jun99bul

In less than a week from this writing, Space Shuttle Columbia is scheduled to launch the Chandra X-ray Observatory, formerly known as the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility. Chandra is the third of NASA's "Great Observatories," joining Hubble Space Telescope and the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. Space Infra-Red Telescope Facility or SIRTF is to follow in a few years as the last.

Although Chandra is smaller and cheaper than the original AXAF design or than Hubble, it is still very much a major mission. It fills the shuttle bay, is the heaviest payload to be lifted by the shuttle, and its total cost assuming a 5-10 year lifetime exceeds $2B.

It was also a long time in coming. Chandra was the highest priority astronomy mission for the 1980s according to the NRC's astronomy survey committee chaired by George Field, and in some sense its heritage goes back to the 1970s. I was selected as an instrument principal investigator on this mission in 1984 (which came to suggest Orwellian connotations). At that time launch was projected for 1991, seven years away-it remained seven years away for the next seven years. Then it was fixed, until last year when some technical problems added another 10 months to the schedule.

In this regard, Chandra might be held up as an example of what is wrong with such large missions, and why NASA has recently emphasized smaller, faster, cheaper programs. But it is also an example of what is right. Without doubt, large missions are costly, often take too long to develop, and concentrate risk. But Chandra's exquisite X-ray optics and instruments will provide unprecedented power to study black holes, exploding stars, galaxy clusters and quasars. Its imaging and spectral capabilities exceed those of earlier missions by 100 to 1000, and it can provide large amounts of data to astronomers all over the nation and the world for many years, possibly more than a decade. By virtue of the things that make it expensive, Chandra will be like Hubble in having an impact commensurate with its cost.

Small missions have their own strengths, primarily timeliness, ability to target specific scientific objectives, modest cost and risk. In terms of total impact and even some measure of science-per-dollar, however, it is likely that larger missions may prevail. Plausibly, a sound strategic plan requires a mix of mission sizes rather than a preponderance of only one or the other. The smaller ones provide essential vigor and agility, the larger ones enable major leaps forward, with moderate missions in between. Of course, the optimal mix will depend on the prevailing scientific imperatives of each discipline, and so could vary over time. The fact that NASA itself has largely replaced the "smaller, faster, cheaper" mantra with "faster, cheaper, better" suggests a similar recognition.

Recent language in the 1999 NASA Appropriation from the relevant Senate Subcommittee expressed concern that the pendulum may have swung too far toward small missions in the space and Earth sciences, and directed NASA to contract with the NRC to study this matter. The SSB has accepted the task and is engaged in a fast track effort to assess the degree to which the objectives of the existing science strategies can be met by missions of various sizes. By making maximum use of existing science strategies and the expertise of our discipline committees, we are planning an expedited study to be released early in the coming year.

It will be very interesting to see how each discipline asseses its optimum mix of missions and how these compare to current agency plans. Meanwhile, if all goes well in the next several weeks, Chandra's data will soon start streaming into workstations around the world. Whatever frustrations I have felt in the many years it took to get to this point, this is the time to revel in the rich scientific return from the sizeable investment of people and money that got us here. This is one big mission whose time has finally come.

As we went to press, the science community was saddened by the news of the death of Representative George S. Brown. NAS President Bruce Alberts hailed Brown as "... A consistent, strong supporter of science throughout his 35 years in Congress ... he worked diligently to protect the scientific enterprise, helping it to become a critical driver of our nation's economic prosperity and well being."

The second quarter of 1999 had its full share of important developments for the space research community. The scene continued to be characterized by a mix of exciting new scientific results and tools tempered by reminders that technological risk and budget uncertainties can never be ignored. The Space Studies Board, being cognizant of the often fragile status of the space sciences, has pursuing an internal assessment of how we can maximize the value of the Board's work. Further information about that assessment appears at the end of this column.

At NASA a new chief scientist, Dr. Kathie L. Olsen, was named to fill a position that had been vacant for several years. Olsen, a neuroscientist with a PhD from the University of California at Irvine, has research experience at Harvard Medical School and SUNY Stony Brook. She also served as a Senate staffer and has held a number of National Science Foundation positions before coming to NASA in May. At NOAA, Gregory Withee was named to succeed Robert Winokur as Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services and head of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS). An oceanographer, Withee had previously served as deputy assistant administrator and as head of NESDIS information services.

Two important Earth science and applications space missions were successfully launched during the second quarter. The long-awaited launch of Landsat 7 occurred on April 15, and NASA and the USGS released its first image a week later. QuikScat, a mission developed in little more than 12 months to carry a scatterometer for to measuring oceanic winds was launched on June 20. Mission operations for QuikScat are being conducted via a control center staffed largely by students at the University of Colorado.

There were also two significant milestones for the life and microgravity sciences during the period-one retrospective and one pointing to the future. On April 14-16, 1999, NASA hosted a symposium to present the first results of the 1998 Neurolab Spacelab flight. Neurolab was the last Spacelab mission and quite possibly the most ambitious. For 16 days in late April-early May 1998, investigators sponsored by NASA, NIH, ONR, and NSF, plus agencies in Spain, France, Germany, and Japan conducted research in areas such as neuroplasticity, muscle atrophy, sleep disruption, and how the brain processes spatial and navigational data. Looking to prepare for future research opportunities, the STS-96 mission was launched on May 27 to permit astronauts to begin to outfit the first two elements of the International Space Station (ISS) which had been launched and joined together in late 1998.

In the space sciences, the Johns Hopkins University's Far-Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer was successfully launched on June 24. On the same day Cassini executed a close swing by Venus to gain a gravitational kick necessary to send the spacecraft towards its ultimate target at Saturn.

Among the science highlights produced during the quarter, two missions received particular attention. First, researchers using data from Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) presented remarkable new results about both the interior and surface of Mars. Magnetic field measurements have revealed banded patterns of field reversals that are reminiscent of striping seen on the Earth's ocean floors due to sea floor spreading associated with plate tectonic motions. The MGS investigators suggest that the magnetic signatures on Mars may be consequences of tectonic motions and a magnetic dynamo inside ancient Mars. Another team, using the laser altimeter on MGS, released an extraordinarily precise global elevation map of the planet that offers new insights into global scale water flows on early Mars. Second, a 27-member, 13-institution, Hubble Space Telescope key project team announced the completion of an 8-year effort to provide a precise measurement of the Hubbel constant. While debates over remaining uncertainties will undoubtedly persist, the new HST results represent a major step forward in understanding the evolution of the universe.

As if to emphasize that space research remains a risky and uncertain business at times, there were also regrettable losses and some nail biting during the quarter. First, the Boston University TERRIERS satellite was successfully launched aboard a Pegasus rocket on May 18 but lost power almost immediately after being unable to properly orient its solar panels. TERRIERS was the second mission in the Student Explorer Demonstration Program intended to provide students with hands-on space experience via low-cost, short development cycle missions. Second, NASA's Office of Space Science (OSS) made a decision to cancel the Champollion cometary probe mission due to budget constraints. Champollion was intended to be the fourth space technology mission in NASA's New Millennium Program and would have served as a test bed for a number of advanced technologies following a planned launch in 2003 toward a comet. Third, on a more hopeful note, the Chandra X-ray Astrophysics Facility was declared ready for a late July launch after having been grounded for months, first due to spacecraft testing problems and more recently due to the need to assess potential problems with the Inertial Upper Stage. Once in orbit, Chandra will produce unprecedented views of the universe at X-ray wavelengths, but the launch delays have created significant stresses on the OSS budget.

The European Space Agency's budget for 1999-2002 was a major item for attention at the ESA Ministerial Meeting held May 11-12, 1999 in Brussels. With respect to science programs, the ministers approved funding to launch the Living Planet Program ($635M, 1999-2002), which will support long-term research on the Earth and the environment from space, and provided approvals for ISS Utilization ($319M) and continued support for the European Microgravity Research Program ($48M). Finally, the Agency's Science Program Committee approved unanimously the Mars Express mission, which just fits within the limited amount approved for ESA's science program at the Ministerial meeting. Mars Express will search for water and life on the red planet.

The budget outlook for space research in the U.S. remained cloudy, to say the least. The House of Representatives moved briskly to pass a NASA authorization bill for the 3-year period FY2000-2002. In it ISS development would be funded at the requested levels and both space science and life and microgravity science budgets would receive increases along with some earmarks. In Earth science, Triana-a mission to permit acquisition of a continuous full-disk sunlit image of Earth and to support other scientific, educational, and commercial uses-would be cancelled, and a requirement would be levied for $50 million to be spent for purchases of commercial remote sensing data. An authorization bill has not been passed in the Senate.

Much more troubling, however, is the situation for appropriation legislation. In spite of projected federal budget surpluses over the next decade, the 1997 balanced budget agreement places firm caps on total spending levels. These have been translated into specific limits on funds available to each appropriation sub-committee, including the sub-committee on HUD-VA-Independent Agencies where NASA is handled. Because neither the Congress nor the Administration has shown a willingness yet to modify the caps and provide some relief from the currently mandated ceilings, some analysts are predicting possible budget cuts of the order of 20% to NASA and probably other science agencies. Such an outcome would make the recent cancellation of Champollion just the tip of the iceberg. The month of June ended with a major heat wave in Washington, and budget watchers were looking forward to a long hot summer in the appropriations scene.

In June, the Board released its new annual report for 1998. As usual, the report summarizes Board and committee activities for the year, provides executive summaries of the (15) reports issued during the year, and includes a complete bibliography of SSB reports going back to 1960. Among the new features in the 1998 report are short summaries of a number of collaborations between the Board and other NRC units and of the report peer review process. These two topics both relate to a subject introduced in this column a year ago concerning means to ensure and evaluate the performance of the SSB. Quantitative indicators of the breadth of expert participation utilized in SSB studies and of the range of audiences addressed in our reports are also discussed in that sense in the Annual Report.

During the past year, the Board and its staff have tried to remain sensitive to questions of whether we have properly understood the role of the Board, whether we are addressing the right audiences, and whether we have the right portfolio of products and services. These questions all boil down to assessing the effectiveness and impact of the SSB and its work. We have begun that process by examining how to measure performance of an entity like the SSB. How, for example, does one assess quality, content, timeliness, availability, and most importantly, impact of Board products? We intend to utilize a number of approaches to explore these issues of the coming months. Views and advice from Newsletter readers will be most welcome.

The Space Studies Board held its 128th meeting on June 22-24 at the John H. Glenn Research Center (GRC) at Lewis Field in Cleveland, OH. A main focus of the meeting was on the research work of the Center, including briefings and tours. One of the original NACA centers, GRC is NASA's center of excellence in turbomachinery; it also leads the agency's work in micro-gravity fluid and combustion science. There were presentations by GRC staff, including Gerald Barna, Director of Space Science, Drs. Howard Ross, W. Dan Williams, and Valerie Lyons. Members participated in tours to the drop tower, communications and power and propulsion laboratories, and the fluids and combustion facility. Also briefing the Board was Dr. Simon Ostrach, director of the National Center for Microgravity Research on Fluids and Combustion, who described the center's programs conducted under a cooperative agreement between NASA, Case Western Reserve University, and USRA.

The meeting included a report on the recent successful trilateral workshop in Japan and a talk by Prof. Atsuhiro Nishida, director general of The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) in Japan. Other discussion items included updates on ongoing studies of the Committees on Solar and Space Physics, Planetary and Lunar Exploration, Earth Studies, Space Biology and Medicine, and Microgravity Research. Updates were provided on the Committee on Human Exploration which has a pre-planning meeting scheduled for mid-July for a possible workshop on cultural anthropology aspects of human exploration and development. Reports on the Task Groups on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research, on the Space Station Biotechnology Facility, and on Europa Contamination Protection were made. Dr. Roberta Balstad Miller reported on plans by the Steering Group on Space Applications and Commercialization and the positive response from several agencies to proposals for a series of three workshops.

Dr. Mark Abbott, chair of the Committee on Earth Studies, gave a presentation on Remote Sensing and Earth Science in 2030: Trends and Sources of Innovation, and Dr. Alan Title gave a presentation on new solar physics research results from TRACE and SOHO.

Members discussed plans for implementation of three studies requested by the Congress on: the mix of space research mission sizes for Earth and space science, maximizing the use of space station for research in life and microgravity sciences, and studies related to NASA's Astrobiology and Origins programs. Plans for follow-up actions on other potential projects also were discussed. A proposal for an activity on NASA-University-Industry partnerships will be modified and some groundwork will be done with agencies. A meeting will be arranged with the new NASA chief scientist, Dr. Kathie Olsen, and a few Board members to discuss plans for an education activity.

Preliminary approval was given for the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics report, Federal Funding of Astronomical Research.

During the meeting Board Chair Claude Canizares saluted retiring Board members Gerald Elverum and Andrew Knoll who completed 3-year terms on June 30, 1999.

The Board will next meet on November 8-10 at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. The Board's Executive Committee will meet September 8-10 in Woods Hole, MA.

The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) met April 20-21 in Washington, DC, to complete work on its draft report on federal support for astronomy research. The committee also drafted a letter on peer review for NSF's South Pole astronomy program and responded to reviewers' comments on its letter to the NSF concerning the revised Facilities Instrumentation Program. The committee also heard presen-tations from the director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory on the Millimeter Array (MMA) and the proposal for ALMA (the international Atacama Large Millimeter Array), which would subsume the MMA. The federal funding report was reviewed by the SSB at its June meeting.
The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) is planning to sponsor a workshop on NPOESS Observations and Climate Research. On May 26 chair Mark Abbott and other relevant NRC committee chairs met with officials from NASA, NOAA, NSF, and OSTP to continue with the planning by identifying key variables with demonstrated or potential importance for climate research. Selection criteria for the variables included the likelihood that data collection could be turned over to an operational agency such as NOAA. Workshop participants will examine these variables and the NPOESS strategy, including the role of NASA. The workshop will also examine the need for "pre-operational" missions for science measurements that require a long-term observing strategy. The workshop will focus on the space element first because there is a clear operational side, with the recognition that there will be similar demands for ground networks. The workshop is scheduled for July 26-27 in Washington, DC.

The committee met on June 8-9, in Washington, DC, and heard briefings in support of the NPOESS Phase 2 report, including discussions on NPOESS systems engineering and architecture, and data management and distribution plans. It also developed the outline for the Phase 2 report, discussed some of the conclusions and recommendations, and assigned writing topics to committee members.

The NPOESS Phase 1 report is in response to review, as is the report on the role of small satellites.

The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX), will hold an informal pre-project planning meeting on July 14 in Washington, DC, to explore a possible workshop or study project regarding the cultural anthropological aspects of human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The planning meeting, organized jointly with the NRC Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, will involve a subset of the committee's membership and a comparable number of social scientists.
Several members of the Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) participated in a trilateral workshop on space cooperation in Tokyo on May 19-21, hosted by the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Sciences of Japan and including representatives of the European Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation. The purposes of the workshop were (1) for independent space science advisory bodies in Europe and the U.S. to establish a relationship with like bodies in Japan, (2) to begin this relationship by examining the nature of trilateral, cooperative space missions conducted during the last decade, (3) to better understand the primary factors that led to successful collaboration, to explore the benefits and costs of cooperation, to identify major problems, and (4) to review the status of several embryonic projects and to consider broader issues such as the possibility of coordinated, international strategic planning for space science, and other policy issues likely to be significant in the future.

The primary thrust of the workshop was to examine U.S., European and Japanese perspectives of the collaborative experience on three missions-a space physics mission, Geotail, a astrophysics mission, Astro-D/ASCA, and a solar physics mission, Yohkoh. Workshop discussions focused on extracting the problems, lessons, and elements of success experienced in the missions. Another thrust of the workshop was to consider future missions and how they may benefit from past lessons learned, or how the current policy, budgetary, technology environment may pose entirely different challenges for upcoming collaborative endeavors (e.g. technology transfer, commercialization, and intellectual property issues). The committee meets next on July 19-20 at Woods Hole to review a draft summary of the workshop and to consider future committee activities.

A short open session was held to discuss possible new tasks for the committee. Dr. Mike Wargo, acting director for NASA's Microgravity Research Division, was present to propose possible new tasks of interest to NASA. A number of topics were explored and it was agreed that NRC staff would follow up with NASA regarding those tasks that the committee feels to be within its scope.

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) met March 31-April 2, at the University of Colorado in Boulder to begin work on a new study concerning the certification and curation of martian samples. During the meeting the committee also heard from NASA representatives about ongoing programs, Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee participants about relevant aspects of the decadal astronomy survey, international space programs and the industrial perspective. The report, A Science Strategy for the Exploration of Europa, is currently being revised in response to reviewers' comments. Other committee meetings will be held July 26-28, in Washington, DC, and November 1-5, in Irvine, CA.
The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met June 3-5, in Woods Hole, MA, to review and revise the first-draft chapters for its report on NASA biomedical research programs. The meeting also included an examination of the various discipline chapters. One area of particular confusion was the status of discipline balance in the life sciences program, and the committee agreed to use NASA's FY 99 budget figures as a consistent basis for making this determination. The committee identified additional resource materials needed and agreed to a schedule for developing additional iterations of the report prior to its September meeting.
The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) met June 28-30 in Woods Hole, MA. The meeting began with a discussion with George Withbroe, director of NASA's Sun-Earth Connections (SEC) Enterprise. Withbroe reported on the Solar-Terrestrial Probes line, Solar B instrument selection, the STEREO AO, and the MO&DA budget for SEC.

The committee heard presentations related to the on-going SEC Roadmap exercise from Bill White (Mission Research Corp.), Vassilis Angelopoulos (UC Berkeley), Jim Slavin (NASA GSFC), and Keith Strong (Lockheed-Martin). The SEC Roadmap, now in its final stages of completion, covers the time period 2000 to 2015. Slavin noted that this roadmap develops the scientific rationale for new missions in more depth than did the previous roadmap. He also noted that there is more attention given to SEC relevance to other units within NASA and to other agencies.

The meeting included discussions with Rich Behnke, Director of Atmospheric Sciences at NSF, committee member Dick Wolf, who also chairs the NSWP Metrics Committee, and Terry Onsager of NOAA's Space Environment Center.

Most of the meeting was devoted to formulating revisions in response to external review of the committee's report Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk and to developing a plan for a workshop to support the committee's next study, "Solar Connections: A Universal Science."

The next meeting of the committee will take place November 15-17 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California.

In general, the task group's reaction to NASA/OSS efforts was very positive. The group felt that NASA's planning on advanced technology is improving and that the agency's approach to matching technology development to program needs is laudable. Restructuring of the cross-cutting technology program also appears to be moving in the right direction.

The task group raised concerns about the portfolio mix of near-term vs. far-term technology development, and the need for the OSS AT&MS division to stay focused on big picture issues, rather than details. These and other specific issues will be discussed in more depth when the task group holds a fall meeting, as requested by NASA, to conduct an external review of the OSS advanced technology development (ATD) program and of NASA's official response to the NRC report recommendations. This activity will continue to be a joint activity with the NRC's Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.

The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) has been actively pursuing funding for a series of three workshops on remote sensing. The workshops will address the changes in remote sensing from a government and research-oriented environment to a more commercial and applications-oriented climate and how this transition is affecting basic research and education, public sector uses of remote sensing and the development of new remote sensing applications. SSB staff and steering committee members have held discussions, recently, with officials at NASA and USDA about potential interest in the workshops and have solicited low-level support from private remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) companies. NOAA, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are interested in supporting the workshops. The steering committee met on June 23 to discuss increasing and broadening membership in preparation for the workshop activities and set a date of December 13-14 for a workshop planning meeting.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms are expected to be published in late summer.
The Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa held its second and third meetings, primarily writing meetings, May 3-4 in Boulder, CO, and July 1-2 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA. A report will be issued in the fall.
The Task Group for the Evaluation of NASA's Biotechnology Facility for the International Space Station (TGBTF) was formed to look at NASA's proposed plans to support a range of investigations in cell biology (cell culture, growth, and differentiation) and molecular structure (growth of biological macromolecular crystals such as proteins and nucleic acids). The task group, chaired by Dr. Paul Sigler of Yale University, held its first meeting on April 26-27 in Washington, DC. The task group heard presentations from NASA on the use of the International Space Station (ISS) as a research platform, on the agency's goals for its research programs in cell science and protein crystal growth, and on the engineering plans and schedule for the ISS biotechnology facility. The committee is next scheduled to meet for two site visits in July, one to the Marshall Space Flight Center, where work on molecular structure is based, and one to Johnson Space Center, where the cell biology program is managed.
The Task Group on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research (IASSR) held its first meeting May 18-20 in Houston, TX. Its charge is to address general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements, such as a non-government organization, for facilitating the conduct of research on the International Space Station. At the meeting the task group heard presentations from NASA officials regarding NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise, the overall International Space Station (ISS) program, ISS utilization planning, and research mission management and integration. Members were also briefed on plans for ISS utilization in life and microgravity sciences, Earth and space sciences, engineering research, and commercial development. Additional briefings and discussions covered NASA's reference model for a non-government organization for ISS research, international participation in the ISS program, and the perspective of the ISS prime contractor, Boeing, on ISS operations and utilization. The task group began to outline its study and laid plans for the next meeting to be held July 26-28 in Washington, DC. This project is being conducted jointly by the SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.

Mr. Craig Herbold, our SSB summer intern, is a student at the University of Southern California working on bachelors degrees in biology and environmental studies-chemistry; he will graduate in May 2000. Craig has participated in several research projects including: 16s ribosomal DNA isolation, sequencing and phylogenetic classification under Dr. Jed Fuhrman, University of Southern California; Intraspecific Facilitation/ Ecological Stoichiometry of oligotrophic lakes in the Canadian Shield under Dr. Jim Elser, Arizona State University; and Biology/Surface Interactions - studies of bacterial adhesion and surface mediated protein unfolding under Dr. Steve Goheen, Battelle - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Before coming to the SSB, Craig spent five weeks in Roseburg, Oregon collecting salmonid data for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Ms. Nadia Targulian, our NRC summer intern, is a PhD candidate at Purdue, working in the areas of remote sensing and geographic information systems. Chris Johannsen (SSB member) is her advisor. Nadia has a diploma of higher education in social and economic geography of the world from Moscow State University. She has worked for USAID assisting with seminar projects on franchising in Russia. At Purdue, Nadia is a graduate research assistant helping with the preparation of lecture materials for a class on remote sensing of land resources. She is also responsible for the inventory of all available remote sensing data for the multidisciplinary project "Increasing Public Benefits of Existing NASA Earth Sciences Data: Multipurpose Applications in an Agricultural Watershed." Her thesis focuses on urban sprawl monitoring by remote sensing and GIS techniques.