to date: stellar radial velocities and timing of obscuration due to planetary transits of host stars. These techniques, currently refined for the study of Sun-like stars, need to be adapted for cooler, low-mass stars. Therefore, the panel recommends the following: • Increasing the amount of observing time available for radial velocity studies, • Investing in precision radial-velocity techniques at longer wavelengths, and • Developing novel methods to calibrate the new, longer-wavelength spectrographs. A far-reaching outcome of this investment is that the atmospheres of transiting super-Earths would be amenable to spectroscopic study with JWST and a future GSMT, permitting a search for biomarkers in the coming decade. Thus, the panel recommends the following: • The closest 10,000 M-dwarfs should be surveyed for transiting super-Earths in their stellar habitable zones in time to ensure that the discoveries are in hand for JWST. The discovery of even a handful of such worlds would present an enormous scientific return, fundamentally alter our perspective on life in the universe, and offer a hint of what might be expected for the properties of terrestrial worlds around Sun-like stars. Summary of Requirements The conclusions of this panel report are summarized in Table 4.1.

Report of the Panel on Stars and Stellar Evolution SUMMARY The science frontier for stars and stellar evolution is as close as the Sun and as distant as exploding stars at redshift 8.3. It includes understanding processes of exquisite complexity that connect the rotation of stars with their magnetic fields and areas of nearly total ignorance about phenomena that have been imagined, but not yet been observed, such as accretion-induced collapse. Because astronomers understand stars well, they have the confidence to use them as cosmic probes to trace the history of cosmic expansion; but because this understanding is not complete, there is much to learn about the subtle interplay of convection, rotation, and magnetism or the not-so-subtle violent events that destroy stars or transform them into neutron stars or black holes. Although the topics of stars and their changes over time comprise great chunks of introductory astronomy textbooks and although the tools for these investigations are tested and sharp, many of the simplest assertions about the formation of white dwarfs, mass loss from giant stars, and the evolution of binary stars are based on conjecture and a slender foundation of facts. The future is promising. X-ray and radio observations allow astronomers to probe stars where strong ­gravity is at work. These settings stretch the understanding of fundamental physics beyond the range of laboratory investi­ gations into unknown areas of particle interactions at higher densities than those produced in any nucleus or ­terrestrial accelerator. By testing three-dimensional predictions against the evidence, more-powerful computers and

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

87

Summaries of Major Reports

programming advances put astronomers on the brink of understanding the violent events that make stars explode and collapse. Advances in laboratory astrophysics lead to a better understanding of the underlying nuclear, atomic, and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) processes. New technology for optical and infrared (IR) spectropolarimetry and for interferometry open up the possibility of seeing magnetic fields and resolving the disks of stars. When wellsampled imaging is coupled to powerful systems for processing vast quantities of data sampled over time, subtle features of stellar interiors can be inferred. Similarly, rare and rapid transients that have eluded surveys to date will surely be found, and may be connected with gravitational waves. These advances are certain to open up a new and unexplored world of investigation on timescales from seconds to decades. In this report, the Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panel on Stars and Stellar Evolution sketches the most fertile opportunities for the coming decade in the field of stars and stellar evolution. The panel is confident that it will prove a fruitful decade for this field of astronomy, with the resolution of today’s questions producing many new problems and possibilities. As requested by the Astro2010 committee, the panel formulated its report around four science questions and one outstanding discovery opportunity. The panel is under no illusion that this short list is complete: the field is so rich that there will surely be advances in areas not emphasized here. The panel does, however, have every reason to believe that these questions capture some of the most promising areas for advances in the coming decade. The four questions and discovery opportunity are as follows: 1. How do rotation and magnetic fields affect stars? 2. What are the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae and how do they explode? 3. How do the lives of massive stars end? 4. What controls the mass, radius, and spin of compact stellar remnants? 5. Unusual discovery potential: time-domain astronomy—in which the technology on the horizon is well matched to the many timescales of stellar phenomena. The subsections below summarize the main points. How Do Rotation and Magnetic Fields Affect Stars? There’s an old chestnut about a dozing theorist at the weekly colloquium who opens his eyes at the end of every talk and rouses himself to ask, to great approbation for his subliminal understanding, “Yes, all very interesting, but what about rotation and magnetic fields?” Astronomers are now in a position to address this question in a serious way. In the Sun, the effects are visible; in many other stars they are likely to be much more important. It is not sufficient to think of rotation and magnetism as perturbations on a one-dimensional star. These are fundamental physical phenomena that demand a threedimensional representation in stars. Astronomers are poised to learn how stars rotate at the surface and within and how that rotation affects mass loss and stellar evolution. They seek a better understanding of how magnetic fields are generated in stars across the mass spectrum and of how these fields power the chromospheres and coronas that produce observed magnetic activity. Finally, the origin of highly magnetized main sequence stars, in which surface fields approach 104 gauss, remains mysterious, and the investigation of these stars promises to shed light on the star-formation process that produced them as well as on the origin of even more highly magnetized compact objects. The prospects for progress on this question in the next decade stem from the emergence of greatly ­improved tools for measuring magnetic fields from polarization, for resolving the atmospheres of some stars with ­interferometry, for probing the interiors of stars through their vibration spectra, and for extending observations into X-rays and gamma rays. When combined with more thorough understanding of the static and dynamic properties of magnetic atmospheres, astronomers will learn how stellar atmospheres really work and how rotation and magnetism affect the evolution of stars. What Are the Progenitors of Type Ia Supernovae and How Do They Explode? Many lines of evidence converge on the idea that Type Ia supernovae are the thermonuclear explosions of white dwarfs in binary systems. Because of their high luminosity, and with effective empirical methods for determining

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

88

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

their distances from light curve shapes, Type Ia supernovae have acquired a central role not just in stellar astrophysics but in the tracing of the history of cosmic expansion and the revealing of the astonishing fact of cosmic acceleration. Because this result points to a profound vacuum in the understanding of gravitation, a problem right at the heart of modern physics, completing the astronomical story of Type Ia supernovae is a pressing priority for the coming decade. First of all, the provenance of the exploding white dwarfs seen in other galaxies is not known for certain. The prevailing picture is that the Type Ia explosions arise in binary systems in which the white dwarf accretes matter until it approaches the Chandrasekhar limit, simmers, and then erupts in a thermonuclear flame. But it is not known how this picture is affected by chemical composition or age, two essential ingredients in making a precise comparison of distant events with those nearby. Events that are precipitated by the merger of two white dwarfs are not excluded. The Type Ia supernovae in star-forming galaxies and in ellipticals are at present treated in the same way, but this is the result of small samples, not of evidence that they should be analyzed together. More broadly, these gaps in knowledge illuminate the need for a better understanding of the evolution of interacting binary stars, which are responsible for a variety of crucial, yet poorly understood, phenomena. It can be expected that both theory and improved samples will place this work on a firmer foundation. The complex, turbulent, unstable nuclear flame that rips through the star and incinerates its core is at the present time impossible to compute fully in three dimensions. But the prospects for achieving that goal in the coming decade are intriguing. Samples today amount to a few hundred objects at low redshift and similar numbers beyond redshift 0.5. Much larger and significantly more uniformly discovered samples are coming soon through targeted aspects of time-domain surveys. They will create a much tighter connection between chemistry, binary stellar populations, and supernova properties. Inferences on dark energy properties are at present limited by inadequate understanding of the intrinsic properties of Type Ia supernovae as distorted by interstellar dust. Observing in the rest-frame infrared will expand the basis for comparing observations with computations and provide more accurate measurements of dark energy. How Do the Lives of Massive Stars End? Ninety-five percent of stars will end their lives as white dwarfs. For the rest, stellar death is spectacular and dramatic: these massive stars can explode as supernovae, emit gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), and collapse to form neutron stars or black holes. The elements that they synthesize and eject become the stuff of other stars, planets, and life. The energy and matter that they produce are crucial for the evolution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Despite a basic understanding that gravity is the energy source for these events, a clear connection between the mass and metallicity of the star that collapses, the nature of the collapse and explosion, and the properties of the compact remnant remain mysterious. The rotation of the progenitor and its mass loss, areas of uncertainty highlighted in the panel’s first question, seem to be essential aspects of the link between core collapse supernovae and GRBs. Exploring these frontiers will require continued thoughtful analysis and full-blown first-principles calculations. The full range of outcomes for stellar deaths may not be well represented in current observational samples. Deeper, faster, wider surveys will surely detect rare or faint outcomes of stellar evolution that have not yet been seen. These could include pair-instability supernovae and other types of explosions that have only been imagined. The role of massive stars in the evolution of the universe is coming into view. The fossil evidence of massive stars is embedded in the atmospheric abundance patterns of our galaxy’s most metal-poor stars. The most distant object measured so far is a gamma-ray burst, presumably from a massive star, at redshift 8.3. In the coming decade, the direct observation of the first generation of stars, which are predicted to be exceptionally massive, will be within reach with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). Massive stars could be the source of gravitational wave signals, a neutrino flash, or nuclear gamma-ray lines. All of these novel messages from stars are within reach for very nearby cases, and could be exceptionally important in shaping the future understanding of the deaths of massive stars. What Controls the Mass, Radius, and Spin of Compact Stellar Remnants? Unanswered questions about the magnetic fields and rotation of stars carry through to similar questions about the exotic remnants that they leave behind as neutron stars and black holes. These are exceptional places in the universe where understanding of physics is extended beyond the reach of any laboratory. For example, the equation of state for nuclear matter sets the relation between mass and radius for neutron stars. Theoretical understanding of the forces at work is uncertain where the density exceeds that of the densest nuclei.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

89

Summaries of Major Reports

Prospects for measuring masses for radio pulsars and neutron star radii from X-ray techniques promise a glimpse into the strange world of quantum chromodynamics and the possibility of hyperons, deconfined quark matter, or Bose condensates. The spins of neutrons stars and black holes are rich areas for future work. It is known that millisecond pulsars are spinning much faster than when the neutron stars were formed, and it is understood how accretion in a binary system can make them accelerate, but the mechanism that limits how fast these neutron stars can whirl is not known. The answer is expected to come from new pulsar surveys that are less biased against detecting the fastest pulsars. Similarly, there are now plausible measurements which imply that black holes are spinning rapidly. It seems very likely that these black holes are telling us about the conditions in which they formed, during the collapse of a m ­ assive star—one of the key points in the panel’s third question. In the coming decade, X-ray spectroscopy should be a powerful technique for expanding the slender sample of spinning black holes, all identified in binaries. Most stars surely become white dwarfs, but present understanding of the white dwarf mass for a main sequence star of a given initial mass is seriously incomplete. How stars lose mass is not understood well enough to predict which stars will become white dwarfs. Important details of the white dwarf population remain unsolved and could lead to types of supernovae that have not yet been recognized. Large surveys will be powerful tools for finding these objects, making it possible to fill in these embarrassing gaps in understanding. Discovery Area: Time-Domain Astronomy For poets, stars are symbols of permanence. But astronomers know that this is not the whole story. Stars reveal important clues about their true nature by their rotation, pulsation, eclipses and distortions, mass loss, eruptions, and death. Across a wide range of timescales from seconds to years, stars are changing, and scientific knowledge has been obtained through narrow windows of time set by practical matters of telescope time, detector size, and the ability to sift the data. The panel foresees a rich flood of data from specialized survey instruments capable of exploring this new frontier in astronomy, across the electromagnetic spectrum. These instruments will provide new time-domain data, with the potential for major impact on stellar astronomy, ranging from the precise understanding of stars through seismological data and the periodicities that rotation produces, to the detection of rare transient events that have not yet been revealed in extant surveys. An example provides a glimpse of the excitement: wide, deep, and frequent surveys will be the way to find the electromagnetic counterparts of gravitational wave events. The broad problems of binary star evolution, about which so much is assumed and so little is known, can be sampled by such an undertaking, perhaps advancing the knowledge of the progenitors of thermonuclear supernovae from being a plausible story to becoming an established fact. The range of stellar phenomena that will be addressed with large, accessible, time-domain databases goes far beyond the four questions of the panel. Summary of Panel’s Conclusions The conclusions of this report are summarized in Table 5.1.

Report of the Panel on Electromagnetic Observations from Space SUMMARY NASA’s support of astrophysics research is an essential element in the world-class accomplishments of U.S. astronomers in their exploration of the cosmos. In addition, ������������������������������������������������������� as aptly expressed in the first finding of the congressionally requested study from the National Research Council (NRC) entitled An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions: “The mission-enabling activities in SMD [NASA’s Science Mission Directorate]—including support for scientific research and research infrastructure, advanced technology development, and scientific and technical workforce development—are fundamentally important to NASA and to the nation.”5 5National

Research Council, An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Earth and Space Science Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, p. 2.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

90

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

The Astro2010 Program Prioritization Panel on Electromagnetic Observations from Space reviewed current astrophysics activities supported primarily by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD)—specifically, those a­ ctivities requiring electromagnetic observations from space as distinct from observations of particles or gravitational waves. The charge of the panel was to study possible future activities and to recommend to the ­Astro2010 Survey Committee a scientifically compelling, balanced, affordable, and relatively low risk program for the 2011-2020 decade. Guided by the science opportunities identified in the reports of the decadal survey’s five Science Frontiers Panels (SFPs; Chapters 1 through 5 in this volume) and within the framework of current and in-process facilities and programs available to the astrophysics community, the panel formulated the program described below for electromagnetic space missions for the 2011-2020 decade. In the process of formulating this program, the panel reviewed nearly 100 written submissions from the astronomy and astrophysics community describing a broad range of potential facilities, required tools, and needed technology development, as well as thought-provoking manifestos on process and principles. The program recommended by the panel reflects its judgment that, in the 2011-2020 decade—with many scientifically compelling space missions to choose from but with a tightly constrained budget—the highest priority is for programs that will have a major impact on many of the most important scientific questions, engaging a broad segment of the research community. The panel’s recommended program is divided into large activities and moderate/small activities. The panel expresses emphatic support for a balanced program that includes both. The three large initiatives—the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST) Observatory mission, the International X-ray Observatory (IXO) mission, and an exoplanet mission—are presented in prioritized order. The four moderate/small activites are not prioritized. The panel’s recommended program calls for strong support of all four activities, although one, the Space Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics and the Background-Limited Infrared-Submillimeter Spectrograph (SPICA/BLISS)—has de facto priority because of its time-critical nature. The moderate/small initiatives are the SPICA/BLISS initiative, augmentation of NASA’s ­Explorer Program for astrophysics, technology development for a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) successor, and augmentation of NASA research and analysis (R&A) programs in technology development and suborbital science. The relative levels of support for these activities would depend on factors that cannot be forecast in detail, such as (1) the future funding level of NASA’s Astrophysics Division base budget and (2) science opportunities and cost-benefit trade-offs. In the final section of this report, (“Funding a Balanced Program”) the panel recommends funding levels across the program that address these issues for three different budget projections for the Astrophysics Division. Large Initiatives Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope The WFIRST Observatory is a 1.5-m telescope for near-infrared (IR) imaging and low-resolution spectroscopy. The panel adopted the spacecraft hardware of the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)/Omega mission as proposed to NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE), and substantially broadened the program for this facility. In addition to two dedicated core programs—cosmic acceleration and microlensing planet finding—WFIRST would make large-area surveys of distant galaxies and the Milky Way galaxy, study stellar populations in nearby galaxies, and offer a guest observer program advancing a broad range of astrophysical research topics. International X-ray Observatory The IXO mission, a proposed collaboration of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), will revolutionize X-ray astronomy with its large aperture and energyresolving imager. IXO will explore the role of feedback in galaxy evolution by connecting energetic processes within galaxies with the physical state and chemical composition of hot gas around and between galaxies and within galaxy clusters and groups. Time-resolved, high-resolution spectroscopy with IXO will probe the physics of neutron stars and black holes. IXO will measure the evolution of large-scale structure with a dynamic range and detail never before possible.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

91

Summaries of Major Reports

Exoplanet Mission One of the fastest-growing fields in astrophysics is the study of planets beyond our solar system. NASA’s current Kepler and this report’s recommended WFIRST mission will advance the knowedge of the demographics of other planetary systems, but further steps will have to be taken to investigate the properties of individual planets around nearby stars. A micro-arcsecond astrometry mission such as the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) Lite could detect nearby systems of planets and measure their masses. SIM Lite could even detectEarth-like planets which are particularly difficult to find and would be near enough to allow detailed study in more ambitious future spectroscopic missions. Alternatively, rapid advances in starlight-suppression techniques could enable a moderate-size facility that could image and characterize giant planets (and perhaps some smaller ones) and investigate the debris and dust disks that are stages in the planet-forming process. Discovering even smaller planets and studying their atmospheres with transit photometry and spectroscopy constitute another powerful, rapidly improving technique. The panel urges increased technology development for these techniques and recommends that one of these missions, or a yet-tobe-developed approach, be competitively selected around mid-decade and, if the budget permits, started before the end of the decade. Moderate/Small Initiatives Background-Limited Infrared-Submillimeter Spectrograph—U.S. Collaboration on the JAXA-ESA SPICA Mission The tremendous success of the Spitzer Space Telescope has spurred the development of a yet-more-powerful far-IR mission, the Japanese-led Space Infrared Telescope for Cosmology and Astrophysics. The U.S. community should join this project by making the crucial contribution of a high-sensitivity spectrograph covering far-IR to submillimeter wavelengths, capitalizing on U.S. expertise and experience in detectors and instruments of this kind. Joining SPICA is time-critical and needs to be a priority. Such participation would provide cost-effective access to this advanced facility for the U.S. research community. Because JAXA and ESA are currently moving ahead with SPICA, the panel recommends that NASA commit to participation and begin to fund this activity now. Augmenting the Explorer Program for Astrophysics NASA’s Explorer program is arguably the best value in the space astrophysics program. After years of reduced funding, increased support for astrophysics Explorers is essential to a balanced program of research and development (R&D). The panel recommends a substantial augmentation of funding dedicated to astrophysics Explorers with the goal of returning to a flight rate of one Explorer per year by the end of the decade. Technology Development for a Hubble Successor The imperative of understanding the history of the “missing baryons,” as well as the evolution of stars and galaxies, requires ultraviolet (UV) spectroscopic observations more sensitive, and at shorter wavelengths, than are possible with the new Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on the HST. Key advances could be made with a telescope no larger than Hubble, also equipped with high-efficiency UV and optical cameras with greater areal coverage than Hubble’s—key to a very broad range of studies. Achieving these same capabilities with a 4-m or larger aperture, in combination with an exoplanet mission capable of finding and characterizing Earth-like worlds, is a compelling vision that requires further technology development. The panel recommends a dedicated program of major investments in several essential technologies to prepare for what could be the top priority in astrophysics for the 2021-2030 decade. Augmenting Research and Analysis Programs in Technology Development and Suborbital Science The NASA R&A program supports diverse activities that are crucial to the astrophysics program. This includes research grants—in both observation and theory and for laboratory astrophysics, technology development, and the Suborbital program. The panel, recognizing that these are core activities that underlie the NASA astrophysics

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

92

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

program, recommends as urgent the augmentation of R&A funding that targets technology development and the Suborbital program. The panel calls for (1) a new initiative of focused technology development for projects that are likely to move ahead in the 2021-2030 decade, (2) a more aggressive program of technology development for missions in their conceptual phase, and (3) greater support for the most promising, possibly transformational, ideas that are not necessarily tied to a particular mission. The panel also recommends an augmentation of the Suborbital program, which also plays a critical role in developing and testing new technologies while providing a nearly spacelike environment for low-cost science and—crucially—the training of new instrumentalists.

Report of the Panel on Optical and Infrared Astronomy from the Ground SUMMARY The celebration of the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first use of an astronomical telescope provides a fitting context for planning new goals and directions for ground-based optical and infrared (OIR) astronomy in the 21st century. The revolutionary improvement over the unaided eye that Galileo’s telescope provided in angular resolution and sensitivity began a transformation and expansion of our knowledge of the universe that continues to this day. The OIR ground-based projects and activities recommended for the decade 2011-2020 are the next step that will open up unprecedented capabilities and opportunities ranging from discovery in our solar system and the realms of exoplanets and black holes to understanding of the earliest objects in the universe and the foundations of the cosmos itself. The vital science carried out by optical and infrared telescopes on Earth is at the core of the challenging astrophysics program laid out by the Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panels (SFPs). With the federal support recommended in this report for the construction of a Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT), the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), the development of ever-more-capable and technically advanced instrumentation, and renewed strategic stewardship of the nation’s suite of telescopes, the U.S. will maintain a leading role in the pursuit of science that probes to the farthest corners of the known universe. With the generation of extremely large and rich data sets, the system of telescopes and facilities envisioned will continue the transformation of astrophysical research. They will build on the success of programs identified by previous decadal surveys and lay the foundations for astronomical research far beyond 2020 by supporting the next generation of telescopes for which the astronomical community has been planning and preparing over the past two decades. This panel recommends new programs to optimize science opportunities across astronomy and astrophysics in ways that will support work at all scales: from the inspired individual to teams of hundreds of astronomers and billion-dollar projects. These recommendations combine to reinvigorate the U.S. system of OIR telescopes and facilities, heralding a new, expanded era of federal and nonfederal partnership for astronomical exploration.6 Astro2010 occurs at a time of great challenge and great opportunity for OIR astronomy in the United States, which has led the world for the past century. In addition to the technical and intellectual challenges of OIR research, Europe, through its European Southern Observatory, is achieving parity with the United States for telescopes with apertures greater than or equal to 6 m and is poised to take a leading position with its plans for a 42-m Extremely Large Telescope project. The opportunity is for U.S. OIR astronomy to marshal and coordinate its great resources and creativity and build on its successes and accomplishments to answer the fundamental questions posed by Astro2010. Large Projects The frontiers of astronomy and astrophysics have been advanced over the course of the 20th century, starting with the Mount Wilson 60-inch (1.5-m) telescope in 1908, by each decade’s suite of ever-more-capable OIR telescopes and instruments. Continuing into the 21st century, the science opportunities in the coming decade promise to be equally great as the OIR community stands ready to build the next generation of facilities. 6The

previous decadal survey—Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (AANM, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2001)— advocated a System perspective toward the sum of all U.S. OIR facilities in order to encourage collaborations between federally funded and independent observatories so that federal funds would be leveraged by private investment. The System today is an emerging network of public and private ground-based observatories with telescopes in the 2- to 10-m-aperture range.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

93

Summaries of Major Reports

A GSMT, with a collecting area exceeding 100 times that of the Hubble Space Telescope and with a 10-times better-angular resolution, will open up discovery space in remarkable new directions, probe dense environments within the Milky Way and in nearby galaxies, and, coupled with advanced adaptive optics (AO), will map planetary systems around nearby stars. A GSMT’s capabilities for astrometry will offer an unparalleled ability to probe the kinematics of galaxies, stars, and planets at the very highest angular resolution, offering sensitivities that are, in some cases, almost 10 magnitudes better than that achievable in space in the next decade. With a suite of spectroscopic and imaging instrumentation covering the optical and near-infrared (NIR) bands, GSMT will be crucial for detailed follow-up investigations of discoveries from existing and planned facilities, including the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA). The promise of the next decade lies also in the capability of building a telescope to conduct systematic, repeated surveys of the entire available sky to depths unobtainable before now. Combining repeated survey images will provide composite wide-field images extending more than 10-fold fainter. Readily available synoptic data will revolutionize investigations of transient phenomena, directly addressing the key discovery area of time-domain astronomy, as well as being invaluable in surveys of regular and irregular variable sources, both galactic and extragalactic. At the same time, the combined images will provide a multiwaveband, homogeneous, wide-field imaging data set of unparalleled sensitivity that can be used to address a wide range of high-impact scientific issues. As the 48-in. Schmidt Telescope was to the 200-in. Palomar Observatory, LSST will play a fundamental role in detecting the most fascinating astronomical targets for follow-up observations with GSMT. Having considered proposals from the research community for new large facilities, the panel’s conclusions with respect to large projects are as follows: • The science cases for a 25- to 30-m Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope and for the proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope are even stronger today than they were a decade ago. • Based on the relative overall scientific merits of GSMT and LSST, the panel ranks GSMT higher scientifically than LSST, given the sensitivity and resolution of GSMT. • Both GSMT and LSST are technologically ready to enter their construction phases in the first half of the 2011-2020 decade. • The LSST project is in an advanced state and ready for immediate entry into the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) line for the support of construction. In addition, the role of the Department of Energy (DOE) in the fabrication of the LSST camera system is well defined and ready for adoption. • LSST has complementary strengths in areal coverage and temporal sensitivity, with its own distinct dis­ covery potential. Indeed, GSMT is unlikely to achieve its full scientific potential without the synoptic surveys of LSST. Consequently, LSST plays a crucial role in the panel’s overall strategy. • GSMT is a versatile observatory that will push back today’s limits in imaging and spectroscopy to open up new possibilities for the most important scientific problems identified in the Astro2010 survey. This exceptionally broad and powerful ability over the whole range of astrophysical frontiers is the compelling argument for building GSMT. • Given the development schedules for GSMT and in order to ensure the best science return for the U.S. public investment, it is both vital and urgent that NSF identify one U.S. project for continued support to prepare for its entry into the MREFC process. Based on these conclusions, the panel recommends the following ordered priorities for the implementation of the major initiatives that form part of the research program on optical and infrared astronomy from the ground for the decade: 1. Given the panel’s top ranking of the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope based on its scientific merit, the panel recommends that the National Science Foundation establish a process to select which one of the two U.S.-led GSMT concepts it will continue to support in its preparation for entry as soon as practicable into the MREFC line. This selection process should be completed within 1 year from the release of this report. 2. The panel recommends that NSF and DOE commit as soon as possible but no later than 1 year from the release of this report, to supporting the construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. Because it will be several years before either GSMT project could reach the stage in the MREFC process that LSST occupies today,

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

94

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

the panel recommends that LSST should precede GSMT into the MREFC approval process. The LSST construction should start no later than 2014 in order to maintain the project’s momentum, capture existing expertise, and provide critical synergy with GSMT. 3. The panel recommends that NSF, following the completion of the necessary reviews, should commit to supporting the construction of its selected GSMT through the MREFC line at an equivalent of a 25 percent share of the total construction cost, thereby securing a significant public partnership role in one of the GSMT projects. 4. The panel recommends that in the longer term NSF should pursue the ultimate goal of a 50 percent public interest in GSMT capability, as articulated in the 2001 decadal survey (Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium). Reaching this goal will require (most likely in the decade 2021-2030) supporting one or both of the U.S.-led GSMT projects at a cost equivalent to an additional 25 percent GSMT interest for the federal government. The panel does not prescribe whether NSF’s long-term investment should be made through shared operations costs or through instrument development. Neither does the panel prescribe whether the additional investment should be made in the selected MREFC-supported GSMT in which a 25 percent partnership role is proposed already for the federal government. But the panel does recommend that, in the long run, additional support should be provided with the goal of attaining telescope access for the U.S. community corresponding to total public access to 50 percent of the equivalent of a GSMT. Medium Projects and Activities In assembling its prioritized program, the panel became convinced of the strategic importance of the entire national OIR enterprise, including all facilities—public and private. The panel crafted its program to maximize the scientific return for the entire U.S. astronomical community and to maintain a leading role for OIR astronomy on the global stage. • The panel recommends as its highest-priority medium activity a new medium-scale instrumentation program in NSF’s Astronomy division (AST) that supports projects with costs between those of standard grant funding and those for the MREFC. To foster a balanced set of resources for the astronomical community, this program should be open to proposals to build (1) instruments for existing telescopes and (2) new telescopes across all ground-based astronomical activities, including solar astronomy and radio astronomy. The program should be designed and executed within the context of and to maximize the achievement of science priorities of the ground-based OIR system. Proposals to the medium-scale instrumentation program should be peer-reviewed. OIR examples of activities that could be proposed for the program include massively multiplexed optical/NIR spectrographs, adaptive optics systems for existing telescopes, and solar initiatives following on from the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope. The panel recommends funding this program at a level of approximately $20 million annually. • As its second-highest-priority medium activity, the panel recommends enhancing the support of the OIR system of telescopes by (1) increasing the funds for the Telescope System Instrumentation Program (TSIP) and (2) adding support for the small-aperture telescopes into a combined effort that will advance the capabilities and science priorities of the U.S. ground-based OIR system. The OIR system includes telescopes with apertures of all sizes, whereas the TSIP was established to address the needs of large telescopes. The panel recommends an increase in the TSIP budget to approximately $8 million (FY2009) annually. Additional funding for small-aperture telescopes in support of the recommendations of the National Optical Astronomical Observatory (NOAO) R ­ enewing Small Telescopes for Astronomical Research (ReSTAR) committee (approximately $3 million per year) should augment the combined effort to a total of approximately $11 million (FY2009) to encompass all apertures. The combined effort will serve as a mechanism for coordinating the development of the OIR system. To be effective, the funding level and funding opportunities for this effort must be consistent from year to year. Although it is possible that the total combined resources could be administered as a single program, the implementation of such a program raises difficult issues, such as formulas for the value of resources or the need to rebuild infrastructure. The panel considers the administration of two separate programs under the umbrella of System Development to be a simpler alternative. The expanded TSIP and the midscale instrumentation program both provide opportunities to direct these instrumentation funds strategically toward optimizing and balancing the U.S. telescope system. • The U.S. system of OIR telescopes currently functions as a collection of federal and nonfederal telescope resources that would benefit from collaborative planning and management—for example, to avoid unnecessary instrument duplication between telescopes. The panel recommends that NSF ensures that a mechanism exists,

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

95

Summaries of Major Reports

o­ perating in close concert with the nonfederal observatories, for the management of the U.S. telescope system. The panel recommends that a high priority be given to renewing the System of ground-based OIR facilities, requiring a new strategic plan and a broadly accepted process for its implementation. Small Programs The panel concluded that initiating a tactical set of small targeted programs (each between $1 million and $3 million per year) would greatly benefit ground-based OIR science in the coming decade and would provide critical support for some of the medium and large programs. The panel recommends the programs in the following, unprioritized list: • An adaptive optics technology development program (AODP) at the $2 million to $3 million per year level. • An interferometry operations and development program at a level of approximately $3 million per year. • An integrated ground-based astronomy data archiving program starting at a level of approximately $2 million per year and ramping down to approximately $1 million per year. • A “strategic theory” program at the level of approximately $3 million per year. Recommendations for Adjustments to Continuing Activities The panel makes the following recommendations for continuing activities: • NSF should continue to support the National Solar Observatory (NSO) over the 2011-2020 decade to ensure that the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) becomes fully operational. ATST operations will require a ramp-up in NSO support to supplement savings that accrue from the planned closing of current solar facilities. • Funding for NOAO facilities should continue at approximately the FY2010 level. • The governance of the international Gemini Observatory should be restructured, in collaboration with all partners, to improve the responsiveness and accountability of the observatory to the goals and concerns of all its ­national user communities. As part of the restructuring negotiations, the United States should attempt to secure an additional fraction of the Gemini Observatory, including a proportional increase in the U.S. leadership role. The funding allocated for any augmentation in the U.S. share should be at most 10 percent of FY2010 U.S. Gemini spending. The United States should also seek improvements to the efficiency of Gemini operations. Efficiencies from streamlining Gemini operations, possibly achieved through a reforming of the national observatory to include NOAO and Gemini under a single operations team, should be applied to compensate for the loss of the United ­Kingdom from the Gemini partnership, thereby increasing the U.S. share. The United States should support the development of medium-scale, general-purpose Gemini instrumentation and upgrades at a steady level of about 10 percent of the U.S. share of operations costs. U.S. support for new large Gemini instruments (greater than approxi­mately $20 million) should be competed against proposals for other instruments in the recommended midscale instrumentation program—a program aimed at meeting the needs of the overall U.S. OIR system discussed elsewhere in this panel report. • The AST grants program (Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants [AAG]) should be increased above the rate of inflation by approximately $40 million over the decade to enable the community to utilize the scientific capabilities of the new projects and enhanced OIR system. • NSF/AST should work closely with the Office of Polar Programs to explore the potential for exploiting the unique characteristics of the promising Antarctic sites. The above program and the funding recommendations, presented in additional detail in the following sections of the panel’s report, represent a balanced program for U.S. OIR astronomy that is consistent with historical federal funding of astronomy and, more importantly, is poised to enable astronomers to answer the compelling science questions of the decade, as well as to open new windows of discovery. The proposed program involves an increased emphasis on partnerships, including NSF, DOE, NASA, U.S. federal institutions, state and private organizations, and international or foreign institutions. These partnerships not only are required by the scale of the new projects, which are beyond the capacity of any one institution or even one nation to undertake, but also are motivated by the key capabilities that each of the partners brings to ensuring a dynamic scientific program throughout the decade.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

96

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

The revolution in human understanding that began with Galileo’s telescope 400 years ago has not slowed down or lost its momentum—in fact it is accelerating—and the panel believes that it has identified the most promising areas for future investment by the United States in optical and infrared astronomy from the ground.

Report of the Panel on Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation SUMMARY The fertile scientific ground at the intersection of astrophysics, gravitation, and particle physics addresses some of the most fundamental questions in the physical sciences. For example, the unexplained acceleration of the expanding universe leads scientists to question their understanding of cosmology. There may be an as-yet-uncharacterized component to the mass-energy that drives the dynamics of the universe—a cosmological constant or a new type of field—called “dark energy.” Or, gravity may be described not by Einstein’s general theory of relativity but rather by a different theory altogether. Solving these puzzles will require new astrophysical observations. Another unsolved mystery is the origin of the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe, the first density fluctuations that grew into the structures seen today. There is evidence that these initial conditions were set down during the period of inflation in the very early universe. That leaves open the question: What caused inflation? Again, gravity may provide the clue. Measurements of the stochastic background of gravitational waves that formed at the same time as the initial density perturbations provide an important tool that might probe the inflationary period. Connecting physics and astronomy, the initial density perturbations set the stage for structure formation: How and when did the first structures form in the universe? Observations of gravitational waves from black hole mergers at high redshift will provide unique information about this era, complementing other probes. Another puzzle is that of the laws of nature in the environments that harbor the most extreme gravitational fields. Supermassive black holes inhabit the centers of galaxies, and they somehow, following the laws of gravity, generate tremendous outflows of energetic particles and radiation, twisting magnetic fields into concentrated pockets of magnetism. Scientists cannot help but strive to understand these extreme environments and to take advantage of them as laboratories to put gravitation theories to their most demanding tests. Gravitation is a unifying theme in nearly all of today’s most pressing astrophysics issues. Much of the ­precursor work of the past decade was motivated by the scientific imperative of understanding gravitation, and an intense period of technology development to build the necessary tools is reaching fruition and must now be exploited. Scientists now have ground-based laser interferometric detectors that are on a path to reaching the level of sensitivity at which the detection of gravitational waves is virtually assured. They have a plan and a design for a network of spacecraft that will measure long-wavelength gravitational waves where astrophysical sources are predicted to be the most abundant. They have developed high-precision techniques of pulsar observation that are a promising probe of the gravitational waves associated with inflation and with supermassive black holes. Recognizing these developments, the Panel on Particle Astrophysics and Gravitation presents a program of gravitational wave astrophysics that will bring the investments in technology to fruition. The panel recommends that the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) be given a new start immediately; that ground-based laser gravitational wave detectors continue their ongoing program of operation, upgrade, and further operation; and that the detection of gravitational waves through the timing of millisecond pulsars move forward. Complementing the use of gravitational waves as a beacon for astrophysics and fundamental physics, the panel recommends that the theoretical foundations of gravity themselves be put to stringent test, when such tests can be carried out in a cost-effective manner . These tests of gravitation will be provided by LISA’s observations of strong field astrophysical systems, by electromagnetic surveys to characterize dark energy (considered by other Astro2010 panels), by the precise monitoring of the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system, and by controlled tests of gravity theories done in the nearly noise-free environment of space. The time has arrived to explore the still-unknown regions of the universe with the new tool of gravitation. Understanding the nature of three-quarters of the universe is an important goal, but the other one-quarter, which is known to be some form of matter, must not be overlooked. Scientists have identified one-sixth of this matter: it is in the form of stars, galaxies, and gas that have been extensively studied for centuries. However, the nature of the other five-sixths is still a mystery. Evidence exists that the unknown part is not made up of familiar materials but rather must be a diffuse substance that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. The leading candidates for this

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

97

Summaries of Major Reports

so-called dark matter are new families of particles predicted by some theories of fundamental particle physics. There are three complementary approaches to attacking the dark matter problem: direct detection in the laboratory, indirect detection by way of astronomical observations, and searches for candidate particles in human-made high-energy particle accelerators. The panel’s recommendations concern only indirect detection by astrophysics, although all three approaches will be important in ultimately resolving this mystery. The indirect detection of dark matter involves searching not for the dark matter particles themselves, but rather for products of the annihilation or decay of dark matter particles. These may be gamma rays, cosmic rays, or ­neutrinos. The sources will be places in the cosmos where scientists believe that dark matter concentrates, such as in the gravitational potential wells of galaxies. Therefore, the panel recommends a program of gamma-ray and particle searches for dark matter. The field of high-energy and very high energy particle astrophysics has blossomed in the past decade with an explosion of results from spaceborne and ground-based gamma-ray telescopes and cosmic-ray detectors, and it is hoped that similar exciting results will come soon from neutrino telescopes. These instruments provide unique views of astronomical sources, exploring the extreme environments that give rise to particle acceleration near, for example, supermassive black holes and compact binary systems. The panel recommends continued involvement in high-energy particle astrophysics, with particular investment in new gamma-ray telescopes that will provide a much deeper and clearer view of the high-energy universe, as well as a better understanding of the astrophysical environment necessary to disentangle the dark matter signatures from natural backgrounds. The panel’s highest priority recommendation for ground-based instrumentation is significant U.S. involvement in a large international telescope array that will exploit the expertise gained in the past decade in atmospheric Cherenkov detection of gamma rays. Such a telescope array is expected to be an order-of-magnitude more sensitive than existing telescopes, and it would for the first time have the sensitivity to detect, in other galaxies, dark matter features predicted by plausible models. The panel also recommends a broad program for particle detectors to be flown above the atmosphere, making use of the cost-effective platforms provided by balloons and small satellites. In progress already are major developments in large ground-based detectors of neutrinos. These programs are an important component of dark matter and astrophysical particle characterization and should be continued, along with the research and development that will improve the sensitivity of neutrino detectors in the decades to come. The above recommendations are possible only because there is now available a suite of new instruments that have recently achieved technical readiness. In the program areas that the panel considered a significant component of the technology development has been done outside the United States. To maintain the nation’s ability to participate in research in astrophysics in the future, the panel recommends that the technology development programs of all three funding agencies relevant to particle astrophysics and gravitation be augmented. To enable missions to test gravitation theories and to carry out timely and cost-effective experiments in particle astrophysics, gravitation, and other areas of astrophysics, the panel recommends an augmentation in NASA’s Explorer program. It is expected that such missions will compete in a forum of peer review. To enable particle detection experiments, the panel recommends an augmentation in NASA’s balloon program to support ultra-long-duration ballooning. Finally, on an even more fundamental level, the panel recognizes that the ultimate goal of all of these activities is the advancement of knowledge, for which the culminating activities are the interpretation and dissemination of the results, and which in turn lead to new frameworks for subsequent exploration. Therefore, the panel supports a strong base program in all areas of astronomy and astrophysics. This base program must include theory as one of its components. The program in particle astrophysics and gravitation that this panel recommends includes missions, projects, and activities that will result in new tools for attacking many of the outstanding problems of astronomy and astrophysics, both in this decade and in the future. The recommended program will launch the new discipline of gravitational wave astrophysics. It will develop new detectors for cosmic rays, gamma rays, and neutrinos that, working in tandem with gravitational wave and longer wavelength electromagnetic detectors, will enable multi-messenger astrophysics. It will confront gravitation theories with new data, in the context of understanding the strong fields around black holes and the nature of dark energy on cosmological scales. It will seek to identify the elusive dark matter. It will elucidate the remarkable dynamics of black holes and their fields and outflows. All in the astronomy and astrophysics community look forward to the discoveries of the next decade.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

98

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

Report of the Panel on Radio, Millimeter, and Submillimeter Astronomy from the Ground SUMMARY Astronomy at radio, millimeter, and submillimeter (RMS) wavelengths is poised for a decade of discoveries. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) will be commissioned in 2013, enabling detailed studies of ­galaxies, star formation, and planet-forming disks, with spectral coverage from 0.3 to 3 mm, at a resolution approaching 4 milli-arcseconds at the shortest wavelengths. Soon, the Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA) will have an orderof-magnitude more continuum sensitivity than the original Very Large Array (VLA) has, and continuous spectral coverage from 0.6 to 30 cm. The Herschel Space Observatory, with coverage from 60 mm to 670 mm, is delivering catalogs of tens of thousands of new “submillimeter-bright” galaxies. The Green Bank Telescope (GBT) operates over a broad range of centimeter and millimeter frequencies and has the potential for vastly improved mapping speeds with heterodyne and large-format bolometric array cameras. With upgrades, the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) will improve astrometric distances critical to studies of star formation, galactic structure, and cosmology. It is possible that gravitational waves will be detected by timing arrays of pulsars, with the Arecibo Observatory playing a crucial role. The University Radio Observatories (UROs) will produce steady streams of excellent science, provide training grounds for graduate students, and remain at the cutting edge of science and technological development. The sizes of detector arrays at millimeter and submillimeter (smm) wavelengths and the computational capabilities of digital correlators are both experiencing exponential growth. The foundation for further advances in this field must be laid in this decade. The crucial scientific questions and themes identified today can be answered if the necessary steps are taken to lead to the instruments of tomorrow. RMS projects of modest cost will provide insights into the origins of the first sources of light that reionized the universe and led to the first galaxies. With truly large-format detector arrays on single-dish telescopes, large-scale surveys for galaxies forming stars intensely will inform the origin of the cosmic order observed today. An RMS project will provide insights into fundamental processes on the Sun and use the Sun as a laboratory for understanding the role of magnetic fields in astrophysical plasmas. Upgrades of modest cost to existing RMS facilities may allow the first discovery of gravitational waves and imaging of the event horizon around a black hole. The steps taken during this decade can lead to the next great advance in future decades, a telescope capable of studying the atomic gas flows that feed galaxies back in cosmic time and capable of studying the inner parts of circumstellar disks, where Earth-like planets may be forming. With continued robust support of studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), RMS science extends from the Sun to recombination and the physics of inflation. The Panel on Radio, Millimeter, and Submillimeter Astronomy from the Ground has identified key capabilities that are needed to answer the scientific questions posed by the five Astro2010 Science Frontiers Panels (SFPs). By comparing those key capabilities to existing capabilities, the panel identified three new projects for mid-scale funding that will provide critical capabilities. The panel further identified enhancements to existing or imminently available facilities that fulfill other requirements, and this report presents a balanced program with support for small facilities, technology development, laboratory astrophysics, theory, and algorithm development. Priorities and phasing are discussed in the panel report’s final section, “Recommendations.” Those recommendations are summarized here. Recommended New Facilities for Mid-Scale Funding The Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA) will provide unique insight into one of the last remaining unknown eras in the history of the universe. The panel recommends continued funding of the two pathfinders (collectively HERA-I) and a review mid-decade to decide whether to build HERA-II. The panel identified specific milestones to be met by HERA-I activities. If those are met, HERA-II is the panel’s top priority in this category of recommended new facilities for mid-scale funding. HERA-I requires about $5 million per year, as is currently spent, and HERA-II is estimated to cost $85 million. The Frequency-Agile Solar Radiotelescope (FASR) will scan the full solar disk conditions in the chromosphere and corona once a second, all day, every day. It is a vital complement to the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) and provides essential ground truth for studies of magnetic fields on other stars. The estimated construction

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

99

Summaries of Major Reports

cost for the FASR is $100 million, and operations will cost $4 million per year; the panel assumes an even split between the Astronomy Division (AST) in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the NSF Division of Atmospheric and Geophysical Science (AGS) for both the construction and operations costs. The CCAT (formerly Cornell-Caltech Atacama Telescope) will provide the capability for rapid surveys of the submillimeter sky, essential for the optimal exploitation of ALMA. The CCAT is a 25-m-diameter telescope located on a very high, dry site equipped with megapixel detector arrays; the CCAT will address many of the questions posed by the Science Frontiers Panels. The CCAT is estimated to cost $110 million, with $33 million coming from NSF. NSF’s share of operating expenses would be about $7.5 million per year, or a net increase of $5 million per year, assuming that the current funding for the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO) is recycled. The FASR and the CCAT have equal and very high priority in this category, but different phasing. Development of Current and Imminent Activities Studies of the CMB have delivered much of the most valuable information about the universe at large. The panel strongly recommends a continued robust program at the current funding levels of ground-based CMB studies with multiple approaches that are driven by individual investigators. An expansion of the Allen Telescope Array to 256 antennas (ATA-256) would significantly improve a­ stronomers’ ability to find and study transient sources and to detect gravitational waves by timing an array of pulsars. The ATA can test ideas needed for the development of next-generation telescopes such as the Square Kilometer Array (SKA). The estimated cost of construction for the expansion is about $44 million. The panel recommends that NSF explore collaboration with other agencies and private foundations for the enhancement of ATA-42. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) telescopes (and soon, ALMA) provide a broad range of scientific capabilities needed to answer many of the SFP questions, but all will need instrument development, especially the completion of frequency coverage, multibeam capability, and electronics improvements to enable much higher data rates. The panel recommends a sustained and substantial program to enhance the NRAO telescope and ALMA capabilities, amounting to $90 million for NRAO and $30 million for the U.S. share for ALMA over the decade. The Arecibo telescope is essential for science with pulsars, which test general relativity, constrain the neutron star equation of state, and may lead to the detection of gravitational waves. The telescope can also make the deepest maps of galactic and extragalactic neutral hydrogen currently possible. A future multi-pixel upgrade would dramatically speed up surveys at centimeter wavelengths. The panel recommends support of Arecibo, enhanced by $2 million per year over projected levels. The UROs provide cost-effective capabilities, testbeds for technology, and training grounds for young scientists. The panel recommends a modest enhancement ($2 million per year) in the budget for the current program, and it recommends that the FASR ($2 million per year, starting in 2015) and the CCAT (net $5 million per year, starting in about 2017) be operated under the URO program. Small Projects To achieve a balanced program, the panel recommends that a range of small and moderate projects be supported through a combination of funding from the Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI) program at NSF-AST and from NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program. Examples of such projects include an enhancement of the VLBI’s millimeter-wave capabilities to allow the imaging of the event horizon around a black hole and multifeed receivers for the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA). A program of technology development in a number of areas and a focused program of laboratory astrophysics are both vital needs. Support of theoretical work is crucial to realizing the investment in RMS facilities, as is a program of algorithm development. Both of these efforts will allow observations to confront theory, an essential aspect of moving science forward. The panel recommends enhancements to ATI of $1 million per year and a program of laboratory astrophysics at $2 million per year.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

100

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

Looking to the Future The SKA has a remarkable discovery potential, including studies of the epoch of reionization (SKA-low), determination of the gas content of galaxies at z of 1 to 2 (SKA-mid), and studies of the terrestrial planet zones of planet-forming disks (SKA-high). However, substantial technology development is needed to define an affordable instrument. Many of the areas that the panel recommends for technology development will be crucial for this effort. The HERA project provides a development pathway for SKA-low, and the North American Array (NAA) project (part of NRAO development) develops technology for the SKA-high. The panel recommends the continued development and exploration of options for realizing SKA-mid.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

101

Summaries of Major Reports

5.8  Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey A Report of the BPA and SSB Ad Hoc Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey

Executive Summary The 2010 Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey report, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (NWNH), outlines a scientifically exciting and programmatically integrated plan for both ground- and space-based astronomy and astrophysics in the 2012-2021 decade.1 However, late in the survey process, the b­ udgetary outlook shifted downward considerably from the guidance that NASA had provided to the decadal survey. And since August 2010—when NWNH was released—the projections of funds available for new NASA Astrophysics initiatives has decreased even further because of the recently reported delay in the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2015 and the associated additional costs of at least $1.4 billion. 2 These developments jeopardize the implementation of the carefully designed program of activities proposed in NWNH. In response to these circumstances, NASA has proposed that the United States consider a commitment to the European Space Agency (ESA) Euclid mission at a level of approximately 20 percent.3 This participation would be undertaken in addition to initiating the planning for the survey’s highest-ranked, space-based, large-scale mission, the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST). The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) requested that the National Research Council (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 NWNH. The panel also investigated what impact such participation might have on the prospects for the timely realization of the WFIRST mission and other activities recommended by NWNH in view of the projected budgetary situation.4 The Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey convened its workshop on November 7, 2010, and heard presentations from NASA, ESA, OSTP, the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and members of the domestic and foreign astronomy and astrophysics communities. Workshop presentations identified several tradeoffs among options: funding goals less likely versus more likely to be achieved in a time of restricted budgets; narrower versus broader scientific goals; and U.S.-only versus U.S.-ESA collaboration. The panel captured these tradeoffs in considering four primary options.5 Option A: Launch of WFIRST in the Decade 2012-2021 The panel reaffirms the centrality to the overall integrated plan articulated in NWNH of embarking in this decade on the scientifically compelling WFIRST mission. If WFIRST development and launch are significantly delayed beyond what was assumed by NWNH, one of the key considerations that led to this relative ranking is no longer valid. However, until there is greater clarity on how and when WFIRST can be implemented, it is difficult to determine whether the relative priorities of NWNH should be reconsidered. These issues may well require consideration by the decadal survey implementation advisory committee (DSIAC) recommended in NWNH.6 NOTE: The “Executive Summary” is reprinted from the prepublication version of Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 1-2, released on December 10, 2010. 1National Research Council, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010. 2J. Casani, et al., “James Webb Space Telescope Independent Comprehensive Review Panel: Final Report,” October 29, 2010 (publicly released on November 10, 2010). 3At the November 7, 2010, workshop NASA said that the current participation level on Euclid is planned at 20 percent of the estimated mission development cost (see Appendix B for more information). 4The panel’s statement of task is given in this report’s Preface. Information on the workshop is provided in Appendixes A and B. 5The four options are not ranked in any particular order. 6In NWNH, the recommended DSIAC was charged to “monitor progress toward reaching the goals recommended in [NWNH], and to provide strategic advice to the agencies over the decade of implementation” (p. 1-5).

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

102

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

Option B: A Joint WFIRST/Euclid Mission If the budget constraints that have emerged since delivery of the NWNH report are not adequately addressed and a timely WFIRST as originally conceived is not possible (see Option A), one option to accomplish WFIRST’s goals would be a single, international mission, combining WFIRST and ESA’s Euclid. Either a U.S.-led mission or an ESA-led mission could be consistent with the NWNH report, contingent on whether or not the United States plays “a leading role” and “so long as the committee’s recommended science program is preserved and overall cost savings result” (p. 1-6). Therefore, it would be advantageous for NASA, in collaboration with ESA, to study whether such a joint mission is feasible. Waiting to decide on a significant financial commitment to such a partnership, whatever its form, would allow time for such studies and for the DSIAC to be established and provide guidance on this issue. Option C: Commitment by NASA of 20 percent Investment in Euclid prior to the M-class decision A 20 percent investment in Euclid as currently envisioned and as presented by NASA is not consistent with the program, strategy, and intent of the decadal survey. NWNH stated the following if the survey’s budget assumption cannot be realized: “In the event that insufficient funds are available to carry out the recommended program, the first priority is to develop, launch, and operate WFIRST, and to implement the Explorer program and core research program recommended augmentations” (p. 7-40). A 20 percent plan would deplete resources for the timely execution of the broader range of NWNH space-based recommendations and would significantly delay implementing the Explorer augmentation, as well as augmentations to the core activities that were elements in the survey’s recommended first tier of activities in a less optimistic budget scenario. A 20 percent contribution would also be a nonnegligible fraction of the resources needed for other NWNH priorities. Option D: No U.S. Financing of an Infrared Survey Mission This Decade If neither options A nor B are viable due to budget constraints (or if option A is not viable and option B is not possible due to programmatic difficulties), and option C is rejected, the panel concluded that to be consistent with the overall plan in NWNH, any existing budget wedge could go to other NWNH priorities: the next-ranked large recommendation (augmentation of the Explorer program), technology development for future missions, and the highpriority medium and small recommended activities, possibly with the omission of WFIRST. Although an extremely unfortunate outcome with severely negative consequences for the exciting science program advanced by NWNH, this option seems consistent with NWNH, which did not prioritize between its large, medium, and small recommended activities. However, such a major change of plan should first be reviewed by the recommended DSIAC. Providing strategic advice under current conditions is extremely challenging. The question of whether today’s changing conditions fundamentally alter the long-term approach of the decadal survey might understandably be asked. However, the panel emphasizes that the 2010 decadal survey provided integrated advice that was explicitly designed to be robust for the entire decade. The survey anticipated that fiscal and scientific conditions would change. NASA’s rapidly changing budgetary landscape highlights the urgency of establishing a mechanism such as the DSIAC to ensure that appropriate community advice is available to the government. The NWNH recommendations remain scientifically compelling, and this panel believes that the decadal survey process remains the most effective way to provide community consensus to the federal government to assist in its priority setting for U.S. astronomy and astrophysics.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

103

Summaries of Major Reports

5.9  Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce A Report of the SSB Ad Hoc Committee on NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities

Executive Summary In the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (Section 505), the Space Studies Board (SSB) was asked by NASA to conduct a review of the suborbital mission capabilities of NASA. The act expresses the sense of Congress that suborbital flight activities, including the use of sounding rockets, aircraft, and high-altitude balloons, and suborbital reusable launch vehicles, offer valuable opportunities to advance science, train the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provide opportunities for participants in the programs to acquire skills in systems engineering and systems integration that are critical to maintaining the nation’s leadership in space programs. Further, the act finds it in the national interest to expand the size of NASA’s suborbital research program and to consider it for increased funding. STATEMENT OF TASK The Space Studies Board established the ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities to assess the current state and potential of NASA’s suborbital research programs and conduct a review of NASA’s capabilities in this area. The scope of the requested review included: • Existing programs that make use of suborbital flights; • The status, capability, and availability of suborbital platforms and the infrastructure and workforce necessary to support them; • Existing or planned launch facilities for suborbital missions; and • Opportunities for scientific research, training, and educational collaboration in the conduct of suborbital missions by NASA, especially as they relate to the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council’s decadal surveys and recent report Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration (NRC, 2007). The committee was asked to consider airborne platforms broadly and to include the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, although it is not part of the suborbital program per se. RECOMMENDATIONS Through review of reports and technical documents and the distillation of presentations to the committee by NASA staff, research scientists, educators, and outreach specialists, the committee found that suborbital program elements—airborne, balloon, and sounding rockets—play vital and necessary strategic roles in NASA’s research, innovation, education, employee development, and spaceflight mission success, thus providing the foundation for achievement of agency goals. The suborbital program elements enable important discovery science, rapid response to unexpected, episodic phenomena, and a range of specialized capabilities that enable a wide variety of cuttingedge research in areas such as Earth observations, climate, astrophysics, and solar-terrestrial observations, as well as calibration and validation of satellite mission instruments and data. In Earth sciences, in particular, the suborbital program (especially through use of its airborne and balloon capabilities) has enabled studies of chemical and physical processes occurring in the atmosphere, oceans, and land (and at their interfaces) having important socioeconomic and political implications. Knowledge of greenhouse gas forcing and the associated feedbacks within the climate

NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 1-3.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

104

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

systems has been significantly advanced by an ability to conduct specific and accurate studies with high spatial and temporal resolution (often referred to as process-scale investigations). Arctic sea ice loss, changes in Earth’s albedo, trace gas emissions from various ocean and land ecosystems, the interplay between changes in atmospheric composition (including stratospheric ozone loss) and atmospheric radiative forcing (i.e., climate change), and changes in severe storms and in atmospheric dynamics are but a few areas of investigation significantly impacted by suborbital capabilities. The suborbital program elements provide essential technical innovation and risk mitigations that benefit spaceflight missions through development and demonstration of technology and instruments that later fly on NASA spacecraft. The suborbital elements provide effective, hands-on, engineering and management experience that transfers readily to NASA spaceflight projects. These frequent opportunities, which provide for cradle-to-grave hands-on mission experiences and training for students, researchers, principal investigators, project managers, and engineers, are vital to future space endeavors. The committee decided not to include documentation of the evolution of the funding of the suborbital program because changes over time in NASA’s complex accounting procedures make it extremely difficult to obtain meaningful trends. Nonetheless, as currently implemented by NASA, suborbital elements and facilities are insufficiently funded and hence not fully or effectively used. There is inadequate support for payload construction and for the development of key technologies, such as detectors, lightweight optics, and so on. The suborbital elements are dependent on reimbursable funding; inadequate research and analysis funding has led to such a decrease in the number of flights that the program is jeopardized. The following provides the committee’s integrated recommendations that cut across all suborbital elements. Chapter 8 provides a detailed listing of the overarching findings and recommendations, with additional details provided in Chapters 2 through 7. Recommendation 1: NASA should undertake the restoration of the suborbital program as a foundation for meeting its mission responsibilities, workforce requirements, instrumentation development needs, and anticipated capability requirements. To do so, NASA should reorder its priorities to increase funding for suborbital programs. Recommendation 2: NASA should assign a program lead to the staff of the associate administrator for the ­Science Mission Directorate to coordinate the suborbital program. This lead would be responsible for the devel­op­ment of short- and long-term strategic plans for maintaining, renewing, and extending sub­ orbital facilities and capabilities. Further, the lead would monitor progress toward strategic objectives and advocate for enhanced suborbital activities, workforce development, and integration of suborbital activities within NASA. Recommendation 3: To increase the number of space scientists, engineers, and system engineers with hands-on training, NASA should use the suborbital program elements as an integral part of on-the-job training and career development for engineers, experimental scientists, systems engineers, and project managers. Recommendation 4: NASA should make essential investments in stabilizing and advancing the capabilities in each of the suborbital program elements, including the development of ultralong-duration super-pressure balloons with the capability to carry 2 to 3 tons of payload to 130,000 feet, the execution of a thorough conceptual study of a short-duration orbital capability for sounding rockets, and modernization of the core sub­orbital airborne fleet. (The committee notes that it was not asked to prioritize the different elements of the suborbital program, but such a prioritization should be an integral part of implementing this recommendation.) Recommendation 5: NASA should continue to monitor commercial suborbital space developments. Given that the commercial developers stated to the committee that they do not need NASA funding to meet their business objectives, this entrepreneurial approach offers the potential for a range of opportunities for lowcost quick access to space that may benefit NASA as well as other federal agencies.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

6 Congressional Testimony

Members of Space Studies Board committees may be invited to testify before committees of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate about the findings and recommendations of their reports. During 2010, two hearings were held where members of the SSB family testified to Congress. Links to their prepared statements are provided below. A. Thomas Young, vice chair of the Space Studies Board testified on February 24 at a hearing entitled “­Challenges and Opportunities in the NASA FY 2011 Budget Proposal” before the Science and Space Sub­ committee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Also testifying at the Senate hearing were Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, NASA; Robert “Hoot” Gibson, Astronaut (retired); Michael J. Snyder, aerospace engineer; and Miles O’Brien, journalist and host of This Week in Space. Testimony and prepared statements are available at http://commerce.senate.gov/. Mr. Young also testified on March 24 at a hearing entitled “Proposed Changes to NASA’s Exploration Program: What’s Known, What’s Not, and What are the Issues for Congress?” before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science and Technology. Also testifying at the House hearing was Douglas Cooke, associate administrator, NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. Testimony and prepared statements are available at http://science.house.gov/.

105

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

7 Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports: 1958–2010

The following list presents the reports of the Space Science (later Space Studies) Board (SSB) and its com­ mittees by year of publication (which may differ from the report’s release date). The Board’s major reports have been published by the National Academy Press (as of mid-2002 the National Academies Press) since 1981; prior to this, publication of major reports was carried out by the National Academy of Sciences. Several of the SSB’s reports are written in conjunction with other National Research Council Boards, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB), the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology (BCST), the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR), the Board on Life Sciences (BLS), the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA), and the Laboratory Assessments Board (LAB). 2010







Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Collaboration on Space and Earth Science Missions [Prepublication ­Version], SSB ad hoc Committee on Assessment of Impediments to Interagency Cooperation on Space and Earth Science Missions Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, LAB, SSB, and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of NASA Laboratory Capabilities Controlling Cost Growth of NASA Earth and Space Science Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies An Enabling Foundation for NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era of Space Exploration: An Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, BPA and SSB ad hoc Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics Panel Reports—New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics [Prepublication Version], BPA and SSB ad hoc Science Frontiers Panels; Program Prioritization Panels; and Committee for a Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics Revitalizing NASA’s Suborbital Program: Advancing Science, Driving Innovation, and Developing a Workforce, SSB ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Suborbital Research Capabilities Report of the Panel on Implementing Recommendations from the New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey [Prepublication Version], BPA and SSB ad hoc Panel on Implementing Recommendations from New Worlds, New Horizons Decadal Survey Space Studies Board Annual Report—2009, Space Studies Board

106

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 2009

2008







2007

107

America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program Approaches to Future Space Cooperation and Competition in a Globalizing World: Summary of a Workshop, James V. Zimmerman, Rapporteur [SSB and ASEB] Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Review of Planetary Protection Requirements for Mars Sample Return Missions Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Heliophysics Program, SSB ad hoc Committee on Heliophysics Performance Assessment Radioisotope Power Systems: An Imperative for Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Space Exploration, ASEB and SSB ad hoc Radioisotope Power Systems Committee Severe Space Weather Events¾Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: A Workshop Report. Extended Summary. SSB ad hoc Committee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events: A Workshop Space Studies Board Annual Report—2008, Space Studies Board Uncertainty Management in Remote Sensing of Climate Data: Summary of a Workshop, Martha McConnell and Scott Weidman, Rapporteurs [BASC, Board on Mathematical Sciences and Their Applications, Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and SSB] Assessment of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Review of the NASA Astrobiology Institute Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: Elements of a Strategy to Recover Measurement Capabilities Lost in Program Restructuring, SSB ad hoc Committee on a Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Sensor Descopes and Demanifests on the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft Grading NASA’s Solar System Exploration Program: A Midterm Review, SSB ad hoc Committee on Assessing the Solar System Exploration Program Opening New Frontiers in Space: Choices for the Next New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity, SSB ad hoc Committee on New Opportunities in Solar System Exploration: An Evaluation of the New Frontiers Announcement of Opportunity Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA’s Constellation System, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System Satellite Observations to Benefit Science and Society: Recommended Missions for the Next Decade [booklet], SSB ad hoc Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future and Robert Henson, Editor Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Science Opportunities Enabled by NASA’s Constellation System Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts: Workshop Report, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events: A Workshop Space Science and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Summary of a Workshop, Margaret G. Finarelli, ­Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur [SSB] Space Studies Board Annual Report—2007, Space Studies Board United States Civil Space Policy: Summary of a Workshop, Molly K. Macauley, Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Rapporteur [SSB and ASEB] An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on an Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop, Jack D. Fellows, Rapporteur, and Joseph K. Alexander, Editor Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, SSB ad hoc Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System, SSB and BCST ad hoc Task Group on Organic Environments in the Solar System The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems and Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life NASA’s Beyond Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation, SSB and BPA ad hoc Committee on NASA’s Einstein Program: An Architecture for Implementation

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

108 2006





2005

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010 Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft: A Workshop Report, SSB ad hoc Panel on Options to Ensure the Climate Record from the NPOESS and GOES-R Spacecraft A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program, SSB and BPA ad hoc NASA Astrophysics Performance Assessment Committee Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers, SSB ad hoc Committee on NASA Astronomy Science Centers The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon Space Studies Board Annual Report—2006, Space Studies Board An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs, SSB ad hoc Committee on an Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016, SSB ad hoc Committee to Review the Next Decade Mars Architecture [released on June 30 as a short report] Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research: Report of a Workshop, SSB ad hoc Committee on Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Research and Monitoring in Solar-Terrestrial Physics: A Workshop Issues Affecting the Future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce: Interim Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars, SSB ad hoc Committee on Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Priorities for Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences, SSB Panel on Review of NASA Science Strategy Roadmaps Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station, SSB Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon: Interim Report, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration: Report of a Workshop, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment and NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration: A Workshop Space Studies Board Annual Report—2005, Space Studies Board “Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions,” letter from Jack W. Szostak, chair of the NRC ad hoc Committee on Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions, to John D. Rummel, planetary protection officer, NASA Headquarters (February 8) “A Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan,” letter from A. Thomas Young, chair of the ad hoc Committee on Review of NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Plan, to Mary Cleave, NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate (September 15) Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope The Astrophysical Context of Life, SSB and BLS ad hoc Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA): Implications of a Potential Descope, SSB and BPA ad hoc Committee to Review the Science Requirements for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, SSB ad hoc Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions, SSB ad hoc Committee on Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Scientific Context for Space Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—2004, Space Studies Board “Review of Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal Vision,” letter from C. Megan Urry, chair of the SSB/BPA ad hoc Committee to Review Progress in Astronomy and Astrophysics Toward the Decadal ­Vision, to Alphonso V. Diaz, NASA associate administrator for science, and Michael S. Turner, assistant director, ­Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation (February 11)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 2004



2003

2002



109

Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy, Space Studies Board Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration, SSB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of the Role of Solar and Space Physics in NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative Space Studies Board Annual Report—2003, Space Studies Board Steps to Facilitate Principal-Investigator-Led Earth Science Missions, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics [booklet], SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond, SSB, ASEB, and BASC Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization “Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope,” letter from Louis J. Lanzerotti, chair of the SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope, to Sean O’Keefe, NASA administrator (July 13) “Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report,” letter from Wendy L. F ­ reedman, chair of the SSB and BPA ad hoc Panel to Review the Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder, to Anne L. Kinney, director of the Universe Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters (September 23) Assessment of Directions in Microgravity and Physical Sciences Research at NASA, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Assessment of Mars Science and Mission Priorities, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Factors Affecting the Utilization of the International Space Station for Research in the Biological and Physical ­Sciences, SSB Task Group on Research on the International Space Station Life in the Universe: An Assessment of U.S. and International Programs in Astrobiology, SSB and BLS Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life New Frontiers in Solar System Exploration [booklet], SSB Solar System Exploration Survey Committee New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated Exploration Strategy, SSB Solar System Exploration Survey Committee Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, SSB ad hoc Committee on NASA-NOAA Transition from Research to Operations Space Studies Board Annual Report—2002, Space Studies Board The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, SSB ad hoc Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: Panel Reports, SSB Solar and Space Physics Survey Committee Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making, SSB Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Space Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy to Edward J. Weiler, NASA’s associate administrator for the Office of Space Science (May 29) “Assessment of NASA’s Draft 2003 Earth Science Enterprise Strategy,” letter from Robert J. Serafin, chair of the Committee to Review the NASA Earth Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, and SSB chair John H. McElroy to Ghassem R. Asrar, NASA’s associate administrator for the Office of Earth Science (July 31) Assessment of the Usefulness and Availability of NASA’s Earth and Space Mission Data, SSB and BESR ad hoc Task Group on the Availability and Usefulness of NASA’s Space Mission Data The Quarantine and Certification of Martian Samples, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Review of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Applications Program Plan, SSB Committee to Review NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Applications Plan Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Surface of Mars Signs of Life: A Report Based on the April 2000 Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, SSB and BLS Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life Space Studies Board Annual Report—2001, Space Studies Board Toward New Partnerships in Remote Sensing: Government, the Private Sector, and Earth Science Research, SSB ad hoc Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

110

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010



“Review of the Redesigned Space Interferometry Mission (SIM),” letter from SSB chair John H. McElroy and BPA chair John P. Huchra to Edward Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (September 12)

2001

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



2000









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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports 1999







1998







1997

111

Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research, SSB Task Group to Review Alternative Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research A Science Strategy for the Exploration of Europa, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration A Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms: Proceedings of a Workshop, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms Space Studies Board Annual Report—1998, Space Studies Board U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation: Summary Report, SSB Committee on International Space Programs, Space Research Committee of the Science Council of Japan, and the European Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation “Assessment of NASA’s Plans for Post-2002 Earth Observing Missions,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, Task Group chair Marvin A. Geller, BASC co-chairs Eric J. Barron and James R. Mahoney, and Board on Sustainable Development chair Edward A. Frieman to Ghassem Asrar, NASA’s associate administrator for Earth science (April 8) “On the National Science Foundation’s Facility Instrumentation Program,” letter from BPA chair Robert Dynes and SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, on behalf of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, to Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (June 2) “On Antarctic Astronomy,” letter from SSB and BPA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs John P. Huchra and Thomas A. Prince to Hugh Van Horn, director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Astronomical Sciences, and Karl Erb, director of NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (August 19) Assessment of Technology Development in NASA’s Office of Space Science, SSB Task Group on Technology Development in NASA’s Office of Space Science Development and Application of Small Spaceborne Synthetic Aperture Radars, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies: Framework for Decision Making, SSB Task Group on Sample Return from Small Solar System Bodies The Exploration of Near-Earth Objects, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Exploring the Trans-Neptunian Solar System, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Failed Stars and Super Planets: A Report Based on the January 1998 Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Substellar-Mass Objects Ground-Based Solar Research: An Assessment and Strategy for the Future, SSB Task Group on Ground-Based Solar Research Readiness for the Upcoming Solar Maximum, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Report of the Workshop on Biology-Based Technology to Enhance Human Well-Being and Function in Extended Space Exploration, SSB Steering Group for the Workshop on Biology-Based Technology for Enhanced Space Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1997, Space Studies Board A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA’s Science Programs: Engines for Innovation and Synthesis, SSB Task Group on Research and Analysis Programs U.S.-European Collaboration in Space Science, SSB Committee on International Space Programs and the European Science Foundation’s European Space Science Committee “On ESA’s FIRST and Planck Missions,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, BPA chair Robert Dynes, and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs John Huchra and Thomas Prince, to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., NASA associate administrator for space science (February 18) “On Climate Change Research Measurements from NPOESS,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Earth Studies chair Mark Abbott to Ghassem Asrar, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Earth Science, and Robert S. Winokur, NOAA, director of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (May 27) “Assessment of NASA’s Mars Exploration Architecture,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Carl Pilcher, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (November 11) An Assessment of the Solar and Space Physics Aspects of NASA’s Space Science Enterprise Strategic Plan, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research The Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

112



1996









1995

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010 An Initial Review of Microgravity Research in Support of Human Exploration and Development of Space, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Lessons Learned from the Clementine Mission, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Mars Sample Return: Issues and Recommendations, SSB Task Group on Issues in Sample Return A New Science Strategy for Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Task Group on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions: Proceedings of a Workshop, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science and Applications Science Management in the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration Scientific Assessment of NASA’s SMEX-MIDEX Space Physics Mission Selections, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1996, Space Studies Board Space Weather: A Research Perspective, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research “On Research Facilities Planning for the International Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn, and Committee on Microgravity Research former chair Martin E. Glicksman to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (July 8) “On NASA’s Office of Space Science Draft Strategic Plan,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (August 27) Archiving Microgravity Flight Data and Samples, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Assessment of Recent Changes in the Explorer Program, SSB Panel to Review the Explorer Program Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies, SSB Task Group on Biological Effects of Space Radiation Review of NASA’s Planned Mars Program, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1995, Space Studies Board “On Optimum Phasing for SIRTF,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares, BPA chair David N. Schramm, and Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics co-chairs Marcia J. Rieke and Marc Davis to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (February 2) “On Internet Access to Astronaut Biomedical Data,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Arnauld Nicogossian, acting associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (July 24) “On Scientific Assessment of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Roadmap,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Jurgen H. Rahe, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (August 23) “On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research Institute,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Arnauld Nicogossian, acting associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (October 10) “On NASA Mars Sample-Return Mission Options,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Ronald Greeley to Jurgen H. Rahe, science program director for NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (December 3) Earth Observations from Space: History, Promise, and Reality, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Managing the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on the Future of Space Science Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research Review of Gravity Probe B, SSB Task Group on Gravity Probe B The Role of Small Missions in Planetary and Lunar Exploration, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration A Science Strategy for Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research A Scientific Assessment of a New Technology Orbital Telescope, SSB Task Group on BMDO New Technology Orbital Observatory Setting Priorities for Space Research: An Experiment in Methodology, SSB Task Group on Priorities in Space Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1994, Space Studies Board A Strategy for Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy, SSB and BPA Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports







1994







1993



1992

113

“On NASA Field Center Science and Scientists,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (March 29) “On a Scientific Assessment for a Third Flight of the Shuttle Radar Laboratory,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Earth Studies chair John H. McElroy to Charles Kennel, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Mission to Planet Earth (April 4) “On Clarification of Issues in the Opportunities Report,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Microgravity Research chair Martin E. Glicksman to Robert Rhome, director of NASA’s Microgravity Science and Applications Division (April 19) “On Peer Review in NASA Life Sciences Programs,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Mary Jane Osborn to Joan Vernikos, director of NASA’s Life and Biomedical Sciences and Applications Division (July 26) “On the Establishment of Science Institutes,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (August 11) “On the International Space Station,” letter from SSB Committee on the Space Station chair Thomas Young to Wilbur Trafton, NASA deputy associate administrator for space flight (November 29) “On ‘Concurrence’ and the Role of the NASA Chief Scientist,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and Committee on the Future of Space Science chair John A. Armstrong to NASA chief scientist France A. Cordova (December 12) An Integrated Strategy for the Planetary Sciences: 1995-2010, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Office of Naval Research: Research Opportunities in Upper Atmospheric Sciences, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board Scientific Opportunities in the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration A Space Physics Paradox, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics with the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Space Studies Board Annual Report—1993, Space Studies Board “On Life and Microgravity Sciences and the Space Station Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek and Committee on Microgravity Research chair William A. Sirignano to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (February 25) “On the Space Infrared Telescope Facility and the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science (April 21) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility and Cassini Saturn Probe,” letter from SSB chair Claude R. Canizares and former chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to presidential science advisor John Gibbons (July 5) “On the Utilization of the Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti, Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek, and Committee on Microgravity Research chair William A. Sirignano to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (July 26) Improving NASA’s Technology for Space Science, SSB and ASEB ad hoc Committee on Space Science Technology Planning Scientific Prerequisites for the Human Exploration of Space, SSB Committee on Human Exploration Space Studies Board Annual Report—1992, Space Studies Board “On the Space Station and Prerequisites for the Human Exploration Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (March 19) “On Several Issues in the Space Life Sciences,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek to Harry Holloway, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (April 26) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and accompanying report of the Task Group on AXAF to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., associate administrator of NASA’s Office of Space Science (April 28) Biological Contamination of Mars: Issues and Recommendations, SSB Task Group on Planetary Protection Setting Priorities for Space Research: Opportunities and Imperatives, SSB Task Group on Priorities in Space ­Research—Phase I Space Studies Board Annual Report—1991, Space Studies Board Toward a Microgravity Research Strategy, SSB Committee on Microgravity Research

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

114















1991

1990

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010 “On the Solar System Exploration Division’s 1991 Strategic Plan,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (January 14) “Letter to the NASA Administrator,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (March 30) “On the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (March 30) “On the CRAF/Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti transmitting a report of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (March 30) “On the Space Station Freedom Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Arnold D. Aldrich, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Systems Development (March 30) “An Interim Report on the Earth Observing System and Data and Information System,” letter from SSB Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans chair Charles Zraket and SSB chair Frank Press to Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator (April 9) “On NOAA Requirements for Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellites,” letter from SSB Committee on Earth Studies chair John H. McElroy to Russell Koffler, assistant deputy administrator for NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (April 30) “On Continued Operation of the BEVALAC Facility,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair Fred W. Turek to Secretary of Energy James D. Watkins and NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin (August 20) “On the NASA/SDIO Clementine Moon/Asteroid Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Simon P. Worden, deputy for technology of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, and Wesley T. Huntress, Jr., director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (August 21) “On Robotic Lunar Precursor Missions of the Office of Exploration,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Michael D. Griffin, associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Division (August 21) “On the Earth Observing Data and Information System,” letter from SSB Panel to Review EOSDIS Plans chair Charles Zraket to Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator (September 30) “On the Restructured Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Joseph A. Burns to Lennard A. Fisk, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (October 19) Assessment of Programs in Solar and Space Physics—1991, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics and the BASC Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine—1991, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine Assessment of Satellite Earth Observation Programs—1991, SSB Committee on Earth Studies Assessment of Solar System Exploration Programs—1991, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration “On the Proposed Redesign of Space Station Freedom,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA ­administrator Richard H. Truly (March 14) “On the NASA Earth Observing System,” letter and attached position from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (July 10) “Results of the 103rd SSB meeting,” letter from SSB chair Louis Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (July 18) “On Research Uses of LANDSAT,” letter from Committee on Earth Studies chair Byron D. Tapley to Shelby Tilford, director of NASA’s Earth Science and Applications Division, and Russell Koffler, deputy assistant administrator of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (September 12) International Cooperation for Mars Exploration and Sample Return, Committee on Cooperative Mars Exploration and Sample Return The Search for Life’s Origins: Progress and Future Directions in Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution Strategy for the Detection and Study of Other Planetary Systems and Extrasolar Planetary Materials: 1990-2000, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Summary and Principal Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, SSB Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program Update to Strategy for Exploration of the Inner Planets, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports



1989

1988





1987



115

“On Principal Issues and Concerns Raised During the Space Studies Board’s March 1990 and May 1990 Meetings,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (June 8) “On the Scientific Viability of a Restructured CRAF Science Payload,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Larry W. Esposito to Lennard A. Fisk, associate ­administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (August 10) “On Results of the Space Studies Board Meeting Held on July 31-August 2, 1990,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (September 28) “On Space Station Freedom User Issues,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti to Joseph K. Alexander, assistant associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (December 12) The Field of Solar Physics: Review and Recommendations for Ground-Based Solar Research, SSB Committee on Solar Physics Strategy for Earth Explorers in Global Earth Sciences, SSB Committee on Earth Sciences “On the Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Research Program,” letter from SSB chair Louis J. Lanzerotti and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair L. Dennis Smith to NASA administrator Richard H. Truly (­December 20) Selected Issues in Space Science Data Management and Computation, SSB Committee on Data Management and Computation Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Task Group on Astronomy and Astrophysics Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Fundamental Physics and Chemistry, SSB Task Group on Fundamental Physics and Chemistry Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Life Sciences, SSB Task Group on Life Sciences Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Mission to Planet Earth, SSB Task Group on Earth Sciences Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Overview, SSB Steering Group on Space Science in the Twenty-First Century Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Planetary and Lunar Exploration, SSB Task Group on Planetary and Lunar Exploration Space Science in the Twenty-First Century—Solar and Space Physics, SSB Task Group on Solar and Space Physics “Recommendation on Planetary Protection Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous-Asteroid Flyby Mission and the Titan-Cassini Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold Klein to John D. Rummel, chief of NASA’s Planetary Quarantine Program (July 6) “Assessment of Impact on Integrated Science Return from the 1992 Mars Observer Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (July 12) “Assessment of the CRAF and Cassini Science Missions,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Explora­tion chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division ­(September 1) Long-Lived Space Observatories for Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics A Strategy for Space Biology and Medical Science for the 1980s and 1990s, SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine “On Changes to the Explorer Program,” letter from SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics chair Blair Savage to Burton Edleson, associate administrator, NASA Office of Space Sciences (January 13) “On Mixed Launch Fleet Strategy and Policy Option,” letter from Space Science Board chair Thomas M. Donahue to Dr. James Fletcher, NASA administrator (February 11) “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the CRAF Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 27) “On Life Sciences Facilities for Space Station Freedom,” letter from SSB Committee on Space Biology and Medicine chair L. Dennis Smith to Andrew Stofan, NASA associate administrator for the Office of Space Station (July 21) “On the Decision to Place the High Resolution Solar Observatory Project on Hold,” letter from SSB chair Thomas Donahue to Dr. James Fletcher, NASA administrator (September 21)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

116 1986





1985



1984



1983

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010 The Explorer Program for Astronomy and Astrophysics, SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics Issues and Recommendations Associated with Distributed Computation and Data Management Systems for the Space Sciences, SSB Committee on Data Management and Computation Remote Sensing of the Biosphere, SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution A Strategy for Exploration of the Outer Planets: 1986-1996, SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration United States and Western Europe Cooperation in Planetary Exploration, Joint Working Group on Cooperation in Planetary Exploration of the SSB/NRC and the Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation “On the Nation’s Space Program Position Paper,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to James C. Fletcher, NASA administrator (May 12) “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the LGO, MAO, and NEAR Missions,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 14) “On Categorization of the Comet Rendezvous–Asteroid Flyby Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary ­Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold P. Klein to Arnauld E. Nicogossian, director of NASA’s Life ­Sciences Division (May 16) “On the Challenger Accident Impact on Space Science,” news conference statement by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue (May 21) “On the Balance of Shuttle and ELV Launches,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to James C. Fletcher, NASA administrator (June 11) “On the Implementation of CODMAC 1 & 2,” letter from SSB Committee on CODMAC chair Christopher T. Russell to Burton Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (October 1) An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics An Implementation Plan for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics—Executive Summary, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics Institutional Arrangements for the Space Telescope—A Mid-Term Review, Space Telescope Science Institute Task Group and SSB Committee on Space Astronomy and Astrophysics The Physics of the Sun, Panels of the Space Science Board A Strategy for Earth Science from Space in the 1980’s and 1990’s—Part II: Atmosphere and Interactions with the Solid Earth, Oceans, and Biota, SSB Committee on Earth Sciences “Assessment of Planned Scientific Content of the CRAF Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration chair Robert O. Pepin and past chair D.M. Hunten to Geoffrey A. Briggs, director of NASA’s Solar System Exploration Division (May 31) “On Categorization of the Mars Orbiter Mission,” letter from SSB Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution chair Harold P. Klein to Arnauld E. Nicogossian, director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division (June 6) “On the Shuttle Science Payload Program,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (June 20) “On NASA Policy for Planetary Protection,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton I. Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (November 22) Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution, and Archiving, Joint Data Panel of the Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Research A Strategy for the Explorer Program for Solar and Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics “On Biological Processing in Space,” memorandum from SSB’s director Dean Kastel to CPSMR director R. Kasper, forwarded by NRC executive officer Philip M. Smith to John P. McTague, deputy director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (August 22) “On the SIRTF Facility Phase B Study and Programmatic Procedures for the Explorer Program,” two resolutions forwarded by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to Burton I. Edelson, associate administrator for NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications (December 14) An International Discussion on Research in Solar and Space Physics, SSB Committee on Solar and Space Physics The Role of Theory in Space Science, SSB Theory Study Panel “Space Telescope Science Issues,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (June 8) “Space Science Board Assessment of the Scientific Value of a Space Station,” letter from SSB chair Thomas M. ­Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (September 9)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports

117



“On the Continued Development of the Gravity Probe B Mission,” SSB position statement transmitted by SSB chair Thomas M. Donahue to NASA administrator James M. Beggs (December 9) and Burton I. Edelson, NASA Headquarters (December 1)

1982

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



1981

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

1980

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

1979

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



1978



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

1977

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

1976

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





1975

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

1974

Scientific Uses of the Space Shuttle, Space Science Board

1973

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

118

Space Studies Board Annual Report—2010

1972

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

1971

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

1970

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



1969

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

1968

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

1967 1966

1965

Physiology in the Space Environment: Volume II—Respiration, Space Science Board Radiobiological Factors in Manned Space Flight, Space Radiation Study Panel of the SSB Life Sciences Committee Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Water Quality Standards for Long-Duration Manned Space Missions, Space ­Science Board “Study on the Biological Quarantine of Venus,” SSB Ad Hoc Panel on Quarantine of Venus (January 9). Biology and the Exploration of Mars: Report of a Study Held Under the Auspices of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, 1964-1965, Space Science Board Extraterrestrial Life: An Anthology and Bibliography, Supplementary to Biology and the Exploration of Mars, Report of a Study Held Under the Auspices of the Space Science Board, Study Group on Biology and the Exploration of Mars, Space Science Board Space Research: Directions for the Future, Space Science Board Biology and the Exploration of Mars: Summary and Conclusions of a Study by the Space Science Board, Space Science Board Conference on Hazard of Planetary Contamination Due to Microbiological Contamination in the Interior of Spacecraft Components, Space Science Board Report of the Working Group on Gemini-Apollo MOL Experimentation, SSB Life Science Committee

1964

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

1963

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



Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2010

Cumulative Bibliography of SSB Reports

119



Working Group on Nutrition and Feeding Problems: Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee Working Group on Problems of Weightlessness in Space Flight: Summary Report, SSB Man in Space Committee

1962

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

1961

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



1960

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

1959

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

1958

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

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.