Space Studies Board

Reproduced below is a statement prepared for presentation to the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House Committee on Science on February 11, 1999. Also participating in that hearing were the NASA Associate Administrators for Space Science, Earth Science, and Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and members of the committee. I am an astrophysicist from MIT, and I appear today in my capacity of as chair of the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council.

Last October, the Board published a report entitled Supporting Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs. Your invitation indicated that my testimony should focus on this report, which articulates the role of the Research and Data Analysis programs in NASA and suggests ways to improve them.

The Research and Data Analysis, or R&DA, portion of NASA's science activity is generally much less visible than missions with well-known names like Hubble or Galileo. But they are no less important to the conduct of NASA's research.

It is obvious that without the missions there would be no data from space, and research progress would grind to a halt. But without the R&DA programs there would be no effective missions, and little scientific return. Part of R&DA supports the work that provides the scientific underpinnings and often some key enabling technologies for NASA's missions, and part of it supports the scientific process that transforms the raw data from a mission into understanding, insight and discovery.

The R&DA programs are primarily aggregations of numerous investigations by individuals or consortia both inside and outside NASA. Each one is generally modest but the total is a significant fraction of NASA's science expenditures, altogether about 40%. The projects include work in theory and computation, ground-based or sub-orbital research, technology and instrument development, analysis of mission data, and education including training the next generations of space scientists and engineers. This diffusion and multiplicity is both a strength of R&DA and one reason for its diminished visibility. In addition, a significant fraction of R&DA funding covers some large infrastructures like the Data & Information System for the Earth Observing System, EOSDIS.

Let me give you just a few examples of the breadth and scientific impact of R&DA:

Despite these contributions and many more like them, for many years the science community has been concerned that the quality of NASA science was being compromised by what appeared to be a growing imbalance between flight projects and R&DA investments. At the same time NASA's laudable move toward smaller, faster, and cheaper missions places new demands upon R&DA, since some of the activities previously funded by more lengthy flight projects will now come from the research base.

Evaluating budget trends for R&DA proved to be difficult. Adjusting for inflation, the aggregate expenditures in all categories grew significantly from FY91-98, but most of that is due to the growth of EOSDIS and to some accounting changes. More to the point, the traditional Research & Analysis, or R&A, account which represents a key element of NASA's grants program fell by 22% over the same period. Moreover, R&A, as a fraction of NASA science-related funding fell by 35%. As for individual investigator awards, the task group found a wide range in grant size, and a 25% decline in the size of a typical grant to a level that appears subcritical for even a lone researcher.

These trends were consistent with the perception that the several components of NASA's R&DA activities are in general not optimally balanced and may offer opportunities for increased efficiency.

In terms of recommendations, the task group did not presume to say what the right balance among R&DA programs should be. Rather, it did recommend that NASA's science offices should themselves revisit these issues. The science offices should use various means to improve their overview of the R&DA activities, periodically evaluate their efficiency and the balance, and do this in the context of their existing strategic plans.

The thrust of these recommendations also touches on your second question regarding ways NASA might ensure that each individual mission's potential is fully utilized.

As general principles, the Space Studies Board has consistently held that the best way to assure high quality research is first, through use of the peer review process, and secondly by keeping authority for primary science allocation decisions at NASA Headquarters. I believe that the gentlemen from NASA here share these principles.

In closing, let me note that the very first objective of Title I of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 is "the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth, and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space." Meeting that objective over the past 40 years has been a major triumph for NASA and the space science community at large. I am confident that with proper stewardship, the current plans of the agency can deliver to the nation and the world even more remarkable discoveries that expand our understanding, excite and inform the public, inspire and educate our children, and contribute to the well-being of the planet.

With the beginning of a new year, one can always look forward to the budding of spring flowers, flagging commitments to New Year's resolutions, and great expectations for a new budget for the next fiscal year. At first glance, and at a macroscopic level, the federal budget outlook is rosy, with expectations of growing budget surpluses over the next five years. Closer inspection, however, shows that the projected surpluses depend on assumptions about major Social Security reforms and on federal government access to portions of tobacco settlement funds recently negotiated between the industry and a number of states. Furthermore, it is not obvious that NASA or other R&D agencies are slated by the Administration to be beneficiaries of any of the projected surpluses. Finally, the Congress still is bound by budget "caps" established several years ago, and that has already posed a problem for the allocation to the appropriations subcommittees. Budget Committee allocations for General Science, Space, and Technology (where one finds NASA, NSF, and parts of DOE) have a $1 to 2 billion shortfall in FY2000 compared to the President's request. Similar shortfalls are evident in the allocation for Natural Resources where NOAA's budget rests. In the face of such a set of cautionary notes, "steady as you go" sounds like a pretty good mantra for space research budgets in the coming year.

The overall federal R&D budget proposed by the Administration calls for a 3% increase over FY1999, with an emphasis on basic research. NASA is projected for an overall decrease of 0.6% below its FY1999 total and accounts for Science, Aeronautics, and Technology would fall by 4.1% due largely to cuts in aeronautics. The budgets of the Office of Space Science and the Office of Earth Science are proposed to grow by 3.7% and 3.2%, respectively. In a move to provide budgetary resilience against possible further problems with Russia's contributions to the International Space Station (ISS), the ISS budget would increase by 7.7% over FY1999. Reflecting likely delays in the installation of research hardware on ISS, the proposed budget for the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications would drop 2.8% below FY1999 levels.

At the NSF, the total budget is proposed to grow by 5.8%, corresponding to one of the most substantial increases amongst R&D agencies. Within the NSF Research and Related Activities account, biological sciences would grow by 4.5%, physics by 3%, astronomical sciences by 2.9%, geosciences by 2.6%, and materials research by 2.1%. At NOAA, the President's request represents an increase of 12.9% over the last year. The National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS) is proposed to receive a 4.8% increase, the major portion of which would be for an increase in funds for NOAA's share of the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System being developed jointly with the DOD.

Appropriations hearings have already been occurring at a brisk pace. Thus one is tempted to hope that FY2000 may well begin unencumbered by having many agencies operating under a continuing resolution or funded under some sort of catch-all, omnibus appropriations bill similar to the one that resolved budgets for large portions of the government last year. Seasoned pragmatists, however, are not so optimistic.

In the actual space research arena there has been much to celebrate or anticipate and a few sobering events to contemplate as well. NASA's Office of Space Science is progressing through a series of 11 launches in the 12-month period from November 1998 through October 1999. Seven of those have already been accomplished successfully, although the premature opening of the telescope door led to loss of the Wide-field InfraRed Explorer mission in March before any data could be collected. Coming over the next several months are launches of a Boston University student Explorer for ionospheric and solar EUV studies in April, the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer in May, the Chandra Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility in July, and a recently scheduled Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission in October.

NASA's Office of Earth Science also expects a particularly busy year with 10 launches planned in 1999. They include Landsat-7, Quickscatt, GOES-L for NOAA, and the Earth Observing System AM-1 platform all in the first half of the year. These missions will be the first of 26 planned Earth-observing missions between now and 2002. The Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications reports excellent progress in its efforts over the past few years to build a core research community through its competitive, peer-reviewed grants program. The program now has more than 700 principal investigators, nearly three-quarters of whom come from academia, and plans exist to build that community to a cadre of about 950 PIs. A significant challenge for the program, however, is the question of how, or how soon, can those investigators be assured a regular flow of space-flight opportunities.

The Board, itself, entered 1999 with more than a dozen study reports in various stages of development and several more projects either under way leading to reports next year or in a planning stage for initiation this year. They cover topics across all space science disciplines and areas of interest to NASA, NOAA, NSF, and other agencies as well. They also reflect the Board's evolutionary changes towards increasing attention to such topics as biology (e.g., related to studies of the origin and evolution of life in the solar system) and space applications (e.g., related to science policy aspects of space remote sensing). A summary of all on-going projects and plans for new projects, as of January 1999, is available in the Board's 1999 Operating Plan. It can be obtained by contacting the Board's NRC office or by consulting the SSB world-wide-web homepage.

The meeting included a panel discussion on NASA-Industry-University Partnerships, moderated by Board member Dan Baker, with participants Lennard Fisk, University of Michigan, Irwin Shapiro, Center for Astrophysics, Lamont di Biasi, L. Di Biasi Associates, Tom Krimigis, Johns Hopkins University, Glenn Mason, University of Maryland, and William Townsend, Goddard Space Flight Center. Members agreed to plan a follow-up activity and will invite ASEB participation.

A forum on Roles and Responsibility of Space Research in Education was held with presentations from Frank Owens, Jeffrey Rosendhal and Nahid Khazenie, NASA, Joseph Stewart and James Wright, NSF, Carol Christian, Space Science Telescope Institute, and Roger Bybee, NRC. Members agreed to discuss a potential follow-up activity of an assessment of NASA's science education and public outreach. Several members of the Board were assigned to discuss the potential activity and provide a report for the June meeting.

Mr. Mark Uhran, Acting Director, Flight Systems Office, NASA, provided information about NASA's plans for space station commercialization and about plans for a non-government organization to facilitate research on the space station.

Mr. Bill Green, a member of the Committee on International Space Programs, discussed plans for a workshop with Japanese counterparts. This is part of a new study being undertaken jointly with the European Space Science Committee (ESSC). Dr. Jean-Claude Worms, Scientific Secretary of the ESSC, provided an update on their programs. Dr. Louis Lanzerotti, Vice President of COSPAR, discussed plans for the upcoming World Space Congress to be held in Houston in 2002. He requested suggestions of names for COSPAR Scientific Program Committee Chair.

Dr. Roberta Balstad Miller, chair of the Steering Committee on Applications and Commercialization, reported on efforts to begin a series of three workshops that address different aspects of remotely sensed data.

Dr. Roald Sagdeev, University of Maryland, provided a briefing on the state of space research in Russia and about the challenges and obstacles that now confront our Russian colleagues.

Dr. Claude R. Canizares, chair, and Mr. Joseph Alexander, director, reported on a meeting with NAS/NAE/IOM presidents and co-chairs of the CPSMA. Alexander also reported on Governing Board approval for a new standing Committee on Astrobiology, which will be joint with the NRC Board on Biology.

Other discussion items included updates on ongoing studies of the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration, and Committee on Space Biology and Medicine. A statement of task for a new study to be undertaken by the Committee on Human Exploration was approved. Updates were provided for studies on: (a) an assessment of NASA plans for post-2000 Earth observing missions, (b) an evaluation of NASA's biotechnology facility for the International Space Station, (c) preventing the forward contamination of Europa by spaceflight missions, and (d) institutional arrangements for research on the International Space Station.

Preliminary approval was given for the Committee on Solar and Space Physics report, Space Environment and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Radiation Risk During Solar Maximum. A discussion was held on the Committee on Microgravity Research report, Microgravity Research in Support of HEDS Technologies, with approval deferred until the next revision is in hand.

In February the NRC Governing Board approved establishment of a Committee on Astrobiology to be organized jointly by the Space Studies Board and the Board on Biology. The committee will serve a coordinating function and will conduct studies related to the study of the origin and evolution of life in the universe, developing or reviewing research strategies and monitoring their implementation, and assessing technology and program plans when these topics do not readily fall under the auspices of an existing discipline committee. It also will provide a broad-based, cross-disciplinary focus for astrobiology-related issues for the two Boards and will serve as an NRC focal point for relevant government agencies, such as NASA and NSF, as well as industry and academe on issues pertaining to astrobiology. Appointments will begin in the next quarter.
The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) did not meet during the quarter. Members continued work on the report on federal support for astronomical research and two letter reports directed to NSF. The committee will next meet on April 20-21 in Washington, DC.
The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) has been engaged in multiple activities during the last several months. These include: completing revision of The Role of Small Satellites in NASA and NOAA Earth Observation Programs (Small Sat) report in response to external review comments; revising the NPOESS Phase 1 report in response to SSB reviewers comments; gathering background information for the NPOESS Phase 2 report; planning an NRC-sponsored workshop to develop the criteria and priorities for climate research missions that might be implemented on NPOESS; and assisting in the NASA ESE-request for assessment of NASA's plans for post-2002 earth observing missions.

On February 10-12, the committee met in Washington to revise the NPOESS Phase 1 draft in preparation for SSB approval. Representatives from NASA, G. Asrar and P. Morel, and IPO/NOAA, C. Nelson, M. Taylor, and M. Crison, provided updates on agency plans. In addition, the committee had briefings on calibration and validation for space-borne sensors that have application to climate change research and weather prediction. These included C. McClain, NASA/Goddard, R. Barnes, NASA/Goddard, C. Johnson, NIST, and C. Schueler, Raytheon.

The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for June 8-9, in Washington, DC. Further briefings in support of the NPOESS Phase 2 report are planned, including discussions on NPOESS systems engineering and architecture, and data management and distribution plans.

The Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) met February 24-25 in Washington, DC, to discuss the viability and feasibility of undertaking a new project developed during discussions by the committee in its August meeting and in subsequent meetings with NASA Headquarters officials. The meeting began with committee member-led discussions on topics including: prior efforts to articulate the role of humans in space, implications of recent science discoveries, and changing relationship between humans and technology. Presentations were provided by Mark Craig, Stennis Space Center, Arnauld Nicogossian and Roger Crouch, NASA HQ, and Marcia Smith, Congressional Research Service, regarding the potential for this task. The CHEX chair, Norman Thagard, and SSB staff are continuing to hold informal discussions with NASA officials about scheduling and funding issues for this task, as well as other future directions for the committee.
The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) met February 22-23 in Washington, DC. The objectives for the meeting were to gather information and perspectives on what ought to be on the committee's agenda for the next few years, and to discuss the committee's next activity, a U.S.-European-Japanese workshop on space cooperation to be held May 19-21 in Japan.

The committee membership was new, with the exception of Mr. Bill Green, who was reappointed. The committee heard from a broad spectrum of agencies both in the space science and international science policy arenas. Briefings were presented by Mr. Jeff Hofgard, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Mr. Ralph Braibanti, Department of State, Dr. Brent Smith, NOAA/NESDIS, Mr. Larry Weber, NSF, and Dr. Pierre Morel, Dr. Guenter Riegler, Mr. John Schumacher and Ms. Beth McCormick, NASA. The committee appointed two subcommittees: one to explore whether the CISP should address the issue of international cooperation in the changing era of "smaller, faster, cheaper" missions; and the other to explore whether the CISP should engage in a follow-on workshop with Japan on cooperation in the Earth, life, and microgravity sciences, since the May 1999 workshop will focus on cooperation in the more traditional space sciences (astronomy and astrophysics, space physics, planetary sciences). Following the May workshop in Japan, the CISP will meet June 19-20 in Woods Hole, MA.

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) held business meetings during the week of March 15th at its headquarters in Paris. The Program Committee for the 2000 Scientific Assembly in Warsaw met to discuss the scientific program, the Publications Committee met to discuss responses to the request for proposals for the next COSPAR publications contract, the Bureau met for its annual business meeting, and the Joint Program Committee for the World Space Congress 2002 met for the first time to discuss initial planning. The next meeting of the COSPAR Bureau and associated committees will be in the spring of 2000.
The Committee on Microgravity Research (CMGR) met January 25-28 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, CA, to finalize a draft of its phase II HEDS report prior to SSB review. The first priority of the meeting was to develop and prioritize the overall research and programmatic recommendations for the report and to draft the sections containing those recommendations. This was accomplished through iterative discussions and writing sessions throughout the course of the meeting. The committee also closely reviewed and discussed chapters 3 and 4, and revisions to these were made during ongoing break-out sessions and then integrated into the report. Particular attention was paid to the subsystem and phenomena matrices. At the close of the meeting the revised report was forwarded electronically to the Space Studies Board office for immediate printing and mailing to CMGR members.

The committee met March 28-31 in Irvine, CA, to revise the report in response to SSB review.

1. the extent to which the mission set contributes to a coherent overall program that addresses important science themes and priorities,

2. the responsiveness of the missions to scientific priorities identified in recent relevant NRC reports,

5. identification of major scientific or technical problems implicit in the mission scenario, and

6. evaluation of the efficacy of the process employed by NASA to solicit ideas and to distill them to frame the proposed mission set.

The task group met February 10-11 in Washington, DC. Briefings to the task group were provided by representatives from NASA, NOAA and the NPOESS IPO (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, Integrated Program Office), the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the Office of Management and Budget, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The task group also held discussions with the chairs of 3 recent Academy studies pertinent to the current assessment and with authors of NASA's Report on the Post-2002 Mission Planning Workshop (the "Kennel" report). The letter report is currently in review with publication expected shortly.

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) did not meet during this quarter. The report A Scientific Rationale for Mobility in Planetary Environments was published in late March and will be released to the public in early April. Another report, A Science Strategy for the Exploration of Europa, is currently being revised in response to reviewers' comments. Release in the second quarter of this year is anticipated. A charge for a new study concerning the certification and curation of martian samples has been drafted. The next meeting of COMPLEX is scheduled to be held on March 31-April 2, at the University of Colorado, in Boulder. Other meetings will be held on July 26-28, in Washington, DC, and November 1-5, in Irvine, California.
The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met March 3-5 at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), in Houston, TX to review the biomedical programs and activities at JSC. The committee was welcomed to JSC by Center Director George Abbey, who spoke about his perspective on the role of life sciences at NASA. The committee received a very extensive and thorough set of presentations from JSC biomedical program managers and scientists. Areas in which the committee was briefed included the organizational structure of the Human Space Life Sciences Program Office (HSLSPO), an overview of the space medicine program, the processes used to manifest operational and clinical experiments on space flights, and briefings on each of the medical research areas supported by JSC. The committee also heard about the critical path research plan being developed for HSLSPO and was particularly impressed with both the approach used to develop the plan and the questions used to prioritize research. The presentations on astronaut medical data and privacy policies prompted the greatest number of questions from the committee and were the subject of vigorous discussion. The committee also toured a mock-up of the Space Station research modules, and each member received individual tours of two biomedical labs of their choice.

The committee heard a report from the committee contingent that had visited Ames Research Center on February 11-12, in order to review its smaller biomedical research program. The committee also discussed the briefings it had heard during the prior two days and discussed the steps needed to gather additional information. The committee will next meet April 12-13 in Washington, DC.

The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) met January 18-20 at the Beckman Center and continued work on its report, Space Environment and the ISS: Recommendations to Reduce Radiation Risk During Solar Maximum. The report was presented at the March meeting of the SSB and received preliminary approval. The committee will next meet June 28-30 in Woods Hole, MA.
The Joint Committee on Technology of the SSB and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board did not meet during the quarter. Planning for future activities continues informally.
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms, held in October 1998, will be ready for review and publication during the second quarter.
The Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa has been established under the leadership of Dr. Larry Esposito of the University of Colorado as chair. The eight-member task group will have its first meeting in Washington, DC on April 5-6. Subsequent meetings will take place at the Beckman Center and/or the University of Colorado. A report is planned for the third quarter of 1999.
The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) met briefly within the setting of the Space Studies Board meeting on March 8-10, to discuss plans for a series of three workshops on remote sensing. SSB staff have been holding discussions with federal agencies, state organizations, and professional staff of the Subcommittee on Space, of the House Committee on Science to acquire feedback on the proposals and to pursue sponsorship for the workshops. The SAPPSC plans to establish a full steering committee and begin planning as soon as sponsorship has been secured. The nominal date for the first workshop, which would address the potential opportunities and implications of the changes in environment for remote sensing to the basic Earth science research community, will be in the fall of 1999. A planning meeting involving sponsoring agencies and the Steering Committee is planned for June.
The Task Group for the Evaluation of NASA's Biotechnology Facility for the International Space Station (BTF) has been 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, will meet for the first time April 26-27 in Washington, DC, to gather information about NASA's plans for the facility and the state of the sciences that will be affected by NASA's planned research program. Future plans include July site visits to Johnson Space Center, where the cell biology program is managed, and to Marshall Space Flight Center, where work on molecular structure is based.
The Task Group on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research (IASSR) completed committee appointments. Dr. Cornelius J. Pings will chair the 13-person group that will address general principles, major roles and functions, organizational character, and other relevant aspects of alternative institutional arrangements for facilitating the conduct of research on the International Space Station (ISS). Anticipated research uses include both basic and applied science in biology, chemistry, and physics; medicine; engineering; and advanced technology development. Research investigations are expected to be sponsored not only by NASA but also by other public sector entities and the private sector. The study will be directed primarily towards consideration of the U.S. share of the ISS, but within the context of the existing global partnership encompassing Canada, Europe, Japan, and Russia. The task group will hold its first meeting in May.

Ms. Theresa Fisher joined the SSB staff in March as senior program assistant primarily working with the Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) and the Committee on Earth Studies (CES). Most recently, Theresa comes to us from the NRC's Marine Board where she had been administrative assistant since 1996. She assisted with new program development, committee and board activities, production of several reports, and she managed the general operation of the office. During her more than 20 years of experience at the NRC, Theresa has participated in just about every aspect of NRC activities and brings to the Space Studies Board broad experience. In her spare time, she is a musician, and she participates in various community volunteer programs.

Ms. Jacqueline Allen, senior program assistant working with the Committee on Human Exploration and the Workshop on Size Limits of Very Small Microorganisms, has left the Washington area to pursue a law career.