A Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA (2018)
Chapter: Front Matter
A MIDTERM ASSESSMENT OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECADAL SURVEY ON
LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH AT NASA
Committee on a Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey
on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Space Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Contract NNH16CE01B with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 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: 978-0-309-46900-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-46900-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24966
Additional copies of this report are available for sale 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 2018 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. 2018. A Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24966.
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.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON A MIDTERM ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECADAL SURVEY ON LIFE AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH AT NASA
DANIEL L. DUMBACHER, Purdue University, Co-Chair
ROBERT J. FERL, University of Florida, Co-Chair
REZA ABBASCHIAN, University of California, Riverside
ALAN R. HARGENS, University of California, San Diego
YIGUANG JU, Princeton University
DOMINIQUE LANGEVIN, Laboratoire de Physique des Solides of the University Paris Sud
GLORIA R. LEON, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
W. CARL LINEBERGER, NAS,1 University of Colorado, Boulder
ELLIOT M. MEYEROWITZ, NAS, California Institute of Technology
TODD J. MOSHER, Syncroness, Inc.
ELAINE S. ORAN, NAE,2 University of Maryland3
JAMES A. PAWELCZYK, The Pennsylvania State University
JAMES T’IEN, Case Western Reserve University
MARK M. WEISLOGEL, Portland State University
GAYLE E. WOLOSCHAK, Northwestern University
Consultant
LISELOTTE J. SCHIOLER, Schioler Consulting
Staff
SANDRA GRAHAM, Study Director
MARCHEL HOLLE, Research Associate
DIONNA J. WISE, Program Coordinator
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director, Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (through March 2, 2018)
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
3 Resigned April 21, 2017.
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
FIONA HARRISON, NAS,1 California Institute of Technology, Chair
ROBERT D. BRAUN, NAE,2 University of Colorado, Boulder, Vice Chair
JAMES G. ANDERSON, NAS, Harvard University
JEFF M. BINGHAM, Consultant
JAY C. BUCKEY, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
ADAM S. BURROWS, NAS, Princeton University
MARY LYNNE DITTMAR, Dittmar Associates
JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation
THOMAS R. GAVIN, California Institute of Technology
SARAH GIBSON, National Center for Atmospheric Research
VICTORIA E. HAMILTON, Southwest Research Institute
ANTHONY C. JANETOS, Boston University
CHRYSSA KOUVELIOTOU, NAS, George Washington University
DENNIS P. LETTENMAIER, NAE, University of California, Los Angeles
ROSALY M. LOPES, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
DAVID J. McCOMAS, Princeton University
LARRY J. PAXTON, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory
ELIOT QUATAERT, University of California, Berkeley
BARBARA SHERWOOD LOLLAR, University of Toronto
HARLAN E. SPENCE, University of New Hampshire
MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego
EDWARD L. WRIGHT, NAS, University of California, Los Angeles
Staff
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director (through March 2, 2018)
RICHARD ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 5, 2018)
CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator
TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate
MEG A. KNEMEYER, Financial Officer
ANTHONY BRYANT, Senior Financial Assistant
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
ALAN H. EPSTEIN, NAE,1 Pratt & Whitney, Chair
ELIZABETH R. CANTWELL, Arizona State University, Vice Chair
ARNOLD D. ALDRICH, Aerospace Consultant
BRIAN M. ARGROW, University of Colorado, Boulder
STEVEN J. BATTEL, NAE, Battel Engineering
MEYER J. BENZAKEIN, NAE, Ohio State University
BRIAN J. CANTWELL, NAE, Stanford University
EILEEN M. COLLINS, Space Presentations, LLC
MICHAEL P. DELANEY, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
KAREN FEIGH, Georgia Institute of Technology
NICHOLAS D. LAPPOS, Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company
MARK J. LEWIS, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute
VALERIE MANNING, Airbus
RICHARD McKINNEY, Consultant
PARVIZ MOIN, NAS2/NAE, Stanford University
JOHN M. OLSON, Polaris Industries
ROBIE I. SAMANTA ROY, Lockheed Martin Corporation
AGAM N. SINHA, ANS Aviation International, LLC
ALAN M. TITLE, NAS/NAE, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center
DAVID M. VAN WIE, NAE, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
IAN A. WAITZ, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
SHERRIE L. ZACHARIUS, Aerospace Corporation
Staff
MICHAEL H. MOLONEY, Director (through March 2, 2018)
RICHARD ROWBERG, Interim Director (from March 5, 2018)
CARMELA J. CHAMBERLAIN, Administrative Coordinator
TANJA PILZAK, Manager, Program Operations
CELESTE A. NAYLOR, Information Management Associate
MEG A. KNEMEYER, Financial Officer
ANTHONY BRYANT, Senior Financial Assistant
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
This page intentionally left blank.
Preface
The Committee on a Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA was charged to review the progress of NASA’s program in addressing the strategies, goals, and priorities outlined in the 2011 National Research Council (NRC) decadal survey report,1 Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration, Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era.2 The committee’s complete statement of task is reprinted in Appendix A.
The tasks before the committee encompassed areas of science, science policy, and science implementation, which have been under extraordinary evolution since the publication of the Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration. To address both the tasks and the evolutions in the field, the committee held four in-person meetings and many teleconferences from January through December 2017. The committee heard extensively from the NASA Division of Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and Applications (SLPSRA), the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD), the NASA Office of the Chief Scientist, and the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). As part of the April 2017 meeting, a wide-ranging and interactive Community Input Symposium was held at a National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C.
The committee witnessed the extensive work being done within SLPSRA and the broader International Space Station (ISS) research program, as well as within the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) and international programs that impact the portfolio. This multipronged approach to science is in line with the general priority of the decadal survey, which was restoring and then maintaining a broad portfolio for space life and physical sciences, led by NASA. This resurgence in growth was extensively discussed by the committee within the bounds of the statement of task, and the scope of the statement of task was thoroughly examined by the committee in the extensive context of the entities now involved.
The discussions of the committee were also guided by the now rapid evolution of an increasingly commercial or private space “ecosystem.” This ecosystem already involves the use of commercial carriers to the ISS, and it also includes the potential further economic development of low Earth orbit (LEO) in a broader sense. This discussion is particularly relevant as NASA considers science in and around LEO during the period that will define NASA’s operational transition away from the ISS as its focus. Thus, the potential transition of ISS capabilities
___________________
1 Hereinafter also referred to as “the decadal survey” or “the 2011 decadal survey,” or “the 2011 decadal survey on space life and physical sciences.”
2 National Research Council, 2011, Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
toward the private sector and the focus of NASA more toward deep space had a dramatic impact on committee deliberations and recommendations.
The committee and the co-chairs thank the many very busy people at NASA, CASIS, in the larger U.S. government, and especially the members of the national and international community of space life and physical sciences, who helped the committee through presentations, written input, and discussions. Special thanks go to the staff of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board and the Space Studies Board. While the words of this report are those of the committee, the extraordinary expertise of the National Academies staff made the work of the committee possible, and their guidance consistently enabled the committee to pull informative data and reach enlightened conclusions. Without their support, this report would not have been possible.
Daniel L. Dumbacher and Robert J. Ferl, Co-Chairs
Committee on a Midterm Assessment of Implementation of the Decadal Survey on Life and Physical Sciences Research at NASA
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals 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 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, 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 thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Susan A. Bloomfield, Texas A&M University,
Vijay K. Dhir, NAE,1 University of California, Los Angeles,
Mary Lynne Dittmar, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration,
Simon Gilroy, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Elaine S. Oran, NAE, University of Maryland,
Lawrence A. Palinkas, University of Southern California,
Daniel J. Scheeres, NAS,2 University of Colorado, Boulder,
Peter B. Sunderland, University of Maryland,
Peter W. Voorhees, Northwestern University,
Erika B. Wagner, Blue Origin, LLC, and
Michael M. Weil, Colorado State University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis J. Lanzerotti, NAE, New Jersey Institute of Technology. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
___________________
1 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
2 Member, National Academy of Sciences.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
1.1 Exploration Imperative Since the Decadal Survey
1.2 Study Context and Challenges
2.1 Program Development Since the 2011 Decadal Survey
2.1.1 The Diversifying Landscape of Entities Involved in Microgravity Research
2.1.2 Research Inputs, Outputs, and Available Assessment Tools
2.2.1 Top-Level View of NASA Budgets and Programs in Microgravity Science
2.2.2 ISS Timeline and Microgravity Science
2.2.3 Taskbook Assessment of PIs and Tasks 2004-2016
2.2.4 Solicitations and Selections 2010-2016
2.2.5 External Grants Total Funding for Microgravity Science 2007-2016
2.2.6 NASA Funding Aligned to Specific Decadal Survey Recommendations
2.3.1 The ISS U.S. National Laboratory
2.3.2 Crew on ISS and Crew Time Available for Science
2.3.3 Interagency Multisponsorship and Commercial Interactions
2.3.4 Lead, Collaborate, Watch, and Park Opportunities
2.4 Plans for the International Space Station; ISS Post 2024
2.4.1 Budget Allocation in Light of Limited Time Remaining on the ISS
3.2 Behavior and Mental Health
3.4 Cross-Cutting Issues for Humans in the Space Environment
3.4.1 Cross-Cutting Issues Unrelated to Radiation Biology
3.4.2 Cross-Cutting Issues Related to Radiation Biology
3.5 Fundamental Physical Sciences in Space
3.5.1 Soft Condensed Matter Physics and Complex Fluids
3.5.2 Precision Measurements of Fundamental Forces and Symmetries
3.6.1 Physical Science Informatics (Open-Access Database)
3.7 Translation to Space Exploration Systems
3.8 Science Status in Light of Exploration Mission Development
4 PRIORITIZATIONS AND RANKINGS TO OPTIMIZE AND ENABLE THE EXPANSION OF DEEP SPACE HUMAN EXPLORATION
4.1 Targeting Decadal Survey Exploration Research Priorities
4.1.1 The Decadal Survey Approach to Organizing Priorities
4.1.2 Overarching Space Exploration Strategy
4.2 Criteria for Midterm Ranking of the High-Priority Recommendations for Exploration
4.3 Highest-Priority Recommendations for Exploration
4.4 Science Context for the Rankings
4.4.1 Plant Biology and Microbiology
4.4.2 Behavior and Mental Health
4.4.3 Animal and Human Biology
4.4.4 Cross-Cutting Issues for Humans in the Space Environment
4.4.5 Radiation Component of Cross-Cutting Decadal Survey Recommendations
4.4.6 Fundamental Physical Sciences in Space
4.4.7 Applied Physical Sciences in Space
4.4.8 Translation to Space Exploration Systems
4.5 Summary of Science and Top Priorities
5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE DECADAL PORTFOLIO OVER REMAINING YEARS WITHIN CONSTRAINTS
5.1 Current Status and Challenges that Constrain Resources
5.1.1 Create Regular Requests for Research Proposal in Order to Enhance Science Capability
5.1.2 Maximize Use of Crew Time for Decadal Survey Research
5.1.3 Significantly Improve Research Result Reporting and Integration
5.1.4 Strengthen Relationships with Other Agencies and International Partners
5.2 Maximum Science Progress for the Next Decadal Survey
5.2.1 Traceability of Exploration Strategy to Research Priorities
5.2.3 Direct Larger Balance of Budget to Science Research
5.2.4 Proactively Use Full Range of Platforms
5.3 Path to Exploration and Beyond 2024
5.3.1 Provide Additional Funding to Address Significant Risks and Unknowns for Human Exploration
5.3.2 Expeditiously Develop LEO Post 2024 Strategy
5.3.3 Develop the Identified High-Priority Science Research Areas
5.4 Summary: Addressing Exploration and Basic Science
C Biographies and Committee Members
This page intentionally left blank.
