Science Mission Directorate Research Articles

Astronaut tipped to lead NASA science division

John Grunsfeld, repairman for the Hubble Space Telescope, is set to become associate administrator for the science mission directorate.

First Spacecraft Orbit of Mercury

After a 7.9‐billion‐kilometer flight since its launch on 3 August 2004—which included flybys of Earth, Venus, and Mercury—NASA's MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft entered a planned, highly elliptical orbit around the closest planet to our Sun on 17 March. Engineers in the mission operations center at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) in Laurel, Md., which manages the mission for NASA, received radiometric signals indicating a successful orbit insertion at 9:10 P.M. local time. “Tonight we will have orbited the fifth planet in the solar system. This is a major accomplishment,” Ed Weiler, NASA assistant administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, said at a 17 March public forum at JHU/APL, noting that spacecraft have previously entered orbit around several other planets. “You only go into orbit for the first time around Mercury once in human history, and that is what was accomplished tonight.”

New Priorities in the Robotic Exploration of Mars: The Case for In Situ Search for Extant Life

The search for life on Mars is a priority for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, a pivotal question of the Astrobiology Program, and the ultimate goal of the Mars Exploration Program (MEPAG, 2008). Also, assessment of the presence or absence of life on Mars is a prerequisite for human exploration in that it will allow mitigation of potential threats to planetary protection. Nevertheless, the Viking missions remain the first, and only, attempt to search for life on the planet (or anywhere else beyond the confines of Earth). Since Viking, and specially in the last decade, robotic missions to Mars have focused on characterizing the physical, chemical, and geological environment as a necessary step to an efficient and systematic search for life. These missions have provided an unprecedented amount of data, and our knowledge of Mars has grown vastly, with respect to its current conditions and geological evolution. In the wake of 15 years of extraordinary efforts, and at a time when the next Decadal Survey is being drafted with recommendations and plans for the exploration of the Solar System, it would seem that the search for life on Mars would be a high priority. However, based on a preliminary disclosure of the main points included in the Decadal Survey during the Astrobiology Science Conference (AbSciCon, April 26–29, 2010, League City, Texas), in situ life-detection missions to Mars will not be recommended. Instead, a Mars Sample Return mission (2018–2022) will play a preeminent role as the only mission in the next 10 years, excluding the Mars Science Laboratory (2011), with the specific task of searching for evidence of past life on Mars. This programmatic strategy is in line with the general consensus reached after the Viking missions, which was that conditions on, or near, the surface of Mars are prohibitive for microbial activity. This assumption has been reinforced with each follow-up mission and is largely based on the fact that Viking, and more recently Phoenix, failed to detect any organic compounds in the surface soils. The constantly low temperatures and hyper-arid conditions on the surface, together with high doses of radiation and the formation of reactive oxidants in the atmosphere, conspire against an extant martian biota in surface soils. Given these observations, the search for extant life has received little support and has not been considered a programmatic priority, and it is on the verge of being removed altogether from the next Decadal Survey. We argue that the strategy for Mars exploration should center on the search for extant life. By extant life, we mean life that is active today or was active during the recent geological past and is now dormant. As we discuss below, the immediate strategy for Mars exploration cannot focus only on past life based on the results of the Viking missions, particularly given that recent analyses call for a re-evaluation of some of these results. It also cannot be based on the assumption that the surface of Mars is uniformly prohibitive for extant life, since research conducted in the past 30 years in extreme environments on Earth has shown that life is possible under extremes of cold and dryness. For these reasons, we recommend a new strategy for the next decade of robotic investigations on Mars, one in which the in situ search for extant life is the first priority. Given the most updated knowledge we have about Mars’ environmental evolution, we call for a long-term architecture of the Mars Exploration Program that is organized around three main goals in the following order of priority: (1) the search for extant life; (2) the search for past life; and (3) sample return. We argue that this is the most efficient approach by which to address, with a high degree of certainty, the question as to whether life exists on Mars.

The science process for selecting the landing site for the 2011 Mars Science Laboratory

The process of identifying the landing site for NASA’s 2011 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) began in 2005 by defining science objectives, related to evaluating the potential habitability of a location on Mars, and engineering parameters, such as elevation, latitude, winds, and rock abundance, to determine acceptable surface and atmospheric characteristics. Nearly 60 candidate sites were considered at a series of open workshops in the years leading up to the launch. During that period, iteration between evolving engineering constraints and the relative science potential of candidate sites led to consensus on four final sites. The final site will be selected in the Spring of 2011 by NASA’s Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. This paper serves as a record of landing site selection activities related primarily to science, an inventory of the number and variety of sites proposed, and a summary of the science potential of the highest ranking sites.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO): Observations for Lunar Exploration and Science

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) was implemented to facilitate scientific and engineering-driven mapping of the lunar surface at new spatial scales and with new remote sensing methods, identify safe landing sites, search for in situ resources, and measure the space radiation environment. After its successful launch on June 18, 2009, the LRO spacecraft and instruments were activated and calibrated in an eccentric polar lunar orbit until September 15, when LRO was moved to a circular polar orbit with a mean altitude of 50 km. LRO will operate for at least one year to support the goals of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), and for at least two years of extended operations for additional lunar science measurements supported by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD). LRO carries six instruments with associated science and exploration investigations, and a telecommunications/radar technology demonstration. The LRO instruments are: Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER), Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DLRE), Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP), Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA), and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC). The technology demonstration is a compact, dual-frequency, hybrid polarity synthetic aperture radar instrument (Mini-RF). LRO observations also support the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), the lunar impact mission that was co-manifested with LRO on the Atlas V (401) launch vehicle. This paper describes the LRO objectives and measurements that support exploration of the Moon and that address the science objectives outlined by the National Academy of Science’s report on the Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon (SCEM). We also describe data accessibility by the science and exploration community.

Chandra Observatory marks 10 years in space

NASA's Chandra X‐ray Observatory, originally envisioned as a 5‐year mission, was deployed into an elliptical orbit around Earth 10 years ago, on 23 July 1999. The most powerful X‐ray telescope yet, Chandra has provided a peak into the high‐energy universe and has independently confirmed the existence of dark energy. Martin Weisskopf, Chandra project scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., said discoveries made possible by the observatory “have made dramatic changes to our understanding of the universe and its constituents.”“The Great Observatories program—of which Chandra is a major part—shows how astronomers need as many tools as possible to tackle the big questions out there,” said Ed Weiler, associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The Hubble Space Telescope, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, and Spitzer Space Telescope are NASA's other Great Observatories.

Viewing NASA's Mars Budget with Resignation

I would like to clarify several points in the News of the Week story (26 September, p. [1754][1]) by A. Lawler, “Rising costs could delay NASA's next mission to Mars and future launches.” When the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey recommended the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission for priority funding, it assigned a cost level of $650 million. This value, rather than $1.4 billion, is the true metric for seeing the deep damage that MSL's profligately overrunning cost—now likely to top $2.1 billion—has inflicted on NASA's Mars and wider planetary science budget. Also, the story focused its overrun discussion on instrument costs. Although certainly part of the problem, instrument cost increases have been considerably smaller than overruns in the rest of MSL's budget, which was severely mismatched to the project's complexity from its inception. This mismatch sowed the most fundamental seeds of MSL's cost problems. The article's end quote described NASA's Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission plan as “smoke and mirrors.” Disappointingly, MSR is becoming a mirage in the wake of MSL and other budget damage caused by numerous substantial Science Mission Directorate (SMD) cost overruns accepted in recent months. However, as evidenced by both internal NASA and external Office of Management and Budget scrutiny in 2007, NASA's MSR plan in the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget did fit in SMD's future budget envelope. It could well have launched near 2020, had a strong emphasis on cost control been sustained as a priority. Finally, there was no mention that a NASA independent review team found numerous development issues that called MSL's 2009 launch date into serious doubt almost a year ago. Nor did it describe that scenarios for dealing with MSL without causing such deep budgetary damage elsewhere were proposed by SMD but rejected at higher levels in early 2008. That, and the concurrent, forced disbanding of the MSL independent review team, precipitated my resignation as SMD Associate Administrator. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.321.5897.1754

MOVERS

Robert Strain has been named the new director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Strain has led the space department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in Laurel, Maryland, since 2006 and has worked as a manager for the defense and space industries for more than 25 years. He succeeds Edward Weiler, who was appointed associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in May.

Lunar science research proposals sought

NASA's Science Mission Directorate, in cooperation with the agencys Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, is seeking research projects for the NASA Lunar Science Institute. According to the notice, proposals “should include broadly based investigations of the highest quality that address lunar science objectives” and also should align with the institute's goals and objectives. Notices of intent are due 27 June 2008, and proposals are due 29 August 2008.

NASA Calls Back Weiler

In the midst of a budget crisis, NASA has turned to an experienced insider. Last week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin named Edward Weiler as the associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. Weiler was made acting chief 6 weeks ago after S. Alan Stern resigned. Weiler most recently served as head of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, after spending 6 years running the science program at headquarters. The blunt-speaking astrophysicist faces rising costs in a host of missions, a flat budget, and a fight among scientists over whether NASA should focus on Mars or outer planet exploration. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is hoping to make Weiler's job a little bit easier with a $200 million addition to NASA's 2008 budget that would pay back science and other programs tapped after the 2003 Columbia disaster. Her proposal is part of a Senate spending measure to fund the Iraq war that was expected to be voted out of committee this week. Its House counterpart contains no money for the space agency, however, meaning that the boost may not materialize. The Senate bill also contains $400 million for the National Institutes of Health and $200 million for the National Science Foundation. Legislators have calculated that the additional funds could support 700 and 500 more grants, respectively. But once again, the money's not in the House version

NASA Administrator announces science mission directorate leadership change

NASA Administrator announces science mission directorate leadership change NASA Administrator announces science mission directorate leadership change

Carbon Management and SETAC

Who would have believed on 22 April 1970, the 1st Earth Day and thereafter the anniversary of the birth of the modern environmental movement, that by the beginning of the 21st century the scope of environmental challenges facing our planet would also include carbon management. Carbon, as in carbon dioxide—the ubiquitous gas we generate during respiration and that plants use for photosynthesis. No less than the Science Mission Directorate at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—the US space agency better known for looking beyond this planet—identifies carbon management as a national priority. According to NASA, carbon management is one of the key resource management and policy issues of the 21st century. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased by about 25% during the 20th century and is continuing to increase in part due to the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover and land use. NASA believes that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will likely produce significant changes in global climate and accompanying changes in energy and water cycles. These changes will have profound impacts on the Earth's ecosystems and society. There is little doubt our society will soon adopt a global low-carb(on) diet. Most scientific and public opinion have come to the shared conclusions that there is an unreasonable accumulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially CO2, in our atmosphere and that human activity is largely to blame. The carbon management that is envisioned by national and international environmental agencies and organizations is expected to integrate all aspects of manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, and power generation around technologies that produce energy and materials with the lowest GHG emissions. In the future, carbon neutrality will factor into sustainable practices and reliance on renewable resources. It is not so far-fetched to envision that the transition to a low-carbon diet in an economically viable fashion will require society to impose a carbon tax on consumer products and services. At this early stage of the carbon diet, emissions-trading markets that attach cost (per unit output) to GHG emissions are emerging in some countries. If Nobel laureates Mr. Albert Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are to be believed, then globally implemented, nationally coordinated carbon management programs may be the only means to avoid catastrophic climate change. Such programs would likely be the precursors of a carbon-neutral global economy. SETAC and its members take climate change and a low-carbon diet very seriously. Organizers of SETAC annual meetings in Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America are looking closely at companies and organizations that facilitate purchasing of carbon offsets for their annual conferences as part of a new commitment to host carbon-neutral meetings. Pioneered at the 2006 SETAC North America meeting, the success of the carbon-offsets purchase program among delegates has encouraged SETAC to move towards expansion of the program to include all SETAC activities worldwide. Despite the simplicity and popularity of purchasing carbon offsets and becoming carbon neutral, organizers of the 2006 SETAC North America meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, reminded us of 2 important caveats. These cautions are worth repeating here. First and foremost, carbon offsets should not be anyone's first course of action when attempting to reduce their carbon footprint. Individuals and organizations should look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint through direct emissions reduction or through purchase of emissions-free electricity or electricity from other low-carbon energy sources. Carbon offsets should only be considered once efforts to reduce the use of energy and carbon intensity of that energy have been taken. Second, we are cautioned, based on the experience from organizers of the Milwaukee meeting, that not all carbon offset providers or projects meet the same standard of quality. At this early stage of a new market, it may not be so surprising that the burgeoning carbon offset industry would benefit from increased monitoring and independent certification of carbon offset companies to ensure they are doing what they say they are doing and charging a fair price for their efforts. In the future, SETAC will strive to continue to offer meeting delegates the option to purchase carbon offsets for travel to its annual conferences and workshops. And because the value of meeting in person and learning from peers and colleagues cannot be replaced, supporting a carbon offset program is especially appropriate for offsetting GHG emissions that are somewhat unavoidable, for example, the emissions associated with travel to SETAC events.

NASA's lunar planning

NASA announced plans on 30 October to establish the NASA Lunar Science Institute (NLSI). To be managed from the Ames Research Center, the institute is expected to begin operations on 1 March 2008 and will augment other agency‐funded lunar science investigations by encouraging the formation of interdisciplinary research teams. “NLSI will help us coordinate and expand a number of in‐depth research efforts in lunar science and other fields that can benefit from human and robotic missions that are part of NASA's exploration plans,” said Alan Stern, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

John Mather, chief scientist, Science Mission Directorate, NASA, Washington DC

John Mather, chief scientist, Science Mission Directorate, NASA, Washington DC

NASA science problems deeper than dollars

With little increase in funding at NASA over the last few years and a presidential mandate to go to the Moon and Mars, NASA science has suffered as funds have been redirected to the manned space program. However, the agency could make better use of its existing science funds, according to several witnesses who testified on 2 May before the U.S. House of Representatives Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.About $3–4 billion was removed from future spending plans for NASA's Science Mission Directorate following the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration, which was announced in 2004. The recent hearing focused on how this loss of funding could be better managed by three of NASA's four science divisions.

Recent advances in solar sail propulsion systems at NASA

Supporting NASA's Science Mission Directorate, the In-Space Propulsion Technology (ISPT) Program is developing solar sail propulsion (SSP) for use in robotic science and exploration of the solar system. SSP will provide longer on-station operation, increased scientific payload mass fraction, and access to previously inaccessible orbits for multiple potential science missions. Two different 20-m solar sail systems were produced and successfully completed functional vacuum testing last year in NASA Glenn's Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The sails were designed and developed by ATK Space Systems and L’Garde, respectively. These sail systems consist of a central structure with four deployable booms that support the sails. These sail designs are robust enough for deployments in a one atmosphere, one gravity environment, and are scalable to much larger solar sails—perhaps as much as 150 m on a side. In addition, computation modeling and analytical simulations have been performed to assess the scalability of the technology to the large sizes ( > 150 m) required for first generation solar sail missions. Life and space environmental effects testing of sail and component materials are also nearly complete. This paper will summarize recent technology advancements in solar sails and their successful ambient and vacuum testing.

Panel reviews NASA science plan

The draft science plan of the NASA Science Mission Directorate lacks a clear strategy, and the agency may need to either abandon flagship missions or the ability to execute a balanced program due to rising costs, according to a 15 September report by the U.S. National Research Council.Carl Wunsch, a member of the committee that authored the report and an oceanographer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that cutbacks and mission cancellations announced by NASA have led to “a general worry that the plan might be just a paper document. [The plan] does not really talk in any way about what implementation would cost or what has been dropped from earlier such plans.”

NASA science budget choices criticized

NASA's decision to focus its science efforts on large missions at the expense of smaller missions and research is misguided and will have a long‐term negative impact on attracting and retaining scientists and engineers to NASA‐related science, several scientists testified at a 2 March hearing.Witnesses at the hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee included NASA Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate Mary Cleave and members or chairs of four U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) decadal surveys of various aspects of NASA science. The witnesses discussed cuts and delays to NASA projects proposed in the agency's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request. NASAs science budget would grow by 1.5 percent in FY2007,and then by just one percent per year in 2008–2011 (see Eos 87(9),2006).

Thinking About NASA's Future

Thinking About NASA's Future

Public communication strategy for NASA’s planetary protection program: Expanding the dialogue

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Planetary Protection Office, in the Science Mission Directorate, has a long-term initiative under way in communication research and planning. The possibility of extraterrestrial life and efforts to search for evidence of it is one of NASA’s key missions and a subject of great interest to the public. Planetary protection plays a key role in the search for signs of life elsewhere, and NASA’s Planetary Protection Office has long recognized the importance of communications in accomplishing its goals and objectives. With solar system exploration missions advancing into the era of sample return and with the science of astrobiology changing assumptions about the nature and boundaries of life, the NASA Planetary Protection Office is expanding its communication research efforts. For the past decade, communication research sponsored by the NASA planetary protection program has focused on reaching members of the science community and addressing legal and ethical concerns. In 2003, the program broadened its communication research efforts, initiating the development of a communication strategy based on an interactive model and intended to address the needs of a broad range of external audiences. The NASA Planetary Protection Office aims to ensure that its scientific, bureaucratic, and other constituencies are fully informed about planetary protection policies and procedures and that scientists and officials involved in planetary protection are prepared to communicate with a variety of public audiences about issues relating to planetary protection. This paper describes NASA’s ongoing planetary protection communication research, including development of a communication strategy and a risk communication plan.