From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #148: NASA Space Science & Applications Advisory Committee Meets
Keywords: science, research, funding, nasa, legislation, congress.
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:30:08 GMT
Reply-To: rsherme@chaos.nswc.navy.mil
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det. R43

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: (202) 332-9662
Email: fyi@aip.org


NASA Space Science & Applications Advisory Committee Meets

FYI No. 148, November 16, 1992

On November 4-6, in NASA's new headquarters building, the Space
Science and Applications Advisory Committee (SSAAC) met for what
might be the last time in its present form.  Its future is in
question because of recent organizational changes made at NASA
which bifurcate the Office of Space Science and Applications
(OSSA.)  Committee members worried that with the reorganization,
the ability to build consensus and integrate across all scientific
disciplines within NASA might be lost.

OSSA Associate Administrator Lennard Fisk, who will become NASA's
Chief Scientist when the reorganization takes effect, began the
meeting with a review of the space science accomplishments in
fiscal year 1992 and the prospects for 1993 and beyond.  He
announced that 1992 was "a hell of a good year for space science."
Adjustments to the AXAF, Cassini, and EOS programs in the past
year, he said, made him "feel a lot more comfortable relative to
growth in 1994."  Of the fiscal 1993 budget, Fisk said there was
bad news and good news:  "The bad news is that we lost money [from
the request;] the good news is that we lost less money than the
other guys."  Space Science received about half of its requested
$250 million increase over 1992.

Asked where Microgravity and Life Sciences would fall in the
reorganized NASA, Fisk would only say, "either it stays within
Space Science as a whole,... or it doesn't."  On the
reorganization, he said, "the actual, physical transition will
occur when all the pieces are in place."

The committee then discussed some major issues of concern,
including OSSA's Research and Analysis (R&A) account, which
supports research grants at universities and NASA centers, and its
Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) accounts, both of
which have been hard hit by budget cuts.  SSAAC is preparing a
study on the problems caused by flat R&A budgets, and members of
various discipline subcommittees gave reports of the ramifications
within their fields.

Planetary scientist Jonathan Lunine of the University of Arizona
listed some common problems:  A growing percentage of researchers
are funded with "soft" money (paid out of grant money rather than
by their university) which, he said, "exacerbates the cost of
research."  Research costs are also rising due to the increased
costs of instruments and facilities.  The average grant size (in
planetary science, most grants range from $30,000 to $60,000)
results in principle investigators applying for numerous grants.
Because so many grants are renewed, few new PIs receive funding,
and the community loses talented researchers.

Timothy Killeen of the University of Michigan Space Physics
Research Laboratory reported that his subcommittee had concluded
that "in the long term, a mechanism must be found to correct the
misperception in Congress and OMB [the Office of Management and
Budget] that R&A represents a budget category that can be safely
cut without jeopardizing the flight program."

James Houck, an astronomy professor from Cornell, questioned
whether the research community was growing too rapidly, and noted
that tight budgets were causing PIs to replace postdoctoral help
with graduate students, in what he called "a gambit to save money
by hiring cheap labor."

On the second day, the committee met with NASA Administrator Daniel
Goldin, who explained his rationale for the reorganization and his
view of NASA's purpose.  (See FYI #147 for quotes from Goldin.)

One of SSAAC's deepest concerns is the loss of an overall Associate
Administrator for space science and, in particular, the loss of
Fisk from that position.  Committee members sought assurances from
Goldin that Fisk's new position as NASA Chief Scientist would be
more than a figurehead.  One member stated to Goldin, "Len [Fisk]
is held in extremely high regard by the scientific community, and
they're not going to take an enthusiastic view of a reduction in
his influence" to a role of "global ambassador."  Goldin promised
that "Len is fully empowered;... I'm looking to Len to set forth a
process for quality control and integration."

The committee members departed on November 6 with no resolution on
their future role or structure, but with vague assurances by Goldin
that the functions of integration and strategic planning over all
space science disciplines would be preserved in some form.  As a
committee member commented, "You could take any number of spins off
of what you heard [Goldin say.]"

It is now the responsibility of the committee chairman, MIT's
Center for Space Research director Claude Canizares, to produce a
report on the meeting to be sent to NASA's Advisory Council, which
meets this week.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########
Newsgroups: sci.research