National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

Assessment of the National Science
Foundation’s 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review

Committee on Assessment of the National Science Foundation’s
2015 Geospace Portfolio Review

Space Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

A Report of

images

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This study is based on work supported by Contract AGI-1551518 with the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-45483-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45483-2
Digital Object Identifier: 10.17226/24666

Copies of this publication are available free of charge from

Space Studies Board
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation’s 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24666.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

Image

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

Image

Reports document the evidence-based consensus of an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and committee deliberations. Reports are peer reviewed and are approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Proceedings chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other convening event. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and have not been endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

COMMITTEE ON ASSESSMENT OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION’S 2015 GEOSPACE PORTFOLIO REVIEW

TIMOTHY S. BASTIAN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Chair

SUSAN K. AVERY, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Vice Chair

MARCEL AGÜEROS, Columbia University

PETER M. BANKS, NAE,1 Visual Communications, Inc., and Liberty Plugins, Inc.

GEORGE GLOECKLER, NAS,2 University of Maryland

J. TODD HOEKSEMA, Stanford University

JUSTIN C. KASPER, University of Michigan

KRISTINA A. LYNCH, Dartmouth College

TERRANCE G. ONSAGER, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

AARON RIDLEY, University of Michigan

NATHAN A. SCHWADRON, University of New Hampshire

MARIA SPASOJEVIC, Stanford University

Staff

ABIGAIL A. SHEFFER, Program Officer, Study Director

ANESIA WILKS, Senior Program Assistant

CHARLES HARRIS, Research Associate (through August 2016)

CHERIE ACHILLES, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern

CAROLINE JUANG, Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Intern

MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

__________________

1 National Academy of Engineering.

2 National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

SPACE STUDIES BOARD

FIONA HARRISON, NAS, California Institute of Technology, Chair

ROBERT D. BRAUN, NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder, Vice Chair

DAVID N. SPERGEL, NAS, Princeton University and Center for Computational Astrophysics at the Simons Foundation, Vice Chair

JAMES G. ANDERSON, NAS, Harvard University

JEFF M. BINGHAM, Consultant

JAY C. BUCKEY, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth

MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, Dittmar Associates, Inc.

JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation

THOMAS R. GAVIN, California Institute of Technology

NEIL GEHRELS,1 NAS, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research

WESLEY T. HUNTRESS, JR., Carnegie Institution of Washington (retired)

ANTHONY C. JANETOS, Boston University

CHRYSSA KOUVELIOTOU, NAS, George Washington University

DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles

ROSALY M.C. LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

DAVID J. McCOMAS, Princeton University

LARRY PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory

SAUL PERLMUTTER, NAS, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California, Berkeley

BARBARA SHERWOOD LOLLAR, University of Toronto

HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire

MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego

MEENAKSHI WADHWA, Arizona State University

Staff

MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director

CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator

TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations

CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate

MARGARET KNEMEYER, Financial Officer

SU LIU, Financial Assistant

__________________

1 Deceased on February 6, 2017.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

Preface

The National Science Foundation (NSF) conducted a portfolio review for the facilities, science programs, and other activities of the Geospace Section (GS) of the Directorate for Geosciences’ Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences. This review was carried out in 2015 by a 14-member Portfolio Review Committee (PRC), organized by NSF under its Advisory Committee for Geosciences. This review was, in part, a response by NSF to the recommendations highlighted for the geospace scientific community in the 2013 National Research Council (NRC) decadal survey Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society1 and the challenge of implementing those recommendations in a highly constrained fiscal environment. The resulting report, Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025 (hereafter, “ICCGS”), was submitted to the Advisory Committee for Geosciences on February 5, 2016, and was released to the public on April 14, 2016.

NSF asked the Space Studies Board (SSB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine2 to provide an independent assessment of the portfolio review report. The ad hoc Committee on the Assessment of the National Science Foundation’s 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review (hereafter, “the assessment committee” or “the committee”), comprised of members and supported by staff that were fully independent of the PRC, was formed in January 2016 and began its work in April 2016, following the public release of ICCGS. The assessment committee held three face-to-face meetings—May 13-14 and July 18-19, in Washington, D.C., and August 22-23 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts—and biweekly teleconferences. During the May meeting, the committee had discussions with members of the PRC, the Geospace Section Head, and several of the Geospace program directors. At the July meeting, the committee held follow-up discussions with the PRC chair, heard perspectives on the review from the Director of the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, and was briefed on the recently released report of the National Academies regarding the science potential for CubeSats, Achieving Science with CubeSats: Thinking Inside the Box.3 The committee also heard from selected members of the geospace science community with experience and perspective relevant to geospace facilities and programs. The objective of the third meeting was to prepare a first draft of this report.

___________________

1 National Research Council (NRC), 2013, Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

2 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 historical context identifying programs prior to July 1.

3 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, Achieving Science with CubeSats: Thinking Inside the Box, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

The assessment of the ICCGS requested by NSF is consistent with the responsibilities of the National Academies and the SSB to review and comment on government agency implementation actions and plans in response to the decadal survey recommendations. The assessment is not meant to second guess the recommendations of the report, or to suggest alternative recommendations, but to assess the process used to establish and prioritize its recommendations and to place them in a broader context. The assessment committee therefore chose not to comment on each of the many findings and recommendations presented in the report. Instead, the committee primarily focused on broader implications raised by the ICCGS recommendations and their implementation. The assessment report discussed some issues regarding large facilities in more detail than other parts of the GS portfolio, because ICCGS’s recommended changes to facilities would result in the largest budgetary changes.

The committee would like to thank the members of the PRC for their generous time spent in discussions as the committee sought to understand the processes behind their report. Thanks are also due to the NSF Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division Director and the Geospace Section Head and other representatives who were generous both with their time and their insights. Finally, the committee thanks the members of the geospace science community and representatives of geospace facilities for informative discussion and for their responsiveness to requests for information.

The committee notes with great sadness the passing of committee member Dr. Maha Ashour-Abdalla on May 1, 2016, and regrets not having had the pleasure of working with her during the course of this assessment.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

M. Joan Alexander, NorthWest Research Associates,

Daniel Eisenstein, NAS,1 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,

Lennard A. Fisk, NAS, University of Michigan,

Jason Jackiewicz, New Mexico State University,

Janet G. Luhmann, University of California, Berkeley,

Jens Oberheide, Clemson University, and

Larry Paxton, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

__________________

1 National Academy of Sciences.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page R12
Next: Summary »
Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

At the request of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a review of the Geospace Section of the NSF Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences was undertaken in 2015. The Portfolio Review Committee was charged with reviewing the portfolio of facilities, research programs, and activities funded by Geospace Section and to recommend critical capabilities and the balance of investments needed to enable the science program articulated in the 2013 NRC decadal survey Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. The Portfolio Review Committee's report Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025 (ICCGS) was accepted by the Advisory Committee for Geosciences in April 2016.

Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review provides an independent assessment of the ICCGS report. This publication assesses how well the ICCGS provides a clear set of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for Geospace Section that align with the science priorities of the NRC decadal survey, and adequately take into account issues such as the current budget outlook and the science needs of the community. Additionally, this study makes recommendations focused on options and considerations for NSF's implementation of the ICCGS recommendations.

  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!