The Space Studies Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1 March 2000

From the Chair

Over the past year the Space Studies Board, and especially its Committee on International Space Programs, has grown concerned about the impact of evolving implementation of export control regulations on the conduct of international space cooperation. The increased stringency of controls on the movement of scientific and technological information and hardware could have serious effects on. In the most extreme scenario, the regulations could have dire consequences on all university based space research, since the regulations also apply to foreign nationals within the U.S. who are not permanent residents, such as graduate students and post-docs.

The problem is rooted in provisions introduced to deal, appropriately, with the dangers of arms proliferation. This is done, in part, by controlling the transfer of items on the U.S. Munitions List, which covers all spacecraft components and, more broadly, all related technical data. These controls are implemented under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which now applies strict controls on transfer of data, as well as hardware. There is an explicit exclusion for aspects of the International Space Station program, and a more general exclusion for data associated with "fundamental research" that is considered "in the public domain."

Two recent changes appear to have exacerbated the situation. First, licensing authority has been transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State, which applies the stricter ITAR and whose limited staff is already overloaded. Second, NASA has placed the burden of meeting the administrative requirements for seeking ITAR license approvals on its "contractors", including universities, and NASA has remained silent on the question of how exceptions for fundamental research are to be interpreted. For example, is a proprietary proposal from a university to NASA covered by the fundamental research exemption? The effects of these changes on commercial spacecraft companies have also been widely discussed in the media—the impact on universities has not and is only now being realized.

The repercussions in the university community have already been serious. For example, there are worries that foreign space partners will show reluctance to contemplate long-term cooperative projects with the United States. This is understandable if even technical discussions with scientists from other countries to explore possible cooperation could easily be in technical violation of ITAR unless a prior license is obtained. Other current or potential impacts include licensing delays and mission schedule slips, impediments to proposal preparations with foreign partners, complications in administration of non-U.S. graduate students, and so on. Some universities, including my own, hold strongly to the principle of an open campus and would simply have to refuse grants or contracts that seek to limit participation by students or staff on the basis of nationality.

The SSB has no argument over the need for a sensible regime to control sensitive technology. But something needs to be done to address what I expect are the unintended consequences of the changes in export control. NASA could help in the short term by working with the universities to clarify the rules and exemptions, preferably in a way that preserves the openness of fundamental research. A more global approach would be for all the relevant agencies to come to a common agreement similar to that promulgated in 1985 by President Reagan through his National Security Decision Directive 189. This asserts that national interest is best served when "to the maximum extent possible, the products of fundamental research remain unrestricted." NSDD 189 was issued in response to similar controls that had begun to appear in some federal grants and contracts nearly 20 years ago. It states clearly, that "where the national security requires control, the mechanism for control of information generated during federally-funded fundamental research in science, technology and engineering at colleges, universities and laboratories is classification." In the intervening years, this approach seems to have worked well for both the government and the university community. Reaffirming its principles in the context of fundamental research in space would seem the best way to deal with this issue.

Claude R. Canizares
crc@space.mit.edu

Board Director's Column

The first quarter of the year has been a time to reflect on the lessons from recent space mission failures, to look forward with new optimism toward prospects for future programs and budgets, and to take one last look at the SSB's work over the last year. We will touch on each of those items briefly below.

Mission failure reports

During the first quarter there were at least six reports released to examine aspects of recent NASA mission problems and their implications for the agency's efforts to achieve increased flight frequencies, streamlined project management, and lower mission costs (the "faster-better-cheaper" paradigm). The first was from the Space Shuttle Independent Assessment Team, chaired by Dr. Henry McDonald, released March 7. Two more were made public March 13: the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board report, led by Arthur Stephenson, and the Faster, Better, Cheaper Review, led by Tony Spear. The last two, and most anticipated, were the reports of the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team, headed by A. Thomas Young, and the Mars Polar Lander Failure Review Board, directed by John Casani, both released on March 28. In addition, the SSB released Assessment of Mission Size Trade-offs for Earth and Space Science in prepublication form on March 15. The executive summary of the SSB report is reprinted later in this newsletter.

Several common themes have emerged from these investigations and evaluations. For example, the reports often suggested that there has been too much emphasis on meeting schedule and cost, that problems weren't communicated, and that fundamental management and engineering principles were not always followed. Further, an inadequate system of checks and balances neglected to draw attention to the signals of trouble, when mistakes could have been fixed. Young's recipe for success is experienced oversight, sufficient testing, and independent analysis.

The SSB report looked more broadly at criteria for making decisions about mission size. A major finding of the study is that a mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the research objectives of those programs. The report views the "faster-better-cheaper" paradigm as a set of principles (including but not limited to streamlined management, flexibility, and technology infusion) that are independent of the size or scope of a mission. In short, the "faster-better-cheaper" approach need not be applied solely to "smaller" missions. With appropriate care, those principles can be matched to the science objectives and requirements of any mission. The report also commented that the technology cornerstone of the faster, better, cheaper paradigm has often been confused with science-based mission objectives.

NASA has yet to fully evaluate the recommendations and make improvements in the programs and their management. For this reason, the Mars 2001 lander has been canceled and the instruments will be flown in 2003. In addition, a new architecture for the Mars program will be implemented.

FY01 budget proposals

Members of the space research community could not help but react enthusiastically to news about the administration's FY01 budget proposals. Overall federal R&D budgets were slated for a 7% increase with NASA, NSF, and NOAA looking at requests for growth over FY00 of 6%, 17%, and 19%, respectively. Within the NASA totals, the science, aeronautics, and technology account was targeted for growth of $348 million over FY2000, with major portions of that growth allocated to solar system exploration missions including the Mars Surveyor program, a "Living with a Star" initiative in solar and space physics, restoration of the New Millennium technology validation program, and enhancements in life and microgravity sciences. To be sure, submission of the budget request to the Congress is only the first step in a long and often unpredictable process, but early Congressional reactions were generally supportive. Major hurdles that remain to be resolved include the questions of whether Congress will seek to move funds from domestic discretionary accounts, where the most science budgets sit, to increase defense allocations and whether efforts to provide larger tax reductions will reduce the sums available for spending by federal agencies.

European space research

The European Space Agency will have a budget of $2.6 billion for the year 2000, as reported in January. The budget will be allocated, primarily, to launch vehicles, Earth observation programs, and human space flight (55.7%), while scientific programs will receive 13.2% of the total budget. As in previous years, France provided the largest member-nation contribution to the ESA budget (29.4%); Germany (25.7%) and Italy (14%) were also large contributors. Twelve other countries including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland provided the remainder of ESA's budget.

In recent ESA science news, the agency will decide from six proposals for the second and third of its Flex missions. These missions were introduced in 1997 to incorporate smaller missions and more flexibility into the ESA program, which had focused in the past on larger, cornerstone missions. The Mars Express mission, scheduled for launch in 2003, is the first such Flex mission. The candidates for the next Flex missions (at a budget of no more than $168 million) include the ESA participation in the Next Generation Space Telescope, a planned follow-on to the Hubble Space Telescope. Other proposals include a three-spacecraft mission to explore the magnetospheric "ring current" left after solar eruptions and a solar orbiter that will travel approximately 30 million kilometers from the Sun, allowing detailed views of the surface and atmosphere and direct sensing of solar wind effects and energized particles. Others include an asteroid belt mission, a test of precise atomic gyroscopes and motion sensors, a test of fundamental predictions of quantum theory, and a telescope to study stars for oscillations and passing planets. The selection process is expected to take place in the fall of 2000.

SSB year-end volunteer statistics

Finally, in keeping with our continuing attention to metrics for the work of the SSB, we take one last look back at the year 1999. During the year the Board published 7 peer-reviewed reports, 4 of which were completed in less than 12 months. At year's end, 6 more reports were in review or in press and another 10 projects were under way. Some 184 volunteer experts from 81 universities, 18 private entities, 13 government agencies or national laboratories, and 11 other non-profit organizations served as appointed members of the Board and its committees and task groups. Another 200 experts contributed to the work of the SSB during the year as report reviewers, workshop participants, and/or expert briefers at meetings. Access to such a broad range of independent experts in science, technology, and policy remains one of the unique strengths of the SSB and its other NRC counterparts.

Joseph K. Alexander
jalexand@nas.edu

Board and Committee News

The Space Studies Board held its 130th meeting in Washington, DC on March 6-8. A main focus of the meeting was on the administration's FY2001 budget request, with presentations from Steve Isakowitz, Office of Management and Budget, Tim Peterson, House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, and Shana Dale and Richard Obermann, House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. NASA Associate Administrators Ed Weiler, Arnauld Nicogossian, Ghassem Asrar and NOAA Assistant Administrator Gregory Withee also presented information on the budget and about their specific programs.

The Board heard a presentation from NASA Associate Administrator Joseph Rothenberg on the International Space Station and the Human Exploration and Development for Space Enterprise. NASA Special Advisor Spence Armstrong spoke with the Board about his thoughts on a new initiative for NASA-university partnerships. He plans to produce a white paper on the topic for the NASA Administrator within a few weeks. Dr. Robert Cassanova from the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts spoke on the goals and activities of his program.

Dr. Jean-Claude Worms, Executive Secretary of the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), provided an update on their programs. The ESSC is planning an April workshop on international collaboration for large-scale space science objectives, and several SSB observers will be present.

The meeting included splinter sessions on the review of the Office of Space Science strategic plan and possible new studies on data mining and on NASA-university partnerships.

Mr. Daniel Goldin, NASA Administrator, spoke to Board members about his goals for NASA, particularly in the new areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and information technology. He also expressed enthusiasm for a new study under the Board on Physics and Astronomy regarding research opportunities at the intersections of fundamental physics and astrophysics.

The Board heard from representatives of the three NASA Advisory Committees relating to science: Megan Urry represented the Space Science Advisory Committee, Gerard Faeth the Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee and Robert Schiffer the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee. Increased interaction to promote effective communication between those groups and the Board is a goal.

The Board approved a statement of task for a new study on solar connections by the Committee on Solar and Space Physics. It gave preliminary approval for a letter report assessing NASA's Solar System Exploration Roadmap and a regular report on The Certification and Quarantine of Martian Samples, both by the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration. The Board heard an update on progress from member Mary Jane Osborn, a member of the NRC Task Force on Goals and Organization. Chairs of the standing committees presented progress reports, and SSB staff made reports on task group activities. The Board will next meet June 14-16 at the NRC in Washington, DC.

The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics did not meet during this quarter. Work continues on its draft report, Federal Funding of Astronomical Research, which is expected to be published in the spring. The committee also contributed, via e-mail, to the Board's review of the draft Office of Space Science strategic plan.

The Committee on Earth Studies met in Washington, DC on February 7-10. During the first two days of the meeting, the committee hosted a well-attended workshop in support of a new study, Climate Processing and Archive Strategies for NPP and NPOESS. The results from this study will provide the sponsors, NOAA NESDIS and NASA's Office of Earth Science, with a preliminary assessment of data processing, management, and archiving issues that should be considered in the near-term as plans are developed to maximize the utility to climate researchers of data anticipated from the satellites in the NPOESS Preparatory Program (NPP) and the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). A short report from the committee is anticipated in June.

The current study on how to ensure the climate data record from NPP and NPOESS draws on investigations by the CES in preparing a report (in two parts): Issues in the Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems for Climate Research. Publication of these reports is anticipated in the second quarter.

The Committee on International Space Programs met on January 24-25 in Washington, DC. The committee heard updates from the NASA science program offices (Office of Space Science, Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications (OLMSA), and Office of Earth Science). In addition, the committee heard from OLMSA's Space Utilization and Product Development Division on commerce and cooperation on the International Space Station and from the Life Sciences Division on the International Space Life Sciences Strategic Planning Group.

In response to the Space Studies Board's interest and issues emerging from a U.S.-European-Japanese trilateral workshop on space cooperation, the committee held a panel discussion on the potential implications of U.S. export control policies for space research. Representatives from NASA headquarters, NASA Goddard, OSTP, and the law offices of Covington and Burling participated, along with Jack Gibbons, former director of OSTP, and staff from various units across the NRC. The panel members and the committee noted several areas where the policies are or will have a detrimental effect on research, including the role of foreign graduate students working at university space laboratories. Following the meeting, Chair Eugene Skolnikoff and SSB Chair Claude Canizares authored a letter to NRC Chair Dr. Bruce Alberts urging the Academies to explore the impact of export control policies on research.

The committee also spent time reviewing NASA's Office of Space Science draft strategic plan, discussing dissemination of its recent workshop summary on U.S.-European-Japanese space cooperation, and considering potential new activities. The committee will meet next on June 12-13 in Washington, DC.

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) held its Scientific Program Committee, Publications Committee and Bureau meetings on March 29-April 2 in Paris, France. Key issues discussed were the scientific program for the 33rd COSPAR Scientific Assembly to be held in Warsaw during July, negotiations on a new publications contract, and general COSPAR business. In addition, the Joint Program Committee (JPC) for the World Space Congress (WSC) 2002 met to discuss a site visit to the WSC conference center (George Brown Convention Center in Houston, TX) held in late January, and plans and preparations for the WSC program. The JPC may include theme days on space medical research, space station research and space applications, among other theme ideas in the WSC program. These events would focus on current or future space research, technology and applications and include field visits to local institutions such as science museums, the Houston Medical Center, and the Johnson Space Center that would complement the theme ideas. Other issues discussed at the March JPC meeting were potential joint science-engineering sessions, plenary lectures, and possible joint publications.

The Committee on Microgravity Research did not meet during this quarter. The report, Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies, is currently being edited with a release anticipated in the second quarter of the year.

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration met on March 29-31 at the National Academies' Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The meeting was devoted to two principal activities: revision of the report Certification and Quarantine of Martian Samples in response to comments made during the Space Studies Board's review of the report in early March, and presentations and discussions designed to help the committee refine the statement of task for a proposed task, The Exploration of Organic Environments in the Solar System. Additional activities included presentations on the current status of NASA's planetary exploration programs, the state of the Mars exploration program in the wake of the failures of Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander, and the final disposition of the Galileo spacecraft. The latter presentation was held in response to a request from NASA's Planetary Protection Officer for input on the most appropriate way to dispose of the spacecraft in light of current planetary quarantine considerations.

Work continued on the letter report, "Scientific Assessment of Exploration of the Solar System—Science and Mission Strategy," requested by NASA's Science Program Director for Solar System Exploration during the committee's November meeting. An initial draft of the letter was reviewed by the Space Studies Board in early March and a revised text was sent to external reviewers in late March. It is anticipated that the letter will be forwarded to NASA in mid-April.

The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine met on March 27-28, in Washington, DC, to revise its report on the NASA biomedical program in response to external review comments. Release of the report is planned for early summer. During the meeting, a discussion of biology/microgravity interfaces was held to generate topic areas for a possible future workshop.

The Committee on Solar and Space Physics met at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA, January 17-18. The committee received updates on NASA's Sun-Earth Connection program (SEC) and its new Living with a Star Initiative; it also received briefings on the SEC roadmap and the National Space Weather Program. Most of the meeting was devoted to gathering information for an anticipated new study, Solar Connections: A New Emphasis for Space and Solar Physics. This project will provide a scientific assessment and strategy for the study of magnetized plasmas in the solar system. By emphasizing the connections between locally occurring (solar system) structures and processes and their astrophysical counterparts, the study will contribute to a unified view of cosmic plasma behavior. It will also relate basic scientific studies of plasmas to studies of the Sun's influence on the Earth's space environment. During the spring and early summer, five small panel meetings in the five topic areas will be held to draft material for the study. A report is planned for release by April 2001. The committee released a pre-publication version of Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk, in December. Bound versions of the report were available in March. The next meeting of the committee will take place in Woods Hole, MA, June 25-26.

The Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science met October 18-19, 1999, in Washington, DC, to gather information for a review of NASA's response to the task group report Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science published in November 1998. The letter report resulting from that meeting was delivered to NASA March 16.

The Task Group for the Evaluation of NASA's Biotechnology Facility for the International Space Station delivered its report, Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station, to NASA on February 29. The findings and recommendations detailed within the report are aimed at helping NASA perform biotechnology research (protein crystal growth and cell science) effectively on the International Space Station. The task group found that both the protein crystal growth and cell science programs had the potential to significantly impact relevant scientific fields and to increase understanding and insight into fundamental biological issues. The report includes recommendations in technical areas, such as the kinds of instruments to be used on the space station, and it discusses changes that should be made in the NASA culture to improve the interaction between the agency and the scientific community. In the area of protein crystal growth, the task group recommended that a series of "proof-of-concept" grants should be funded to definitively determine whether the microgravity environment positively impacts protein crystal growth. Dissemination activities will continue into March and April, including briefings to NASA advisory committees and the Office of Management and Budget.

The report of the Task Group on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research was delivered to NASA in late 1999, and dissemination activities continued during the first quarter of 2000. Task group chair Cornelius Pings provided briefings to the NASA Chief Scientist's Science Council, and to staff members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Other briefings were arranged for the NASA Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications Advisory Committee and the Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee.

The Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa did not meet during this quarter. Work on revising the text in response to comments made during the Space Studies Board's review last November was completed in March. The report was sent to external review in late March and work on compiling and responding to reviewer comments will follow.

The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization has been continuing to prepare for its May workshop. The committee has selected speakers, completed work on the agenda, and disseminated a workshop announcement. The Workshop will focus on the knowledge and technology transfer processes involved in moving the use of remote sensing information from research purposes to more widely used applications and decision-making tools. The workshop will be held at the National Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue on May 3-4, 2000. For further information along with the workshop agenda and registration form, visit the workshop page.

The Committee on Astrobiology will hold a workshop on life detection on April 25-26 at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, DC. The workshop represents the inaugural activity of the NRC's new Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL), and responds to NASA's request for a comprehensive and interactive workshop that updates new techniques for detecting extraterrestrial organisms and their biosignatures. The timing of this workshop coincides with NASA planning for return of Mars samples. Experts in the areas of laboratory and in situ detection of extant life, as well as investigation of evidence for extinct life in planetary samples, will speak as well as interact through panel discussions. A report of the workshop is planned.

The Space Studies Board, in cooperation with the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, undertook a review of the scientific aspects of NASA's Triana mission. The task group met in Washington, DC on January 12-13 and heard presentations from the Triana science team, among others. The letter report completed review and was delivered to NASA on March 6. Task group chair James Duderstadt briefed staff members from Congress, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Vice President's Office when the report was released.

The ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of Mission Size Tradeoffs for NASA's Earth and Space Science Missions released a prepublication version of its report on March 15. The report is continuing to be edited for final publication. Chair Daniel Baker presented the results of the report to officials at NASA and OMB in late March.

Distinguished Leaders in Science Lectures Series: 1999-2000

The lecture series continued this quarter with the presentation by Claude Canizaries, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Exploring the Violent Universe with the Chandra X-ray Observatory."

As with past lectures in this series, Dr. Canizaries' presentation was videotaped for later distribution on public access television channels in the Washington, DC area. Plans for more extensive broadcast dissemination of the lectures are currently under discussion.

The remaining space science lectures for the 1999-2000 session scheduled at 5:00 pm in the NAS Auditorium, are:
- April 18, Europa and the Rebirth of Exobiology, Christopher Chyba, SETI Institute
- May 11, The Sun-Earth Connection in the Space Age, Richard Canfield, Montana State University

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES
(Congressional Testimony)

Statement of

Mary J. Osborn, Ph.D.
Member of the Space Studies Board
National Research Council
and
Professor and Head of the Department of Microbiology
University of Connecticut Health Center

Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, The U.S. House of Representatives

MARCH 22, 2000

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and members of the committee: thank you for inviting the Space Studies Board here to testify. My name is Mary Osborn and I am a professor and head of microbiology at the University of Connecticut Health Center. I appear today in my capacity as a member of the Space Studies Board (SSB) and chair of its Committee on Space Biology and Medicine.

As you know the SSB is the unit of the National Research Council (NRC) that is responsible for providing independent advice to the federal government on civil space science and applications research. The SSB oversees two standing committees that focus on issues in life and microgravity sciences, and it also constitutes special task groups and panels as needed. For a number of years I have chaired the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, which examines issues in all areas of space life sciences research, including such problems as the rapid bone loss and changes in cardiac function seen in astronauts. Our sister committee, the Committee on Microgravity Research, oversees a diverse range of disciplines that include combustion and materials science, fluid physics, and biotechnology research.

Over the years Space Studies Board committees and panels have carried out a number of studies directed at NASA programs in life and microgravity sciences and applications, some of which you have asked that I discuss today. The advice resulting from these studies has generally fallen into two categories: (1) long-range strategies that provide detailed scientific priorities for the direction and content of the research program and also identify programmatic barriers to ensuring research quality, and (2) more focused reviews of specific issues of near-term interest to NASA.

One of the studies named in your invitation was A Strategy for Research in Space Biology and Medicine in the New Century, published in 1998. This study was a long-range science strategy. Utilizing an expert committee, focused workshops, and specialized task groups, the NRC carried out a comprehensive review of the status of research in eleven disciplines of space life sciences, surveyed the broader scientific fields in which those disciplines reside, and identified the most useful directions for future research both within and across those disciplines. The resulting report lays out a prioritized research agenda for fields ranging from plant biology to bone physiology, and is intended to guide NASA in planning the direction of life sciences research aboard the International Space Station (ISS) for at least the next decade.

In the course of this study it became clear that our understanding of the effects of spaceflight on the human body is still fragmentary despite more than three decades of flight experience. This knowledge gap is due partly to the relative brevity of most U.S. flights to date and the small number of dedicated life sciences missions, but the committee also found that there were numerous barriers—legal, institutional, and cultural—to the collection and analysis of biomedical data from astronauts. Collection and analyses of these data are critical to ensuring the future health and safety of astronauts, and the 1998 report recommended that NASA initiate an ISS-based program to collect detailed biomedical data and that NASA promote internal mechanisms for ensuring that this data is accessible to qualified investigators.

In addition to setting specific discipline priorities, the report presented a number of broad findings such as the following:
The highest research priority should be given to problems that may limit astronaut survival or function in prolonged spaceflight. Losses in bone and muscle mass, for instance, pose two of the greatest obstacles to astronaut health and safety on long missions. Gravitational transitions experienced by astronauts as they enter and return from space can have debilitating effects on their balance and locomotion control. And exposure to radiation could pose serious health effects for crewmembers in long-term missions beyond Earth orbit.

While space-based research will be crucial for advancing knowledge, those experiments should not be performed until ground-based research has demonstrated a clear need for flight data and a clear-cut hypothesis has been developed that can be credibly tested under flight conditions.

There is a critical need for NASA to improve its collection and dissemination of data from astronauts in order to answer fundamental questions about the effects of space travel on the human body and mind.

The 1998 report is now being followed up by a review of NASA's current biomedical research program in light of the recommendations of the 1998 strategy report. This follow-up study was requested by NASA and will be completed this summer.

An example of a more focused assessment is the recently released SSB/NRC report, Future Biotechnology Research on the International Space Station, which reviewed NASA's plans for research in protein crystal growth and in cell science on the ISS. I'll talk in a little more detail about the findings of this report, as I understand it is of special interest to this subcommittee.

In general, this report concluded that NASA's protein crystal growth and cell science programs both have the potential to significantly impact relevant scientific fields and to increase understanding and insight into fundamental biological issues. The report includes recommendations in technical areas, such as the kinds of instruments to be used on the space station, and discusses changes that should be made in NASA's culture to improve its interaction with the scientific community. The findings and recommendations detailed in the report are aimed at helping NASA perform biotechnology research effectively on the International Space Station.

The specific findings and recommendations of the report include the following points:
The body of work to date on protein crystal growth in space has not provided conclusive evidence about how microgravity affects crystals, and the impact of space-grown crystals on the field of structural biology has been limited. However, some biologically important macromolecules are still very hard to crystallize, and NASA could have significant impact by focusing on these types of proteins.

NASA needs to fund a series of "proof-of-concept" grants to determine definitively the effects of microgravity on protein crystal growth. The success or failure of these research efforts will resolve the issue of whether the microgravity environment can be a valuable tool for researchers and the results should determine the future of the NASA protein crystal growth program.

In the cell science area, NASA's broad-based goal of exploring the fundamental effects of the microgravity environment on biological systems at the cellular level is appropriate, and the work in this area has the potential to have significant impact on the fields of cell science and tissue engineering. However, NASA needs to choose among the many possible areas of basic research in order to focus its grants programs and the instrumentation development activities.

Some of the hardware currently in advanced stages of development greatly impressed the task group; examples include the x-ray crystallography facility for observing and analyzing protein crystals and the miniaturized and automated systems for growing cell and tissue cultures. The technological innovations reflected in these systems could have significant impact in ground-based laboratories as well as in space. However, the recent instabilities in the ISS budget are compromising equipment development. If money is repeatedly siphoned off from hardware development work, the quality of the equipment on the ISS will be significantly below that of the cutting-edge hardware available on the ground, and researchers will not be interested in using outdated equipment or willing to entrust precious samples to it.

NASA should improve its outreach activities in order to broaden the scientific community involved in its biotechnology research program and increase the number of cutting-edge projects submitted for funding. At the same time NASA must be careful to present a balanced picture of the program's successes and limitations. Press releases targeted to the general public often lead to misconceptions about NASA's goals and accomplishments (artificial organs are not being grown in space, and protein crystal growth work has not produced a flu vaccine). By allowing the widespread dissemination of vague or even inaccurate descriptions of the program, NASA is seriously diminishing the credibility of its work within the scientific community.

I will now turn to microgravity sciences for a moment. A comprehensive SSB/NRC report published in 1995, Microgravity Research Opportunities for the 1990s, recommended priorities for basic research in each of the major microgravity disciplines of fluid dynamics, biotechnology, materials science, fundamental physics, and combustion. And just this month, a strategy report with a more applied focus was released, called Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies. This major study surveys a wide range of potential exploration technologies and considers how reduced gravity could fundamentally alter the fluids and materials behaviors on which these technologies depend. The report recommends priorities in areas of basic research that could pay off in terms of improving space technology design over the next one to three decades, for example, characterization of the complex behaviors of fluid and vapor in space-based systems.

I would like to close by addressing the subcommittee's final question about Space Studies Board recommendations on improving NASA's management of life and microgravity research funds to optimize the scientific return of missions. Programmatic recommendations affecting the management of life and microgravity research funds have been made in many NRC reports over the years. For instance, since 1994, three letter reports, one focused report, and three major reports have addressed peer review. The establishment of rigorous peer review has been credited with greatly improving the quality of NASA's research in these areas, and our reports have stressed the importance of maintaining impartiality in this process by retaining peer review of research grants as a NASA headquarters function. The Space Studies Board continues to monitor this issue carefully as some former NASA responsibilities are shifted to new institutes and non-governmental organizations.

Additional SSB advice relevant to the management of life and microgravity research funds has pointed out:

(1) The importance of a strong ground-based research program to ensure a pool of quality flight investigations;
(2) The importance of maintaining a continuity of flight opportunities in order to retain an investigator community capable of making productive use of the space station;
(3) Concerns that diverting funds from ISS experimental hardware development to pay for space station construction could threaten NASA's ability to carry out essential cutting-edge research on the space station;
(4) The importance of close interaction between the engineers developing hardware for space experiments and the scientific investigators who will be using it; and
(5) Concerns about the limited amount of time and training that astronauts will have for performing experiments on the ISS. To address this limitation NASA has been urged to place a high priority on the automation of routine tasks, development of systems and hardware for ground-based control of experiments (tele-operation), provision of on-orbit analytical capabilities for monitoring and real-time feedback, and transmission of digital data and real-time communications between astronauts and scientists on the ground.

NASA's life and microgravity science program leaders have made good progress in strengthening the program in recent years, and the SSB believes that if the agency can implement the recommendations made in the reports cited above, the prospects for performing valuable scientific work on the ISS remain strong. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and for your attention.

New Reports from the SSB

ASSESSMENT OF MISSION SIZE TRADE-OFFS FOR EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS (AReport Summary.)

This report, by the Ad-Hoc Committee on Assessment of Mission Size Trade-Offs for Earth and Space Science Missions, was staffed by Pamela Whitney, Senior Program Officer, and Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant. A condensed version of the Executive Summary follows.

This report addresses fundamental issues of mission architecture in the nation’s scientific space program and responds to the FY99 Senate conference report, which requested that NASA com-mission a study to assess the strengths and weaknesses of small, medium, and large missions. To that end, the National Research Council set three tasks for the ad hoc committee:

Evaluate the general strengths and weaknesses of small, medium, and large missions in terms of their potential scientific productivity, responsiveness to evolving opportunities, ability to take advantage of technological progress, and other factors that may be identified during the study;

Identify which elements of the NRC and NASA science strategies will require medium or large missions to accomplish high-priority objectives; and
Recommend general principles or criteria for evaluating the mix of mission sizes in Earth and space science programs. The factors to be considered will include not only scientific, technological, and cost trade-offs but also institutional and structural issues pertaining to the vigor of the research community, government-industry-university partnerships, graduate student training, and the like.

The committee approached these questions in light of the changing environment at NASA, which has been conducting more and more smaller space and Earth science missions having shorter development times and using streamlined management methods, advanced technologies, and more compact platforms than had been employed in the past. The committee referred to this approach as the faster-better-cheaper (FBC) paradigm, a variant of "smaller, faster, cheaper, better" and similar phrases that have been used to describe the changing environment for space research missions.

The committee interpreted the FBC paradigm as a set of principles (including, but not limited to, streamlined management, flexibility, and technological capability) that are independent of the size or scope of a mission but can be matched appropriately to the science objectives and requirements for a given mission. It understood the term "mission" to mean the entire process of carrying out a space-based research activity, including scientific conception, spacecraft and instrument design and development, selection of development contractors, selection of launch capability, mission operations, data analysis, and dissemination of scientific results.

It is within this broad context that the committee considered questions about the emerging FBC paradigm and its implications for mission size mixes in NASA’s Earth and space science programs. How FBC is defined and how FBC principles are applied to programs of any scale have many implications for the space program: its tolerance for risk; its ability to carry out strategic plans; the scope, scale, and diversity of science investigated; the results and analytical products of its missions; the ways it trains young scientists and engineers; the role of international cooperation and the ease with which it can be incorporated into NASA’s programs and plans; the role of universities, industry, government laboratories, and NASA centers in conducting space research missions; and the general health and vitality of the space science and Earth science enterprises. Policy makers looking for guidance on these programs in terms of cost and size trade-offs should be made aware that the variables are more numerous and much more complex than might at first be supposed.

The FBC approach emerged from the widely held belief that some large, traditional NASA missions had become unwieldy. With development times of over a decade (which often resulted in flying less capable technologies) and escalating costs, such missions came under increasing scrutiny, even given the magnificence of their promised (and realized) scientific returns. Traditional missions called into question the ability of NASA’s Earth and space science research programs to obtain the highest quality and quantity of research return in the most timely and efficient fashion. Cuts in NASA’s budget beginning in the early 1990s further encouraged new approaches for obtaining scientific returns in more efficient and cost-effective ways, albeit with added risk.

"Faster" missions can be made so by streamlining the management and development effort, by shortening the development schedule, by using the best available technology, and perhaps even by knowingly accepting more risk. In general, such methods will also lead to a "cheaper" mission. However, for NASA research programs, technological or managerial innovation are not ends unto themselves: The clear and obvious meaning of "better" is that more science—more knowledge and better quality and quantity of measurements—about some aspects of the universe around us is returned for a given investment and that such returns occur in a timely manner.

The impression that faster-better-cheaper also means "smaller" has raised concerns that there is a growing shift away from larger-scale endeavors in the Earth and space science programs. However, the tendency to equate FBC with the size or cost of a space or Earth science mission can overlook a number of things: the requirements unique to different disciplines, the complexities of scientific objectives, time and spatial scales, and techniques for implementation involved in determining the scope of a mission. Total costs, mission capabilities, and the ultimate scientific results of space programs are a complex combination of the skill and performance of everyone associated with mission development, schedules, approaches to handling technical and management risks, technological implementation, and management style.

Through the careful planning processes that now characterizes both the Earth science and the space science enterprises, the key outstanding questions of each discipline can be framed. Each such science question or disciplinary quest must then be examined in terms of the science community’s priorities, the measurement requirements, and the technological readiness to determine which mission approach (or approaches) might be employed to address it. These science-based decisions on missions and approaches also incorporate strategies to engage and educate the general public and contribute to broader goals such as human exploration and development of space. A major consideration in all cases is the fiscal constraint that applies at any given time and the level of risk that can be tolerated by the mission’s scientific priority and its role in NASA’s strategic plan. The ad hoc committee recognizes that the recent losses of missions conducted using the FBC approach—Lewis, the Wide-Field Infrared Explorer (WIRE), Mars Climate Observer, and Mars Polar Lander—are in many ways calling into question some elements of the philosophy of FBC. Although it is beyond the scope of the committee’s charge to assess individual mission failures (this is a task for the mission failure review boards), the committee calls attention to the potential implications of these losses for science and, especially, for the direction of the NASA Mars program. Is the Mars program committed to a technology path that is proving to be riskier than its proponents originally anticipated? Are recent losses turning the program toward sample return missions that lack the critical precursors recommended in science strategy reports? How seriously has the scientific rationale and robustness of the Mars program been affected by the information lost from recent mission failures? Do current and future mission programs have ample time and budgets to integrate the lessons learned from previous failures? These and other ramifications of the recent series of losses of missions implemented under the FBC paradigm are of pressing and paramount concern.

FINDINGS

The committee supports several principles being implemented in the FBC methodology. Specifically, it has found a number of positive aspects of the FBC approach, including the following:

A mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all Earth and space science disciplines to accomplish the various research objectives. The FBC approach has produced useful improvements across the spectrum of programs regardless of absolute mission size or cost.

Shorter development cycles have enhanced scientific responsiveness, lowered costs, involved a larger community, and enabled the use of the best available technologies.

The increased frequency of missions has broadened research opportunities for the Earth and space sciences.

Scientific objectives can be met with greater flexibility by spreading a program over several missions.

Nonetheless, some problems exist in the practical application of the FBC approach, including the following:
The heavy emphasis on cost and schedule has too often compromised scientific outcomes (scope of mission, data return, and analysis of results).

Technology development is a cornerstone of FBC but has often been confused with the science-based mission objectives.

The cost and schedule constraints for some missions may lead to choosing designs, management practices, and technologies that introduce additional risks.

The nation’s launch infrastructure is limited in its ability to accommodate smaller spacecraft in a timely, reliable, and cost-effective way.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO NASA
Faster-Better-Cheaper Principles

Faster-better-cheaper methods of management, technology infusion, and implementation have produced useful improvements regardless of absolute mission size or cost. However, while improvements in administrative procedures have proven their worth in shortening the time to science, experience from missions losses (Mars Climate Observer and Lewis, for example) has shown that great care must be exercised in making changes to technical management techniques lest mission success be compromised.

Recommendation 1: Transfer appropriate elements of the FBC management principles to the entire portfolio of space science and Earth science mission sizes and cost ranges, and tailor the management approach of each project to the size, complexity, scientific value, and cost of its mission.

Science Scope and Balance

The nature of phenomena to be observed and the technological means of executing such observations are constrained fundamentally by the laws of physics, such that some worthwhile science objectives cannot be met by small satellites.

The strength and appeal of faster-better-cheaper is to promote efficiency in design and timely execution—shorter time to science—of space missions in comparison to what are perceived as less efficient or more costly traditional methods.

A mixed portfolio of mission sizes is crucial in virtually all disciplines. An emphasis on medium-sized missions has currently precluded comprehensive payloads on planetary missions and has tended to discourage large, extensive mission planning.

Recommendation 2: Ensure that science objectives—and their relative importance in a given discipline—are the primary determinants of what missions are carried out and their sizes, and ensure that mission planning responds to (1) the link between science priorities and science payload, (2) timeliness in meeting science objectives, and (3) risks associated with the mission.

Technology and Instrumentation

Technology development is a cornerstone of first-rate Earth and space science program. Advanced technology for instrument development and spacecraft systems and its timely infusion into space research missions is essential for carrying out almost all space missions in each of the disciplines, irrespective of mission size. The fundamental goal of technology infusion is to obtain the highest performance at the lowest cost.

The scientific program in Earth and space science missions conducted under the FBC approach has been critically dependent on instruments developed in the past. The ongoing development of new scientific instrumentation is essential for sustaining the FBC paradigm.

Recommendation 3: Maintain a vigorous technology program in the development of advanced spacecraft hardware that will enable a portfolio of missions of varying sizes and complexities.

Recommendation 4: Develop scientific instrumen-tation enabling a portfolio of mission sizes, assuring that funding for such development efforts is augmented and appropriately balanced with space mission line budgets.

Access to Space

The high cost of access to space remains one of the principal impediments to using the best and most natural mix of small and large spacecraft. While smaller spacecraft might appear to be the right solution for addressing many scientific questions from orbit, present launch costs make them an unfavorable solution from an overall program budgetary standpoint. Moreover, larger missions, too, are plagued by the excessive costs per unit mass for present launch vehicles.

The national space transportation policy requiring all U.S. government payloads to be launched on vehicles manufactured in the United States prevents taking advantage of low-cost access to space on foreign launch vehicles.

Recommendation 5: Develop more affordable launch options for gaining access to space, including —possibly—foreign launch vehicles, so that a mixed portfolio of mission sizes becomes a viable approach.

International Cooperation

International collaboration has proven to be a reliable and cost-effective means to enhance the scientific return from missions and broaden the portfolio of space missions. Nevertheless, it is sometimes considered, within NASA, to be detrimental, perhaps because it adds complexity and can bring delays to a mission. It is also perceived to give a mission an unfair advantage and perhaps to increase NASA’s financial risk.

In the past, NASA had within its budgets an international payload line, which was an extremely useful device for funding the planning, proposal preparation, and development and integration of peer-reviewed science instruments selected to fly on foreign-led missions. This line offered the U.S. scientific community highly leveraged access to important new international missions, by providing investigators with additional opportunities to fly instruments and retrieve data, especially during long hiatuses between U.S. missions in a given discipline.

Recommendation 6: Encourage international collaboration in all sizes and classes of missions, so that international missions will be able to fill key niches in NASA’s space and Earth science programs. Specifically, restore separate, peer-reviewed announcements of opportunity for enhancements to foreign-led space research.

Staff Changes

Dr. Joan Esnayra joined the Board on Biology of the Commission on Life Sciences in November 1999. She and David Smith of the SSB staff are working with the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (COEL-Astrobiology) which is planning a workshop on life detection methods scheduled for April 25-26. Joan is also working on a series of workshops in biotechnology sponsored by the Department of Energy and the National Cancer Institute, and on a study proposal that would assess undergraduate science education. Joan holds BA in philosophy from the University of Washington and a PhD in biology (specifically genetics) from the University of California, San Diego. She may be seen about The Academies with her service dog named 'Wasabe.'

Kirsten Armstrong has joined the SSB staff as our research assistant at 50% time. Kirsten is a student at George Washington University working on an MA degree in science, technology and public policy with a concentration in space policy. She expects to receive her degree in May 2001. Kirsten is a graduate of Whittier College, CA, with a BA in economics with academic distinction and a minor in Latin American studies. She served as an intern at OSTP from September-December 1999. She has also worked in various locations with the Boeing Company in Downey, CA, and Houston, TX, on several programs including the ISS, space shuttle and DoD satellite programs.

SSB Readership Survey Results

In September 1999 we included an informal survey in the newsletter for our readers to complete. The purpose of the survey was an attempt to gauge the interest in, and readership of, our newsletters and reports. The information supplied to us will help the SSB staff better meet the present and future needs of our readers.

Of the surveys distributed, we had a impressive 30% (229/770 surveys) return rate. Obviously you value what we do and are interested in helping us perform better. We are in the process of further enhancing the newsletter and looking at ways to improve the distribution of our reports. We will give all of your comments and suggestions thorough consideration.

Based on the responses, we learned that the majority of our readers work in academia (57%); 17% work in government; 4% in industry; 6% are self-employed; and the remaining 16% are in private environments, retired, or other occupations. Responses to the question on scientific interests showed that 13 % of our readers are interested in life and microgravity sciences; 12%, science policy; 11%, planetary and lunar exploration; and 10%, astronomy and astrophysics. Other categories of interest are: Earth studies (9%), human exploration of space (8%), international space programs (8%), solar and space physics (8%); technology and astrobiology, each, (7%); and space systems (5%).

Forty-three percent of our readers have received the SSB newsletter for more than five years; 36%, three to five years; 11%, one to two years; 8%, less than one year. The good news is that 91% find it useful, while 5% do not. Those persons not finding it useful indicated that: you're overwhelmed by the volume of newsletters that you receive; SSB activities no longer cover your area of interest; already familiar with the material.

Ninety-eight of our readers indicated they prefer to get the newsletter by email, however 113 still prefer the paper issue. Those of you who did not indicate a preference will continue to get the newsletter by postal mail.

Seventy-four percent of the respondents indicated they had previously received SSB reports. Forty-two percent prefer to read executive summaries, while 24% stated that the size of the report didn't matter.

We asked you to comment on the usefulness of the information contained in the newsletter and to also give us general comments on the SSB and its activities. Your comments were very informative. To see a list of replies, visit the Readership Survey Summary page.

Thank you for your continued support of the Space Studies Board and its activities.