EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE
NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR THE NEXT DECADE AND BEYOND
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract NASW-01001 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Contract DG133R04C00009 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Contract DG133F-04-CQ-0009 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Geological Survey. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13:978–0-309–10387–9
International Standard Book Number-10:0–309–10387–8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007936350
Cover: A digitally enhanced image created from data acquired by a Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) operated by NOAA and built by NASA; by NASA’s Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) satellite; and by Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instruments carried aboard NOAA’s Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites (POES). These data were draped across a digital elevation model of Earth’s topography from the U.S. Geological Survey. Heavy vegetation is shown as green and sparse vegetation as yellow. The heights of mountains and depths of valleys have been exaggerated so that vertical relief is visible. The presence of the Moon in this image is an artistic addition; the lunar image was collected by GOES in September 1994 and has been magnified to about twice its relative size. The prominent storm raging off the west coast of North America is Hurricane Linda (1997). This image was created by Reto Stockli with the help of Alan Nelson, under the leadership of Fritz Hasler. A detailed description of how the image was generated is available at http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/bluemarble/bluemarble2000.html.
Copies of this report are available free of charge from:
Space Studies Board
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from the
National Academies Press,
285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624–6242 or (202) 334–3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J.Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M.Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V.Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J.Cicerone and Dr. Charles M.Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
OTHER REPORTS OF THE SPACE STUDIES BOARD
An Astrobiology Strategy for the Exploration of Mars (SSB with the Board on Life Sciences [BLS], 2007)
Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration (SSB with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2007)
Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop (2007)
Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (SSB with the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, 2007)
A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program (SSB with the Board on Physics and Astronomy, 2007)
Portals to the Universe: The NASA Astronomy Science Centers (2007)
The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (2007)
An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs (2006)
Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007–2016 (2006)
Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions: Letter Report (2006)
Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research: Report of a Workshop (2006)
Issues Affecting the Future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce (SSB with ASEB, 2006)
Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan: Letter Report (2006)
The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon—Interim Report (2006)
Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration (2006)
The Astrophysical Context of Life (SSB with BLS, 2005)
Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation (2005)
Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions (2005)
Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars (2005)
Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences (2005)
Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion (SSB with ASEB, 2005)
Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences (2005)
Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2005)
Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (2005)
Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope: Final Report (SSB with ASEB, 2004)
Exploration of the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium: A Workshop Report (2004)
Issues and Opportunities Regarding the U.S. Space Program: A Summary Report of a Workshop on National Space Policy (SSB with ASEB, 2004)
Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos (2004)
Review of Science Requirements for the Terrestrial Planet Finder: Letter Report (2004)
Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration (2004)
Understanding the Sun and Solar System Plasmas: Future Directions in Solar and Space Physics (2004)
Utilization of Operational Environmental Satellite Data: Ensuring Readiness for 2010 and Beyond (SSB with ASEB and the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, 2004)
Limited copies of these reports are available free of charge from:
Space Studies Board
National Research Council
The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334–3477/ssb@nas.edu
www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html
NOTE: Listed according to year of approval for release, which in some cases precedes the year of publication.
COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE: A COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE
RICHARD A.ANTHES,
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research,
Co-chair
BERRIEN MOORE III,
University of New Hampshire,
Co-chair
JAMES G.ANDERSON,
Harvard University
SUSAN K.AVERY,
University of Colorado, Boulder
ERIC J.BARRON,
University of Texas, Austin
OTIS B.BROWN, JR.,1
University of Miami
SUSAN L.CUTTER,
University of South Carolina
RUTH DeFRIES,
University of Maryland
WILLIAM B.GAIL,
Microsoft Virtual Earth
BRADFORD H.HAGER,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ANTHONY HOLLINGSWORTH,2
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
ANTHONY C.JANETOS,
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of Maryland
KATHRYN A.KELLY,
University of Washington
NEAL F.LANE,
Rice University
DENNIS P.LETTENMAIER,
University of Washington
BRUCE D.MARCUS,
TRW, Inc.
(retired)
WARREN M.WASHINGTON,
National Center for Atmospheric Research
MARK L.WILSON,
University of Michigan
MARY LOU ZOBACK,
Risk Management Solutions
Consultant
STACEY W.BOLAND,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Staff
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
THERESA M.FISHER, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor
CATHERINE A.GRUBER, Assistant Editor,
Space Studies Board
EMILY McNEIL, Research Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON EARTH SCIENCE APPLICATIONS AND SOCIETAL BENEFITS
ANTHONY C.JANETOS,
Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of Maryland,
Chair
ROBERTA BALSTAD,
Columbia University,
Vice Chair
JAY APT,
Carnegie Mellon University
PHILIP E.ARDANUY,
Raytheon Information Solutions
RANDALL FRIEDL,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
MICHAEL F.GOODCHILD,
University of California, Santa Barbara
MOLLY K.MACAULEY,
Resources for the Future, Inc.
GORDON McBEAN,
University of Western Ontario
DAVID L.SKOLE,
Michigan State University
LEIGH WELLING,
Crown of the Continent Learning Center
THOMAS J.WILBANKS,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
GARY W.YOHE,
Wesleyan University
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
THERESA M.FISHER, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON LAND-USE CHANGE, ECOSYSTEM DYNAMICS, AND BIODIVERSITY
RUTH S.DeFRIES,
University of Maryland,
Chair
OTIS B.BROWN, JR.,
University of Miami,
Vice Chair
MARK R.ABBOTT,
Oregon State University
CHRISTOPHER B.FIELD,
Carnegie Institution of Washington
INEZ Y.FUNG,
University of California, Berkeley
MARC LEVY,
Center for International Earth Sciences Information Network
JAMES J.McCARTHY,
Harvard University
JERRY M.MELILLO,
Marine Biological Laboratory
DAVID S.SCHIMEL,
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
DAN WALKER, Senior Program Officer,
Ocean Studies Board
SANDRA J.GRAHAM, Senior Program Officer,
Space Studies Board (from August 2006)
CARMELA J.CHAMBERLAIN, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON WEATHER SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
SUSAN K.AVERY,
University of Colorado, Boulder,
Chair
THOMAS H.VONDER HAAR,
Colorado State University,
Vice Chair
EDWARD V.BROWELL,
NASA Langley Research Center
WILLIAM B.CADE III,
Air Force Weather Agency
BRADLEY R.COLMAN,
National Weather Service
EUGENIA KALNAY,
University of Maryland, College Park
CHRISTOPHER RUF,
University of Michigan
CARL F.SCHUELER,
Raytheon Company
JEREMY USHER,
Weathernews Americas, Inc.
CHRISTOPHER S.VELDEN,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
ROBERT A.WELLER,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
CURTIS MARSHALL, Program Officer,
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (from August 2006)
THERESA M.FISHER, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND CHANGE
ERIC J.BARRON,
University of Texas, Austin,
Chair
JOYCE E.PENNER,
University of Michigan,
Vice Chair
GREGORY CARBONE,
University of South Carolina
JAMES A.COAKLEY, JR.,
Oregon State University
SARAH T.GILLE,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
KENNETH C.JEZEK,
Ohio State University
JUDITH L.LEAN,
Naval Research Laboratory
GUDRUN MAGNUSDOTTIR,
University of California, Irvine
PAOLA MALANOTTE-RIZZOLI,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER,
Princeton University
CLAIRE L.PARKINSON,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
MICHAEL J.PRATHER,
University of California, Irvine
MARK R.SCHOEBERL,
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
BYRON D.TAPLEY,
University of Texas, Austin
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
CELESTE NAYLOR, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON WATER RESOURCES AND THE GLOBAL HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
DENNIS P.LETTENMAIER,
University of Washington,
Chair
ANNE W.NOLIN,
Oregon State University,
Vice Chair
WILFRIED H.BRUTSAERT,
Cornell University
ANNY CAZENAVE,
Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales
CAROL ANNE CLAYSON,
Florida State University
JEFF DOZIER,
University of California, Santa Barbara
DARA ENTEKHABI,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
RICHARD FORSTER,
University of Utah
CHARLES D.D.HOWARD,
Independent Consultant
CHRISTIAN D.KUMMEROW,
Colorado State University
STEVEN W.RUNNING,
University of Montana
CHARLES J.VOROSMARTY,
University of New Hampshire
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
WILLIAM LOGAN, Senior Staff Officer,
Water Science and Technology Board
THERESA M.FISHER, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON HUMAN HEALTH AND SECURITY
MARK L.WILSON,
University of Michigan,
Chair
RITA R.COLWELL,
University of Maryland, College Park,
Vice Chair
DANIEL G.BROWN,
University of Michigan
WALTER F.DABBERDT,
Vaisala, Inc.
WILLIAM F.DAVENHALL,
ESRI
JOHN R.DELANEY,
University of Washington
GREGORY GLASS,
Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
DANIEL J.JACOB,
Harvard University
JAMES H.MAGUIRE,
University of Maryland School of Medicine
PAUL M.MAUGHAN,
MyoSite Diagnostics, Inc.
JOAN B.ROSE,
Michigan State University
RONALD B.SMITH,
Yale University
PATRICIA ANN TESTER,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
RAYMOND WASSEL, Senior Program Officer,
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
THERESA M.FISHER, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
PANEL ON SOLID-EARTH HAZARDS, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND DYNAMICS
BRADFORD H.HAGER,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Chair
SUSAN L.BRANTLEY,
Pennsylvania State University,
Vice Chair
JEREMY BLOXHAM,
Harvard University
RICHARD K.EISNER,
State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
ALEXANDER F.H.GOETZ,
University of Colorado, Boulder
CHRISTIAN J.JOHANNSEN,
Purdue University
JAMES W.KIRCHNER,
University of California, Berkeley
WILLIAM I.ROSE,
Michigan Technological University
HARESH C.SHAH,
Stanford University
DIRK SMIT,
Shell Exploration and Production Technology Company
HOWARD A.ZEBKER,
Stanford University
MARIA T.ZUBER,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ARTHUR CHARO, Study Director,
Space Studies Board
DAN WALKER, Senior Program Officer,
Ocean Studies Board
SANDRA J.GRAHAM, Senior Program Officer,
Space Studies Board (from August 2006)
CARMELA J.CHAMBERLAIN, Senior Program Assistant,
Space Studies Board
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
LENNARD A.FISK,
University of Michigan,
Chair
A.THOMAS YOUNG,
Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired),
Vice Chair
SPIRO K.ANTIOCHOS,
Naval Research Laboratory
DANIEL N.BAKER,
University of Colorado, Boulder
STEVEN J.BATTEL,
Battel Engineering
CHARLES L.BENNETT,
Johns Hopkins University
ELIZABETH R.CANTWELL,
Los Alamos National Laboratory
JACK D.FELLOWS,
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
FIONA A.HARRISON,
California Institute of Technology
TAMARA E.JERNIGAN,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
KLAUS KEIL,
University of Hawaii
MOLLY MACAULEY,
Resources for the Future
BERRIEN MOORE III,
University of New Hampshire
KENNETH H.NEALSON,
University of Southern California
JAMES PAWELCZYK,
Pennsylvania State University
SOROOSH SOROOSHIAN,
University of California, Irvine
RICHARD H.TRULY,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(retired)
JOAN VERNIKOS,
Thirdage LLC
JOSEPH F.VEVERKA,
Cornell University
WARREN M.WASHINGTON,
National Center for Atmospheric Research
CHARLES E.WOODWARD,
University of Minnesota
GARY P.ZANK,
University of California, Riverside
MARCIA S.SMITH, Director
Preface
Natural and human-induced changes in Earth’s interior, land surface, biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans affect all aspects of life. Understanding these changes and their implications requires a foundation of integrated observations—taken from land-, sea-, air-, and space-based platforms—on which to build credible information products, forecast models, and other tools for making informed decisions.
In 2004, the National Research Council (NRC) received requests from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Office of Earth Science, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geography Division to conduct a decadal survey to generate consensus recommendations from the Earth and environmental science and applications communities regarding a systems approach to space-based and ancillary observations1 that encompasses the research programs of NASA; the related operational programs of NOAA; and associated programs such as Landsat, a joint initiative of USGS and NASA.
The National Research Council responded to this request by approving a study and appointing the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future to conduct it. The committee oversaw and synthesized the work of seven thematically organized study panels.
In carrying out the study, participants endeavored to set a new agenda for Earth observations from space in which ensuring practical benefits for humankind plays a role equal to that of acquiring new knowledge about Earth. Those benefits range from information for short-term needs, such as weather forecasts and warnings for protection of life and property, to the longer-term scientific understanding necessary for future applications that will benefit society in ways still to be realized.
As detailed in the study statement of task (Appendix A), the NRC was asked to:
-
Review the status of the field to assess recent progress in resolving major scientific questions outlined in relevant prior NRC, NASA, and other relevant studies and in realizing desired predictive and applications capabilities via space-based Earth observations;
-
Develop a consensus of the top-level scientific questions that should provide the focus for Earth and environmental observations in the period 2005–2015;
-
Take into account the principal federal- and state-level users of these observations and identify opportunities for and challenges to the exploitation of the data generated by Earth observations from space;
-
Recommend a prioritized list of measurements, and identify potential new space-based capabilities and supporting activities within NASA ESE [Earth Science Enterprise] and NOAA NESDIS to support national needs for research and monitoring of the dynamic Earth system during the decade 2005–2015; and
-
Identify important directions that should influence planning for the decade beyond 2015.
As will be clear in reading this report, the committee devoted nearly all of its attention to items 2, 3, and 4. Challenged by the breadth of the Earth sciences, the committee was not able to provide a comprehensive response to item 1, although aspects of it are addressed implicitly, given that the status of the field and outstanding science questions informed the committee’s recommendations for new programs. The committee also did not address item 5 systematically, although many of the recommended programs extend beyond 2015 and therefore indicate directions for the decade 2015–2025.
At the request of agency sponsors and Congress, the committee prepared an interim report, Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation.2 Published in April 2005, it described the national system of environmental satellites as “at risk of collapse” (p. 2). That judgment was based on the observed precipitous decline in funding for Earth observation missions and the consequent cancellation, descoping, and delay of a number of critical missions and instruments.3 A particular concern expressed in the interim report was maintaining the vitality of the field, which depends on a robust Explorer-class4 program and a vigorous research and analysis (R&A) program to attract and train scientists and engineers and to provide opportunities to exploit new technology and apply new theoretical understanding in the pursuit of discovery and high-priority societal applications.
Those concerns have greatly increased in the period since the interim report was issued, because NASA has canceled additional missions, and NOAA’s polar and geostationary satellite programs have suffered major declines in planned capability. In addition to a decision not to adapt the already completed Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) for launch,5 NASA has canceled plans for the Hydros mission
2 |
NRC, Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005. |
3 |
Ibid., Table 3.1, p. 17. |
4 |
In this report, “Earth science Explorer-class missions” refers to NASA’s Earth System Science Pathfinders (ESSP) and an even less costly new class of missions, which the committee refers to as the Venture class. According to NASA, the ESSP program “is characterized by relatively low to moderate cost, small to medium sized missions that are capable of being built, tested, and launched in a short time interval. These missions are capable of supporting a variety of scientific objectives related to Earth science, including the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, polar ice regions, and solid-Earth. Investigations include development and operation of remote sensing instruments and the conduct of investigations utilizing data from these instruments.” See “Earth System Science Pathfinder” at http://science.hq.nasa.gov/earth-sun/science/essp.html. |
5 |
DSCOVR, formerly known as Triana, would have been the first Earth-observing mission to make measurements from the unique perspective of Lagrange-1 (L1), a neutral-gravity point between the Sun and Earth. DSCOVR would have a continuous view of the Sun-lit side of Earth at a distance of 1.5 million km. In addition to its Earth-observing instruments, DSCOVR was to carry an instrument that would continue the real-time measurements of solar wind that are currently being made by instruments on the Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft, which has been at L1 since October 1997. The solar-wind monitor was a high-priority recommendation of the 2002 NRC decadal survey in solar and space physics. See NRC, “Review of Scientific Aspects of the NASA Triana Mission: Letter Report,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, and NRC, The Sun to the Earth—and Beyond: A Decadal Research Strategy in Solar and Space Physics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. |
intended to measure soil moisture, delayed the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission another 2.5 years,6 and made substantial cuts in its R&A program.7
Instruments planned for inclusion on the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)8 will play a critical role in maintaining and extending existing Earth measurements. In 2006, NPOESS underwent a recertification that resulted in a substantial diminution of its originally planned capabilities.9 In addition to a substantial increase in program costs (to at least $3.7 billion), delay of the first scheduled launch from 2010 to 2013, and reduction (from six to four) in the number of spacecraft that will be procured, the descoped NPOESS program provides only “core” sensors related to the primary mission of NPOESS, which is weather forecasting. “Secondary” sensors that would have provided measurements to ensure crucial continuity in some long-term climate records as well as other sensors that would have obtained new data are not funded by NOAA in the new NPOESS program.10
Plans to make the Landsat spacecraft operational by including a land-imaging sensor on NPOESS have also been abandoned. For more than 30 years, Landsat observations have provided the best means of examining the relationship between human activities and the terrestrial environment. Although NASA has plans to develop the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), gaps in the Landsat record appear inevitable, and whether there will be an LDCM follow-on is unclear.
The sponsors of this study, the first NRC decadal survey in the Earth sciences, requested a report that would provide an integrated program of space-based and related programs that were ordered by priority, presented in an appropriate sequence for deployment, and selected to fit within an expected resource profile during the next decade.
Execution of the survey presented several challenges, chief among them that, prior to the inauguration of this decadal survey, the Earth science community had no tradition of coming together to build a consensus toward research priorities spanning conventional disciplinary boundaries. Geologists, oceanographers, atmospheric scientists, ecologists, hydrologists, and others rarely view themselves as part of a continuum of Earth scientists bound by common goals and complementary programs. It was the need to create a broad community perspective where none had existed before that was a particular challenge to this decadal survey. Furthermore, the breadth and diversity of interests of the Earth science communities required priority-setting among quite different scientific disciplines. That heterogeneity required a multidisciplinary set of committee and panel members (Appendix B); it also required involving the broad Earth science community from the start in defining the scope and objectives of the survey. The effort began by informing the community of the proposed study through an extensive outreach effort, including solicitation and evaluation of written comments on the proposed study. Several planning workshops were held, beginning with a major community-based workshop in August 2004 at Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
6 |
As the present report was being completed, survey members learned of possible changes in GPM funding that would result in even further delays. Indeed, GPM, which was assumed to be part of the approved baseline of programs on which the survey would build its recommendations, might, in fact, have to compete for funding with survey-recommended missions. |
7 |
Total R&A for NASA science missions was cut by about 15 percent in the president’s 2007 budget (relative to 2005). In addition, the cuts were made retroactive to the start of the current fiscal year. Over the last 6 years, NASA R&A for the Earth sciences has declined in real dollars by some 30 percent. |
8 |
Since the early 1960s, the United States has maintained two distinct polar weather and environmental monitoring satellite programs, one for military use and one for civilian use. Although data from both programs were exchanged, each program operated independently. In 1994, after a multiyear review concluded that civilian and military requirements could be satisfied by a single polar satellite program, President Bill Clinton directed the merger of the two programs into one—NPOESS. The program is managed by the triagency Integrated Program Office (IPO), using personnel of the Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, and NASA. See http://www.ipo.noaa.gov/. |
9 |
House Committee on Science, “The Future of NPOESS: Results of the Nunn-McCurdy Review of NOAA’s Weather Satellite Program,” June 8, 2006. |
10 |
“Impacts of NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy Certification on Climate Research,” White Paper Prepared for OSTP by Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA. Draft August 15, 2006, 44 pp. |
The division of responsibilities between NASA and NOAA for Earth observations from space also required that the committee consider critical interagency issues. Historically, new Earth remote sensing capabilities have been developed in a process whereby NASA develops first-of-a-kind instruments that, once proved, are considered for continuation by NOAA. In particular, many measurements now being performed by instruments on NASA’s Earth Observing System of spacecraft—Terra, Aqua, and Aura11—are planned for continuation on the NOAA-Department of Defense next generation of polar-orbiting weather satellites, NPOESS. Problems in managing the transition of NASA-developed spacecraft and instruments to NOAA have been the subject of several NRC studies.12
A related issue concerns the process for extension of a NASA-developed Earth science mission that has accomplished its initial objectives or exceeded its design life. NASA decisions on extension of operations for astronomy, space science, and planetary exploration are based on an analysis of the incremental cost versus anticipated science benefits. Historically, NASA has viewed extended-phase operations for Earth science missions as operational and therefore the purview of NOAA. However, the compelling need for measurements in support of human health and safety and for documenting, forecasting, and mitigating changes on Earth creates a continuum between science and applications—illustrating again the need for multiple agencies to be intimately involved in the development of Earth science and applications from space.13
Previous NRC decadal survey committees in astronomy and astrophysics, planetary exploration, and solar and space physics were able to draw on NASA-sponsored community-generated roadmaps of highpriority near-term and longer-term missions and programs that would advance the field.14 In the absence of such roadmaps, the present survey began its work by soliciting concept proposals from the community. The committee issued a request for information (RFI) in early 2005 and received more than 100 thoughtful responses (the RFI is shown in Appendix D; responses are summarized in Appendix E). The responses were studied by members of the panels and helped to inform decisions regarding the recommended missions and associated programs.
Finally, participants in the survey were challenged by the rapidly changing budgetary environment of NASA and NOAA environmental satellite programs. By definition, decadal surveys are forward-looking documents that build on a stable foundation of existing and approved programs. In the present survey, the foundation eroded rapidly over the course of the study—in ways that could not have been anticipated. The recommended portfolio of activities in this survey tries to be responsive to those changes, but it was not possible to account fully for the consequences of major shocks that came very late in the study, especially the delay and descoping of the NPOESS program, whose consequences were not known even as this report went to press.15 Similarly, the committee could not fully digest the ramifications of changes
11 |
See “The Earth Observing System,” a Web page maintained by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, at http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/. |
12 |
See, in particular, NRC, Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating the Transition of Research to Operations, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2003. |
13 |
NRC, Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005. |
14 |
NASA did complete its Earth Science and Applications from Space Strategic Roadmap in 2005. However, that effort began after this decadal survey had been inaugurated, and the effort was truncated soon after the change in NASA administration in April 2005. Survey activities were well under way when the roadmap was completed in the middle of 2005. |
15 |
For example, a key instrument on all six originally planned NPOESS spacecraft was the Conical Scanning Microwave Imager/Sounder (CMIS). CMIS was to collect global microwave radiometry and sounding data to produce microwave imagery and other meteorologic and oceanographic data. Data types included atmospheric temperature and moisture profiles, clouds, sea-surface winds, and all-weather land and water surfaces. CMIS contributed to 23 of the NPOESS environmental data records (EDRs) and was the primary instrument for nine EDRs. CMIS was terminated in the certified NPOESS program, and a smaller and less technically challenging instrument is planned as its replacement. The detailed specifications of the replacement have not been announced. Similarly, the mitigation plan for the altimeter, ALT, which was removed from the NPOESS C-3 and C-6 spacecraft, is also not known at this time. |
in the GOES-R program of NOAA,16 and it was in no position to consider the implications of a possible large-scale reduction in funding and later delay of the GPM mission. GPM, a flagship mission of NASA’s Earth science program, was a central element in the baseline of programs that the decadal survey committee assumed to be in place when developing its recommendations.
Given the breadth of the Earth sciences, there were multiple ways to organize the present study. Organizers of the study considered a discipline-based structure focused on the atmosphere, ocean, land, cryosphere, and solid Earth. However, an important deficiency of that approach was its potential to deemphasize the interdisciplinary interactions of Earth as a system as they pertain to forcing, feedback, prediction, products, and services. After considerable discussion at the Woods Hole 2004 meeting, it was decided that the study would be organized with a committee overseeing the work of seven thematically organized study panels. The panels focused on
-
Earth science applications and societal benefits;
-
Land-use change, ecosystem dynamics, and biodiversity;
-
Climate variability and change;
-
Water resources and the global hydrologic cycle;
-
Human health and security; and
-
Solid-Earth hazards, resources, and dynamics.
Given that structure, disciplines such as oceanography and atmospheric chemistry, although not named in the title of a given panel, influenced the priorities of multiple panels. Oceanography, for example, was a key discipline represented in all the panels. Similarly, atmospheric chemistry was an important driver in the deliberations of several panels, including those on human health and security; land-use change, ecosystem dynamics, and biodiversity; climate variability and change; and weather. Moreover, NASA and NOAA have taken a similar interdisciplinary approach in their strategic planning; hence, this structure was thought to be of greater use for NASA’s and NOAA’s implementation plans. Nevertheless, there was concern in parts of the community that some sciences and applications might not be adequately addressed by the panel structure.
Each panel met three times during the course of the study. In several instances, panels also met jointly with other panels or with the committee. The committee met in whole or in part some 10 times during the study. Community outreach efforts included presentations and town hall sessions at professional meetings, including those of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society; study updates posted to various newsletters; articles in professional journals; and the creation of a public Web
16 |
Plans to develop the next generation of operational sounder from geostationary orbit, the Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES), were terminated in late August 2006. HES, scheduled for launch in 2013, was a key sensor on the GOES-R series, NOAA’s next generation of geostationary environmental spacecraft. It was to provide high-spectral-resolution radiances for numerical-weather-prediction (NWP) applications and temperature and moisture soundings (and various derived parameters) for a host of applications dealing with near-term or short-term predictions. See, for example, Timothy J.Schmit, Jun Li, and James Gurka, “Introduction of the Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES) on GOES-R and Beyond,” presented at the International (A)TOVS Science Conference (ITSC-13) in Sainte Adele, Quebec, Canada, October 18-November 4, 2003, available at http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/itwg/itsc/itsc13/proceedings/session10/10_9_schmit.pdf#search=%22hes%20goes-r%22. |
17 |
The term “space weather” refers to conditions on the Sun and in the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere, and thermosphere that can influence the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems and that can affect human life and health. |
18 |
There is no single definition of “chemical weather,” but the term refers to the state of the atmosphere as described by its chemical composition, particularly important variable trace constituents such as ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Chemical weather has a direct impact in a number of areas of interest for this study, especially air quality and human health. |
site. As noted above, members of the community were invited to submit ideas to advance Earth science and applications from space. Briefings were also given on many occasions to various NRC committees. Finally, numerous members of the community communicated directly with survey participants. Community input was particularly helpful in the final stages of the study to ensure that essential observational needs of disciplines would be met by the interdisciplinary mission concepts of the panels.
The final set of program priorities and other recommendations was established by consensus at a committee meeting at Irvine, California, in May 2006, and in later exchanges by telephone and e-mail. The committee’s final set of priorities and recommendations does not include all the recommendations made by the study panels, although it is consistent with them. As described in Chapter 2, the panels used a common template in establishing priority lists of proposed missions. Because execution of even a small portion of the missions on the panels’ lists was not considered affordable, the panels worked with committee members to develop synergistic mission “roll-ups” that would maximize science and application returns across the panels while keeping within a more affordable budget. Frequently, the recommended missions represented a compromise in an instrument or spacecraft characteristic (including orbit) between what two or more panels would have recommended individually without a budget constraint.
All the recommendations offered by the panels merit support—indeed, the panels’ short lists of recommendations were developed from the more than 100 RFI responses and other submissions—but the committee took as its charge the provision of a strategy for a strong, balanced national program in Earth science for the next decade that could be carried out with what are thought to be realistic resources. Difficult choices were inevitable, but the recommendations presented in this report reflect the committee’s best judgment, informed by the work of the panels and discussions with the scientific community, about which programs are most important for developing and sustaining the Earth science enterprise.
The process that resulted in the final set of recommendations and the usual procedures imposed by the NRC guard against the potential for anyone to affect report recommendations unduly. The vetting process for nominees to an NRC committee ensured that all survey members declared any conflicts of interest. The size and expertise of the committee served as a further check on individual biases or conflicts in that each member of the committee had an equal vote. The consensus-building process by which each panel produced short priority lists of missions and then a final set of roll-up missions ensured further vetting of the merits of each candidate mission by the entire committee. The committee, whose collective expertise spanned the relevant disciplines for this survey, then had the final say in reviewing and approving the overall survey recommendations.
On June 13, 2006, after a full House Committee on Science hearing on the recertification of NPOESS, Representative Sherwood Boehlert, chair of the House committee, sent a letter to Michael Griffin, administrator of NASA, requesting that the NRC decadal survey undertake additional tasks to “analyze the impact of the loss of the climate sensors, to prioritize the need for those lost sensors, and to review the best options for flying these sensors in the future.” NASA later sent the NRC a request to do the following:
-
Analyze the impact of the changes to the NPOESS program, which were announced in June 2006…. The analysis should include discussions related to continuity of existing measurements and development of new research and operational capabilities.
-
Develop a strategy to mitigate the impact of the changes described [in the item above]…. Included in this assessment will be an analysis of the capabilities of the portfolio of missions recommended in the decadal strategy to recover these capabilities, especially those related to research on Earth’s climate…. The committee should provide a preliminary assessment of the risks, benefits, and costs of placing—either on NPOESS or on other platforms—alternative sensors to those planned for NPOESS. Finally, the committee will consider the advantages and disadvantages of relying on capabilities that may be developed by our European and Japanese partners.
The present report provides a preliminary analysis of the first item (see, in particular, Chapter 9, “Climate Variability and Change”; also see Tables 2.4 and 2.5). Most of the tasks in the second item will be performed by a new panel appointed in early 2007 that will deliver a short report of a workshop in fall 2007 and a final report in 2008 (Tables 2.4 and 2.5 summarize the impact of NPOESS instrument cancellations and descopes).
Finally, the survey co-chairs and the study director wish to acknowledge the contributions to this report from Randy Friedl, a member of the Panel on Earth Science Applications and Societal Needs, who was unsparing of his time and offered wise counsel at several critical stages in the development of this report. He and his Jet Propulsion Laboratory colleague Stacey W.Boland provided invaluable assistance in synthesizing the work of the survey study panels, obtaining budget information, creating graphs, and critiquing large portions of Part I of this report.
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRCs) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
Antonio J.Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland,
Dudley B.Chelton, Jr., Oregon State University,
John R.Christy, University of Alabama,
Timothy L.Killeen, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Uriel D.Kitron, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
David M.Legler, U.S. CLIVAR Office,
Pamela A.Matson, Stanford University,
M. Patrick McCormick, Hampton University,
John H.McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington,
R.Keith Raney, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory,
David T.Sandwell, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
William J.Shuttleworth, University of Arizona,
Norman H.Sleep, Stanford University,
Sean C.Solomon, Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Carl I.Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
James A.Yoder, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and
A.Thomas Young, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired).
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Marcia McNutt, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and Richard Goody, Harvard University (emeritus professor). Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
ANTHONY HOLLINGSWORTH
It was with great sadness that the committee and the panels of the decadal survey learned of the death of Anthony Hollingsworth on July 29, 2007. Tony, a long-time scientist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, was a giant among his peers in numerical weather prediction and analysis, data assimilation, and the use of weather forecasts to meet broad societal needs. Tony was dedicated to the use of satellite observations of Earth to improve weather predictions for the benefit of society. He worked tirelessly in the scientific and political trenches of the world, always sharing his knowledge and valuable ideas with others in his gentle, unselfish way. He inspired people of all ages throughout his long and productive career, which still ended all too soon. He was a close friend of all who were fortunate enough to know him well.
Tony was one of the leaders of the decadal survey, arguing for the importance of diverse observations from satellites and other platforms to produce the most accurate and consistent analysis of the Earth system possible for initializing prediction models of the atmosphere, oceans, and land. He was the primary author of Appendix C, “Blending Earth Observations and Models—The Successful Paradigm of Weather Forecasting,” which tells the story of one of the greatest success stories of Earth science. Tony contributed greatly, as an individual and as a member of many international teams, to this success story. We will miss him greatly.
Richard A.Anthes and Berrien Moore III, Co-chairs, on behalf of the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space and the seven study panels