National Academies Press: OpenBook

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015 (2016)

Chapter: 5 Summaries of Major Reports

« Previous: 4 Workshops, Symposia, Meetings of Experts, and Other Special Projects
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5
Summaries of Major Reports

This chapter reprints the summaries of Space Studies Board (SSB) reports that were released in 2015. Reports are often written in conjunction with other boards and divisions, as noted, including the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) and the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5.1 Continuity of NASA Earth Observations from Space: A Value Framework

SSB ad hoc Committee on a Framework for Analyzing the Needs for Continuity of NASA-Sustained Remote Sensing Observations of the Earth from Space

Summary

NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) conducts a wide range of satellite and suborbital missions to observe Earth’s land surface and interior, biosphere, atmosphere, cryosphere, and oceans as part of a program to improve understanding of Earth as an integrated system. Earth observations provide the foundation for critical scientific advances, and environmental data products derived from these observations are used in resource management and for an extraordinary range of societal applications, including weather forecasts, climate projections, sea level change, water management, disease early warning, agricultural production, and the response to natural disasters.

As the complexity of societal infrastructure and its vulnerability to environmental disruption increases, the demands for deeper scientific insights and more actionable information continue to rise. To serve these demands, NASA’s ESD is challenged with optimizing the partitioning of its finite resources among measurements intended for exploring new science frontiers, carefully characterizing long-term changes in the Earth system, and supporting ongoing societal applications. This challenge is most acute in the decisions the division makes between supporting measurement continuity of data streams that are critical components of Earth science research programs (including, but not limited, to climate-related measurements) and the development of new measurement capabilities.

While the distinction between measurements oriented toward “research” and “applications” is somewhat artificial (both types of measurements are typically needed in support of a particular societal application, and both research and application objectives may require continuous or sustained measurements), their requirements are not consistent. In particular, while many applications are associated with a requirement for near real-time data availability, climate change science objectives typically require accurate measurements and long, stable, uninterrupted time-series. Further, within the class of measurements with a science/research focus, the need for new measurements to enable Earth System process studies contrasts with the need to continue well-understood measurements related to key climate change indicators.

Community guidance to NASA ESD from the first National Research Council (NRC)1 Earth science and applications from space decadal survey (NRC, 2007) largely focused on new measurements, owing to assumptions made about the role of other agencies in supporting high-priority climate, weather, and land surface continuity measurements. However, for a variety of reasons, including technical and budgetary challenges, some of these assumptions were not met (NRC, 2012). In response to these changes, as well as to guidance from the Administration and Congress, NASA’s Earth science portfolio has expanded to include new responsibilities for the continuation of several previously initiated measurements that were formerly assigned to other agencies.

As decadal survey recommendations are executed and new capabilities and applications are demonstrated, NASA anticipates an increasing number of measurements and associated instruments and missions will be candidates for follow-ons. The agency’s request for the present study (the statement of task is reprinted in Appendix A) recognizes this trend and the importance of establishing a more quantitative understanding of the need for measurement continuity and the consequences of measurement gaps. In addition to requesting a working definition of “continuity,” the task statement asks that a decision framework be provided to help optimize the allocation of resources.

This report, from the Committee on a Framework for Analyzing the Needs for Continuity of NASA-Sustained Remote Sensing Observations of the Earth from Space, is the response to these requests. As detailed in the report, the committee recommends to NASA a decision-making framework, based on key continuity characteristics, that

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from Continuity of NASA Earth Observations from Space: A Value Framework, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 1-5.

1 Effective July 1, 2015, the institution is called the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. References in this report to the National Research Council are used in an historic context identifying programs prior to July 1.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

effectively discriminates between competing continuity measurements. The recommended framework carries a strong emphasis on quantitative evaluation methods in order to achieve process objectivity and transparency.

In developing a readily implementable framework, the committee focused on climate change science goals where space-based continuity measurements are expected to make substantial contributions. With this specific focus, the recommended framework is intended as a new method for evaluating science-driven continuity missions and represents a complement to the existing NASA proposal evaluation processes for NASA Research Announcements and Earth Venture Announcements of Opportunity.

This framework should be viewed as an initial step toward a more comprehensive methodology. As discussed in the report, modifications to the framework would allow it to be used to establish priorities among new, first-of-a-kind measurements, as well as to examine operational- or applications-based measurements. Developed appropriately, the committee envisions a single comprehensive evaluation approach for both new and continuity measurements, driven by science and/or application objectives.

ELEMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE’S DECISION FRAMEWORK

The committee’s approach in developing the desired decision-framework begins with a clear definition of measurement continuity in time and space. Ensuring continuity of a geophysical variable2 from a sequence of “improved” instruments, or from copies of the same instrument, requires a careful program of calibration, instrument characterization and comparison, and validation. While the vantage point of space facilitates global and repeatable observations of Earth, the development of long-term measurement time-series having small, combined standard uncertainties on multiple spatial scales is particularly challenging. In operational programs, copies of instruments have been flown multiple times with the goal of simplifying this process. Although copies do not eliminate the need for calibration and characterization studies, such an approach—including carefully chosen group procurements of instruments or spacecraft—will reduce costs and typically reduces the risk in providing a long-term continuous record.

The quality of a measurement is particularly relevant in the context of continuity and is characterized primarily by its combined standard uncertainty, which is the consequence of instrument calibration uncertainty, repeatability; time and space sampling; and data systems and delivery for climate variables (algorithms, reprocessing, and availability)—each of which depends on the scientific objective. Changes in platform observing characteristics (for example, altitude and local observing time) introduce perturbations into the entire system. Development of calibration methods through mission overlaps, in situ validation, and ground-based calibration traceable to National Institute of Standards and Technology standards are necessary to provide repeatable long-term measurements of geophysical variables.

With this in mind, the committee finds that the following is a sufficient, high-level definition of continuity across the Earth science subdisciplines for use in an analysis framework focused on scientific objectives:

Finding: Continuity of an Earth measurement exists when the quality of the measurement for a specific quantified Earth science objective is maintained over the required temporal and spatial domain set by the objective.

The notion of a quantified objective is the starting point for the committee’s recommended decision framework. The characteristics of a well-formulated quantified objective are the following:

  • It is directly relevant to achieving an overarching science goal of NASA ESD;
  • It is presented in such a way that the required measurement(s) and their resolution (spatial, temporal, and radiometric), calibration uncertainty and repeatability, and other requirements have traceability to the overarching science goal; and
  • It is expressed in a way that allows an analytical assessment of the importance of the objective to an Earth science goal and the utility of the targeted geophysical variable(s) for meeting the science objective.

Chapter 3 presents several examples of quantified objectives.

___________________

2 See Box 2.1 for the committee’s definition of geophysical variable and several other terms used in this report.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

Recommendation: Proposed space-based continuity measurements should be evaluated in the context of the quantified Earth science objectives they address.

The committee envisions NASA ESD establishing a small set of quantified objectives from the same sources that inform the development of its program plan, notably the scientific community’s consensus priorities expressed in NRC decadal surveys and guidance from the executive and congressional branches. Congressionally mandated midterm assessments of the decadal survey afford an additional opportunity for community evaluation of the objectives. Continuity of an established data set will compete with proposed new measurements as well as multimeasurement “intensives,” campaigns that may be mounted to, for example, gain a detailed understanding of a particular climate process. The latter proposals should be defined through a quantified objective that could then be evaluated via the committee’s proposed framework or whatever similar quantitative, open, and objective evaluation ESD establishes for continuity measurements.

Recommendation: NASA, which is anticipated to be a principal sponsor of the next decadal survey in Earth science and applications from space, might task the decadal survey with the identification, and possible prioritization, of the quantified Earth science objectives associated with the recommended science goals.

In addition to their research-oriented objectives, Earth observations and their derived information products support numerous user communities within and outside of the government. Extension of the committee’s decision framework to measurements focused on societal-benefit applications is desirable but will require expertise outside of the Earth science community to formulate analogous quantified objectives in Earth applications. Toward this end, the committee makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation: NASA should initiate studies to identify and assess quantified Earth applications objectives related to high-priority, societal-benefit areas.

Based on lessons from cost-benefit analysis and decision theory, the committee found that a value-centered framework is capable of effectively distinguishing among the relevant Earth measurements; implemented appropriately, it will achieve an improved degree of openness and transparency. The value-centered approach recommended in this report includes both measurement benefit and affordability considerations. The study identified a relatively small set of characteristics that enable a tractable evaluation of benefit, which along with affordability allow discrimination in value among competing measurement/quantified objective pairs.3 They are:

  1. The scientific importance (I) of the quantified objective;
  2. The utility (U) of a geophysical variable record for achieving a quantified objective;
  3. The quality (Q) of a measurement for providing the desired geophysical variable record; and
  4. The success probability (S) of achieving the measurement and its associated geophysical variable record.
  5. The affordability (A) of providing the measurement and its geophysical variable record.

Additional cross-cutting factors are recognized to impact both benefit and affordability, and methods to treat them appropriately within the framework are discussed in the report. Examples of cross-cutting factors include the ability to leverage other measurement opportunities in pursuit of the science objective and the resilience of a geophysical variable record to unexpected degradation (or gaps) in the measurement quality.

___________________

3 The committee debated at length regarding the choice of framework characteristics; the object was to derive a minimal set of largely independent characteristics (metrics) that would provide meaningful evaluations of proposed continuity measurements. That the factors are not completely independent in a statistical sense is recognized. For example, success probability (S) and affordability (A) are not completely independent; however, the relationship between them is sufficiently complex that it was necessary to retain both in the framework. As an example: NASA’s ability to “buy down” risk (i.e., increase S by decreasing A) is not easily quantified for complex technologies; similarly, accounting for the strategic plans of other national and international partners—a difficult problem—is easier to handle in a framework with separate success and affordability factors. Accordingly, the committee elected to retain both the success probability and affordability characteristics. By retaining success probability, the treatment of uncertainty in the decision process is more readily achieved.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

As discussed in the report, the committee finds that the quality metric plays a decisive role in determining when a measurement should be collected for durations longer than the typical lifetimes of single satellite missions. The most critical factor is whether (or not) the combined standard uncertainty of the measurement is sufficient for addressing the quantified objective. A related factor is the impact of a data gap (see Section 3.4.2 in Chapter 3), which itself depends on the measurements calibration uncertainty (i.e., traceability to an absolute scale) as well as on the natural variability of the measurand over the gap’s duration. While there are numerous ways to evaluate quality in the context of continuity measurements, a useful quality metric is expected to vary between continuity required for short-term operational use (e.g., weather prediction, hazard warnings, agricultural crop monitoring) versus longer-term science objectives, such as those related to global climate change.4 Examples for assessing quality are given in Chapter 4.

Finding: Assessing the quality of a particular continuity measurement requires knowledge of a measurement’s combined standard uncertainty, which is derived from the instrument calibration uncertainty, repeatability, time and space sampling, and data systems and delivery of climate variables (algorithms, reprocessing, and availability), and the consequences of data gaps on the relevant quantified science objective(s).

Recommendation: The committee recommends that NASA be responsible for refining the assessment approach for the quality characteristic.

Evaluation of a measurement’s affordability and benefit for decision-making purposes can likely be accomplished through a number of equally valid methods, some of which are examined in this report. Regardless of the evaluation methods that NASA and the community adopt, the application of those methods should make consistent use of well-documented and understood tools and studies, as highlighted in the following recommendations.

Recommendation: NASA should foster a consistent methodology to evaluate the utility of geophysical variables for achieving quantified Earth science objectives. The committee notes that such a methodology could also be utilized by the Earth science decadal survey in its priority recommendations.

Recommendation: NASA should extend their current mission cost tools to address continuity measurement-related costs needed for the decision framework.

The ability of ESD officials to make informed decisions requires unbiased and consistent information on benefits and affordability that is re-evaluated regularly and presented on a time frame appropriate for NASA planning. The committee advises that inputs to these evaluations be derived from sources such as submitted proposals and face-to-face interactions with measurement advocates.

Recommendation: NASA’s Earth Science Division should establish a regular process for critical evaluation and modification of quantified objectives in Earth science and applications and their associated measurements. The committee suggests creating an analog to the senior review of current satellite operations, which uses senior researchers from a range of communities and results in consistent recommendations to the ESD director.

In summary, the committee offers the following recommendation:

Recommendation: NASA should establish a value-based decision approach that includes clear evalu-

___________________

4 The committee notes that the quality requirements for measurements related to climate change objectives will often be most stringent at a global scale and less stringent at zonal or regional scales. (Antarctic ozone, regional aerosol change, and polar ice sheets are exceptions where regional anthropogenic signals can be detected before global average signals.) Instrument accuracy and repeatability will, therefore, often be driven by global average analysis as in many of the examples in this report. However, the committee’s analysis framework can be used at any spatial scale required by the quantified objective.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

ation methods for the recommended framework characteristics and well-defined summary methods leading to a value assessment.

REFERENCES

NRC (National Research Council). 2007. Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 2012. Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5.2 Sharing the Adventure with the Student: Exploring the Intersections of NASA Space Science and Education: A Workshop Summary

Dwayne Day, Rapporteur

Introduction and Background

On December 2-3, 2014, the Space Studies Board and the Board on Science Education of the National Research Council (NRC) held a workshop on the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) education program—“Sharing the Adventure with the Student.” The discussion of NASA SMD’s education efforts is particularly timely because of recent changes in K-12 science education policy and practices and a proposed reorganization of all of NASA SMD’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education efforts.

“Sharing the Adventure with the Student: Exploring the Intersections of NASA Space Science and Education—A Workshop” was organized by an ad hoc committee under the auspices of members from the Space Studies Board, serving as representatives of the space science community; the Board on Science Education, serving as representatives of experts in the creation and evaluation of STEM education efforts; as well as other experts. The workshop brought together these respective communities to promote a new dialog with the aim of increasing mutual understanding of how best to translate space science into useful educational materials and experiences.

This workshop summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The views contained in the report are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of the workshop participants as a whole, the planning committee, or the NRC.

This is the second in a series of workshops on NASA science communication and education. Previously, on November 8-10, 2010, the Space Studies Board held a public workshop, “Sharing the Adventure with the Public,”1 that brought together scientists and professional communicators to discuss how NASA and its associated science and exploration communities can be more effective in communicating with the public.2 The 2010 workshop participants discussed examples of where communication with the public has been challenging—such as for climate change—and where communication can be used more effectively to increase public support for space science. Science journalists offered tips for improving scientists’ communication—such as becoming more active on social media sites. The gathering together of these communities in itself helped to improve communication in science, with all groups leaving the workshop with a better understanding of each other.

THE BACKGROUND OF NASA EDUCATION EFFORTS

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created NASA, directed that the agency should pursue several goals. Among these are the following:

  • The expansion of human knowledge of Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space; and
  • The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

___________________

NOTE: “Introduction and Background” reprinted from Sharing the Adventure with the Student: Exploring the Intersections of NASA Space Science and Education: A Workshop Summary, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 1-4.

1 National Research Council, Sharing the Adventure with the Public: The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration: Summary of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2011.

2 More information and video recordings of Sharing the Adventure with the Public: The Value and Excitement of “Grand Questions” of Space Science and Exploration are available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/CompletedProjects/SSB_065881.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

NASA has interpreted these goals to include support for the goals of American educational institutions at all levels. A 2008 NRC report, NASA’s Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique,3 recommended the following:

NASA should continue to engage in education activities at the K-12 level, designing its K-12 education activities so that they capitalize on NASA’s primary strengths and resources, which are found in the mission directorates. These strengths and resources are the agency’s scientific discoveries; its technology and aeronautical developments; its space exploration activities; the scientists, engineers, and other technical staff (both internal and external) who carry out NASA’s work; and the unique excitement generated by space flight and space exploration (p. 6).

The report also noted that among the large number of agency staff who focus on science, engineering, and technology, only limited numbers have primary expertise in education that allows them to develop effective education products on their own.

The workshop summarized here was prompted by a number of changes both in NASA policy and in how the United States as a whole is changing the teaching of science in kindergarten through grade 12. The larger context of the workshop involves several significant events. These are the 2012 NRC report A Framework for K-12 Science Education4 (generally referred to as “the Framework”), a set of K-12 science standards based upon the Framework known as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and the November 2014 release by NASA SMD of a Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) soliciting proposals that address NASA SMD’s science education requirements.5

A Framework for K-12 Science Education

A Framework for K-12 Science Education (i.e., “the Framework”), released by the NRC in 2011, consists of the most up-to-date information on how students in grades K-12 should learn science (see Figure I.1). The development process of the Framework study consisted of a committee that included science education policy experts and researchers. Design teams in the following disciplines were utilized in the development process as well: engineering, Earth and space science, life science, and physical science. The Framework includes research on how students acquire knowledge of science in an effective manner, and it served as the basis for the NGSS, which were developed to provide an international benchmark for science education.6

NEXT GENERATION SCIENCE STANDARDS

The NGSS are a set of K-12 science standards developed through a state-led process to provide students with a benchmark for science education.7 These standards are based on the NRC’s Framework.8

The NGSS were produced due to the time gap in the development of guiding documents for state science education standards and the need to build interest among K-12 students in STEM disciplines. The standards are meant to better prepare high school students for college and the workforce with the objective of providing employers with the ability to hire individuals with strong science, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

Each NGSS consists of the following three dimensions: core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts. Core ideas are meant to focus science curriculum and instruction on the most significant aspects of the discipline. Practices are applicable to both scientists and engineers; they describe the behavior of

___________________

3 National Research Council, NASA’s Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.

4 National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2012.

5 NASA, “A—Draft SMD Science Education Cooperative Agreement Notice,” Solicitation Number NNH15ZDA002J, FedBizOpps.gov, posted November 6, 2014, http://www.fbo.gov.

6 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), “Framework for K-12 Science Education,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/frameworkk-12-science-education, accessed January 15, 2015.

7 NGSS, “Science Education in the 21st Century—Why K-12 Science Standards Matter—and Why the Time Is Right to Develop Next Generation Science Standards,” May 2012 Draft, http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Why%20K12%20Standards%20Matter%20-%20FINAL.pdf.

8 NGSS, “Development Overview,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/development-overview, accessed January 15, 2015.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Image
FIGURE I.1 Framework for K-12 Science Education produced by the National Research Council. SOURCE: National Research Council, A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2012, p. 3.
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

scientists as they build theories pertaining to the natural world and the practices of engineers as they build systems. Crosscutting concepts link different science domains, and examples include cause and effect, as well as energy and matter.9 The focus of the standards is a progression of knowledge from grade to grade starting in kindergarten all the way through 12th grade. The standards emphasize engineering and technology, and they coordinate with the Common Core State Standards in mathematics as well as English language arts. The NGSS were released in April 2013 for adoption by states and continue to be implemented today.10

NASA’s Cooperative Agreement Notice

NASA SMD’s draft Science Education CAN issued in November 2014 sought comments from members of formal and informal education, and science research communities.11 According to SMD, the directorate’s vision for education is as follows:

To share the story, the science, and the adventure of NASA’s scientific explorations of our home planet, the solar system, and the universe beyond, through stimulating and informative activities and experiences created by experts, delivered effectively and efficiently to learners of many backgrounds via proven conduits, thus providing a return on the public’s investment in NASA’s scientific research.

The draft CAN was issued for a 30-day discussion period with a request for responses by mid-December 2014. NASA chose to use a cooperative agreement in lieu of a contract or grant, with the expectation that the agency would engage in substantial interaction with the parties that are selected.

A cooperative agreement occurs when there is a transfer of something of value to an entity, such as a municipality, state government, or private company, to be used for a public purpose. This legal agreement involves two parties: the federal government and another entity.12 The goal of the CAN is to meet the following education objectives of NASA SMD: enable STEM education, improve science literacy in the United States, advance national education goals, and utilize partnerships to leverage science education. CAN awards are anticipated by September 2015, and NASA has the intention to select one or multiple science discipline teams(s).

___________________

9 NGSS, “Three Dimensions,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/three-dimensions, accessed January 15, 2015.

10 NGSS, “Implementation,” http://www.nextgenscience.org/implementation, accessed January 15, 2015.

11 NASA, “A—Draft SMD Science Education Cooperative Agreement Notice,” Solicitation Number NNH15ZDA002J, FedBizOpps.gov, posted November 6, 2014, http://www.fbo.gov.

12 Kristen Erickson, NASA SMD, “NASA Science Mission Directorate Education Discussion with The National Academies Space Studies Board,” presentation to the workshop, 2014.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5.3 Review of MEPAG Report on Mars Special Regions

A Report of the SSB and European Science Foundation ad hoc Committee on the Review of MEPAG Report on Planetary Protection for Mars Special Regions

Executive Summary

Planetary protection is a guiding principle in the design of an interplanetary mission, aiming to prevent biological contamination of both the target celestial body and Earth. Planetary protection reflects both the frequently unknown nature of the space environment and the desire of the scientific community to preserve the pristine nature of planetary bodies until they can be studied in detail. The planetary protection policy maintained by the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR 2015) defines guidelines and specific requirements depending on the mission target and mission type based on the actual state of knowledge. New findings and new technology developments require the COSPAR planetary protection policy to be updated on a regular basis.

High-priority science goals, such as the search for life and the understanding of the martian organic environment, may be compromised if Earth microbes—that is, prokaryotic or eukaryotic single-cell organisms—carried by spacecraft grow and spread on Mars. This has led to the definition of “Special Regions” on Mars where strict planetary protection measures have to be applied before a spacecraft can enter these areas. The concept of a Special Region was developed as a way to refer to those places where the conditions might be conducive to microbial growth as we understand this process. In particular, this refers to places that might be warm and wet enough to support microbes that might be carried by spacecraft from Earth. COSPAR’s planetary protection policy defines a Mars Special Region as a “region within which terrestrial organisms may be able to replicate, OR a region which is interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of extant martian life. Given current understanding, Special Regions are defined as areas or volumes within which sufficient water activity AND sufficiently warm temperatures to permit replication of terrestrial organisms may exist. In the absence of specific information, no Special Regions are currently defined on the basis of martian life.”

The physical parameter space defined in COSPAR planetary protection policy (COSPAR 2015) for Special Regions is constrained by the following:

  • Water activity: lower limit, 0.5; upper limit, 1.0;
  • Temperature: lower limit, –25°C; no upper limit defined; and
  • Timescale within which limits can be identified: 500 years.

In 2014, NASA requested the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) to review the definition of Special Regions. In particular, the MEPAG group SR-SAG2 (Special Regions Science Analysis Group 2) was asked to address a number of topics including the following:1

  • “Reconsider information on the known physical limits of life on Earth . . .”
  • “Evaluate new (i.e., since 2006) observational data sets and models from Mars that could be relevant to our understanding of the natural variations on Mars of water activity and temperature;” and
  • “Reconsider the parameters used to define the term ‘special region;’ propose updates to the threshold values for temperature and water activity, as needed . . . ”

The result of this analysis was published as a journal article (Rummel et al. 2014). In response to parallel requests from the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, the European Science Foundation and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine initiated a joint review of the SR-SAG2 report by an

___________________

NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Review of MEPAG Report on Mars Special Regions, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 1-4.

1 See Rummel et al. (2014, Appendix A, pp. 945-946). Note that the identifiers “SR-SAG2 report” and “Rummel et al. 2014” are used interchangeably in this document.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

international group of experts, the Committee to Review the MEPAG Report on Mars Special Regions (hereafter the “review committee”).

The SR-SAG2 report provides findings about the Mars-relevant physical and chemical limits of life (as we know it), the various phenomena observed on Mars that might be indicative of a Special Region and possible mechanisms for their formation, and the considerations related to spacecraft-induced Special Regions. The findings are followed by a discussion of human spaceflight and, in particular, the resources needed to support humans on Mars. The report also discusses the findings and makes recommendations to COSPAR for consideration in updating the Special Regions definition in the COSPAR planetary protection policy.

The review committee discussed the SR-SAG2 report during two face-to-face meetings, via conference calls, and by email exchange. The committee notes that its statement of task (see the Preface) could be interpreted as requiring a review and update of the requirements levied on a spacecraft venturing into a Special Region. However, discussions with the planetary protection officers from NASA and ESA confirmed that the committee’s task was limited to a review of the definition of a Mars Special Region and related revisions to COSPAR’s planetary protection policy as proposed in the SR-SAG2 report. The review committee understands that its report, like the SR-SAG2 report, will inform the process by which COSPAR will revise and update its planetary protection policies.

The findings from the SR-SAG2 report were discussed by the committee in view of additional information from scientific publications not addressed by the SR-SAG2 report and from new knowledge obtained by ongoing space missions, field studies, and laboratory experiments. This included discussions about the breadth and depth of SR-SAG2 analysis with respect to survivability of life forms singularly versus in communities and SR-SAG2 approach to defining geographical areas as Special Regions. The review committee agreed with many of SR-SAG2’s individual findings, including retaining the current limits for life specified by COSPAR, but arrived at different conclusions in some cases and is of the opinion that a more detailed consideration is necessary (see Chapters 2 to 5). The review committee summarizes its comments concerning the findings and presents a new definition of Special Regions that changes the way geographical features are designated as Special Regions in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, the review committee revisits the scientific basis of the bioburden assays used to assess the microbiological contamination of spacecraft and comments on the necessity of updating planetary protection requirements so that they are based on the latest scientific facts concerning the probability of life surviving in the martian environment.

This report concludes with a series of appendices containing the following information: Suggestions for future research that could reduce uncertainties in the identification of Special Regions on Mars (Appendix A); a complete listing of the findings from the SR-SAG2 report and, where appropriate, the review committee’s comments thereon (Appendix B); the letter from NASA requesting the Academies’ participation in this study (Appendix D); and brief biographies of committee members and staff (Appendix E).

In summary, the review committee reached the following conclusions:

  1. The authors of the SR-SAG2 report are to be commended for their comprehensive review of the issues associated with Special Regions and the factors used to define them. The SR-SAG2 report contained 45 specific findings. Of these, the review committee does not support one (3-14), supports 13 in revised form (2-1, 2-4, 3-1, 4-1, 4-2, 4-8, 4-9, 4-14, 4-16, 5-3, 5-4, 5-7, and 5-9), suggests that two (4-6 and 4-7) be combined, proposes no changes for the remaining 29, and adds one new finding (6-1). The specific list can be found in Appendix B.
  2. The environmental parameters used to define Special Regions (currently in the COSPAR policy and agreed upon in the SR-SAG2 report) of temperature and water activity are still appropriate. However, the review committee believes that if the detection of methane in the martian atmosphere—which may indicate biogenic activity—is confirmed, that may demand that the source region—that is, the location where methane is being produced—be designated as a Special Region.
  3. The identification of Mars Special Regions is problematic for several reasons. First, detailed knowledge of the physical and chemical conditions of the surface and sub-surface of Mars at various scales is lacking, particularly the microscale. Second, current understanding of the ability of life to propagate is limited. It is not known if one, ten, or a million cells from a single species are required for propagation in an extraterrestrial environment. Alternatively, propagation may only be possible for microbial communities (i.e., collections of many different species). In view of the rapid development of powerful new techniques in biology and the increase in knowledge of the martian environment by ongoing and future space missions,
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
  1. the current practice of reassessing the concept of a Special Region and its definition every 2 years is both appropriate and essential.

  2. The specific terrains identified as Special Regions in both the COSPAR policy and in the SR-SAG2 report (i.e., “gullies, and bright streaks associated with gullies, pasted-on terrains, subsurface below 5 meters, others, to be determined, including dark streaks, possible geothermal sites, fresh craters with hydrothermal activity, modern outflow channels, or sites of recent seismic activity” and “spacecraft-induced Special Regions”) are best regarded as “Uncertain Regions.” The final determination of a Special Region would depend on the review of the latest scientific knowledge about a specific site in order to verify if it is within the environmental parameters defining Special Regions, taking into consideration the potential existence of microscale habitats.

In addition, the review committee makes one recommendation.

Recommendation: Maps should only be used to illustrate the general concept of Special Regions and should not be used to delineate their exact location. Uncertain Regions in planned landing ellipses should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the site selection process. The goal of such an evaluation is to determine whether or not the landing ellipse contains water, ice, or subsurface discontinuities with a potential to contain hydrated minerals that could be accessed via a landing malfunction or by the operation of subsurface-penetrating devices (e.g., drills). As an example, landing site analysis will likely include a geological analysis, drawing on the Mars geologic literature (covering a broad range of relevant topics, including ground truth at previous lander locations) as well as orbital imaging, infrared spectroscopy, gamma-ray spectroscopy, and ground-penetrating radar sounding of the specific region.

Finally, the review committee proposes the following update to the definition of a Special Region (COSPAR 2015): A Special Region is defined as a region within which terrestrial organisms are likely to replicate. Any region which is interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of extant martian life forms is also defined as a Special Region.

Given current understanding of terrestrial organisms, Special Regions are defined as areas or volumes within which sufficient water activity AND sufficiently warm temperatures to permit replication of Earth organisms may exist. The physical parameters delineating applicable water activity and temperature thresholds are given below:

  • Water activity: lower limit, 0.5; upper limit, 1.0;
  • Temperature: lower limit, −25°C; no upper limit defined; and
  • Timescale within which limits can be identified: 500 years.

Observed features for which there is a significant (but still unknown) probability of association with liquid water, and which should be considered as Uncertain Regions and treated as Special Regions until proven otherwise:

  • Sources of methane (if identified);
  • Recurring slope lineae;
  • Gullies and bright streaks associated with gullies;
  • Pasted-on terrains;
  • Caves, subsurface cavities and subsurface below 5 meters; and
  • Others, to be determined, including dark slope streaks, possible geothermal sites, fresh craters with hydrothermal activity, modern outflow channels, or sites of recent seismic activity.

Spacecraft-induced special regions are to be evaluated, consistent with these limits and features, on a case-by-case basis.

Organizations proposing to investigate any region that may meet the criteria above, have the responsibility to demonstrate, based on the latest scientific evidence and mission approach, whether or not their proposed landing sites are or are not Special Regions.

In the absence of specific information, no Special Regions are currently identified on the basis of possible martian life forms. If and when information becomes available on this subject, Special Regions will be further defined on that basis.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5.4 Optimizing the U.S. Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy System

A Report of the BPA and SSB ad hoc Committee on a Strategy to Optimize the U.S. Optical and Infrared System in the Era of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)

Executive Summary

Revolutionary discoveries undoubtedly will follow from the realization of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) under construction, the planned 30-meter-class telescopes, and new instrumentation on existing optical and infrared (OIR) telescopes. The challenge is to extract the best science from these and other astronomical facilities in an era of potentially flat federal budgets for both the facilities and the research grants necessary to exploit them. In the 2010s, there is increasing scientific opportunity combined with decreasing purchasing power. This report describes a vision for a nighttime U.S. OIR System that includes a telescope time exchange designed to enhance science return by broadening access to capabilities for a diverse community; an ongoing planning process to identify and construct next-generation capabilities to realize decadal science priorities; and near-term critical coordination, planning, training, and instrumentation needed to usher in the era of LSST and giant telescopes.

The guiding principles used by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on a Strategy to Optimize the U.S. Optical and Infrared System in the Era of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) in its deliberations were as follows:

  • An integrated OIR System can achieve the best science when it engages a broad population of astronomers to pursue a diversity of science and scientific approaches.
  • Federal investment in LSST follow-up capabilities and in community-prioritized instrumentation across the OIR System will help to maximize scientific output.
  • Federal support to sustain technology, instrumentation, and software development, and expertise in these fields, is necessary to optimize future science returns.

This report highlights some of the progress on science questions raised by the NRC decadal surveys New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics1 (NWNH) and Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-20222 (VVPS), the existing facilities and capabilities, and the human resources that make up the U.S. OIR astronomical enterprise. The report then considers the science that will be enabled by new instruments and facilities. It highlights the critical OIR instruments that are necessary in the near term to achieve decadal objectives, enable innovative research, and augment LSST with follow-up observations. It then addresses how to optimize scientific return from available resources through cooperation among public and private observatories.

The committee’s top-level recommendations are presented here in priority order, driven by the statement of task (see Preface) and motivated by the guiding principles above. The committee did not have a budget or guidelines for funding; these recommendations are based on science considerations and provided as advice for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the sponsor requesting the report. The accompanying descriptions and justifications for the recommendations are in subsequent chapters.3

The committee’s highest priority is a U.S. OIR System that is well coordinated and facilitates broad access to achieve the best science. Broad access at non-federal telescopes can be accomplished in a number of creative ways,

___________________

NOTE: “Executive Summary” reprinted from Optimizing the U.S. Ground-Based Optical and Infrared Astronomy System, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 1-5.

1 National Research Council (NRC), 2010, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

2 NRC, 2011, Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

3 For convenience, all of the conclusions and recommendations that appear in individual sections are listed in the Epilogue in order of appearance.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

including, but not limited to, engaging in limited term partnerships for partnering on telescopes, instruments, and data; bartering time on one facility for another; and swapping instruments.

RECOMMENDATION 1. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should direct the National Optical Astronomical Observatory to administer a new telescope time exchange with participating observatories of the U.S. Optical and Infrared System. Observatory representatives would barter facilities, swap instruments, or engage in limited term partnerships for telescope time or data access on behalf of their respective constituencies, as appropriate, and NSF would barter telescope time or data access or engage in limited term partnerships to carry out proposals competed through a system-wide time allocation committee. (Chapter 6)

Maximum returns from federal investment will be achieved when the community has the capabilities necessary to address the decadal science priorities. Those capabilities include not only existing ones but also new ones that are developed as the science evolves. The decadal surveys identify long-term goals for community facilities, but capabilities needed in the short term, particularly in rapidly evolving areas of research, would benefit from shorter planning timescales. Achieving these capabilities through coordination or partnerships can be accomplished by establishing at the national level an ongoing planning process that will engage the entire OIR user community in identifying and realizing small- and medium-scale projects and programs between decadal and mid-decadal reviews.

RECOMMENDATION 2. The National Science Foundation should direct the National Optical Astronomical Observatory (NOAO) to administer an ongoing community-wide planning process to identify the critical Optical and Infrared System capabilities needed in the near term to realize the decadal science priorities. NOAO could facilitate the meeting of a system organizing committee, chosen to represent all segments of the community, which would produce the prioritized plan. NSF would then solicit, review, and select proposals to meet those capabilities, within available funding. (Chapter 6)

As a start in the OIR System planning, and as charged, the committee has in this report identified a number of instrumentation and coordination requirements that would enhance the science output from medium (3.5- to 5-meter) and large (6- to 12-meter) telescopes, including augmenting LSST data once they come online.

RECOMMENDATION 3. The National Science Foundation should support the development of a wide-field, highly multiplexed spectroscopic capability on a medium- or large-aperture telescope in the Southern Hemisphere to enable a wide variety of science, including follow-up spectroscopy of Large Synoptic Survey Telescope targets. Examples of enabled science are studies of cosmology, galaxy evolution, quasars, and the Milky Way. (Chapter 5)

LSST, the top-ranked, large, ground-based facility recommended in NWNH and highly ranked in VVPS, will enable a broad range of science across the community. The science returns will be even greater through complementary and supplementary work at other facilities. Recommendations 4a-4d target the optimization of science from data obtained with LSST. The large number of transient events that will be detected nightly by LSST will require a software event broker system to identify significant objects that need spectroscopic and higher-cadence photometric follow-up. Coordination of federally supported facilities and capabilities in the Southern Hemisphere will enable a rapid response to these events and therefore promote maximum scientific productivity.

RECOMMENDATION 4a. The National Science Foundation should help to support the development of event brokers, which should use standard formats and protocols, to maximize Large Synoptic Survey Telescope transient survey follow-up work. (Chapter 5)

RECOMMENDATION 4b. The National Science Foundation should work with its partners in Gemini to ensure that Gemini South is well positioned for faint-object spectroscopy early in the era of Large Synoptic Survey Telescope operations, for example, by supporting the construction of a rapidly configurable, high-throughput, moderate-resolution spectrograph with broad wavelength coverage. (Chapter 5)

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

RECOMMENDATION 4c. The National Science Foundation should ensure via a robustly organized U.S. Optical and Infrared (OIR) System that a fraction of the U.S. OIR System observing time be allocated for rapid, faint transient observations prioritized by a Large Synoptic Survey Telescope event broker system so that high-priority events can be efficiently and rapidly targeted. (Chapter 5)

RECOMMENDATION 4d. The National Science Foundation should direct its managing organizations to enhance coordination among the federal components of medium- to large-aperture telescopes in the Southern Hemisphere, including Gemini South, Blanco, the Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope, and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), to optimize LSST follow-up for a range of studies. (Chapter 5)

Looking to the future, it is beneficial for NSF and the community to consider facilities and technologies that will bring the greatest scientific return for the investment. The largest telescopes, the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes (GSMTs), are being constructed by private and international partners. It is important for a broad U.S. community to have direct access to the GSMTs through federal investment so that the best science can be achieved.

RECOMMENDATION 5. The National Science Foundation should plan for an investment in one or both Giant Segmented Mirror Telescopes in order to capitalize on these observatories’ exceptional scientific capabilities for the broader astronomical community in the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope era, for example, through shared operations costs, instrument development, or limited term partnerships in telescope or data access or science projects. (Chapter 4)

Many types of technologies are in various stages of development. Adaptive optics (AO), for example, has become a mainstay of telescopes but needs more investment in order for AO-assisted telescopes to achieve the most stable images with the best possible resolution; detector technology continues to improve. Sustaining technological developments and maintaining U.S. expertise in instrumentation and software are important for remaining competitive in the rapidly advancing world stage of OIR astronomy.

RECOMMENDATION 6. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should continue to invest in the development of critical instrument technologies, including detectors, adaptive/active optics, and precision radial velocity measurements. NSF should also use existing instrument and research programs to support small-scale exploratory programs that have the potential to develop transformative technologies. (Chapter 4)

RECOMMENDATION 7. The National Science Foundation (NSF) should support a coordinated suite of schools, workshops, and training networks run by experts to train the future generation of astronomers and maintain instrumentation, software, and data analysis expertise. Some of this training might best be planned as a sequence, with later topics building on earlier ones. NSF should use existing instrument and research programs to support training to build instruments. (Chapter 3)

There are a number of important topics for which the committee has reached conclusions but not recommendations. Among these are conclusions regarding data archives and their public availability and means of access (Section 3.3), the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) and Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) (Section 5.1), the Mid-Scale Innovations Program (MSIP) structure (Section 6.3), and international discussions (Section 6.5).

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

5.5 The Space Science Decadal Surveys: Lessons Learned and Best Practices

A Report of the SSB ad hoc Committee on Survey of Surveys: Lessons Learned from the Decadal Survey Process

Summary

Decadal surveys are a signature product of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.1 Decadal surveys conducted by the Space Studies Board, singly or in collaboration with other boards of the Academies, provide community-consensus science priorities and recommendations for space and Earth science, principally to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), but also to the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the White House, and Congress. The Academies have established a reputation for decadal surveys as credible and unbiased science assessments and prioritization across the space sciences.

Decadal surveys are carried out with a cadence of approximately 10 years for each discipline. The four that are the focus of this report are Earth science and applications from space, astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, and solar and space physics (also known as heliophysics). The Academies have conducted decadal surveys for more than 50 years, since astronomers first developed a strategic plan for ground-based astronomy in the 1964 report Ground-Based Astronomy: A Ten-Year Program.2 The committees and panels that carry out the decadal surveys are drawn from the broad community associated with the discipline in review, and these volunteers comprise some of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers.

The Academies’ decadal surveys are notable in their ability to sample thoroughly the research interests, aspirations, and needs of a scientific community. Through a rigorous process lasting about 2 years, a primary survey committee and “thematic” panels of community members construct a prioritized program of science goals and objectives and define an executable strategy for achieving them. Decadal survey reports to agencies and other government entities play a critical role in defining the nation’s agenda in that science area for the following 10 years, and often beyond.

Eleven decadal surveys have now been completed; the last four have been for Earth science and applications from space (Earth2007), astronomy and astrophysics (Astro2010), planetary science (Planetary2011), and solar and space physics (Helio2013).3 The 2012 Academies’ workshop “Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science,” invited participants from recent surveys and “stakeholders,” such as NASA and NSF division directors, congressional staffers, and representatives of the executive branch. Presentations and moderated panel discussions, with inputs from the gathered attendees, covered all aspects of these recent decadal surveys. The resulting report, Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science: Summary of a Workshop,4 captures the breadth and depth of this exceptional, challenging process.

The Committee on Survey of Surveys: Lessons Learned from the Decadal Survey Process (hereinafter “the committee”) was appointed by the Academies with the task of distilling the content of the 2012 workshop, adding the input from presentations to the committee, and providing its own evaluations of the issues. The committee’s goal has been twofold: (1) to provide a handbook to guide the organizers of future surveys, with a moderately detailed discussion of both “tried and true” and novel methods and (2) to identify lessons learned from prior surveys and best practices that have been gleaned from them. Along the way, the committee has identified valuable

___________________

NOTE: “Summary” reprinted from The Space Science Decadal Surveys: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 1-6.

1 Activities of the National Research Council are now referred to as activities of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

2 National Academy of Sciences, Ground-Based Astronomy: A Ten-Year Program, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1964.

3 The four decadal survey reports discussed are Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (2007), New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics (2010), Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022 (2011), and Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society (2013), all published by the National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

4 National Research Council, Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science: Summary of a Workshop, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2013.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

aspects of decadal surveys that could be taken further, as well as some challenges future surveys are likely to face in searching for the richest areas of scientific endeavor, seeking community consensus of where to go next, and planning how to get there. What decadal surveys are asked to do is no simple task.

The committee’s conclusions are presented in the context of a successful round of recent decadal surveys that faced a few challenges but surprisingly few issues, considering the magnitude of the assignment. In particular, the task of defining the scientific frontier and deciding on a discipline’s future direction is complex and difficult, but this has been done smoothly and reliably through the decadal survey process. The same is true for decadal surveys achieving community consensus on how to advance a field with a 10-year program. Indeed, the committee found no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction about the outcome of a decadal process of prioritizing science activities: no one at the 2012 workshop, or in any other communication to the committee, suggested the outcome was capricious or arbitrary, tied to the composition of the relevant survey committee, or not representative of a community consensus of its highest-priority science goals. On the contrary, the science communities, through individuals and associations, have given strong support in recommending each of the decadal survey reports to its stakeholders.

Likewise, support from the sponsoring agencies for decadal surveys has not wavered over their 50-year history. NASA and NSF officials, in particular, use words like “guidebook” and “blueprint” to describe the role that decadal survey recommendations play in the planning and execution of science programs of government agencies on behalf of the nation. Federal funding has long been an essential component of the entire U.S. science portfolio, but few fields have chosen a democratic process like the decadal survey for deciding how best to direct this resource. Decadal surveys have been praised as a “sword and shield”5 as they work to advance the nation’s science agenda—a sword for winning the approval of the most important programs, and a shield against cancellation when difficulties are encountered and against groups that lobby for certain programs that may not enjoy the consensus support of the community.

This report covers the entire decadal survey process in time order. Chapter 1 provides an overview of decadal surveys, outlines high-level implementation process, and discusses key issues associated with a decadal survey’s statement of task. Chapter 2 reviews the decadal survey process in detail, including mission definition and formulation, prioritization, and the process of cost and technical evaluation (CATE). Chapter 3 covers the decadal survey report itself, including discussion of the importance of clarity of communication of recommendations, particularly with respect to “flagship,” “strategic,” or “high-profile” missions.6Chapter 4 focuses on “stewardship” of the decadal survey after the report is released, including discussion of the midterm assessment process and the vital roles played by international and interagency cooperation. Lessons learned and best practices are included as they arise throughout the report and are also collected in Appendix D. Appendix B provides additional material on the CATE process.

As the decadal process first developed for astronomy and astrophysics has been extended to planetary science, solar and space physics, and Earth science, different science themes and unique cultures have been expressed through variations in decadal structure and process, but overall the survey model has proven to be highly adaptable. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to a decadal survey: each discipline has heritage and science goals that cannot be directly mapped to any other group. However, there is also much in common—things that every decadal survey needs to do well. Each must draw extensive input from its community and adhere to a process that assures that all ideas are heard—the most important thing is that no good idea is simply missed. All surveys need to demonstrate that science is the prime motivator and develop a methodology of prioritization that identifies the most important science areas where substantial progress can be made, which also means demonstrating to skeptics and partisans that favored activities or highly lobbied missions do not drive the survey’s recommendations.

Crucially, all surveys must put considerable effort into communicating their conclusions, goals, and recommendations to a wide audience of scientists, stakeholders, and the public. The decadal survey report must explain and justify the recommended program and provide clear direction, through priorities and “decision rules” that will help in the implementation of the survey, even as the budget, technology, and in some cases the science, change throughout the decade.

___________________

5 Attributed to Colleen Hartman at the 2012 Workshop; see National Research Council, Lessons Learned in Decadal Planning in Space Science, 2013, p. 39.

6 The terms flagship mission, strategic mission, and high-profile mission are typically used interchangeably to mean large, expensive, technically ambitious, performance-driven activities that are initiated for strategic reasons because they are critical to the advancement of a specific discipline. The committee prefers to call such activities high-profile missions.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

Finally, all survey programs require continued support and nurturing—stewardship, and even advocacy—after they are completed and released. The standing committees of the Space Studies Board play a key role in this stewardship. This committee thinks that this role could be strengthened by allowing the standing committees to continue their work while a decadal survey is in progress, provided they restrict their attention to the current program. In addition, while there are many groups that can speak to the progress in post-survey execution of a decadal program, one lesson learned is that the current advisory structure does not adequately provide for short-term tactical advice on strategic programs.

Although the decadal surveys’ record concerning issues relating to international collaboration and cooperation is good, simple steps can be taken to improve communication before and during a decadal survey. With increasing dependence on international cooperation, activities before a survey begins that facilitate interactions with international groups can be used to better coordinate discussions of shared science goals that can—and should—be pursued through international collaboration.

Differences between the various disciplines are expressed in the organization of each survey. While there is much uniformity in decadal survey committees, the uniqueness of each discipline is reflected in the organization of thematic panels and study groups that are charged with representing the community’s full science interests.

Differences among the disciplines are strongly expressed in the values that inform the survey’s selection of the highest-priority science goals. For example, the discipline of astronomy and astrophysics has two distinct science “imperatives”: “origins” science—how do galaxies, stars, and planets form (and lead to life)—and fundamental physics—the nature of black holes (space-time), cosmology (dark matter and dark energy), and the study of elusive gravity waves and neutrinos. Solar and space physics (also called heliophysics) similarly seeks to further understanding of the fundamental physics of the Sun and its variations in time, the acceleration of particles and the solar wind, Earth’s geospace environment and its links to the Sun, and the Sun’s connection to other bodies in the solar system and to the galaxy beyond. Heliophysics also explores astrophysical processes in the nearby cosmos as well as the impacts of space weather on human activities.

Planetary science has its strong link with the physics of complex matter—condensed matter, chemistry, geology, and biology. In the prioritization of planetary science goals, these disciplines underlie the “hottest topics”: the search for water and life on Mars or within the icy moons of the outer solar system; the history of volcanism on Venus, the Moon, and on icy satellites; and the composition of comets, asteroids, and planetoids that hold clues to the solar system’s formation.

Earth science and applications from space and, to a significant extent, heliophysics are focused on complex natural processes: both fields place a high priority on establishing decades of synoptic data. For Earth science, this entails, for example, measurements of land and sea temperatures and atmospheric composition and their collective effects—weather, climate, and climate change. Long-term heliophysics measurement of levels and characteristics of solar activity, cosmic rays, irradiance, and conditions in geospace can provide critical information about the causes and effects of the solar cycle, extreme events, and “space weather.” These are matters of national interest and importance. For example, the degree to which weather satellites facilitate “routine” weather prediction is likely to dominate whether they bring fundamental knowledge to meteorology. In short, the variety of natural processes that drive each of these fields is enormous.

In addition, there are substantial differences in the targets of science programs and how science is done: from remote sensing of galaxies a billion light years away to observations of a planet orbiting a distant star; from visiting or roaming on solar system bodies to making continuous, precise, sensitive measurements of conditions on or near Earth over long temporal baselines. Working in the context of such variety of subject and methodology, the decadal process has proven highly adaptable and remained effective in its mission to prioritize science goals and make plans to accomplish them.

This report describes many other aspects of the decadal survey prioritization process, including balance in the science program and across the discipline; balance between the needs of current researchers and the development of the future workforce; and balance in mission scale—smaller, competed programs versus large, strategic missions. While engaging the public is important for all, Earth science and heliophysics have a special focus on societal benefit; outcomes here have unique, real consequences for life on Earth.

There seems little if any doubt that decadal surveys have succeeded in what they set out to achieve; yet, to paraphrase a philosopher, “no fruit of the human tree has ever lacked for improvement.” In its examination of the process, the committee has identified challenges that have made the process of crafting a decadal survey more difficult and affected committees’ ability to do the best possible job.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

An important lesson learned has been that budget uncertainty complicates the development of an executable and affordable program. With only a few exceptions, decadal survey programs have been more ambitious than could be accomplished, or at least begun, within the decade ahead. Decadal surveys have been reluctant to adopt the “worst case scenario” budget for fear they will be given it, especially in times of tight budgets. On the other hand, “optimistic” or “aspirational” programs often turn out to be “overly optimistic” or even unreachable. In addition, some uncertainty results from the “blackout period” during which details of the federal budget are embargoed, something that suspends communication between the agencies and surveys on budget expectations. There is also a black-out period lasting several months when the main elements of a decadal survey’s recommended program have been established but cannot be discussed with the agencies until the survey report’s review by the Academies is complete and the report is made public.

Because budget uncertainties seem inevitable, a best practice might be to replace the extrapolations of a current or newly released budget with a baseline that reflects longer-term funding levels for NASA SMD and relevant partner agencies such as NSF and NOAA. Surveys could then build in budget scenarios that “trend-up” and “trend-down” over the decade, as alternatives to the nominal, “baseline” plan they have provided. Greater stability in agency budgets for science would be wonderful, but intentions of the executive branch and congressional priorities seem to guarantee fluctuations as large as 20 percent over a few-year timescale. It seems unwise to base a survey program on a budget run-out for a decade by primarily relying on what has happened only in recent years or on the latest projections of executive or congressional priorities.

Planning within tight budgets has led to increased specificity in the recommended programs of decadal surveys. Implementation plans, in particular, have included detailed descriptions of the facilities, missions, and observing system concepts that have been motivated by the desire to accomplish as much of the science program as possible. However, over-specified programs are a problem for program managers at the agencies for several reasons. One is that implementation of a particular mission architecture is often much more costly than the estimate derived from studying an immature concept (as was the case for the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity rover). The full cost of ambitious, high-profile missions may not be knowable at the time the survey is conducted.

The lesson learned here is that decadal surveys, in pursuit of ever more accurate cost estimates, may dig too far into implementation details. Implementation descriptions for such missions in the survey report can be easily misconstrued as prescriptive advice. A best practice going forward is that missions described in the survey’s recommendations might best be considered as “reference missions,” except for the concepts that have been studied for many years—where committees explicitly state their intention to recommend a specific implementation approach. A reference mission is intended to serve as a proof of concept that there is a way to do the science within a certain cost bin, rather than as a detailed recommendation for implementation. After the survey process, the agencies will develop these ideas to take into account other programmatic goals, new technology, and a growing understanding of what it will take to do the mission or build the facility or observing system. The most important thing is for the decadal survey to state clearly the minimum set of requirements underlying a mission’s recommendation and the rationale for its prioritization, including any necessary decision rules to be considered by implementers. After all, it is first and foremost the science that is being prioritized in a decadal survey, not any particular design for a mission or facility.

The committee was asked to consider another way of decreasing the attention given to implementation strategies: a two-phase approach in which decadal survey committees would be asked to prioritize science goals first—independently of the means to carry them out. However, participants at the 2012 workshop, other scientists the committee talked to, and the committee itself judged this is to be undesirable and, in fact, impossible. Fortunately, there is an example of the difficulty in prioritizing science goals first. The five science frontier panels (SFPs) of the Astro2010 produced a list of 20 science questions and six “discovery areas,” all of equal priority; these high-priority questions were distilled from a much larger set of questions covering the field.7 However, the survey committee did not ask the SFPs to go further, to prioritize the questions—nor did the SFPs want to. Consider this: Is answering “Do habitable worlds exist around other stars . . . ?” more important than knowing “How do black holes grow, and radiate . . . ?” Who can say? Anyone. Who can know? No one.

___________________

7 National Research Council, New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

Nevertheless, these SFP questions were the foundation of Astro2010’s recommended program. By stacking “what we want to do” against “what we can do,” another essential dimension is added to judging science priority. Where can the most progress be made with available resources and existing or new technology? It is a matter of fact that, in all previous surveys, the science prioritization process has depended crucially on such mission and facility concepts—what they could do and what they would cost. This non-linear, almost organic, process has been at the very heart of every survey.

The committee was also asked to consider a related proposal: a two-phase decadal survey process where science is prioritized first, as in Astro2010, with a break to communicate the results to the community and the agencies to “tune” the formulation of missions, facilities, and observing systems to these science priorities. The committee is concerned that stretching the decadal process beyond 2 years would prove to be impractical and unaffordable. But, more to the point, the committee has concluded, from looking at the Astro2010 example, that a high-priority but unranked list of science goals would not facilitate the mission formulation process. In fact, participants in the 2012 workshop speaking on behalf of planetary science, Earth science, and heliophysics surveys insisted that their highly interactive (and successful) process of science and mission prioritization would be disabled by attempts to divorce the two. The committee concluded that decisions as to how a decadal survey will prioritize science and recommended programs are best left to the survey committee itself.

Despite, and also because of, these misgivings about the value of a stand-alone process for science prioritization, the committee endorses reviewing the “state of the science” before a new survey begins, as distinct from creating a new process to do “science prioritization.” Fortunately, there are ongoing activities to facilitate that activity, including the midterm decadal review and the Space Studies Board with its discipline-specific standing committees. NASA advisory committees, including NASA’s many assessment and analysis groups (like the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group, the Cosmic Origins Program Anaysis Group, and the Geospace-Management Operations Working Group), NASA roadmap teams, and the Science Committee of the NASA Advisory Council, can all contribute to this task. White papers and society meetings can also be used to sample the thoughts of the broader community. A best practice to bring this all together would be to initiate processes to collect community input before a new survey begins. This process could include workshops, sessions at meetings of professional societies, white papers, and, perhaps, a process conducted under the aegis of the Academies under the direction of the Space Studies Board. The goal would be to assess how science has evolved from the last survey and call attention to emerging areas of promise. Community ideas for implementation of these science themes could lead to preparatory studies of missions and facilities. This kind of input could give the upcoming survey a running start in identifying their key science objectives. A similar activity, on a global scale, is to exploit international scientific meetings and conferences while encouraging communications between decadal surveys and analogous planning exercises abroad, to help lay the groundwork for future international missions.

The committee reviewed the CATE activity that was added to the decadal process in response to the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, which requires an independent cost estimate that can be compared to the budgets provided by mission advocates. The committee concluded that the CATE process has become a best practice of decadal surveys, adding credibility to their implementation plans. Furthermore, the CATE process will likely evolve to become more efficient and more easily adaptable to any particular decadal survey. The committee found little interest in returning to decadal surveys without CATE, but instead found widespread support of CATE and support for improving the CATE process.

This report focuses on whether the CATE process as it has been implemented is overly drawn out and expensive, and whether this puts a strain on its use if very many facilities and missions are under consideration. Worthwhile programs that might have been recommended could have been shut out by missions that—according to a “late CATE”—turn out to be unaffordable. A best practice for future CATEs could be to initially run a much larger number of candidate missions through a faster but coarser “cost-box” analysis, to provide a sense of scale for initial consideration. This extra step would reserve the full CATE process for missions that are likely to become part of the recommended program—that is, those that require more detailed estimates. This “two-step” approach would also help prevent CATE from pacing the survey process.

One rather obvious lesson learned is that a reliable CATE process is crucial for the largest, most ambitious missions—high-profile missions—where cost growth can threaten the health of a wide set of activities over a discipline, and beyond. A best practice for future surveys is to give greater attention and added care in assessing and recommending potentially “discipline-disrupting” programs. A thorough and rigorous CATE process can help, but too often the true cost of such a mission cannot be well established until the program is well under way.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×

Surveys can provide clear decision rules and decision points that will effectively establish cost caps, with the intent of triggering reconsideration of the mission and the possibility, or necessity, of rescoping its science capability.

The committee concludes that the decadal survey process has been very successful. Indeed, decadal surveys set a standard of excellence that encourages the hope that similar processes could be applied more widely across the nation’s science programs. While it has no major flaws, the survey process can, and should, improve and evolve. The remarkable record of decadal surveys makes the committee optimistic that useful changes can and will be made.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"5 Summaries of Major Reports." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23494.
×
Page 60
Next: 6 Congressional Testimony »
Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The original charter of the Space Science Board was established in June 1958, 3 months before the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) opened its doors. The Space Science Board and its successor, the Space Studies Board (SSB), have provided expert external and independent scientific and programmatic advice to NASA on a continuous basis from NASA's inception until the present. The SSB has also provided such advice to other executive branch agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of Defense, as well as to Congress.

Space Studies Board Annual Report 2015 covers a message from the chair of the SSB, David N. Spergel. This report also explains the origins of the Space Science Board, how the Space Studies Board functions today, the SSB's collaboration with other National Research Council units, assures the quality of the SSB reports, acknowledges the audience and sponsors, and expresses the necessity to enhance the outreach and improve dissemination of SSB reports.

This report will be relevant to a full range of government audiences in civilian space research - including NASA, NSF, NOAA, USGS, and the Department of Energy, as well members of the SSB, policy makers, and researchers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!