1

Introduction

In 2007, the National Research Council issued its first “decadal survey”¹ for Earth Science and Applications from Space (ESAS).² Among the report’s key recommendations to NASA, one of the three federal agency sponsors of the survey, was the following:

In making this recommendation, the decadal survey committee wrote the following:

___________________

¹ Decadal surveys are notable in their ability to sample thoroughly the research interest, aspirations, and needs of a scientific community. Through a rigorous process, 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 their achievement. These reports play a critical role in defining the nation’s agenda in that science area for the following 10 years, and often beyond. See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015, The Space Science Decadal Surveys: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/21788.

² National Research Council, 2007, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/11820. This report was preceded by an interim report, National Research Council, 2005, Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/11281.

³ NRC, Earth Science and Applications from Space, 2007.

⁴ Ventures were added to an ESSP Program whose other project lines were as follows: (1) legacy and future competitively-selected orbital projects; (2) non-competitive, directed projects that are designed to meet unique needs, such as the replacement of a mission that did not fulfill its intended mission requirements (see NASA, 2011, ESSP Program Plan, version 1.0, ESSPPO-0001, March 29, Earth System Science Pathfinder Program Office, https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EV-I/pdf_files/ESSP_Program_Plan_sig.pdf, p. 1). In a latter version of the ESSP Program plan, the program is described as “science-driven … to advance Earth science research innovatively by providing periodic opportunities to solicit, select, and implement projects, including full orbital missions, instruments as missions of opportunity,

The 2007 decadal survey committee envisioned Earth Venture (EV)-class missions⁵ as a means to enable individual university principal investigator (PI)-type missions to pursue specific science questions, as opposed to the broader science investigations that usually accompany larger-class missions.⁶ Innovation, novel implementation approaches, and a higher tolerance for risk would be key to the success of EV missions because a business-as-usual approach would not align with the program’s aggressive caps on mission and instrument costs.

The decadal survey was released in January 2007, too late for its specific recommendations to influence the fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget process. However, its recommended scientific priorities informed the development of the FY 2009 and subsequent budget requests. In 2009, NASA established EV as a program element within the ESSP program. EV missions were initially implemented in the three categories shown in Table 1.1.⁷ Following a recommendation in the 2017 ESAS decadal survey,⁸ NASA created a fourth category, EV Continuity (EV-C).⁹ Current and planned selections for EV missions are shown in Table 1.2. The affiliations of PIs, instrument developers, and project management teams for selected missions are shown in Table 1.3. Details for all missions awarded to date (i.e., those through EVM-3) are provided in Chapter 2.

NASA’s request for a study on “lessons learned” in the implementation of EV missions excluded the EV Suborbital (EV-S) strand, which is expected to undergo a separate review by the National Academies as part of a forthcoming “midterm assessment” of the 2017 decadal survey. Lessons from the only recently initiated EV Continuity (EV-C) strand were also excluded from the study. However, the committee did consider the impact of implementing EV-C without a commensurate budget increase for the EV element of the ESSP program because NASA currently plans to have EV Instrument (EV-I) announcements of opportunity alternate with EV-C, thereby increasing the intervals between selections from approximately 18 months to approximately 36 months.

___________________

and suborbital investigations. To ensure a robust portfolio with a regular cadence of selections, project costs are capped. To this end, the ESSP objective is to ensure the success of each project within its programmatic and schedule constraints.” From NASA, 2017, Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program Plan, Rev. A, ESSPPO-0001, ESSP Program Office, November 1, https://essp.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2020/07/ESSPPO-001-Program-Plan-With-Appendices-20200721.pdf.

⁵ For brevity, the EV program element of the ESSP Program will be referred to in this report as the “EV program,” “Earth Venture-class,” “Venture-class,” or just “EV.” EV mission categories are sometimes referred to as EV “strands.”

⁶Chapter 2, “Assessing Progress Toward the Decadal Vision,” in National Research Council, 2012, Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/13405.

⁷ The first EV call in 2009, which was directed to airborne science investigations, was denoted as EV-1. This investigations is now referenced as EVS-1 (Earth Venture Suborbital-1). Subsequent selections for airborne science investigations use this more descriptive nomenclature, as do the other components of the EV program element.

⁸ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.

⁹ EV-C was established to “demonstrate a technique/approach for making long-term measurements with the appropriate characteristics (a ‘continuity demonstration’)” (D. Considine, “Earth Venture Continuity-1: Update,” CERES Science Team Meeting, September 10, 2018).

TABLE 1.1 Earth Venture (EV) Class Missions (2020)

NOTES: The November 2020 Earth Venture Mission-3 (EVM-3) announcement of opportunity raised the cost cap to $190 million in NASA fiscal year (FY) 2022 dollars (estimate), including launch. The cost cap for EVI-5 was $108 mission (FY 2022) for a mission with a Class C payload risk classification, and $35 million for a Class D mission. For EVI-6, NASA is only accepting proposals for Class D instruments and CubeSats, and the mission cost cap is $37 million (FY 2024).

^a The four risk levels or classifications (A, B, C, and D) shown in the table reflect factors such as criticality to the Agency Strategic Plan, national significance, complexity, mission lifetime, cost, and other relevant factors. Class C is medium priority, medium national significance, medium to low complexity and cost, while Class D is considered low in all these aspects. See NASA, “Risk Classification for NASA Payloads,” NPR 8705.4A, https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=4A.

SOURCE: Adapted from S.A. Cauffman and G. Bawden, 2020, “Satellite Needs Working Group: NASA Role in the Process & Current and Planned NASA Earth Science Flight Missions,” June 3, https://calval.cr.usgs.gov/apps/sites/default/files/snwg/20200603_NASA_SNWG_KickOff_Bawden_Cauffman.pdf.

At their inception, EV missions were planned to complement existing Earth science “systematic”¹⁰ missions and those that would be developed to address the recommendations of the (then current) 2007 decadal survey. This policy remains in place, and EV missions are implemented with the understanding that failure of a particular mission will not compromise the overall objectives of the NASA Earth Science program. Regular solicitations of EV missions have remained a key attribute of the EV line. In turn, this informed NASA plans for strict adherence to cost caps to prevent a single mission overrun from jeopardizing mission cadence.¹¹ Further information on NASA’s vision for EV missions upon their establishment in 2009 is shown in Figure 1.1.

___________________

¹⁰ “In contrast with the PI-led ESSP missions, which are generally smaller and have highly focused scientific objectives, Earth Systematic Missions are designed to provide measurements and support for a wide range of NASA science foci, given programmatic and technical constraints.” From the FY 2011 budget request for NASA, available at https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/432577main_Earth_Science_R1.pdf.

¹¹ In a presentation to the National Academies’ Committee on Earth Studies (since renamed the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space) on October 19, 2009, titled “Earth Science Division Strategic Issues,” Michael H. Freilich, then director of NASA’s Earth Science Division, included a vu-graph that stated “Cost/Schedule constraints will be enforced – absolutely,” as they were the “only way to ensure availability for funding for regular solicitations; [the] only way to ensure programmatic flexibility/responsiveness.” Furthermore, Freilich stated that there would be cancellations for breaking cost/schedule constraints and that, “Venture-class is complementary to identified systematic missions; no single Venture-class mission is essential for overall ESD program.” [Boldface and italic from the original.] See also, D.L. Hope and S. Dutta, 2013, “Management Approach for Earth Venture Instruments,” p. 88660A in Earth Observing Systems XVIII, vol. 8866, International Society for Optics and Photonics.

TABLE 1.2 Schedule for EV-I, EV-M, and EV-C Missions

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix D.

^a EMIT is now scheduled for launch in 2022 and PREFIRE is scheduled for launch in 2023.

SOURCE: Adapted from Karen St. Germain, Director, NASA Earth Science Division, presentation to the Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space, November 1, 2021, https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/11-01-2021/committee-on-earth-sciences-andapplications-from-space-2021-fall-meeting-part-2.

TABLE 1.3 Affiliations of Mission Principal Investigators (PIs), Instrument Developers, and Project Management Teams

IMPLEMENTING THE EARTH VENTURE PROGRAM

According to NASA, the programmatic objectives of the EV mission¹² portfolio are to implement missions that will

• Advance scientific knowledge of Earth science processes and systems;
• Add scientific data and other knowledge-based products to data archives for all to access;
• Result in scientific progress and results published in the peer-reviewed literature to encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of the knowledge gained;
• Develop information products, demonstrate relevant applications, and provide data to key applications communities to enhance the overall benefits of a mission;
• Provide opportunities to expand the pool of well-qualified PIs and project managers (PMs) for implementation of future NASA missions;

___________________

¹² The term “mission” appears in the reference from which this excerpt is copied. The authors of the present report assume it refers to both Earth Venture-Instrument and Earth Venture-Mission elements as it appears on the Earth Venture Instrument-5 (EVI-5) Acquisition Home Page (cited in the previous reference).

• Implement technology advancements that have been accomplished through related programs; and
• Communicate scientific progress and results through popular media, scholastic curricula, and outreach materials that can be used to inspire and motivate students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.13

Implementation of the EV program underwent a change shortly after its creation as a result of the Obama Administration’s response to the challenges of global climate change¹⁴ and the subsequent release in 2010 by NASA of a “Climate Centric Architecture.”¹⁵ Notably, FY 2011 budget augmentations allowed for an expansion and acceleration of EV missions with more frequent solicitations for major flight instruments and biannual alternating airborne and small mission solicitations. From this time onward, the EV missions were implemented in the three strands shown in Table 1.1.

Both EV-I and EV-M have a development time of less than 5 years to launch, with all science requirements being achieved within the typical 1- to 3-year lifetime of a mission.¹⁶ Currently, all EV-I missions require a schedule for delivery of one or more instruments for integration into a platform and/or spacecraft, or one or more CubeSats for integration into the launch vehicle(s), within 4 or 5 years of project initiation. As noted in Table 1.1, EV-Ms are selected on an approximate 4-year cycle. EVM-1, CYGNSS, was selected in June 2012 and launched in December 2016; EVM-2, GeoCarb, was selected in December 2016, but its launch has been delayed until 2024;¹⁷ and EVM-3, INCUS, was selected in November 2021.

EARTH VENTURE PROGRAM FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

The characteristics that define EV missions have remained largely unchanged since their inception and now comprise what one NASA official refers to as the program element’s “foundational principles,” which are as follows:18

• Science-driven,
• Competitively selected,
• Investigations are cost constrained,
• Investigations are schedule-constrained, and
• PI-led.

___________________

¹³ NASA, 2019, “Earth Venture Instrument-5 (EVI-5) Acquisition Home Page,” NASA.gov, https://essp.larc.nasa.gov/EVI-5.

¹⁴ For example, The White House, 2010, “Fact Sheet: Development Policy and the Global Climate Change Initiative,” September 22, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

¹⁵ NASA, “Responding to the Challenge of Climate and Environmental Change: NASA’s Plan for a Climate-Centric Architecture for Earth Observations and Applications from Space,” June 2010. https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/science-red/s3fs-public/atoms/files/Climate_Architecture_Final.pdf.

¹⁶ For EVM-3, the latest stand-alone space mission in the Earth Venture Mission series, NASA requires that the selected mission, “must be ready for launch no later than February 2027, or five years after the contract is in place, whichever is later.” NASA, 2021, “Announcement of Opportunity, Earth Venture Mission – 3, Earth System Science Pathfinder Program,” NNH21ZDA002O, March 16, https://nspires.nasaprs.com.

¹⁷ GeoCarb has experienced cost growth and schedule slips. See American Institute of Physics, 2021, “FY22 Budget Request: NASA,” https://www.aip.org, July 2, https://www.aip.org/fyi/2021/fy22-budget-request-nasa. Also see B. Moore III and S. Crowell, “GeoCarb Mission Update, IWGGMS 16,” https://cdn.eventsforce.net/files/ef-xnn67yq56ylu/website/9/739_berrien_moore_-_geostationary_carbon_cycle_observatory__geocarb_-unraveling_the_carbon-weather-climate_system.pdf, and NASA, 2020, “Earth Science Advisory Committee, March 10-11, 2020, Washington, DC, Meeting Minutes,” https://science.nasa.gov/files/science-pink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/ESAC%20meeting%20minutes%20March%202020.pdf.

¹⁸ See S.A. Cauffman, Director (Acting), Earth Science Division, “Overview for CESAS,” March 31, 2020, Sandra Cauffman_ ESD Update. See also, F. Peri and S. Volz, 2013, “Innovative Approaches to Remote Sensing in NASA’s Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) Program,” Proc. SPIE 8866, Earth Observing Systems XVIII, 886609, September 23, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2021394.

The committee endorses these principles, which are referenced in the study statement of task (see Appendix A).

PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF THE EARTH VENTURE PROGRAM

An early examination of the EV missions was provided in the National Academies’ midterm assessment report¹⁹ of the 2007 decadal survey. Written with information current in early 2012, that report stated that

The second decadal survey in ESAS was completed in late 2017 and published in 2018.²² In its report, the survey committee, like the midterm assessment committee, found that the EV program appeared to be working well overall, “serving its intended purpose of restoring more frequent launch opportunities and facilitating the demonstration of innovative ideas and higher-risk technologies.” The report also noted that the “current three-strand Venture-class program responds directly to the Earth science and space applications decadal survey (ESAS 2007) recommendation, which suggested that the program include “stand-alone missions … more complex instrument of opportunity … or complex sets of instruments flown on suitable suborbital platforms to address focused sets of science questions.”

In summary, both the midterm assessment of the 2007 decadal survey and decadal survey itself wrote approvingly of the initiation of EV missions; indeed, going so far as recommend consideration of increased cadence for the EV-M standalone space missions and recommending the initiation of a fourth strand of EV missions to provide opportunity for low-cost sustained observations.²³

___________________

¹⁹ National Research Council, 2012, Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Midterm Assessment of NASA’s Implementation of the Decadal Survey, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/13405.

²⁰ It is inappropriate to use age as a discriminating factor. It is better to focus on career stage, which often but not necessarily correlates with age.

²¹ This reference is to the Earth Venture Mission (EV-M).

²² In this report, this decadal survey is referred to as the “2017 decadal survey,” or “ESAS 2017.”

²³ NASA created a fourth strand in the EV program, Earth Venture Continuity, following a recommendation in the 2017 Earth sciences decadal survey to provide opportunity for low-cost sustained observations. See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018, Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.