Space Studies Board

A year ago NASA passed a significant milestone, its 40th birthday. This year marks another, namely the end of a decade, century and millennium. Any of these events might have provided an occasion for introspection and speculation, for looking backward to assess where we've been, and forward to ponder on where we should be going in space.

In fact, despite numerous millennial references in political speeches, soap commercials and TV talk shows, the century that gave us the first powered flight, put men on the moon and sent spacecraft beyond the outermost planets is ending with very little discussion of the significance of these events or of what should be done in the next century to build on them. Not only the public, but even the space community itself seems too preoccupied with daily concerns to spend much time philosophizing about past, present or future.

Some long-range thinking is taking place. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin has been goading various scientific groups to think bold thoughts and invent radically new approaches to space research. He recently admonished a group of astronomers and physicists to stop hugging Hubble, for example, and he continues to trumpet the ascendance of biology in an agency dominated by the physical sciences. In response several groups are trying to define futuristic grand challenges that could serve as navigational beacons for research and guide technology development over the next few decades.

Valuable as these may be, current planning is primarily along disciplinary lines. Whereas the space program was once dominated by a single theme, the race to the moon, it is now and is likely to remain an assemblage of diverse programs united by a common launch infrastructure (which is itself in need of millennial thinking).

This may be a sign of maturity-the number of research areas that benefit from space continues to grow, and space activity impinges increasingly on everyday life through communications, weather prediction, and the ubiquity of GPS. The Air Force talks of becoming an "Air and Space Force," and spending on commercial space activities has surpassed total government spending and is projected to increase rapidly, recent bankruptcies notwithstanding.

But familiarity can breed contempt, or at least indifference. Many benefits of space activities are taken for granted by the public, as exemplified by the unnamed (and probably apocryphal) Congressman who questioned "why we need weather satellites when you can get weather maps on TV?" This year's budget cycle, which proved even more bizarre than usual, revealed the tepid level of support for space research in the nation (see Director's column). To be sure, NASA has few real enemies-no one is actively opposed to space exploration. But it also has few fervent champions. So the budget cuts in the House were not made out of malice. But when appropriations exceeded allocations, NASA was seen as a politically acceptable place to store the red ink, at least until a handful of NASA's most devoted supporters were able to correct the problem in the House-Senate conference. The scientific community rallied to help, but I suspect there was little outcry from the general public.

So the combination of a rather indifferent public and a heterogeneous space community is not likely to give rise to a unified vision for the nation's space enterprise. At best we might end up with a pastiche of visions and strategies which taken together will constitute our plan for the future. One hopes that public outreach and education are strong components of any plan. Every year is a budget year, and the more that people are aware of what space activities mean to their lives and to the advance of science, the easier time we will have in securing its future.

In the June 1999 edition of this newsletter, we commented that the federal budget appropriations process appeared to be in for "a long hot summer." Little could we have guessed that the budgets for NASA and NSF would be threatened with unprecedented cuts that could lead to widespread reductions to research grants programs and outright cancellation of a number of key research and technology programs. First the House of Representatives passed an appropriations bill for FY2000 that would have dropped NASA by $1 billion below its FY1999 level, reducing science and technology accounts by 12% overall and imposing cuts of 17% to Earth science and 27% to the space science program. The same bill proposed to cut NSF by $25 million below the FY1999 levels or $275 million below the FY2000 request. After several weeks of vigorous arguments on behalf of the R&D budgets by members of the scientific community, the Administration, and some members of Congress, the Senate acted to propose, instead, that the FY2000 levels be funded at the level originally requested by the Administration.

Under the Senate bill, the NSF would receive a 6.8% increase above FY1999 for a total of $3.9 billion. The NASA budget provided for a total of $13.6 billion, including the requested levels of $1.4 billion for Earth sciences and $256 million for life and microgravity sciences. But the Senate bill funded the space science budget at $2.1 billion for a cut of $120 million below the request. After absorbing earmarks directed by the Senate ($41 million) and the House ($23 million), many observers feared that even in the best of situations the Office of Space Science could be required to absorb a net $184 million (9%) reduction below its FY2000 request. Just as this newsletter was going to press, the two Congressional bodies conferenced to agree on a final bill to submit to the White House. When the dust settled, space science emerged with a total budget of $2.2 billion, the level originally requested by the administration representing a 3.6% increase over FY1999. NASA sources indicated that after accounting for earmarks the net result would be a reduction in space science of more than $60 million, a much less painful situation that had been feared in earlier rounds. NASA and NSF, like most other government agencies, were operating under a temporary continuing resolution while awaiting final FY2000 appropriation approvals.

This year's budget debates remind us that the scientific community and scientific organizations can never afford to rest on past accomplishments and accolades. Instead we must always be looking ahead and learning from the past. Over the past year the Space Studies Board has tried to take that advice to heart by systematically evaluating its operations and the effectiveness of its studies and reports. Previous newsletter columns have commented on the demographics of the cadre of expert volunteers who serve as committee members and report reviewers, and on the range of study durations and types of reports produced.

The two charts that accompany this column present another look at recent SSB study reports. The histogram shows the total number of peer-reviewed reports published by the SSB over the period 1988-1999. (The 1999 numbers are current estimates for what is expected by year's end.) "Broad" reports include classical scientific strategies (long-range goals and priorities in a particular discipline or set of disciplines) and broad programmatic strategies or analyses that cross all of an agency office or even several agencies. "Focused" reports include more narrowly directed topical studies, assessments, and letter reports. One sees that the volume of work, as measured by number of reports, has grown over the decade while the mix has continued to show somewhat more effort on focused studies than on broad strategic and policy reports.

The pie chart summarizes the principal federal agency audiences to which reports that were directed for the period 1995-1999. "NASA-wide" reports were addressed to multiple NASA offices or the whole agency; "OES" is the Office of Earth Science; "OLMSA" is the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications; and "OSS" is the Office of Space Science. The "multiple" category covers reports that were directed to more than one agency in addition to NASA, e.g. NOAA, NSF, DOE, and/or DOD. One also sees a few reports prepared specifically for NSF and DOD. Within NASA, the Office of Space Science has been the most frequent report recipient, with the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications also appearing as a major audience.

Looking to the future, we expect that the high level of activity, as measured by study reports, will continue and that NASA will be our principal client. We do expect, however, that the list of other agencies utilizing the Board's expertise will grow, especially as the Board becomes more engaged in topics concerning the applications of space research in areas such as remote sensing.

During the third quarter of the year, we both celebrated and lamented the retirement of Norman Metzger, the executive director of the SSB's parent unit, the NRC Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA). Norm came to the NRC in 1975 and in his almost 25 years with the institution has served it in a variety of ways. Prior to assuming his Commission post he served as NRC Deputy Executive Officer, where he was instrumental in revitalizing the institutional journal Issues in Science and Technology. As Executive Director of CPSMA, he launched or managed numerous studies, including the Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board, and the study that produced the report on Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, known popularly as the "Press Report." Norm even served a stint as acting director of the SSB from November 1997-February 1998. His colleagues, both inside the NRC and across the science and technology community have benefited greatly from his work and guidance, and they are likely to continue to lean on him for guidance even in his "retirement."

Finally, readers should notice a new look to this issue of the SSB newsletter. We have always striven to keep the information content high and comprehensive, and now we hope that readers will find its presentation more visually interesting and useful as well. A "hats-off" for this effort goes to SSB staff members Claudette Baylor-Fleming and Barbara Akinwole.

The meeting included a report on the recent successful trilateral workshop in Japan and a talk by Prof. Atsuhiro Nishida, director general of the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) in Japan. Other discussion items included updates on ongoing studies of the Board's standing committees. An update was also provided on the Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) which had a pre-planning meeting scheduled for mid-July for a possible workshop on cultural anthropology aspects of human exploration and development. Reports on the Task Groups on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research, on the Space Station Biotechnology Facility, and on Europa Contamination Protection were made. Dr. Roberta Balstad Miller reported on plans by the Steering Group on Space Applications and Commercialization and the positive response from several agencies to proposals for a series of three workshops.

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

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

Preliminary approval was given for the CAA report, Federal Funding of Astronomical Research.

The Board's Executive Committee met September 8-10 in Woods Hole, MA, to look at the effectiveness and impact of the SSB, approve the US-Japan-Europe workshop report by the Committee on International Space Programs, and the Board's committee structure and membership and plans for the coming year.

The Board constituted an ad hoc Steering Committee on the "Assessment of Mission Size Trade-Offs for Earth and Space Science Missions" which met at Woods Hole, MA on September 8-10. The ad hoc committee will respond to a Congressionally-mandated study requested by NASA to explore issues related to the mix of mission sizes in the NASA space and Earth science enterprises. The September meeting was devoted to organizing the report outline, reviewing inputs from SSB discipline committees, and initial drafting of the report. Release of the report is planned for February 2000.

As it has done in the past, the Board will undertake a review of a draft of NASA's Office of Space Science Strategic Plan, pending NRC go-ahead in October. A formal letter of request was sent to the SSB by NASA on September 2. The SSB will organize the review during the Board's November meeting. Input from the Board's standing discipline committees (CAA, COMPLEX and CSSP) will be requested and a report will be written during the March 2000 Board meeting for delivery to the agency by May.

The Board will next meet on November 8-10 at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.

The Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics (CAA) worked on completing its draft report on Federal Funding for Astronomical Research (FFAR), which was requested by the House Science Committee, and on providing input from the astronomy perspective to the SSB for the study on NASA mission sizes. The FFAR report was released in pre-publication format in late September. The CAA also filed two letter reports with the National Science Foundation, one on June 2 on the NSF Facilities Instrumentation Program, which followed up on the 1995 CAA report on Ground-based Optical and Infrared Astronomy, and another on August 19 on astronomy from the South Pole. The CAA held a teleconference in August and will meet next at the Beckman Center, the date to be determined.
The Committee on Earth Studies (CES) met twice during the reporting period. The committee held a workshop July 26-27 in Washington, DC, to address some of the difficult issues in the integration of NASA's research and NOAA's operational satellite systems, specifically for the planned NPOESS constellation. It was sponsored by SSB, the Board on Sustainable Development (BSD), and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC). Invited to the meeting, besides the chairs and former chairs of the relevant NRC committees (Charles Kennel, Eric Barron, Tom Karl, and Berrien Moore), were various government officials representing NASA, NOAA, OSTP, NSF, OMB, and USGCRP. The goals of the workshop were (1) to define the essential elements of an appropriate sampling strategy for long-term observations in support of climate research, and (2) to identify a process to assess climate requirements and the overall approach and balance of the observational system that integrates operational stability with research flexibility. The results of the workshop will be integrated into the NPOESS Phase 2 report.

The committee met September 20-22 at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC, to complete information gathering for the Phase 2 (final) NPOESS report. An outline was agreed upon and the committee spent one day writing. The committee planned to complete the first draft of the Phase 2 report in time for the SSB review at its November meeting.

The Small Satellites report has been revised in response to external review comments and has been submitted for final approval. The NPOESS Phase 1 report has been revised in response to reviewer comments and also has been submitted for final approval.

On July 14 the chair and two members of the Committee on Human Exploration (CHEX) participated in a pre-project planning meeting organized by the SSB and the NRC Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBSSE). The purpose of the meeting was to explore, in discussions with a small number of experts in cultural anthropology and other related social science disciplines, a range of topics related to long-term human exploration missions. The informal session began from the perspective that such future missions are very likely to involve multicultural crews and ground-support teams, and that coping with the unique challenges of such missions is likely to involve new kinds of human-machine relationships and interdependencies. Participants agreed that these topic areas deserve further consideration, possibly leading to a proposal for an NRC study of relevant research requirements and priorities. Staff members from the SSB and the CBSSE, in consultation with members of CHEX, will work with NASA to determine appropriate next steps.
The Committee on International Space Programs (CISP) met on July 19-20 in Woods Hole, MA. The committee reviewed the draft version of a summary of the US-European-Japanese Workshop held May 19-21 in Tokyo and discussed a potential follow-on workshop with Japan to address cooperation in the Earth, life and microgravity science areas. (The previous workshop explored cooperation mainly within the astronomy and astrophysics and space physics areas.) During the meeting the committee also provided inputs from an international perspective for two ongoing SSB projects: (1) the Assessment of Mission Size Trade-Offs for Earth and Space Science Missions and (2) Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research (IASSR). In addition, the European SSB sister body, the European Space Science Committee (ESSC), is planning an initiative to explore international collaboration and strategic planning for large-scale missions. CISP discussed this activity and how the SSB might be involved.

The committee has been monitoring several issues including the international dimensions of NASA's "faster, better, cheaper" approach to conducting missions; U.S. export control stipulations and their potential impact on international cooperation in space research; intellectual property rights and the potential implications for international space research; and the status of the Russian and Chinese space programs.

Publication of the report U.S.-European-Japanese Workshop on Space Cooperation: Summary Report is planned by the end of the year.

Professor Gerhard Haerendel, President of the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), sent a letter to Dr. Bruce Alberts inviting him to suggest a candidate for Scientific Program Committee Chair for the World Space Congress 2002, which will take place in Houston, Texas. After an extensive search, Dr. Alberts proposed Dr. Stephen S. Holt, director of NASA Goddard's Space Science Directorate. Dr. Holt is an astrophysicist with extensive international research experience.

The World Space Congress 2002 is a joint activity between COSPAR and the International Astronautical Federation (IAF). The Congress will include COSPAR's biennial scientific assembly, the IAF annual Congress, and a number of joint science-engineering sessions and associated joint events. One of the objectives of the Congress is to seek greater synergy among the scientific and engineering sides of international space research.

A Joint Program Committee composed of individuals from COSPAR and IAF will meet in early October at the IAF Congress in Amsterdam.

The next meeting of COMPLEX is scheduled for November 1-5 at the Beckman Center.

The Committee on Space Biology and Medicine (CSBM) met September 22-24 in Irvine, CA, to revise the final draft of its report on NASA biomedical research programs. The meeting included a review of the integrated report to identify remaining gaps and inconsistencies, group discussion, and work in individual writing groups. The draft report is currently being prepared for SSB review in November. Publication is planned for summer/fall of 2000.
The Committee on Solar and Space Physics (CSSP) met at Woods Hole, MA on June 28-30 (reported in the June 30 newsletter). Since the meeting, the committee has completed its response to external review of its report, Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk and continued its planning for a workshop. The workshop will be in support of a possible new study that will explore sun-Earth connections (SEC) science and its connections to other areas of physics and astrophysics. The next meeting of the committee will occur concurrently with the workshop to be held at the Beckman Center January 20-23, 2000. The purpose of the workshop is to bring expertise to the study that does not exist on the committee and, perhaps more importantly, to increase community participation in (and "ownership" of) the study.

The radiation report was approved in late September and is currently being edited.

The Joint Committee on Technology (JCT) is on hold until a specific project is identified and approved.
The Task Group for Evaluation of NASA's Biotechnology Facility for the International Space Station held two site visits in July. Half the group went to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, on July 12 and to the University of Alabama at Birmingham on July 13. On this trip, they heard presentations about NASA's program in molecular structure (growth of biological macromolecular crystals such as proteins and nucleic acids) and viewed equipment currently available or in development for growing and observing protein crystals in space. The remainder of the task group spent July 19-20 at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, where they learned about NASA's work in cell biology (cell culture, growth, and differentiation) and viewed prototypes of the hardware planned to be used for culture growth on the International Space Station. The task group met as a whole for a session devoted to deliberation and writing in Washington, DC, on August 30. The report will be reviewed by the SSB in November. Publication of the report is planned by February 29, 2000.
The Task Group on Institutional Arrangements for Space Station Research (IASSR) held its second meeting in Washington, DC, on July 26-28. Members heard from senior representatives of the NASA Offices of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications and of Space Flight, OMB and Congressional committee staffs, NASA field center space station payload developers, the NASA Commercial Space Centers, and other private sector entities. They also discussed the policies of several federal agencies regarding accommodation of proprietary use of federal research facilities, and they engaged in lessons-learned discussions with a panel of individuals having experience with a range of different non-government R&D organizations. The meeting was also used to begin to frame the task group's findings and recommendations. A small sub-set of task group members visited the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) on August 31 to learn about the history, responsibilities, and operating structure of the STScI. The task group's third meeting occurred on September 28-29 for the purpose of further discussion of key issues leading to closure on the structure of a final draft report. The report is expected to be completed in December 1999.
The Task Group on Preventing the Forward Contamination of Europa by Spaceflight Missions met for their third and final scheduled meeting at the Beckman Center on July 1-2. Although the task group heard a couple of presentations, the majority of the meeting was devoted to discussion of the report's conclusions and recommendations. The task group is currently putting the finishing touches to a draft of the report and plans to forward it to the SSB for review at its November meeting.
The Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercialization (SAPPSC) is planning a series of three workshops to explore issues related to the increasing focus on commercialization and applications development for remote sensing. SSB staff and lead SSB members have been discussing the activities with several agencies to seek support for the workshops. SAPPSC will hold a planning meeting on December 13-14 in Washington, DC, to discuss the workshop activities and planning. An SSB website has been developed to provide background information, meeting plans, and other relevant information for this activity.
The Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee (AASC) held its third meeting on July 9-11. By the end of August, all eight of the AASC's panels had completed their third meetings (in less than nine months!) and delivered their panel reports to the AASC on time. A ninth smaller panel also provided its report. The AASC reviewed the reports and met on September 30-October 2, at the Beckman Center, to formulate its list of priorities for activities, missions, and facilities, and to begin work on a science strategy and main AASC report. The report is expected to enter NRC review in the spring and be released in May 2000.
Activity of the Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life in the Universe (Astrobiology) focussed on the formal initiation of the committee's first project, a workshop on life-detection techniques. A statement of task for this study was jointly drafted by the SSB, Commission on Life Sciences (CLS), Board on Biology in August and was approved by the NRC. Work to identify the co-chairs and membership of the committee is under way.
The Task Group on Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science (TGTOSS) will meet in Washington, DC, on October 18-19 to gather information for a review of NASA's response to this task group report, Assessment of Technology Development in NASA's Office of Space Science, published November 1998. The task group will hear about NASA's advanced technology development program, the cross-enterprise development program, and NASA's process of identifying core competencies at NASA centers. Expected speakers include representatives from Headquarters technology offices, the NASA Comptroller's office and NASA field centers.

The 1999-2000 session of the lecture series, a cooperative activity between the SSB and the National Academies' Office on Public Understanding of Science, will feature presentations by five space scientists and four life scientists. The five space science lectures scheduled are highlighted below:

September 21, 1999, Cosmology: From Quantum Fluctuations to the Accelerating Universe, Michael Turner, University of Chicago
October 27, 1999, Biodiversity: What Does It Mean for Use?, Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden
November 10, 1999, From Mad Cows to "psi-chotic" Yeast: A New Paradigm in Genetics, Susan L. Lindquist, University of Chicago
December 10, 1999, Rediscovering the Red Planet: Latest Results from the Exploration of Mars, Maria Zuber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
January 10, 2000, Life at the Ends of Your Chromosomes: How to Stay Young Forever, Thomas R. Cech, University of Colorado
February 7, 2000, Life in the Underground: Symbiosis, Phytochemicals, and Agriculture, Sharon R. Long, Stanford University
March 23, 2000, Probing the Violent Universe with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
April 18, 2000, Europa and the Rebirth of Exobiology, Christopher Chyba, SETI Institute
May 11, 2000, The Sun-Earth Connection in the Space Age, Richard Canfield, Montana State University

An extensive mail and email publicity campaign for the series was initiated in early September. Arrangements for televising the series were initiated.

When I was asked to write this article I thought it would be a great idea to summarize what has been one of the most exciting summers I have had. Prior to coming here for the internship I was thinking about Washington and The Academies as being really formal and pompous. Well, I was not right at all, both the Academies and most of Washington are lively and informal and exciting. Actually I did not find a lot of formality anywhere except at Congressional hearings. But I guess that's how Congressional hearings are supposed to be. A little bit about my background: I have a degree in geography from Moscow State University and I was doing my Ph.D. in remote sensing at Purdue at LARS (Laboratory for Applications of Remote Sensing) with Prof. C.J. Johannsen. This fall I will be at the University of Iowa where I will be switching my PhD work to geography.

The main thing that impressed me in the Academies and within the SSB is the enormous range and scope of scientific projects and meetings that are underway at any given time. The load of workshops and reports in which the SSB is involved is very impressive. The other thing that impressed me is the people I met here. All came from very different backgrounds, but most of them, both Board staff and committee members, seem very enthusiastic about what they are doing and take the notion of public service pretty seriously; this is very infectious and attractive.

I worked on the issues of commercialization and applications of remote sensing data for a series of SSB workshops with Pam Whitney this summer. By now I know pretty much all about the barriers States face in using remote sensing data. Actually I think I have a good understanding of how the policy mechanisms work, what it takes to put a committee together, to write a report and to get funding (that's the main part!). I have acquired a great insight into space science policy, after having worked on background research for the workshops and attended SSB/NRC committee meetings, and meetings at NASA and USDA. I really enjoyed the stimulating scientific atmosphere and supportive people. About Washington, I found it absolutely charming (if it weren't so hot and humid). Walking the leafy streets of Glover Park each morning on the way to the NRC was an irresistible beginning of every new day of this exciting summer.