Space Studies Board

Assuming the chair of the Space Studies Board is a daunting experience. You need only to review the list of past chairs to become concerned about your own adequacy. My immediate predecessor, Claude Canizares, created a formidable record that is one to which a successor may aspire, but certainly feel quite successful by simply approaching it.

My own experience with the Board and its committees extends back to the mid-1970s, although more as a briefer in the earlier years than as a member. From the outset the Board has been a respected institution, and any new chair recognizes his or her role as the standard bearer for the institution.

For those who are interested in the early history of the Board (which has a remarkable, continuing relevance to events occurring today), I recommend most enthusiastically the books by two individuals who were pivotal in the history of the Board, Homer E. Newell and John E. Naugle. Newell's Beyond the Atmosphere 1 and Naugle's First Among Equals 2 are priceless memoirs of the history of the space program and the role that the Board has played.

Work with the Board brings a person into contact with some of the most notable figures of the space program—figures who provide perspectives on the events (successes and tragedies alike) that form the history of humankind's ventures into space. I have always found great pleasure in meeting people whom I have known only by their distinguished reputations.

The origins of the Board lie with the Space Science Board, and draw in further threads from the Space Applications Board, an important board that was disbanded some years ago. The first chair of the then Space Science Board was Lloyd V. Berkner, founder of the International Geophysical Year and President of the International Council of Scientific Unions. The SSB held its first meeting on June 27, 1958. I had joined the U.S. Army's guided missile program in 1957, so my own career has paralleled the Board's evolution, although it was nearly twenty years before I was senior enough to have any direct involvement with the Board's activities.

In the years since 1958, the Board's work has related to and influenced every major aspect of the U.S. space program, and many international efforts as well. Global space programs have grown in quantity, but even more importantly in complexity and sophistication. Space efforts that were once dominated by government-funded research programs now include research, defense, operational, and commercial satellites and systems. As a result, the Board's work will continue to grow in complexity, and even political sensitivity as questions are raised regarding the proper roles of government vis-à-vis the private sector and of research agencies vis-à-vis operational agencies.

The United States and its partners are in the midst of accumulating the greatest store of knowledge of the space and Earth sciences in history. The United States is also beginning the most intensive campaign of Space Shuttle launches in the nearly twenty-year life of the Shuttle, as NASA and its partners deploy the International Space Station. These activities will inevitably spawn a similarly large number of studies to by conducted by the Board.

It is our charge that the future studies we undertake uphold the standards of the Board's past and give credit to the National Research Council from whom we draw our association with the prestige of the National Academies. While apprehensive about my own capacities, I have no concerns about the Board's members and staff and their ability to meet the challenges we will face.

1 Homer E. Newell, Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science, NASA SP-4211, The NASA History Series, Washington, D.C.: 1980.

2 John E. Naugle, First Among Equals: The Selection of NASA Space Science Experiments, NASA SP-4215, The NASA History Series, Washington, D.C.: 1991.

Contemporary space research is very much a multi-institutional enterprise that cuts across academia, industry, and the federal government, and it often has an international character as well. Consequently, the membership of the Space Studies Board is constructed with careful attention to bring competencies from all these perspectives to the Board. One might find it practically impossible to ever find such a range of expertise in any single individual, but that is precisely what the Space Studies Board's new chair John H. McElroy brings to the job. He recently retired from the University of Texas at Arlington where he served from 1987 until May 2000 in a number of positions, including Professor of Electrical and Industrial Engineering, Dean of Engineering, and Provost for Research and Graduate Studies. Prior to joining UTA, he was Vice President for Technology, Hughes Communications, Inc. McElroy's past government service includes tours as NOAA Assistant Administrator for the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information System (where his responsibilities often took on international efforts) and as Deputy Director of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering, Fellow of the IEEE, the AIAA, and the Washington Academy of Sciences.

As of July 1st, there are several new SSB members. The complete roster is found on page 27.

The month of September is always a critical time in the budget season. Federal agencies are waiting to see what funding levels will be available in the new fiscal year, and they are watching to see whether the fiscal year will begin October 1st with clear direction or with temporary budget allotments. This year seems to a promising one with respect to likely science funding levels but not until the government maneuvers through another round of temporary spending measures and last minute budget negotiations.

Spurred on, perhaps, by the desire to finish their work and return home for election campaigns, both houses of Congress completed their work on the NASA budget and treated the science programs positively. For the first time in eight years the passage of an authorization bill for NASA seemed likely. Appropriations bills for NASA and for NSF had worked their way through each house and were awaiting resolution of differences in a conference committee. Both the House and the Senate bills proposed a funding level that was above the FY2000 level but below the level requested by the President. NASA's budget also appeared to be burdened with record-level earmarks. Congressional funding levels for NOAA, including the environmental satellite program, did not allow for significant growth over FY2000. At press time final agreement between the White House and Congress was still pending, and the agencies were operating once again under a continuing resolution.

As the third quarter of 2000 drew to a close the space research community mourned the loss of two of its true pioneers. Prof. John A. Simpson of the University of Chicago passed away on August 31 at the age of 83, and Dr. Herbert Friedman, formerly at the Naval Research Laboratory, died on September 9 at the age of 84. Simpson served on the very first Space Science Board from 1958 to 1967. He served again in 1986-1988, and then he was a member of the Space Studies Board from 1995 until the Board's 40th anniversary in 1998. During his career he was a major leader in cosmic ray physics, a principal investigator on more than 30 space missions, a mentor to a remarkable number of contemporary leaders in space research, and a respected advisor on science policy issues. Friedman served on the SSB from 1989-94 and was U.S. representative to COSPAR from 1986 to 1994. He was one of the first scientists to explore the X-ray portion of the spectrum from above the atmosphere and to found the field of x-ray astronomy. Among his research accomplishments were studies of solar x-rays in the 1950s and the discovery of x-rays from the Crab Nebula in the 1960s. Both Simpson and Friedman will be remembered for their gracious style and demeanor, their scientific accomplishments, and their leadership.

The Space Studies Board's executive committee and standing committee chairs met together on August 16-18, in Woods Hole, MA, to be briefed by the NASA Office of Space Science, and then to draft the Board's short interim assessment of the response to the 1998 SSB report on Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Science Programs. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion of a number of strategic planning issues for the Board, including future projects, committee structure, and membership. The full Board will meet November 13-15, in Irvine, CA.
The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) welcomed several new members in July, including Prof. Richard McCray of the University of Colorado, who replaced outgoing Co-Chair Thomas Prince. In addition to membership changes, Dr. Joel Parriott of the Board on Physics and Astronomy has also replaced Robert Riemer as program officer.

CAA's report, Federal Funding of Astronomical Research, was published in early September. The report assesses trends in federal support for research in astronomy and the overall health of the programs providing that support. The findings (see the executive summary reprinted in this issue of Bulletin) were used by the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee in the writing of their report, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, which will be released in its final form this fall.

CAA did not meet during the quarter, but Co-Chairs Richard McCray and John Huchra hosted a teleconference on August 9 to orient new members and to plan for the next meeting, to be held December 5-6 in Washington, DC.

The Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) met in Washington, DC, on July 17-21. The main focus of the meeting was an extensive series of preparatory presentations and discussions designed to educate the committee members about issues likely to arise in the forthcoming study, "Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System." COMPLEX also received presentations and held discussions on four additional topics. The first topic was the current status of NASA planetary exploration programs, with particular emphasis on the Outer Planets and Mars Surveyor programs. The second topic was the status of past, present and future faster-cheaper-better missions. Relevant presentations included an extensive post mortem on the fate of the 1998 Mars Surveyor missions, progress reports on two forthcoming Discovery missions—Messenger and Deep Impact—and an update on the status of the on-going Discovery mission, NEAR.

The third topic was the current status of R&DA funding for planetary science projects. This item was included on the committee's agenda at the request of the Space Studies Board because COMPLEX's input was required for use during a forthcoming SSB study on R&DA funding by NASA's Office of Space Science.

The final topic was an extensive discussion of COMPLEX's role in the review of the new Mars Exploration Mission Plan scheduled for release later this year. Anticipating a request from NASA for the committee to assess the new program plan, COMPLEX members discussed several approaches by which such a study might be undertaken. The general consensus was that a letter report was inappropriate because it was far from clear that the committee's existing scientific priorities for Mars were still valid given the wealth of new information returned by Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor. Instead, COMPLEX decided to propose to the SSB and NASA a more extensive study designed to reassess the scientific goals of Mars exploration and then assess the new exploration plan against those goals.

Following the July meeting, both the SSB's Executive Committee and NASA endorsed the basic idea of a Mars reassessment study. Moreover, following discussions with the Executive Committee, COMPLEX's chair developed a tentative plan in which the Mars reassessment would be the first phase of a more extensive study to revise the scientific priorities for the exploration of the inner solar system.

The committee's next meeting will be held October 2-4, in Woods Hole, MA. The first meeting of 2001 has been scheduled for January 29-31, in Tucson, AZ.

The Committee on Solar and Space Physics continued work on its report, Solar Connections: A New Emphasis for Space and Solar Physics. This study, which is focused on how magnetized plasmas behave and are organized in space, is expected to be completed in spring 2001. The committee has also begun planning for its next study, which will develop a long-term science strategy for the field of space physics. The committee hopes to lead a community-wide effort in developing this strategy and intends to model its efforts after the NRC astronomy and astrophysics decadal survey.

The committee will meet next on October 9-11, in Washington, DC, to continue work on its report.

The committee will meet next on December 11-13, in Washington, DC. In addition to program updates from officials in the NASA Earth Science Enterprise (ESE), NOAA NESDIS, and the NPOESS Integrated Program Office, the committee will discuss a possible new study, "Building the Capacity of University-based Space Research: Steps to Increase the Chances of Success for PI-Led Earth Science Missions." The committee will also review its potential role in a multi-committee activity of the NRC that would examine technology options for future NOAA meteorological satellites.

The Committee on Microgravity Research did not meet during this period. Dissemination activities for the committee's report, Microgravity Research in Support of Technologies for the Human Exploration and Development of Space and Planetary Bodies, continued during this period with presentations of the reports' findings given at the Workshop on Space Thermal Systems and Processes in July and the Fifth Microgravity Fluid Physics and Transport Phenomena Conference in August. Both presentations generated a large number of requests for copies of the report. Study Director Sandra Graham also attended the First International Symposium on Microgravity Research and Applications in Physical Sciences and Biotechnology in Sorrento, Italy, in September and heard presentations on the most recent experimental work in each microgravity discipline.

The committee is currently considering a new task to advise NASA on the direction of its recently reorganized microgravity division and opportunities in current and newly added areas of research.

The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine's report, Review of NASA's Biomedical Research Program, was delivered to NASA on August 11. Copies are currently being disseminated. Dr. James Bagian, former astronaut and current director of the Veterans Health Administrations National Center for Patient Safety, has joined the committee as its new chair and will be involved in selecting the committee's next task.
The Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, a joint activity between the Space Studies Board and the NRC's Board on Biology, met in the University of Colorado's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics in Boulder, Colorado on August 21-23. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: to continue work on the report, Signs of Life, based on the committee's April Workshop on Life Detection Techniques, to receive presentations familiarizing the committee with the research conducted at the University of Colorado's node of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, and to receive a perspective on the role of NASA's Ames Research Center in the current and future operations of the Astrobiology Institute.

In addition to these major topics, the committee devoted time to discussions about the expansion of the committee from 8 to 12 or 14 members and to possible projects once the life detection study is completed. There was general consensus that the drafting of a full-scale science strategy for astrobiology—akin to the 1990 report, The Search for Life's Origins—could probably not be drafted in time to have an influence on the Office of Space Science's next round of road mapping and strategic planning. Rather, the committee is seriously considering the possibility of drafting a science strategy for the search for life on Mars.

The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) did not meet during the quarter. A representative of the CISP, members of the Space Studies Board, and representatives for the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), met with Chinese space scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and Chinese universities at the COSPAR Scientific Assembly in Warsaw on July 20, to discuss the possibility of holding a joint activity. The CISP/SSB and ESSC representatives presented overviews, respectively, of the NRC and the National Academies and the ESSC and European Science Foundation, while the CAS representatives presented the organization and activities of the Chinese National Committee for COSPAR. Our Chinese colleagues were very interested in a joint activity, and CISP is considering holding a workshop on the processes for conducting space science in each of the two countries (e.g. policy formulation, decision-making, strategic planning, space mission selection, funding allocation, key institutional roles). The idea will be discussed at the next CISP meeting at the NRC in Washington, DC on December 11-12.

The CISP also provided a member, Dr. Lennard Fisk, to the oversight committee for a workshop on "Scientific Openness and National Security" led by the NRC Office of International Affairs and held on September 27-28 in Washington, DC. The Workshop discussed problems related to the balance between scientific openness and national security, such as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and international cooperation in space, security regulations and enforcements within government laboratories, and visa regulations as they pertain to technical communication

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) met for its 33rd Scientific Assembly at the Warsaw University of Technology, Poland on July 16-23. Approximately 1700 individuals attended the meeting, which was held, largely, in the University's Main Building, an historic and classic building left untouched by the extensive bombing campaign on Warsaw during WWII. Good news on the launch of the first Cluster II pair, Salsa and Samba, signaled a positive note that continued throughout the week. The Assembly focused on scientific sessions in Earth sciences, microgravity and life sciences, planetary sciences, solar and space physics, fundament physics in space, and other technical areas of space research. In addition, the Assembly included a series of interdisciplinary lectures and public lectures, which attracted strong interest in Poland. Interdisciplinary lectures were presented on: New Insights on the Mars Interior Structure (M. Acuna, USA); Extrasolar Planetary Systems (M. Mayor, Switzerland); Fundamental Physics in Space (C.W.F. Everitt, USA); and Space Debris - A Space Environment Issue? (N.L. Johnson, USA). The public lectures for the local audience were presented by Polish and non-Polish scientists: Galileo Explores Jupiter's System (T. Johnson, USA); Discovering the Universe (M. Demianski, Poland); Returning to the Moon (J. Heidmann, France); Expeditions to Small Islands in the Solar System (M. Banaszkiewicz, Poland); Storms in Space Weather (L.J. Lanzerotti, USA); and Satellites and Navigation (J. Sledzinski, Poland).

Another highlight of the Assembly was the awards ceremony, which took place during the Opening Ceremony for the Assembly. Awards were presented to the following individuals:

Scientific Commission A: S. Gille (USA) (Space Studies of the Earth's Surface, Meteorology, and Climate)

Scientific Commission B: R. Meier (Switzerland/USA) (Space Studies of the Earth-Moon System, Planets, and Small Bodies of the Solar System)

Scientific Commission C: S.D. Eckermann (Australia/USA) (Space Studies of the Upper Atmosphere of the Earth and Planets, Including Reference Atmospheres)

Scientific Commission D: V. Angelopoulos (Greece/USA) (Space Plasmas in the Solar System, Including Planetary Magnetosphere)

Scientific Commission E: T. Tsuru (Japan) (Research in Astrophysics from Space)

Scientific Commission F: M. Bernstein (USA) (Life Sciences as Related to Space)

Scientific Commission G: J. Leypoldt (Germany) (Materials Sciences in Space)

Scientific Commission H: A. Vecchio (Italy/Germany) (Fundamental Physics in Space)

The Joint Publications Committee of the World Space Congress 2002 will meet during the International Astronautical Federation Congress in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 5, 2000. The COSPAR Bureau, Program Committee, and Publications Committee will meet for their annual business and Assembly planning meetings on April 25-28, 2001 in Paris. The next COSPAR Assembly will be held with the International Astronautical Federation Congress as the World Space Congress 2002 on October 11-19, 2002, in Houston, TX.

The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) met on August 1-3 in Washington, DC. The purpose of the meeting was twofold: 1) to discuss the draft report for Workshop #1 "Moving Remote Sensing from Research to Applications: Case Studies of the Knowledge Transfer Process" held in May 2000, and 2) to hold a planning meeting for Workshop #2 "Basic Research in a Commercial Remote Sensing Environment" to be held March 27-28, 2001 in Washington, DC. The committee's work on the draft report involved deliberations on the report content, structure and preliminary recommendations and findings. The Workshop #2 planning meeting opened with perspectives from working scientists and SAPPSC members, Drs. Chris Johannsen (Purdue University) and Larry Harding, Jr. (Horn Point, University of Maryland) on an environment where commercial providers are providing an increasing source of remote sensing data. The meeting also included brief presentations from agency sponsors for the remote sensing workshop series: NOAA, NASA Headquarters, NASA Stennis, USGS, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers. The Department of Transportation representative was not present but provided information in advance to the committee. Because Workshop #2 focuses on the commercial remote sensing environment and the issues for conducting basic research within that changing climate, the planning session included a panel discussion with three remote sensing industry representatives: Dr. Jay Pearlman (TRW); Dr. John Dykstra (Earth Satellite Corporation), and Mr. John McIver (Boeing/Resource 21). The planning session followed with discussions amongst the SAPPSC, industry representatives, agency representatives, and interested outsiders to obtain input for the committee on key issues to include in Workshop #2, the workshop structure, possible speakers, and possible individuals and groups to invite. SAPPSC will meet next following Workshop #2 in March 2001.
The Committee to Review NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Science Plan was established under the joint auspices of the NRC Space Studies Board, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, Ocean Studies Board, and Policy Division. Its final report, Review of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise Research Strategy for 2000-2010, was delivered to NASA in early August.

Following is the oral statement by Claude R. Canizares, former Chair of the Space Studies Board, during his testimony on September 13, 2000 before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. A copy of his written statement can be obtained at http://www.nationalacademies.org/ssb.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and members of the subcommittee. I appear today on behalf of the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council. In the written testimony, I have summarized six recent NRC studies that address aspects of NASA's Space Science Enterprise. Here I will highlight a few relevant points, the first of which deal with the so-called Faster-Better-Cheaper paradigm.

Our reports indicate a broad consensus that the major thrust in NASA toward Faster-Better-Cheaper missions has, in general, been extremely positive for space research. I agree with your remarks, Mr. Chairman, and those of Dr. Weiler, that the recent Mars mission failures must be viewed in the context of the far greater number of successes.

The move to more numerous, less expensive missions is something of a revolution for NASA and the space community, one which presented major new challenges.

There are technical challenges involving project management and robust project engineering practices, as ably addressed by the "Tom Young report."

There are challenges in adapting these techniques to missions of all sizes. Scientific imperatives, and sometimes the very laws of physics, demand a spectrum of mission sizes in all disciplines of space research, something reflected in the NASA Space Science Strategic Plan. For the program to be affordable, every mission should be carried out with a Faster-Better-Cheaper philosophy, suitably adapted and strengthened by lessons learned from the Mars failures.

A key factor in enabling cost-effective missions that push the scientific frontiers is the development of advanced technology. It is advanced technology that enables discovery—or, with the Chairman's permission, it provides the surfboard that lets us ride the wave of scientific exploration. NASA has been making progress in this area, and our report makes recommendations to enhance this effort.

Another challenge of the Faster-Better-Cheaper paradigm deals with the complex area of international cooperation, whose benefits are a deeply held tenet of our community often expressed in NRC reports.

Past modalities for robust international cooperation must be adapted to the faster paced tempo of the current space missions. Also, recent, heightened concerns with export controls of commercial spacecraft have had the presumably unintended consequence of hampering international cooperation and university participation in even purely domestic missions. It is encouraging that this matter is now beginning to receive attention in appropriate quarters.

A challenge that is equally subtle deals with the institutional fabric of the U.S. space research community, composed of NASA Headquarters, NASA field centers, universities, laboratories and industry. The future success of the space research enterprise depends on a healthy partnership between all these players. I feel personally that NASA could take a stronger role in fostering the overall health of this community, much as the National Science Foundation does for many disciplines. NASA Administrator Goldin is now taking action on this issue.

Turning to strategic planning, my own feeling is that the process followed by the Office of Space Science has been very effective in optimizing the research program. With active participation by the scientific community OSS prepares a draft plan which is then reviewed by the Space Studies Board, many of whose members have no connections to NASA. It is an exemplary process, and NASA should continue its efforts to apply similar procedures to the area of advanced technology development.

In closing, I note that I have just stepped down after six years as chair of the Space Studies Board. It has been a great privilege for me to work with many hundreds of dedicated scientist volunteers who serve the National Research Council and to interact with the equally dedicated civil servants at NASA, who are devoted to the highest goals of space exploration. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your fellow members for your continued support of our nation's space research enterprise.

The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) has just published three reports on the issues associated with the integration of the research missions planned by NASA's Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) and the Integrated Program Office (IPO). The IPO is responsible for the combined polar-orbiting meteorological satellite series being developed by NOAA and DOD. Condensed summaries of these reports can be found under the New Reports from the SSB section, that follows in this newsletter. In this editorial, I will highlight a few key points that should be emphasized.

First, climate research and monitoring have both an "operational" and a "research" element. By "operational" I mean a long-term commitment to the mission, such as ensuring that there are few gaps in the data record, that the data are acquired and preserved, and that mission costs remain affordable. Operational missions generally have very broad mandates in regards to data acquisition. On the other hand, research missions are focused typically on specific scientific questions and there is less urgency on the part of the sponsoring agency to maintain data continuity. An observational strategy for climate research requires a blend of long-term, carefully calibrated measurements (which are sometimes perceived to be the purview of the operational agencies) as well as short-term, focused process studies (which are generally perceived to be the purview of the research agencies.) Although long-time series are generally used to detect climate change, many processes, such as ocean circulation, are only revealed on decadal scales. Thus such time series often fill a dual role of climate change detection as well as process study.

Second, satellite remote sensing has a well-established record in the study of climate-related processes that vary on short (seasonal to interannual) time scales. However, climate change detection as well as the study of long-time scale processes require multi-decade time series. Most of these long data records have been obtained by the operational meteorological satellites, such as NOAA's Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) and the DOD's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Although analyses of these records have been valuable, in many cases their interpretation has been problematic because frequently small climate signals can be obscured by shifts in sensor performance, changes in satellite orbits, gaps in data collection, and other factors.

Third, the planned National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) provides an opportunity to rectify these problems, but the changes required will not happen without considerable thought, planning, and leadership. Although a distinction is frequently made between the study of "climate" and "weather" and between "research" and "operational" missions, the committee found these distinctions were often artificial. NPOESS and the NASA/ESE missions should be components of an overall climate observing system. "Bridging" missions such as the NASA-NOAA NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) should also be a permanent part of an observing strategy, facilitating the transfer of knowledge and technology between the research and operational agencies and fostering interagency cooperation. It is often suggested that a "climate services agency" at the federal level is necessary to address the issues outlined above. The CES reports indicate that alternative solutions are possible. Climate monitoring systems will require strong research elements for a long time to come. Although some aspects of the observing system can be turned over to an operational agency, it is clear that we still need more research and analysis on climate processes, sampling strategies, and processing algorithms. The committee found that what is needed is not necessarily a climate services agency. Instead, it recommended the creation of an appropriate forum at the Executive Branch level that would balance climate observing requirements for research with other requirements, such as those of short-term forecasting. At present, such decisions are made on an ad hoc basis, if they are made at all. Such a situation cannot continue as both policymakers and the general public increasingly demand knowledge regarding the Earth's climate.

Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems—I. Science and Design

This study, by the Committee on Earth Studies, was staffed by Arthur A. Charo, Study Director, Ina B. Alterman, Study Director, Carmela J. Chamberlain, Senior Project Assistant (through March 1999) and Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Project Assistant (from April 1999).

Ensuring the Climate Record from the NPP and NPOESS Meteorological Satellites

The study, by the Committee on Earth Studies, was staffed by Arthur A. Charo, Study Director, and Theresa M. Fisher, Senior Project Assistant.

The study, by the Committee on Space Biology and Medicine, was staffed by Sandra J. Graham, Study Director, and Anne K. Simmons, Senior Project Assistant.

The study, by the Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, was staffed by Robert L. Riemer, Study Director, Joel R. Parriott, Program Officer, Ronald M. Konkel, Consultant, Kirsten L. Armstrong, Research Assistant, and Anne K. Simmons, Senior Project Assistant.

This report, by the Committee to Review NASA's ESE Science Plan, was staffed by Anne M. Linn, Study Director (BESR), Joseph K. Alexander, Director (SSB), Elbert W. (Joe) Friday, Director (BASC), Morgan Gopnik, Director (OSB), Sherburne B. Abbott, Director (PD), and Barbara W. Wright, Senior Project Assistant.

Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Office of Space Science

The study, by the Space Studies Board, was staffed by Pamela L. Whitney, Study Director, and Barbara W. Wright, Senior Project Assistant.

Integration of Research and Operational Satellite Systems—II. Implementation

Volume 1 of the report focused primarily on the programmatic aspects of developing a climate observing system. Volume 2 focuses primarily on the technical aspects of a climate observing system, specifically on calibration and validation, data continuity, data systems, and technology insertion.

Long-term studies such as those needed for documenting and understanding global climate change require not only that the remote sensing instrument be accurately characterized and calibrated, but also that the instrument characteristics and calibration be stable over the life of the mission. The process can be considered to consist of the following steps, which are listed in the approximate order of performance: instrument characterization, sensor calibration, calibration verification, data product quality assessment and validation, and mission operations.

A continuous and effective on-board reference system is needed to verify the stability of the calibration and sensor characteristics from the launch through the life of the mission.
Radiometric characterization of the Moon should be continued and possibly expanded to include measurements made at multiple institutions to verify the results. The objective of the lunar characterization program should be to measure changes in the relative reflectance as a function of phase and position of Earth, Sun and Moon rather than absolute spectral radiance.
The establishment of traceability through other national measurement institutions as well as NIST should be considered to determine if it would improve accuracy and reduce uncertainty in the measurement chain.
The results of sensitivity studies on the parameters in the data product algorithms should be summarized in a requirements document that specifies the characterization measurements for each channel in the sensor.
Quality assessment should be an intrinsic part of operational data production and should be provided in the form of metadata.
Validation, an essential part of the information system, should be undertaken for each data product or data record; it would provide a quantitative estimate of the accuracy of the product over the range of environmental conditions for which the product is provided.
Wavelengths and bandwidths of channels in the solar spectral region should be selected to avoid absorption features of the atmosphere, if possible.
Calibration of thermal sensing instruments, such as CERES and the thermal bands of MODIS, should continue to be traceable to the SI unit of temperature via the Planckian radiator, blackbody technology.

Continuity is concerned with the continuous and accurate characterization of the properties that affect the construction of the time series. The most useful data for climate research purposes are time series that are continuous and for which the characterization of error, in terms of precision and bias, is known. Such errors should be minimized as much as possible in order to detect the often small, climate-related signal.

A policy of assuring overlapping observations of at least one year (more for solar instruments) should be adopted. The relation between this requirement and the launch-on-failure strategy should be addressed and include a clear definition of spacecraft or instrument failure and an assessment of the utilization of still-functioning instruments.
Competitive selection of instrument science teams should be adopted to follow the progress of the instrument from design and fabrication through integration, launch, operation, and, finally data archiving, thereby promoting more thorough instrument characterization.
Design requirements should include a determination of threats to the continuity of currently monitored radiances as instruments are developed for future missions.
Out-year funding should be provided to maximize the return on investment made in climate and operational observing instruments considering their different requirements.
Free-flier status should be evaluated for some key climate parameters such as solar radiance and sea-level altimetry that at present appear to be endangered by the NPOESS single-platform configuration.
Proven active microwave sensors should be considered for ocean vector winds, another key climate (and operational) parameter.

The development of an NPOESS Integrated Data Processing System (IDPS) for operational needs will produce raw data records, sensor data records, and environmental data records for all NPOESS sensors. However in the committee’s opinion, an NPOESS climate data system (NCDS) separate from the operational system to fulfill research data needs is essential. The committee’s phase I report noted that a recurring theme across many of the science case studies in that report revolved around the need to facilitate intercomparisons between data sets from different instruments and different time periods, to permit periodic reprocessing of data sets, and to preserve long-term data collections for climate monitoring as well as examination of issues not always anticipated at the time the data were acquired. In view of the profound economic and social impacts of alternative decisions about responding to concerns over climate change, it is in the national interest to have a climate data center to improve the likelihood of achieving a scientific understanding of climate change. A research-oriented NCDS would have basic requirements over and above what is needed for operational processing. The system would provide the data needed for global climate research addressing issues such as calibration and validation data provision, product continuity, data archiving, archive access, and reprocessing. Costs and the roles and responsibilities of the IPO, NASA, and NOAA need to be clarified.

For a research-oriented NCDS, the committee recommends the following in addition to what is planned for the operational IDPS:

A long-term archiving system that provides easy and affordable access for a large number of scientists in many different fields;
Data that are supported by metadata, that carefully document sensor performance history and data processing algorithms;
The ability to reprocess large data sets as our understanding of sensor performance, algorithms, and Earth science improves.
Science teams responsible for algorithm development, data set continuity, and calibration/validation are selected via an open, peer-reviewed process. By contrast, the operational IDPS and algorithms are being developed by sensor contractors for NPOESS.
The research community and government agencies should take the initiative and begin planning for a research-oriented NCDS and the associated science participation.

Scientific advances will reveal new variables that need to be measured. Moreover, technological advances may reduce costs or increase system performance. A rigid plan of flying exact copies of sensors will not accommodate such changes. Since the specific new advances cannot be anticipated, system flexibility is necessary to allow the infusion of new technology into the system while maintaining data continuity and without driving up costs.

Qualifying technological innovations span a wide range of implied changes and would impose a wide range of risk levels on the operational performance of the system. For example, replacing a computer with a faster model that preserves the form, fit, and function of the earlier model is quite different from changing the computer’s operating system or data processing algorithm. There is risk in any change to the design, but some changes may force additional changes to accommodate the initial change. Additional risk is anathema for an operational system, for which reliability and continuity are the prime considerations. Any potential change should be examined carefully and conservatively, no matter how well justified the augmented capabilities may be from a scientific point of view.

The IPO and NASA should find a way to accommodate technological change in a timely manner, while ensuring that the modified system will sustain operational functionality. This is the challenge for an operational meteorological satellite system such as NPOESS.
The IPO should identify a person or group to review the system requirements and the design to ensure that both the first Integrated Operational Requirements Document (IORD-1) and the contractor approaches will support flexibility and change.
NASA should provide a list of science (ostensibly from the Science Plan) and climate requirements that are candidates for implementation on NPOESS.
The IPO should plan for the insertion of new or enhanced measurement capabilities into NPOESS that would likely have to be funded from non-IPO sources.
NASA ESE should implement its Technology Strategy with firm plans linked to missions and ensure that any necessary NPOESS enabling technologies are covered.
NASA and the IPO should devise an approach to support accepting additional experiments on NPOESS.
Because the opportunities for change after the launch are limited by the longer satellite life and time between launches, it is essential that the process incorporating research requirements into NPOESS be started now and be allowed to influence the Program Definition and Risk Reduction phase that is in progress, without disrupting the primary NPOESS mission.

Mr. Craig Cornelius completed an assignment in August as the SSB's summer undergraduate intern. He came to the NRC after completing his junior year at Princeton University, and he returns to Princeton this fall to complete his BA degree in the history of science. His reflections on his tour with the SSB appear below.

As an alumnus of two congressional offices and a lobbying firm, I was somewhat apprehensive about joining an office composed of scientists who had spent their careers crusading for scientific substance in the policy made by my more politically focused former employers. What's more, for years aerospace engineering professors had told me terrible tales of engineers left alone in rooms of space scientists, where perfectly self-justifying high-tech demonstrators are trampled by photon-thirsty astronomers.

So I was somewhat fearful of the SSB staff when I was first introduced as a Princeton undergraduate in the obscure major of History of Science, and found myself hiding behind chairs when Mr. Alexander related my particular experience in aerospace engineering and congressional management of space programs. But I found that the staff of the SSB and the members of its committees were actually very forgiving of my past indiscretions, and very generous throughout the summer in their efforts to purify my policymaking priorities.

As a functioning part of the SSB staff, I got to attend a broad array of meetings at NASA Headquarters, where I saw the likes of JPL managers collaborating with university scientists and NASA officials on a range of policy areas, from the outer planets to data archiving. Opportunities arose for me to do research on NRC-facilitated scientific communication with China and on the mechanisms and possibilities for emerging remote sensing applications. And I was able to develop a highly involved understanding of the focuses of the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration and the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life, through work on many of their reports and meeting subjects.

My time here at the SSB has offered an invaluable window onto the processes of scientific agenda-setting and program oversight in NASA. In prior research, I gained a good picture of the interaction between Congress, the President, and NASA executives on the level of major policy debate, and I studied internal evolution of technology in the manned space program. My work at the SSB gave me a unique exposure to the motivations and strategies of the space scientists that I had always seen as an unfamiliar and under-empowered constituency in national space policy. I now know that although budgets for space science may remain smaller than for manned space, the national community of space scientists (particularly through the SSB and the NASA Space Science Advisory Committee) plays a very strong role in the decisions of the federal space agency.