U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–736PS 2006

NASA EARTH SCIENCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 28, 2005

Serial No. 109–12

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

VACANCY

(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 28, 2005

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, Chairman, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 13

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 18

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 18

Prepared Statement by Representative Mark Udall, Member, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 19

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Committee

on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................ 20

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................ 20

Prepared Statement by Representative Al Green, Member, Committee on

Science, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................. 21

Witnesses:

Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science Directorate, NASA

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 29

Dr. Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,

and Space, University of New Hampshire

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32

Dr. Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 34

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36

Biography .......................................................................................................... 44

Dr. Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46

Biography .......................................................................................................... 48

Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 51

Biography .......................................................................................................... 56

Page

IV

Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George

Washington University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 57

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 59

Biography .......................................................................................................... 62

Discussion

The Importance of Earth Science at NASA ....................................................... 64

Earth Science Cuts ............................................................................................... 67

Relationship Between NASA and NOAA ........................................................... 69

Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA ........................................... 70

Glory ...................................................................................................................... 72

The Effects of Earth Science Cuts on Universities ........................................... 73

LandSat ................................................................................................................. 74

Climate Change Research ................................................................................... 77

Research Priorities ............................................................................................... 78

TRMM ................................................................................................................... 80

Transferring Earth Science From NASA to NOAA ........................................... 82

Use of Earth Science Programs to Manage the Water Supply ......................... 84

Effects of Decreased Earth Science Funding ..................................................... 85

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science Directorate, NASA .... 92

Dr. Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,

and Space, University of New Hampshire ......................................................... 155

Dr. Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research .. 159

Dr. Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington ......................................................................... 163

Dr. Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute ................................................................................................................ 165

Dr. Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George

Washington University ........................................................................................ 168

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Letter to Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert from Bart Gordon, Mark Udall,

and David Wu, dated April 6, 2005 .................................................................... 172

Letter to Bart Gordon, Mark Udall, and David Wu from Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman, dated April 19, 2005 ......................................................................... 174

Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities

to Serve the Nation, Space Studies Board, Division on Engineering and

Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies

(Prepublication Copy) .......................................................................................... 176

(1)

NASA EARTH SCIENCE

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L.

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NASA Earth Science

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2005

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

Purpose

On Thursday, April 28, at 10:00am, the Committee on Science will hold a hearing

to examine the state of Earth science programs of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

NASA proposes to spend about $1.37 billion on Earth science research in Fiscal

Year (FY) 2006, a cut of about $120 million, or eight percent, from FY 2005 (or

about $180 million, or 12 percent, below the FY04 request).

In a report to be released this week, the National Academy of Sciences concludes

that the budget cutbacks threaten the vitality of NASA’s Earth science research, as

many Earth science missions have been downsized, delayed or canceled. The report

is part of the ‘‘Decadal Survey’’ being conducted by the Academy at NASA’s request

to help the Agency set priorities in the Earth sciences. The final report is due in

late 2006.

The primary activities of NASA’s Earth science program are to develop and

launch research satellites designed to improve understanding of the land, oceans

and atmosphere. In the past, NASA missions have helped gain new knowledge and

create new capabilities that have led to advances in weather forecasting, storm

warnings, and the ability to more efficiently manage agricultural and natural resources.

But the National Academy of Sciences report warns that U.S. leadership in developing such capabilities is threatened by the drop in support for NASA’s Earth

science research. Because at the time of this writing the report has yet to be released, NASA has not issued a response.

NASA’s new Administrator, Michael Griffin, in his public statements has expressed general support for Earth science at NASA.

Overarching Questions

The Committee plans to explore the following overarching questions at the hearing:

1. What is NASA’s long-term strategic vision for conducting Earth science observations from space? How does the current budget reflect that vision?

2. What are or what should be the top priority missions for Earth science? How

would these priorities benefit society?

3. What are the implications of NASA’s recent actions to cancel or reduce funding for several Earth science missions? How would the proposed cuts affect

interagency programs such as those on climate science and Earth observations?

Witnesses

Alphonso Diaz is the Associate Administrator at NASA for the Science Mission Directorate, which includes Earth sciences.

Dr. Berrien Moore is the Co-Chairman the National Academy of Sciences Decadal

Survey, ‘‘Earth Observations from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy

for the Future.’’ Dr. Moore is also the Director for the Institute for the Study of

Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire.

Dr. Tim Killeen is the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research

in Boulder, Colorado.

Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Monterey

Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California.

4

Dr. Sean Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at

the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Dr. Ray Williamson is a Research Professor in the Space Policy Institute at The

George Washington University.

Background

Recent Developments: National Academy Report

At NASA’s request, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Earth

Science Applications from Space is currently conducting a ‘‘Decadal Survey’’ for

Earth science observations from space. Similar to the decadal surveys conducted

with great success in astronomy and the planetary sciences, the Earth science

decadal survey is expected to establish a prioritized list of research projects that the

entire Earth sciences community agrees should be funded for the next ten years.

This will be the first time a decadal survey has been conducted for Earth science.

It is a challenging undertaking because the field is broader and deals with more federal agencies than astronomy does. The NAS Committee Chair, Dr. Berrien Moore,

will be testifying at the hearing.

The NAS Committee this week is releasing an interim report titled ‘‘Earth Science

and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation.’’

The report states that ‘‘recent changes in federal support for Earth observation programs are alarming.’’ The report’s Executive Summary states:

At NASA, the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been

placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget that no longer supports

already approved missions and programs of high scientific and societal relevance. Opportunities to discover new knowledge about the Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, de-scoped, or delayed, because of

budget cutbacks, which appear to be largely the result of new obligations to

support flight programs that are part of the Administration’s vision for space

exploration.

The NAS Committee specifically recommends that NASA launch on schedule two

Earth science missions that have been threatened with delays or cancellations. It

also recommends that NASA request brief studies of its plans for three other missions. NASA has said that those missions could be launched on board the NPOESS

satellite rather than as independent missions. (NPOESS stands for National Polarorbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and is being launched by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of

Defense.) Finally, the NAS Committee recommends that NASA ‘‘re-invigorate’’ several smaller Earth science programs. (The Executive Summary of the NAS report

is attached, and more information on specific missions is included below.)

Earth Sciences

NASA’s mission statement begins with the goal, ‘‘To understand and protect our

home planet.’’ NASA research in Earth science has thus focused on understanding

how the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and land interact and operate as a whole, with

an eye toward direct societal applications.

Within the Earth sciences program, one of NASA’s primary roles is to build and

launch research satellites to provide a deeper understanding of the basic processes

governing the Earth’s physical system. Capabilities and discoveries from NASA’s

program are often later incorporated by other agencies into the satellites they use

in their ongoing operational programs, such as weather or geographic imaging satellites.

One example of how the NASA program works and contributes to operational programs is its Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), which NASA launched

in 1997 and is now scheduled to end operations this summer. TRMM provides data

that was never before available on tropical precipitation patterns to help scientists

study the water cycle and related issues including climate change. But unexpectedly, TRMM has also given researchers new insights into determining the track and

intensity of hurricanes, which could contribute to future efforts to predict the landfall of hurricanes, which is the responsibility of NOAA. NOAA could place instruments based on TRMM on future weather satellites.

The Global Precipitation Mission (GPM), the planned follow-on mission to TRMM,

would continue to provide further improvements in the observation of rainfall by,

among other things, expanding rainfall information to the entire globe. NASA has

delayed the launch of GPM several times. (See below.)

5

In another example, NASA researchers are also exploring whether data from

Earth observing satellites can be used to track ocean pollution from runoff. (See attached article from Space News).

NASA satellites have made substantial contribution to a variety of areas, such as

documenting the existence of a hole in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere. Future NASA missions could potentially provide useful information for a number of

important societal needs. For example, interferometric synthetic aperture radar

(InSAR) technology that some scientists have suggested for a future NASA mission

could be able to detect small changes in surface of Earth to presage volcanic eruptions or landslides. Also, NASA’s Glory mission, which has recently been downscaled

(see below), was developed to help resolve one of the largest uncertainties in scientists’ understanding of climate change, the effects of the variable output of the

sun and of atmospheric aerosols (black soot and carbon).

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (MD), Jet Propulsion Lab (CA), and Ames

Research Center (CA) each contribute substantially to Earth sciences research at

NASA.

NASA Earth Sciences Budget

Funding for the Earth sciences has declined each year since FY 2004, and the

President’s FY 2006 budget submission continues this reduction. The table below

compares the last three budget requests (including the accompanying run-out for

the four following years) for NASA’s Earth science programs:

The budget for the Earth sciences programs at NASA was cut sharply in FY 2005,

with reductions in the run-out for the years 2005–2009 totaling over $1 billion as

compared to the planned budget for these years at the time of the FY 2004 budget

submission. The FY 2006 budget request reduces this amount slightly further.

In the FY 2006 budget request, NASA has made it difficult to determine Earth

science funding by consolidating the Earth science programs and several space

science programs into a new ‘‘Earth-Sun System’’ theme within the new Science

Mission Directorate. (Earth sciences had previously been a separate directorate from

space sciences. The Science Committee was able to get the Earth science figures

only after repeated requests.) The Earth-Sun theme also includes the ‘‘Sun-Earth

Connections’’ programs, such as the Voyager mission, which continues to send back

data from the outer limits of the solar system. The funding table above includes only

funding for Earth sciences. For information regarding funding for the entire EarthSun System theme as a whole see Appendix B.

Effect of Budget Reductions

The budget reductions have led NASA to delay, cancel or scale back most Earth

science missions. Furthermore, NASA has few if any additional Earth science missions in the planning pipeline beyond the missions that have been in the works for

years. Also, NASA does not appear to have sufficient funds to launch some of the

missions that it describes as being on schedule.

For example, the NASA Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite, which

is to be coordinated with launches of related satellites by other nations, was first

scheduled to be launched in 2007. Currently, launching in 2010 would be considered

‘‘on schedule.’’ In its FY 2005 budget request, NASA delayed the launch until 2012.

In the FY 2006 request, the date has been shifted back to 2010, but it is unclear

whether NASA has requested sufficient funding to make that date.

The NAS Committee interim report recommends that the GPM mission be

launched without further delays, citing its international nature and the importance

of understanding ‘‘the availability of fresh water.’’

Another mission affected by the budget cutbacks is Glory, which is designed to

study one of the highest priority questions in climate change science. Glory was

originally intended to fly as a stand-alone mission in 2008. But in 2005, NASA

began talking instead about just building the instruments for Glory and then looking to see if they could be launched on another satellite, such as NPOESS. NASA

has not been able to say when or even if Glory would be able to be launched if it

6

‘‘piggy-backed’’ on another mission. Under pressure from the Science Committee and

the House Appropriations Committee, NASA has extended the contract to build a

launch vehicle for an independent Glory mission, but the future of the mission is

still in doubt.

The NAS Committee interim report recommends that NASA commission an independent review to determine the ‘‘suitability, capability and timeliness’’ of placing

the Glory instruments on another satellite.

The table below summarizes the status of all of NASA’s currently planned large

Earth science missions:

In addition to reducing funding for specific large missions, NASA has sharply reduced the Earth System Science Pathfinders (ESSP), a research program to launch

small, experimental satellites that can test ideas for future larger missions. ESSP

missions are not allowed to cost more than about $230 million over the life of the

mission (as opposed to close to $1 billion for GPM). NASA now plans to delay for

a year the ESSP proposal solicitation that was scheduled for this summer. The NAS

Committee interim report calls for NASA to go forward with the solicitation this

summer.

(ESSP launches approved from previous solicitations are on schedule. Two should

launch this year.)

NASA has also substantially cut its Earth science research and analysis program,

which focuses on developing the tools and techniques to interpret Earth science

data. The program also helps scientists determine how to prioritize potential future

research missions. These cuts particularly affect graduate student funding. According to the NAS Committee interim report, the research and analysis programs at

NASA have suffered disproportionately large cuts.

The NAS Committee interim report also notes that the Earth science reductions

could jeopardize NASA’s ability to fulfill its obligations to interagency initiatives,

such as the development of a Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS).

This international effort will develop a comprehensive and coordinated Earth observing system. Earlier this year, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez represented the United States at the meeting in Brussels where the GEOSS plan was

adopted.

The NAS Committee interim report also calls into question NASA’s ability to fulfill its commitments to the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). NASA’s Earth

Science program represents the largest portion of the CCSP budget, (62 percent in

the President’s FY 2006 budget request).

7

Questions for the Witnesses

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Questions for Alphonso Diaz

Please briefly explain the President’s FY06 budget request for NASA Earth

sciences and answer the following questions:

• What missions that were in the planning process as of the FY 2004 budget

submission have been delayed, canceled or reformulated? What criteria have

NASA used in determining which missions to delay, cancel or reformulate?

How do these criteria relate to NASA’s larger vision for its Earth science programs?

• Given the FY06 budget run-out, to what extent will NASA have to limit its

contributions to multiple agency programs such as the Climate Change

Science Program (CCSP) and the Global Earth Observing System of Systems

(GEOSS)?

Questions for Dr. Berrien Moore

Please summarize the NRC report, and answer the following questions:

• What are the Committee’s greatest concerns for the funding outlook for NASA

Earth sciences?

• How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

• What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth

science observations from space?

Questions for Dr. Tim Killeen

• How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

• What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth

science observations from space?

• What have been the most important contributions to society that have come

from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?

• What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible that

NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we

fill before those future benefits are possible?

Questions for Dr. Marcia McNutt

• How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

• What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth

science observations from space?

• What have been the most important contributions to society that have come

from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?

• What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible that

NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we

fill before those future benefits are possible?

Questions for Dr. Sean Solomon

• How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

• What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth

science observations from space?

• What have been the most important contributions to society that have come

from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?

• What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible that

NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we

fill before those future benefits are possible?

8

Questions for Dr. Ray Williamson

• How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

• What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in Earth

science observations from space?

• What have been the most important contributions to society that have come

from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?

• What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible that

NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we

fill before those future benefits are possible?

9

Appendix A

10

11

12

13

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee will come to

order.

It is a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning for our

hearing on one of NASA’s primary mission areas: the Earth

sciences.

We are very pleased that NASA’s new Administrator, Mike Griffin, has very clearly and unequivocally reinforced NASA’s commitment to Earth science. For example, both Senator Allen, during the

confirmation process, and this is a direct quote, ‘‘There are activities, including Earth sciences research, which have little in common with the needs of exploration and with which NASA has had

a long-term involvement. Thus, NASA has certain responsibilities

in these areas, which cannot and should not be set aside. And I am

committed to continuing exploration of the Earth’s environment at

NASA.’’ And that is the end of the quote from Administrator Griffin in the Senate confirmation hearing.

Unfortunately, NASA’s prepared testimony for today’s hearing is

more problematic. The testimony describes Earth science research

as being significant to the extent that it informs our knowledge of

and our capability to explore other planets. This is precisely backwards. The planet that has to matter most to us is the one we live

on. You would think that would go without saying. And we are

woefully ignorant of the way this planet works, of the functioning

of the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere and how they interact.

It is great if Earth science can contribute to exploration and greater still if exploration of other planets could teach us more about the

planet Earth.

But the Earth science program doesn’t exist as some secondary

adjunct of the exploration program. It exists to help us understand

the planet we depend on, and there is no reason that NASA can’t

robustly carry out the President’s Vision for Space Exploration

while conducting vital Earth science research. In fact, that is what

NASA has to do.

That is why the National Academy of Sciences’ report that was

released just yesterday is so alarming. The report indicates that

NASA may be allowing its Earth Science Program to erode, perhaps irretrievably, just as we are beginning to understand more

about the Earth’s processes, just as our technology offers unprecedented opportunities, just as the Administration has announced

new international commitments to Earth observation.

This report has to be a red flag for all of us. We need to stop,

examine what is happening, and make sure that the fiscal year

2006 budget for NASA, whatever its top-level number, include adequate funding to keep Earth science moving forward for the foreseeable future. We need a vision for Earth science and priorities for

Earth science just as we need to do more for exploration and aeronautics.

Yesterday, I heard, for the first time, a rationale from Dr. Diaz

for the proposed cuts in Earth science, and I have to say, I found

it a little bit troubling rather than convincing. He argued that

some of NASA’s projects could be launched on NOAA satellites and

that some other aspects of Earth science could migrate to NOAA.

Now we all want NASA and NOAA to work together even better.

In fact, we plan to hold a hearing in the next couple of months

14

bringing the two agencies together to look in more detail at their

relationship. But having NASA claim that NOAA will take over activities when there is no indication of that in NOAA’s plan or budget strains. It is a sound of one hand clapping, and it won’t get any

applause from us.

NASA has long been the lead agency for space-based Earth

science research. NOAA has operational responsibilities. The two

agencies have complementary missions, and the more they can cooperate, the better. But one agency cannot substitute for the other,

and no agency can build, launch, or use data from satellites without money.

Mr. Diaz told us yesterday he had no visibility into NOAA’s

budget. You would think a window into a partner agency’s budget

would be a prerequisite for transferring responsibilities. If NASA

has plans to rely more on NOAA, those plans ought to be shared

and reviewed with us and with the scientific community. Just setting the notion of relying on NOAA as an after-the-fact budget rationalization, I think, is playing with fire.

We have before us today the experts with whom we can begin a

thoughtful, detailed, and realistic discussion about what NASA

needs to do to ensure that we have a healthy national Earth

science program. I can’t think of anything more vital to our survival on the planet that is most important to us, the planet Earth.

Mr. Gordon.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

It’s a pleasure to welcome everyone here this morning for our hearing on one of

NASA’s primary mission areas—the Earth sciences. I’m very pleased that NASA’s

new Administrator, Mike Griffin, has very clearly and unequivocally reinforced

NASA’s commitment to Earth science.

For example, he told Senator Allen during the confirmation process, ‘‘[T]here are

activities, including Earth Sciences. . .research, which have little in common with

needs of Exploration, and with which NASA had had a long-term involvement.

Thus, NASA has certain responsibilities in these areas which cannot and should not

be set aside.’’ And Dr. Griffin told Senator Dorgan, ‘‘Earth science continues to be

vitally important and I am committed to continuing exploration of the Earth’s environment at NASA.’’

Unfortunately, NASA’s prepared testimony for today’s hearing is more problematic. The testimony describes Earth science research as being significant to the extent that it informs our knowledge of, and our capability to explore other planets.

This is precisely backwards. The planet that has to matter most to us is the one

we live on. You’d think that would go without saying. And we are woefully ignorant

of the way this planet works—of the functioning of the land, oceans and atmosphere

and how they interact.

It’s great if Earth science can contribute to exploration, and greater still if exploration of other planets could teach us more about the Earth.

But the Earth science program doesn’t exist as some secondary adjunct of the exploration program. It exists to help us understand the planet we depend on. And

there’s no reason that NASA can’t robustly carry out the President’s Vision for

Space Exploration while conducting vital Earth science research. In fact, that’s what

NASA has to do.

That’s why the National Academy of Sciences report that was released yesterday

is so alarming. The report indicates that NASA may be allowing its Earth science

program to erode, perhaps irretrievably, just as we are beginning to understand

more about the Earth’s processes, just as our technology offers unprecedented opportunities, just as the Administration has announced new international commitments

to Earth observation.

This report has to be a red flag for all of us. We need to stop, examine what’s

happening, and make sure that the fiscal 2006 budget for NASA—whatever its toplevel number—include adequate funding to keep Earth science moving forward for

15

the foreseeable future. We need a vision for Earth science, and priorities for Earth

science, just as much as we do for exploration and aeronautics.

Yesterday, I heard for the first time a rationale from Mr. Diaz for the proposed

cuts in Earth science. And I have to say I found it more troubling than convincing.

He argued that some NASA projects could be launched on NOAA satellites and that

some other aspects of Earth science could migrate to NOAA.

Now we all want NASA and NOAA to work together even better. In fact, we plan

to hold a hearing in the next couple of months bringing the two agencies together

to look in more detail at their relationship. But having NASA claim that NOAA will

take over activities when there is no indication of that in NOAA’s plans or budget

strains credulity. It’s the sound of one hand clapping, and it won’t get any applause

from us.

NASA has long been the lead agency for space-based Earth science research.

NOAA has operational responsibilities. The two agencies have complementary missions, and the more they can cooperate the better. But one agency cannot substitute

for the other, and no agency can build, launch or use data from satellites without

money.

Mr. Diaz told us yesterday he had ‘‘no visibility’’ into NOAA’s budget. You’d think

a window into a partner agency’s budget would be a prerequisite for transferring

responsibilities. If NASA has plans to rely more on NOAA, those plans ought to be

shared and reviewed with us and with the scientific community.

Just citing the notion of relying on NOAA as an after-the-fact budget rationalization is playing with fire.

We have before us today the experts with whom we can begin a thoughtful, detailed and realistic discussion about what NASA needs to do to ensure that we have

a healthy, national Earth science program. I can’t think of anything more vital to

our survival.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

I would like to welcome the witnesses to today’s hearing on

NASA’s Earth Science program. We have a distinguished panel of

witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.

Let me first say that you—that we all live now in a city with lots

of conflicts and where Democrats and Republicans often times disagree frequently and legitimately on issues. But let there be no

mistake, I want to concur with the Chairman’s statement today.

On this committee, I think we are in complete sync on his statement and on the direction that we need to move.

And so I say that so that folks don’t think that there is a crack

in the window that through stalemate more autocratic decisions

can be made. So just for the record, I would like for you to know

that.

NASA’s Earth Science program has long been one of NASA’s core

missions, yet NASA’s core missions are increasingly threatened by

the new budgetary priorities contained in the President’s exploration initiative. Just last month, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee heard about the precarious state of NASA’s Aeronautics

programs from a range of expert witnesses. One month before that,

this committee heard from Acting Administrator Gregory that some

2,000 existing jobs at the NASA centers would be eliminated by the

fall of next year, although we were unable to get any clear explanation of the rationale for the cuts or the process by which they

would be made.

Today, we are going to hear more bad news from a panel of expert witnesses. The bottom line appears to be that NASA’s Earth

Science program faces the prospects of being marginalized in the

coming years as the Agency puts its focus on the President’s exploration initiative.

16

Let me quote some excerpts from the National Research Council’s just-released interim report on Earth sciences. And I quote:

‘‘Today, this system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse. . .NASA has no plan to replace its Earth Observing System

platforms after their nominal six-year lifetimes end. . .and it has

canceled, de-scoped, or delayed at least six planned missions—’’

The NRC committee goes on to say, and I quote: ‘‘These decisions

appear to be driven by a major shift in priorities at a time when

NASA is moving to implement a new vision for space exploration.

This change in priorities jeopardizes NASA’s ability to fulfill its obligations in other important presidential initiatives, such as Climate Change Research Initiative and the subsequent Climate

Change Science Program. It also calls into question future U.S.

leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an

international effort initiated by the current Administration.’’

That is tough language, but it appears to be consistent with the

facts.

I count myself among strong supporters of exploration, but as I

said on previous occasions, we have to be willing to pay for it. We

shouldn’t try to implement it by cannibalizing NASA’s other important programs. Yet the fact is that when the President cut $2.5 billion from

NASA’s funding plan for fiscal year 2006 through 2009 relative to

what he had promised just a year earlier, NASA imposed 75 percent of the cut on NASA’s Science and Aeronautics program and

only 10 percent on NASA’s Exploration Systems program.

In reality, fiscal year 2006 funding requests for NASA’s Earth Science Research program is $647 million lower than the funding

plan for fiscal year 2006 contained in the fiscal year 2004 budget

request. That is a reduction of 24 percent in just two years.

It is no wonder that the Earth science program is canceling and

delaying missions. And the problem has been compounded by

NASA’s apparent unwillingness or inability to date to develop a

long-term vision for Earth science and application programs.

So where does all of this leave us?

Let me quote the National Research Council once again: ‘‘Today

the Nation’s Earth Observatory program is at risk.’’

And let me remind you of a hearing just, I guess, a couple of

years ago when Richard Blomberg of the National Shuttle Safety

Panel had something similar to say, that that Shuttle was at risk.

I don’t think he meant that it was going to happen the next day,

but he was correct.

And once again, let me quote this: ‘‘Today, the Nation’s Earth observatory program is at risk.’’ I think we need to take that seriously.

I want to hear our NASA witnesses respond to the National Research Council’s findings. Does NASA dispute the facts presented

by the NRC? And if not, why has NASA let its Earth science program reach this state of affairs? And most importantly, what is

NASA’s long-term commitment to Earth science and applications

research, and what, if anything, is NASA prepared to do to reverse

the current trend?

As our Chairman said earlier, I suspect part of the answer is

these functions will be picked up by NOAA. Well, if that is the

17

case, I would like to know what that amount of cost will be and

what funding, additional funding, would be going to NOAA to pick

that up.

In closing, I again want to thank the witnesses for participating

in today’s hearing. I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Good morning. I’d like to welcome the witnesses to today’s hearing on NASA’s

Earth Science program. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony.

NASA’s Earth Science program has long been one of NASA’s core missions. Yet

NASA’s core missions are increasingly threatened by the new budgetary priorities

contained in the President’s exploration initiative.

Just last month, the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee heard about the precarious state of NASA’s aeronautics programs from a range of expert witnesses.

One month before that, this committee heard from Acting Administrator Gregory

that some 2,000 existing jobs at the NASA Centers would be eliminated by the fall

of next year. Although we were unable to get any clear explanation of the rationale

for the cuts or the process by which they would be made.

Today we are going to hear more bad news from a panel of expert witnesses.

The bottom line appears to be that NASA’s Earth Science program faces the prospect of being marginalized in the coming years as the Agency puts its focus on the

President’s exploration initiative.

Let me quote some excerpts from the National Research Council’s just-released interim report on the Earth Sciences:

‘‘Today, this system of environmental satellites is at risk of collapse. . .NASA

has no plan to replace its Earth Observing System platforms after their nominal

six-year lifetimes end. . .and it has canceled, de-scoped, or delayed at least six

planned missions. . .

The NRC committee goes on to say:

‘‘These decisions appear to be driven by a major shift in priorities at a time when

NASA is moving to implement a new vision for space exploration. This change

in priorities jeopardizes NASA’s ability to fulfill its obligations in other important presidential initiatives, such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and

the subsequent Climate Change Science Program. It also calls into question future U.S. leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international effort initiated by the current Administration.’’

That is tough language, but it appears to be consistent with the facts.

I count myself among the strong supporters of exploration, but as I’ve said on previous occasions, we have to be willing to pay for it. We shouldn’t try to implement

it by cannibalizing NASA’s other important programs.

Yet, the fact is that when the President cut $2.5 billion from NASA’s funding plan

for FY 2006 through 2009 relative to what he had promised just a year earlier,

NASA imposed 75 percent of that cut on NASA’s science and aeronautics programs

and only 10 percent on NASA’s Exploration Systems programs.

In reality, the FY 2006 funding request for NASA’s Earth-Sun Science research

program is $645 million lower than the funding plan for FY 2006 contained in the

FY 2004 budget request. That’s a reduction of 24 percent in just two years.

It’s no wonder that the Earth Science program is canceling and delaying missions.

And the problem has been compounded by NASA’s apparent unwillingness or inability to date to develop a long-term vision for its Earth Science and Applications programs.

So where does all of this leave us?

Let me again quote the National Research Council’s report:

‘‘Today the Nation’s Earth observation program is at risk.’’

I want to hear our NASA witness respond to the National Research Council’s findings. Does NASA dispute the facts presented by the NRC? And if not, why has

NASA let its Earth Science program reach this state of affairs? And most importantly, what is NASA’s long-term commitment to Earth Science and Applications research, and what—if anything—is NASA prepared to do to reverse the current

trends?

18

In closing, I again want to thank the witnesses for participating in today’s hearing, and I look forward to your testimony.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.

And I think, for the audience, who are so familiar with atmosphere on Capitol Hill these days, how refreshing it is to see the

same basic thrust of the remarks from both sides of the center

aisle. This committee is noted for working cooperatively on important and sensitive subjects. We try to go forward together. That is

not just a clich ́ e; it is a modus operandi.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good Morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Committee

to examine the state of the Earth science programs of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

The primary activities of NASA’s Earth science programs are to develop and

launch research satellites designed to improve our understanding of the land,

oceans, and atmosphere. NASA missions have helped improve our knowledge and

create new capabilities leading to advances in weather forecasting, storm warnings,

and natural resource management.

I am aware that National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Committee on Earth

Science Applications from Science is currently conducting a ‘‘Decadal Survey’’ for

Earth science observations from space at NASA’s request. This will be the first time

a decadal survey has been conducted for Earth science and is expected to establish

a prioritized list of research projects. I look forward to hearing from the NAS Committee Chair, Dr. Berrien Moore, to assess how the survey is progressing.

With regard to NASA’s Earth Science budget for fiscal year 2006, I am aware that

funding for the program has declined each year since FY 2004, and the President’s

FY 2006 budget submission continues this reduction. These budget reductions have

led NASA to delay, cancel or scale back most Earth science missions. Furthermore,

NASA has few if any additional Earth science missions in the planning pipeline beyond the missions that have been in the works for years. Also, NASA does not appear to have sufficient funds to launch some of the missions that it describes as

being on schedule. If one of NASA’s primary roles in the Earth sciences program

is to build and launch research satellites to provide a deeper understanding of the

basic processes governing the Earth’s physical system, I am skeptical of NASA’s

ability to operate a successful Earth science program that lives up to its objectives.

Again, I thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this very important hearing today. I welcome our distinguished witnesses, and I would like to thank you for agreeing to testify here today on the importance of the NASA and their Earth Science programs.

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the state of Earth science programs of

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The theme for Earth Science Week in 2004 was ‘‘Living on a Restless Earth.’’ The

global community is affected by the restless nature of our planet every day. Natural

hazards such as earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, and landslides threaten our homes

and businesses, but they also provide evidence of the incredible power and beauty

of our planet. We were reminded of this incredible power this past December when

South Eastern Asia was devastated by the horrific affects of a Tsunami.

As we discuss the enormous devastation caused by this natural disaster, the one

question we must ask ourselves is could this have been avoided?

The space exploration research program has been one of the most successful research programs in the history of this country. Unfortunately, this year, NASA

plans to cut $120 million or eight percent from last year’s budget.

A newly released study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that budget cuts threaten the vitality of NASA’s Earth science programs.

Our challenge today is to achieve an increased public perception and awareness

of the tremendous importance and value that the NASA’s Earth Science programs

for all people.

19

I agree with the assessment that Earth science is one of the most necessary and

exciting fields of the science community today. I look forward to working with this

committee on its advancement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK UDALL

Good morning. I’d like to join my colleagues in welcoming our witnesses to today’s

hearing. I am particularly eager to hear from Dr. Tim Killeen from the National

Center for Atmospheric Research.

Dr. Killeen has been the Director of NCAR since 2000, and in that capacity he

oversees the important research performed at NCAR. Of course, I have a particular

interest in NCAR because it is located within my congressional district. But in addition, the Center’s research has an impact nationwide since NCAR is operated by the

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research—or UCAR—which includes 68

universities across the country.

With the collaboration of these universities, NCAR is able to perform research

that is beyond the capabilities of any one university. So welcome, Dr. Killen—I look

forward to your testimony.

Turning now to the topic of today’s hearing, I will say up front that I am a strong

believer in the importance of a strong national program in Earth science and applications. And I think that NASA, NOAA, and our universities have a critical role to

play in increasing our understanding of the Earth and its environment through the

collection and analysis of Earth observation data.

In addition to being of interest scientifically, commercial and governmental remote sensing data can and should be leveraged to meet a variety of important societal needs—including such things as land use planning, homeland security, and

water resources management.

To that end, earlier this year I reintroduced H.R. 426, the Remote Sensing Applications Act, which is a bill that already passed the House in a previous Congress,

and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to advance

its goals in this Session.

However, despite the importance of Earth science and applications research, all

is not well with NASA’s Earth Science program. Indeed, the just-released interim

report of a Committee of the National Research Council makes it clear that NASA’s

Earth Science program is facing a serious threat to its future viability.

In that regard, the NRC report enumerates a whole series of planned missions

and research activities that are being cut back or eliminated by NASA.

In addition, a number of currently operating missions that are still returning useful scientific data—such as Voyager—are threatened with premature termination.

While I certainly recognize that when ongoing missions lose their scientific productivity they need to be turned off to free up resources for newer missions, a number of the missions threatened with termination do not appear to fall into that category. I hope that NASA will take another look at those missions before doing something irrevocable.

Finally, I’m concerned by the push to eliminate or significantly delay planned

NASA Earth Science missions such as the Landsat Follow-on mission and the Glory

mission.

With respect to Landsat, there may well be good budgetary or operational reasons

to consider moving a Landsat sensor onto NPOESS, the joint NOAA–DOD weather

satellite currently under development. However, I am concerned that neither the

technical impacts of such a move nor its likely cost impacts are well understood at

this point.

I would hate for us to eliminate NASA’s planned Landsat follow-on spacecraft now

only to find out a few years down the road that trying to include a Landsat instrument on NPOESS is having unacceptable impacts on the NPOESS program. I fear

that the ultimate outcome of such a situation could be a significant loss of Landsat

data continuity.

I hope that the witnesses at today’s hearing can help us better understand what

the implications of putting NASA missions like Landsat onto the NPOESS spacecraft are, and what we will need to pay attention to if we agree to proceed down

that path.

Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many other issues that I could mention, but at this

point I would rather yield back my time so we can hear from our witnesses. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

20

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for holding this important

hearing today.

Over the past 30 years, NASA’s Earth Science programs have resulted in important social and economic benefits, including improved weather forecasting and improved observation of sea surface winds and precipitation.

Better forecasts allow for more efficient evacuations and are crucial to for protecting populations in areas that are prone to natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes and tsunamis. Furthermore, businesses and

infrastructure, including transportation and energy, are reliant on current forecasting and need improved weather information.

These improved Earth science findings are tremendously valuable—saving precious human lives and property. I would be surprised to find more than a handful

of congressional districts in our nation that do not risk some form of natural disaster. These are crucial programs that all of as public servants have an obligation

to make certain are maintained.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon,

I want to thank you for organizing this important hearing to discuss the status

of NASA’s Earth Science programs. While we often think of NASA’s work to be solely in space, the truth is that NASA Earth Sciences have made many discoveries that

impact our day to day lives right here on Earth. In fact the greatest knowledge we

can learn is that of our own world because the discovery of this planet is far from

complete.

There was a time in history when even scholars believed that Earth was flat. Obviously we have come a long way in terms of discovery since that time. We will always push the limits of innovation, but in order to do so we must invest the proper

resources. Indeed, NASA’s own mission statement begins with the goal, ‘‘To understand and protect our home planet.’’ NASA research in Earth science has focused

on understanding how the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and land interact and operate as a whole. Unfortunately, NASA proposes to spend about $1.37 billion on Earth

science research in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, a cut of about $120 million, or eight percent, from FY 2005 (or about $180 million, or 12 percent, below the FY04 request).

These cuts threaten many programs that would increase our knowledge of this

Earth. In fact, the knowledge gained through Earth science could help avert many

natural disasters. The tragic events following the earthquake and tsunami in South

Asia highlight the global need for coordinated disaster preparedness and response.

Seismometers detected the earthquake that triggered the tsunami and satellite altimeters detected the tsunami before it struck land. A tsunami warning system

could potentially have saved tens of thousands of lives, but it did not exist in this

region. In the aftermath of the disaster, a wide array of high-resolution satellite images and measurements are helping guide and monitor relief and recovery efforts

and assisting in the deployment of resources (food, water, and medical supplies). As

nations rebuild their devastated communities, Earth observations will provide critical inputs into decisions on the location, land use, and type of disaster-resistant

construction practices that will improve human conditions in these disaster-prone

regions.

I find it deeply unfortunate that these budget cuts will potentially end many successful programs that measure our environmental standard of life and could help

us improve upon our condition. Many Earth observation missions have been canceled, delayed, or their scope has been severely limited. I have been a long time supporter of NASA in this committee and have supported the President’s Vision for

Space Exploration, but those endeavors should not cause us to limit our discovery

right here on Earth. Again, the most important lessons we can learn are those about

ourselves, because we as a human race must inhabit this Earth for many more generations to come and to limit our knowledge will only decrease our chances of doing

so.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE AL GREEN

I’d like to thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for the opportunity to discuss the state of Earth science programs at NASA. I had the opportunity to witness the devastation caused by the tsunami that occurred December 26,

2004. We have all seen the increasing devastation caused by the various hurricanes

that hit Florida over the past year. We have all witnessed the variant climate

changes from El Nin ̃ o. Given the increasing vulnerability to extreme weather and

climate variations, federal investments in these areas of research are more important than ever. I realize that we have a nation and a variety of good programs that

will be affected by the tightening of our federal fiscal belt, so I relish the chance

to speak to the experts on their views of the effects of such changes. To my knowledge, Earth science research is set to sustain about an eight percent cut from the

last fiscal year, and I hope that any or all of you may be able to elaborate about

what we will see as results.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Now with that, let me introduce our very

distinguished panel, and I thank all of you for serving as resources

for this committee.

First, we have Mr. Alphonso Diaz, the Associate Administrator

at NASA for the Science Mission Directorate with whom I had a

very constructive and productive meeting yesterday. Dr. Berrien

Moore is the Co-Chair of the National Academy of Science’s decadal

survey, Earth Observations from Space, a Community Assessment

and Strategy for the Future. Dr. Moore is also the Director for the

Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire. Dr. Moore, welcome. Dr. Tim Killeen is the

Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Doctor, welcome. Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President—oh, I have skipped Dr. Solomon. Excuse me. Well, I will get

Dr. McNutt since I started. Dr. Marcia McNutt is the President

and Chief Executive Officer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Lost Landing, California. Doctor, welcome. Dr.

Sean Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial

Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Dr. Solomon, welcome. And finally, Dr. Ray Williamson is a Research Professor in the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington University. Doctor, welcome.

With that, you all are experienced in this process. You know, the

drill. Essentially, we ask that you summarize in approximately five

minutes. The Chair is never arbitrary when we have six distinguished witnesses before us, but if you can condense your opening

remarks, that allows more opportunity for what is the most productive part of the hearing, and that is the dialogue between those of

us who are privileged to be representatives and those of you in the

wide world out there that we represent.

With that, Mr. Diaz, you are first up.

STATEMENT OF MR. ALPHONSO V. DIAZ, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR, SCIENCE DIRECTORATE, NASA

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking

Member Gordon, and Members of the Committee. I especially

thank you Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Calvert, who I did

meet with yesterday, and I think also we had a constructive discussion. So thank you very much for that.

As I have said yesterday and will say again, I think we have

come a long way in my career at NASA over the past 30 to 40

22

years in our pursuit of understanding the Earth, the Solar System,

and the Universe.

From our constellation of Earth Observation System Satellites

helping to assess the emergence and spread of disease, the melting

of glaciers, and the recovery efforts following the recent tsunami to

our knowledge about life forms thriving in extreme environments

helping us to understand and develop strategies to search for evidence of life beyond our home planet, NASA’s accomplishments in

Earth science are many and varied.

As one recent example, last week’s edition of the Journal of

Science published a new study showing that a decrease in snow

cover in the Himalayas causes an increase in algal blooms thousands of miles away off the coasts of Somalia, Yemen, and Oman.

This finding was based on data collected over the past two decades

by instruments on four different satellites that reflect NASA’s

intergovernmental, interagency, and commercial partnerships; the

Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, the Advanced Earth Observing System of Japan, the operational weather satellites that are operated by NOAA, and the instrument on Orbital Sciences Corporation Seastar.

We recognize that, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, that by first

understanding how to study the Earth as a planet, we can better

prepare for sending humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The

Vision for Space Exploration and subsequent agency-wide transformation has presented NASA’s science endeavors with an historic

opportunity. By merging space science with its emphasis on discovery with Earth science’s emphasis on capability for prediction,

the Science Mission Directorate, I believe, is uniquely positioned to

engage in comprehensive scientific investigations into the origin,

evolution, and destiny of Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe.

We are in the midst of a transition in Earth science from a

NASA-centric approach to a national strategy that maximizes all

our national capabilities. These changes have created some anxiety,

I recognized, and have caused some to question our commitment to

Earth science. We have a responsibility to clarify the current strategy with all our stakeholders and to include them in the process

as we go forward, and as I have said, we intend to do so.

There are several ways that I believe you can gauge our commitment to Earth science.

The actions in the 2005 budget, I believe, should be interpreted

as a sign of the Administration’s interest in accelerating the evolution of Earth science to a national program, not as a retreat from

our NASA commitment to Earth science. The President’s 2006

budget request will support a highly-effective program of research

and development of Earth sciences that enables NASA to play a

critical role in four major presidential directed programs: the Climate Change Science Program, the Global Earth Observing System

of Systems, the Grand Challenges and Natural Disaster Reduction,

and the Vision for Space Exploration.

As an example of our commitment to these initiatives, NASA’s

Earth science program contributes over 60 percent of the total

funding to the Administration’s Climate Change Science Program.

The fiscal year 2006 budget request also supports several critical

23

missions: 16 Earth science missions on orbit, eight missions scheduled to launch by 2010, and eight missions currently in formulation.

We have several exciting Earth science missions coming up with

launches scheduled later this year, CloudSat and CALIPSO. In addition, we have several missions in development, such as the

NPOESS Preparatory Project, NPP, that we are—that we and our

partners believe are vital to evolving from research to operations.

Further, the Global Precipitation Mission is currently in formulation, along with several smaller missions in the Earth systems

science pathfinder line.

While some Science Mission Directorate missions have been delayed one to two years to respond to other national priorities, this

decision applies to all science missions that have not passed their

confirmation review, not just those in Earth science.

To help chart our course ahead, we have established a twopronged approach to obtaining community advice on the future of

the Earth sciences at NASA. As part of the broader NASA planning

effort to implement the Vision for Space Exploration, and other national objectives articulated in the New Age of Space Exploration,

we have established 13 strategic road map committees, one specifically focused on the dynamic Earth system. We have recently received this committee’s draft report and are pleased with the products and progress. We expect the final report within the next few

weeks, and we will integrate them all into the Agency’s next strategic plan.

NASA has also requested that the National Research Council

generate a community-led decadal survey for Earth science. We are

still digesting the recently received NRC Earth Science Decadal

Survey Phase One Report, and we will carefully consider its recommendations together with our partners at NOAA.

While the decadal survey and the Dynamic Earth System Strategic Road map are still in development, some aspects of the direction we will take are already clear. We will continue working in

partnerships with our international partners, as well as our interagency partners. We believe that that will provide us an implementation strategy that leverages our resources in a very effective way.

I would like to highlight the working relationship that NASA enjoys with NOAA, given the natural synergy and history of coordination and cooperation between Earth and space weather scientists

and NASA and NOAA management. By partnering with NASA—

excuse me, with NOAA, we are enabling improved weather prediction, severe storm forecasting, and climate prediction services.

Further, we intend to increase our emphasis on having Earth

science benefit our exploration program through the development of

an operational capability to predict space weather.

Through our collaborative effort, not only can we answer questions of how and why the Sun varies, but also how the Earth responds to these changes and the implications of these changes to

society. Understanding that is critical as we send humans to the

Moon, Mars, and beyond.

We believe that we have effectively combined NASA’s strengths

in research and technology development with NOAA’s capabilities

24

to sustain a long-term operational system of satellites, creating the

most effective system for American taxpayers.

I look forward to the upcoming launch of NOAA–N as some evidence of this and the launch of the NPOESS Preparatory Mission

as further amplification.

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to appear, and I look forward to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diaz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALPHONSO V. DIAZ

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to

appear today to discuss NASA’s commitment to maintaining robust Earth and space

science programs and their contributions to achieving the Nation’s Vision for Space

Exploration.

The Science Mission Directorate provides leadership to NASA at the agency level,

delivering a unique scientific perspective. The Earth and space science activities of

the Science Mission Directorate fully support NASA’s mission to:

• Understand and Protect our Home Planet by using our view from space to

study the Earth system and improve prediction of Earth system change

• Explore the Universe and Search for Life by continuing scientific investigations into the origin, evolution, and destiny of the universe and our solar system, and by applying our scientific understanding of the Earth system to the

identification and study of Earth-like planets around other stars

• Inspire the Next Generation of Explorers by providing Earth and Space

science content and training to educators, and by sponsoring the education

and early careers of Earth scientists, astronomers, and physicists.

On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision for Space

Exploration. The President’s directive gave NASA a new focus and clear objectives.

The fundamental goal of this directive for the Nation’s space exploration program

is ‘‘. . .to advance U.S. scientific security, and economic interests through a robust

space exploration program.’’ In issuing this directive, the President committed the

Nation to a journey of returning humans to the Moon, sending robots and ultimately

humans to Mars, and exploring the solar system and beyond. He challenged us to

establish new and innovative programs to enhance our understanding of the planets, to ask new questions and to answer questions as old as humankind. NASA enthusiastically embraced this directive and immediately began an agency-wide transformation to enable us to achieve the Vision.

NASA’s recently published document, The New Age of Exploration: NASA’s Direction for 2005 and Beyond, articulates NASA’s commitment to implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. It identifies NASA’s Guiding National Objectives to:

1. Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore

the solar system and beyond

2. Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with the Moon by

the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations

3. Develop innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructure both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration

4. Promote international and commercial participation in exploration

5. Study the Earth System from space and develop new space-based and related

capabilities for this purpose

NASA Earth science is critical for fulfilling NASA’s mission because of NASA’s

unique capabilities of frequent global observations, modeling and data assimilation

with the aim to improve prediction of both large-scale and small-scale processes.

Human exploration of Mars and beyond requires prediction of the environment to

be encountered by humans. The technological tools and scientific skills that NASA

continues to develop through studying Earth, which has the most complex ecosystem with continuous interactions of biological, chemical and physical processes

at all time and space scales, are critical in the exploration and search for life of

other planets in our own solar system and beyond.

In June 2004, the President’s Commission on the Implementation of the United

States Space Exploration Policy, led by E.C. ‘‘Pete’’ Aldridge, Jr. (the Aldridge Commission), and reported their findings and recommendations to the President. The AlVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

dridge Commission emphasized the crucial roles that technological innovation, national and international partnerships, and organizational transformation must play

if we are to implement the President’s Vision for an affordable and sustainable

space exploration program. NASA is committed to making the necessary transformation to ensure our success in achieving the Vision for an affordable and sustainable space exploration program.

The Historic Opportunity to Implement the Vision

The transformation presents NASA’s science endeavors with an historic opportunity to support and benefit from the Vision for Space Exploration. As the National

Research Council stated in their report, Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (2005), ‘‘the appropriate science in a vibrant space program is nothing less

than that science that will transform our understanding of the universe around us,

and will in time transform us into a space-faring civilization that extends human

presence across the solar system.’’

In August 2004, NASA repositioned its science endeavors by merging two science

Enterprises into one Science Mission Directorate with three themes: Earth-Sun System, Solar System Exploration, and Universe. The merger of Space Science, with its

emphasis on ‘‘discovery,’’ and Earth Science’s capacity for ‘‘prediction’’ positions the

Science Mission Directorate to support the Vision by engaging in comprehensive scientific investigations into the Origin, Evolution, and Destiny of the Earth, the Solar

System, and the Universe. The synergies facilitated by this integration will benefit

research, development, and improve science results in all NASA science disciplines,

including Earth science. Furthermore, a unified Science Mission Directorate facilitates the opportunity for all of the discipline areas of science to learn from each

other which, in turn, enhances NASA’s exploration activities.

Planning for the Future

NASA has identified eighteen strategic objectives, from which thirteen strategic

roadmaps will be derived. Six of these roadmaps directly apply to the activities and

research objectives of the Science Mission Directorate. The current strategic planning process forms the basis for our future strategy for Earth and space science.

Through our actions, we are clearly emphasizing a continuing commitment to Earth

science and NASA’s commitment to study the Earth system is clearly reflected in

our national objectives. Not only will these studies better inform our work as we

implement the Vision, but will strengthen our ability to continue to support Presidential initiatives involving climate change science and technology, the oceans, an

integrated Earth observation system, and others.

Strategic Roadmapping

While the ‘‘Aldridge’’ Commission provided the blueprint for NASA’s ongoing

transformation in support of the Vision, NASA’s strategic planning efforts are defining the specific details for The New Age of Exploration. New strategic roadmaps will

provide a foundation for future investment decisions and priorities in 13 key areas.

Each strategic roadmap is being developed by a team composed of nationally-recognized scientists, engineers, educators, visionaries, and managers, organized into

dedicated teams co-chaired by senior NASA leaders and nationally recognized leaders from industry and academia. In some strategic roadmap areas, thematic roadmaps already exist or are in development. These ‘‘legacy’’ products and activities

will be integrated into the new process.

The Dynamic Earth System roadmap committee submitted its interim status report to NASA for review on April 15. The work being done by this roadmapping

committee has already identified a number of missions that NASA should consider

in the future. For Earth science, the roadmap assumes the successful implementation of the currently planned mission set, such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory,

Aquarius, and the Global Precipitation Measurement missions. Likewise, for the

Sun-Earth Connection, the roadmap assumes the successful implementation of

STEREO, Solar-B, Magnetosphere Multi-Scale, Radiation Belt Storm Probes, and

the Solar Dynamics Observatory missions.

In addition, the Dynamic Earth System and Sun-Solar System Connection roadmap committees are coordinating their activities and held a joint meeting on March

16, 2005. Interim reports from the two committees evidence interest in similar missions. Such missions have considerable importance for Earth science and the Vision

for Space Exploration by enabling high-temporal resolution of atmospheric changes

and solar influences on climate, and by providing a capability to monitor space

weather and solar events that could be hazardous to spacecraft and astronauts.

Unlike the other roadmap committees, the Dynamic Earth System committee did

not have the benefit of a National Research Council Decadal Survey as a starting

input; such a survey was requested shortly before the roadmapping activity began

26

and is currently in work. NASA expects to receive the final Phase II report by the

end of calendar year 2006. However, the Dynamic Earth System committee will benefit from other detailed, strategic planning documents from NASA and national

planning processes such as the U.S. Climate Change Science Plan, the Grand Challenges for Natural Disaster Reduction, and the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation

System.

We have recently received the Dynamic Earth System committee’s draft report

and are pleased with the Committee’s products and progress. We appreciate their

hard work and support and value their contributions to this critical endeavor.

Decadal Study

At the request of NASA and NOAA, the National Research Council is carrying

out a ‘‘decadal survey’’ entitled ‘‘Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy for the Future.’’ The Space Studies Board, in consultation with other units of the NRC, will lead the study to generate consensus recommendations from the Earth and environmental science and applications communities regarding a systems approach to space-based and ancillary observations that

encompasses the research programs of NASA and the related operational programs

of NOAA.

The key goals of the study are:

• Articulate priorities for Earth system science and the space-based observational approaches to address those priorities.

• Establish individual plans and priorities within the sub-disciplines of the

Earth sciences as well as an integrated vision and plan for the Earth sciences

as a whole.

Providing Continued Leadership While Leveraging Partnerships in Earth

Sciences

Presidential Initiatives

The FY06 budget supports critical national needs, including climate change by

supporting investments in the U.S. Global Change Science and Technology Programs and next generation Earth observing satellites.

In addition to supporting the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA’s Earth science

program has a critical role in implementing important Administration initiatives:

• Global Earth Observation System of Systems via the U.S. Group on Earth Observations—The purpose of GEOSS is to achieve comprehensive, coordinated

and sustained observations of the Earth system, in order to improve monitoring of the state of the Earth, increase understanding of Earth processes,

and enhance prediction of the behavior of the Earth system. NASA’s Earth

Observing System supports this effort through a series of polar-orbiting and

low inclination satellites, a science component, and a data system of longterm global observations of the land surface, biosphere, solid Earth, atmosphere, and oceans.

• Climate Change Science Program—NASA’s Earth science program is the largest contributor (over 60 percent of the total funding) to the Administration’s

Climate Change Science Program. NASA brings the global perspective from

satellite and sub-orbital measurements to address climate and global change

science questions. NASA has the end-to-end capability to develop technologies, models, deploy observing systems and utilize and provide products

for decision support systems.

• Grand Challenges in Natural Disaster Reduction—NASA research and observations are essential to help the U.S. meet its disaster reduction goals for the

next decade. Through its ability to view the Earth as a dynamic system,

NASA makes key contributions to the science of hazard assessment and mitigation and provides essential support to the efforts of other federal agencies

charged with these responsibilities.

International Partnerships

NASA has long-standing relationships with foreign countries in the conduct of

Earth science. Historically, over 50 percent of NASA’s Earth science programs have

involved international participation. Such partnerships have allowed each country

to leverage their Earth science resources to conduct outstanding science in the pursuit of understanding our Earth and the forces that influence its change. Cloudsat

and CALIPSO, scheduled to launch this summer, exemplify how NASA is able to

successfully collaborate with space agencies around the world. NASA and the CanaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
27

dian Space Agency worked together to develop CloudSat’s Cloud Profiling Radar.

For CALIPSO, CNES, the French space agency, not only provided the spacecraft

and the Imaging Infrared Radiometer (IIR), but is also performing payload-to-spacecraft integration and spacecraft mission operations.

In support of the Vision for U.S. Space Exploration, the Science Mission Directorate held a conference this past March that included participation from 26 international organizations. In some cases the participants were representatives from

multilateral organizations such as the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD), the European Commission (EC), and the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The conference provided a forum for NASA and its international partners to exchange information on the Vision and to discuss opportunities for enhanced future cooperation.

A recurring theme at the conference was the importance of international collaboration and information sharing in achieving common scientific priorities.

Interagency Partnerships

NASA works closely with our partner agencies on national programs including the

Climate Change Science Program, the Grand Challenges in Disaster Reduction, and

Integrated Earth Observation System. We value our long history of collaboration

with research agencies, such as NSF and DOE, as well as operational agencies, such

as EPA, USDA, DOI and NOAA. We are committed to continuing to work closely

with our partner agencies to ensure the continuity of data sets crucial to our nation.

NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) of the Department of Interior have

cooperated to produce new global land cover data products for each of three different

time periods: the 1970s, circa 1990, and circa 2000. The DOI (USGS) and NASA

share responsibility for preserving and populating the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive and ensuring the continued collection of Landsat data.

The Landsat Program is the longest running enterprise for acquisition of imagery

of the Earth from space. The first Landsat satellite was launched in 1972 and the

most recent, Landsat 7, was launched in 1999. USGS’s 33-year Landsat data archive

provided most of the over 20,000 Landsat satellite images needed. In partnership

with private industry (the Earth Satellite Corporation), the GeoCover product was

created. Researchers, planners, and land managers are now using the GeoCover

data to understand how the Earth’s land cover and land use have changed over the

past thirty years. Recent projects have documented urbanization in the U.S. and

tracked land cover change on the biologically rich island of Madagascar. A new

project is underway to map changes in North American forests since 1975 as part

of the North American Carbon Program. GeoCover data also have been made available through two United Nations organizations, the UN Environment Programme

(UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

NOAA, NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force jointly support the Joint Center for

Satellite Data Assimilation (JCSDA) which seeks to accelerate and improve the

quantitative use of research and operational satellite data in weather and climate

prediction models. Recent successes have been based on data from a number of

NASA satellites, including QuikSCAT, TRMM, Terra and Aqua. Through the

JCSDA, inclusion of NASA data on sea winds, rainfall, high latitude winds and temperature and humidity vertical profiles in NOAA forecast models has led to improved NOAA weather forecast models, including short-term, hurricane and seasonal-to-inter-annual forecasts. The JCSDA helps to transform NASA’s results into

NOAA’s operational systems and we are working together to ensure that each agency’s models are sufficiently similar to allow for easy movement of progress from one

to the other.

NASA and NOAA have also worked together to improve weather prediction on

Earth Through a long-standing relationship where NASA acts as a program manager and purchasing agent on NOAA’s behalf. This relationship in developing,

launching, and operating the GOES and POES satellites has provided invaluable information used every day to forecast the weather, both in the U.S. and across the

world. The launch of NASA-built NOAA N later this year will provide new shortand long-range forecasting capabilities.

In 1970, NASA’s Nimbus–4 satellite led to the first measurements of global ozone

content from space. Beginning with the Nimbus–7 in 1979, NASA and NOAA have

harnessed this capability through the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometers (TOMS)

and the Solar Backscatter Ultraviolet (SBUV) instruments to produce a continuous

25-year data record of global ozone. The resulting long-term data set has been a central part of international assessments of the state of the ozone layer, showing both

the global picture and trend of ozone loss and the progress of the Antarctic ozone

hole. The continued data from this series of satellites will also play a key role in

the observation of the recovery of the ozone layer. To interweave data from this seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
28

ries of satellite instruments into a homogeneous climate-quality data record requires

the ongoing commitment of this interagency science team. This data record, and the

blending of diverse strengths to analyze and verify data, continues today with the

advanced ozone measurements being made by NASA’s Aura mission. This capability

will transition to NPOESS, with the first flight of the OMPS instrument suite

aboard the NASA NPP mission.

More recently, NASA and NOAA have begun cooperating on missions related to

space weather and its effects on Earth. Data from NASA spacecraft can be used to

improve the NOAA capability to predict space weather. For example, NOAA uses

data from NASA’s solar wind monitoring ACE spacecraft to assist in predicting

space weather. New NASA instruments will continue to inform the process needed

to further develop a robust operational capability to predict space weather. By working together, NASA and NOAA are jointly able to answer questions of interest to

both agencies: ‘‘How and why the Sun varies?’’; ‘‘How does the Earth respond to

solar variability?’’; and ‘‘What are the implications of solar variability and the

Earth’s response?’’

Based on this synergy of science objectives and history of coordination and cooperation, NASA has been working with NOAA to transition to a strategy that better leverages our respective strengths in science investigations and mission operations. NASA believes this is in line with the principles of good and efficient management of public funds to serve our nation and the world. It is our intent to continue to work with NOAA to look for new ways to improve the efficiency of these

transfers. For example, both agencies have jointly funded a study by the National

Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on NASA–NOAA Transition from Research to Operations (CONNTRO). The May 2003 final report was

called Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment, Accelerating the Transition

from Research to Operations. In addition, NASA and NOAA have established a Joint

Research to Operations (R2O) Working Group as a mechanism for joint and coordinated planning on transition matters pertaining to research results, ground systems, and current and future spacecraft missions in preparation for discussions

within the National Science and Technology Council.

FY 2006 Budget

The former Earth Science Enterprise and the Sun-Earth Connection theme from

the former Space Science Enterprise have been combined to form the new EarthSun System theme. In this new theme, the following programs can be traced from

Earth Science: Earth Systematic Missions, Applications and Earth System Pathfinders.

The FY 2006 budget supports a vibrant and effective science program that is responsive to national priorities. The overall NASA science programs budget run-out

shows a 24 percent increase from FY 2006 through FY 2010, at which time science

will grow from 33 percent to approximately 38 percent of the NASA budget. NASA’s

Science Mission Directorate continues to support 55 operational missions, 26 missions in development and 34 in formulation. There are 16 Earth Science missions

presently on orbit and plans to launch eight more Earth Science missions between

2005 and 2010. Earth science missions in development include Cloudsat; the CloudAerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder (CALIPSO); the NPOESS Preparatory Project

(NPP); the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO); and the Landsat Data Continuity

Mission (LDMC). In addition, the following Earth science missions are currently in

formulation: the Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM); the Global Precipitation Mission (GPM); Glory; Aquarius; and Hydros. Additionally, the NOAA reimbursable missions GOES–N, –O, and –P and POES–N and –N’ are in development

and GOES–R is in formulation.

One of NASA’s Strategic Objectives for 2005 and beyond is to advance scientific

knowledge of the Earth system through space-based observation, assimilation of

new observations, and development and deployment of enabling technologies, systems, and capabilities including those with the potential to improve future operational systems. The FY 2006 budget for NASA supports a highly effective program

of research and development of Earth Sciences, and plans are now being formulated

to continue this significant effort into the future.

Conclusion

The integrated view of Sun and Earth as a system is reflected in our strategic

roadmapping approach and long-term planning. NASA’s goal is to continue using

our unique view from space to study the Earth system and improve our prediction

of the Earth system change. Through new space-based technology designed to monitor the Earth system, NASA will provide timely, on-demand data and analyses to

users for scientific research, national policy-making, economic growth, natural hazVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
29

ard mitigation, and the exploration of other planets in this solar system and beyond.

NASA’s FY 2006 budget request supports a robust science and mission set to ensure

a wealth of scientific research and discovery will continue well into the future.

Through this approach we also recognize the emerging importance of understanding

the Earth-Sun system in enabling the achievement of the Vision and NASA’s exploration mandate.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ALPHONSO V. DIAZ

Mr. Alphonso V. Diaz was named Associate Administrator for NASA’s Science

Mission Directorate on August 8, 2004. In this position, he is responsible for the

management, direction, and oversight of NASA’s science flight programs, mission

studies, and technology development. In addition, in this capacity, he is the designated Program Executive Officer for the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the

Ames Research Center, and contract management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

From 1996 to 2004, Mr. Diaz was at Goddard Space Flight Center where he

served as Center Director from 1998 to 2004 and as Deputy Director from 1996 to

1998. While at GSFC he was responsible for planning, organizing, and directing

NASA’s Earth science, space science, and technology programs assigned to the Center. GSFC is engaged in developing and operating scientific spacecraft including the

Hubble Space Telescope and the Earth Observing System. The Center continues to

seek excellence in science and technology as demonstrated by many discoveries and

advances in its history, from the first mapping of the Antarctic ozone hole to determining the very early structure of the universe.

From 1989 to March 1996, Mr. Diaz served as Deputy Associate Administrator

and Chief Engineer of the Office of Space Science (Code S) at NASA Headquarters.

In that capacity, he was responsible for management direction and oversight of

space science flight program policy, launch vehicle requirements, technology infusion requirements, and mission study reviews and assessments. Mr. Diaz led the

Agency committee charted by the Administrator to study proposals related to

science institutes and to provide recommendations for implementation. Prior key positions with NASA include Deputy Associate Administrator for the former Office of

Space Science and Applications (OSSA), Assistant Associate Administrator for Programs within OSSA, and Director for Strategic Plans and Programs for Space Station.

Mr. Diaz began his career at NASA’s Langley Research Center as a NASA Coop

Student in 1964. At Langley, he worked in a variety of technical management positions, including on the Viking Project, Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer

(GCMS). This scientific instrument was the first to analyze the surface material of

Mars in 1976. In 1979, Mr. Diaz began his work at NASA Headquarters, where he

served in a variety of positions. Aside from the positions mentioned above, Mr. Diaz

also has served as the International Solar-Polar Mission (now Ulysses Mission) Program Manager, the Galileo Program Manager, Manager of Planetary Advanced Programs, and as Deputy Director of the Solar System Exploration Division. He later

served as Assistant Associate Administrator for Space Station within OSSA, managing all activities on the use of the planned Space Station for scientific research,

and providing strategic planning guidance for OSSA’s overall program of scientific

exploration. Mr. Diaz received three Presidential Rank Awards; two as Meritorious

Executive in 1990 and in 1995, and one Distinguished Award in 1996. He also has

received five NASA Medals, including a NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal in

1994 for his work on the Hubble Space Telescope First Servicing Mission, and an

Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work on the Viking Project in

1976.

Mr. Diaz received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and a Master of Science degree in Physics

from Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. In addition, he received a Master of Science in management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Sloan School of Management in 1986 where he attended as a NASA Sloan Fellow.

He has received an Honorary Doctorate in Science from Capital College and is

scheduled to receive an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Rome (Italy) on

May 30, 2005. He is a Fellow and Trustee of the International Academy of Astronautics and an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. He is married to Angela Phillips Diaz. They reside in Takoma Park, MD.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz.

Dr. Moore.

30

STATEMENT OF DR. BERRIEN MOORE III, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF EARTH, OCEANS, AND SPACE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dr. MOORE. Thank you. Thank you Committee, Minority Member

Congressman Gordon, and Members of the Committee. Thank you

for inviting me here to testify today.

My name is Berrien Moore, and I am a professor of systems research at the University of New Hampshire. I appear today in my

capacity as Co-Chair of the National Research Council’s Committee

on Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and a Strategy for the Future.

This committee came into being in response to requests from

NASA, NOAA, and the USGS to begin a decadal survey of Earth

sciences and applications from space. That committee’s report, the

final report, is due to be completed in late 2006.

The key tasks of the committee are to develop a consensus of the

top-level scientific questions that should provide the focus for Earth

and environmental observations for the period 2005 to 2020 and to

develop a prioritized list of recommended space programs, missions,

and supporting activities to address these questions.

I would like now to just simply summarize my comments more

informally.

What we have submitted today, or actually released yesterday, is

the interim report of the committee. Unfortunately, I don’t think

that is the best title. It is the report that the committee was asked

to do, funded by the government and partnered by the community,

to look at the status of affairs today, because if we are to try to

set a decadal survey into motion to talk about a vision for 2005,

but really in reality 2010 to 2020, we need to see where we are

today.

And so the interim report is essentially a status of the bridge.

Al Diaz mentioned quite properly that NASA’s history in Earth

science over the last 15 to 20 years is truly remarkable. So our past

up to the present is of enormous strength. And I concur, having

had this morning the opportunity to look at the road maps and to

know what the decadal survey is doing, as we think about the period 2010 to 2020, that there is a glorious opportunity that we have

to better understand this planet and to better serve the Nation and

the world.

However, we are now on a bridge between that extraordinary

past and the future. And there is concern about the status of that

bridge. And that is the content of the interim report.

The concerns are in five areas.

For a variety of reasons, there have been a significant number

of Earth science missions that have been delayed or descoped or

canceled or terminated, and I can easily understand some debate

about which of those verbs is most appropriate. But there has been

a significant impact upon a set of Earth science missions that the

community had expected to come into existence.

Secondly, part of the strategy of dealing with this challenge has

been to move some of that capability from NASA to NOAA and put

it onto the NPOESS platform. There are concerns about that transition. We do not understand fully the technological issues as well

as the scientific.

31

I will return to that point in a moment.

Thirdly, that there are—that after the Global Precipitation Mission, there is no major facility-class mission at NASA in the planning queue. This is the first time that I can remember, in the long

history I have had with NASA, to see that there is essentially an

end. And when that occurs, it has an impact upon the technology

investments. If you do not have a robust mission queue leading out

into the future, then you do not have a robust technology cue to

support that.

The Earth System Science Pathfinders are an extraordinary opportunity to have rapid access to space through principal investigator-led missions. I find this one of the most exciting aspects to

see the Earth sciences adopt the Explorer mission concept from the

space sciences and to have incorporated these in the so-called

ESSP, the Earth System Science Pathfinders.

However, because of budget constraints again, these missions

have been stretched out longer and longer. I think the theme is

going to be ‘‘fly before I die’’ if we don’t bring these in. We are looking at outwards of eight and 10 years to fly off some of these PIled missions.

Two final areas.

In this transfer of capability from NASA to NOAA, there are extraordinary opportunities there. But there are some very real concerns. Take, for instance, we have had this wonderful success with

the EOS missions. And those now are to be replaced, in part, by

the operational NPOESS missions.

But let us look at what happens to the information that comes

from NPOESS. It flows to four weather centrals, operational

weather centrals. There is no science central. There is no climate

central. There is no central where the data can be analyzed carefully and repeatedly. It goes to four operational centers that have

enormously important but very significant time constraints for getting the information out.

And so we think that, in one of our recommendations, we need

to look at this and ask: Is NPOESS really serving the scientific

community, and in particular, the climate part of that mission?

Finally, when you have a constrained budget, or a budget that

is falling, one of the hardest things in the world to do is to preserve

the research and analysis. This is particularly true when many

times you have built the research and analysis part of the budget

through a coupling with the major missions. The EOS is a good example. Research and analysis in the Earth sciences was enhanced

tremendously because of the close coupling with the Earth Observing System. That coupling is beginning to deteriorate as the Earth

Observing System begins to age.

I would like to compliment, though, Ghassem Asrar, who has

done everything he could—who is in the audience, who has done

everything he could to preserve that research and analysis line.

But in a declining budget, this becomes the first of many difficulties.

Let me conclude, and I would go back to my formal testimony.

Taken together, these developments jeopardize U.S. leadership in

both Earth science and Earth observations, and they undermine

32

the vitality of the government-university-private sector partnership

that has made so many contributions to society.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and

I am prepared to answer any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Moore follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERRIEN MOORE III

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the Committee: thank

you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is Berrien Moore, and I am a

Professor of Systems Research at the University of New Hampshire. I appear today

in my capacity as Co-Chair of the National Research Council (NRC)’s Committee on

Earth Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and Strategy

for the Future.

As you know the National Research Council is the unit of the National Academies

that is responsible for organizing independent advisory studies for the Federal Government on science and technology. In response to requests from NASA, NOAA, and

the USGS, the NRC has begun a ‘‘decadal survey’’ of Earth science and applications

from space which is due to be completed in 2006. The guiding principle for the

study, which was developed in consultation with members of the Earth science community, is to set an agenda for Earth science and applications from space, including

everything from short-term needs for information, such as weather warnings for

protection of life and property, to longer-term scientific understanding that is essential for understanding our planet, how it supports and sustains life, and that underpins future societal applications.

The NRC has been conducting decadal strategy surveys in astronomy for four decades. But it has only started to do them in other areas fairly recently. This is the

first decadal survey in Earth science and applications from space.

Among the key tasks in the charge to the decadal survey committee is the request

to:

• Develop a consensus of the top-level scientific questions that should provide

the focus for Earth and environmental observations in the period 2005–2020;

and

• Develop a prioritized list of recommended space programs, missions, and supporting activities to address these questions.

The NRC survey committee has prepared a brief interim report, which I am

pleased to be able to summarize today. This report provides an early examination

of urgent issues that require attention prior to publication of the committee’s final

report in the second half of 2006. A copy of the full report has also been provided

for your use.

The report was requested by the sponsors of the study and by staff members of

the Science Committee. The report also responds, in part, to direction in the FY

2005 appropriations bill that calls for ‘‘the National Academy’s Space Studies Board

to conduct a thorough review of the science that NASA is proposing to undertake

under the space exploration initiative and to develop a strategy by which all of

NASA’s science disciplines. . .can make adequate progress towards their established goals, as well as providing balanced scientific research in addition to support

of the new initiative.’’

The current U.S. civilian Earth observing system centers on the environmental

satellites operated by NOAA; the atmosphere-, ocean-, ice-, and land-observation

satellites of NASA’s Earth Observing System (EOS); and the Landsat satellites,

which are operated through a cooperative arrangement between NASA, NOAA, and

the USGS. Over the past 30 years, NASA and NOAA have contributed to fundamental advances in understanding the Earth system and in providing a variety of

societal benefits through their international leadership in Earth observing systems

from space. Today, this process of building understanding through increasingly powerful observations and thereby expanding the basis for needed applications is at risk

of collapse. Although NOAA has plans to modernize and refresh its weather satellites, NASA has no plan to replace its EOS platforms after their nominal six-year

lifetimes end (beginning with the end of the Terra satellite mission in 2005), and

it has canceled, scaled back, or delayed at least six planned missions, including a

Landsat continuity mission.

These decisions at NASA appear to be driven by a major shift in priorities as the

Agency moves to implement a new vision for space exploration. We believe this

change in priorities jeopardizes NASA’s ability to fulfill its obligations in other important presidential initiatives, such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and

33

the subsequent Climate Change Science Program. It also calls into question future

U.S. leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international

effort initiated by this administration. Indeed, the Nation’s ability to pursue a visionary space exploration agenda depends critically on our success in applying

knowledge of the Earth to maintain economic growth and security on our home

planet.

Moreover, a substantial reduction in NASA’s Earth observation programs today

will result in a loss of U.S. scientific and technical capacity, which will decrease the

competitiveness of the United States internationally for years to come. U.S. leadership in science, technology development, and societal applications depends on sustaining competence across a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines

that include the Earth sciences.

The NRC’s interim report identifies a number of issues for NASA and NOAA that

require immediate attention in the FY 2006 and FY 2007 programs. They include

the following:

• The impact of canceling or delaying NASA missions,

• The need to evaluate plans for transferring capabilities from some canceled

or scaled-back NASA missions to the NOAA–DOD NPOESS satellites,

• The adequacy of the technological base for future missions,

• The state of NASA Research and Analysis programs, which are necessary to

maximize scientific return on NASA investments in Earth science and to retain the intellectual base for future missions,

• The need to reinvigorate the Explorer missions program, and

• Near-term steps that are required to develop a sustained and robust observing system from space that provides essential baseline climate observations

and create a climate data and information system to meet the challenge of

production, distribution and stewardship of climate records from NPOESS

and other relevant observational platforms.

With regard to these issues, the committee recommends the following actions:

1. The NASA Global Precipitation Measurement mission should be launched

without further delays. This mission is an international effort to improve climate, weather, and hydrological predictions through more accurate and frequent precipitation measurements.

2. NASA and NOAA should complete the fabrication, testing, and space qualification of the GIFTS (Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer) instrument and should support the international effort to launch

this instrument by 2008. GIFTS will make highly detailed measurements

from geostationary orbit of temperature and water vapor and will improve

the prediction of severe weather conditions as well as the range of global

weather forecasts.

3. NASA and NOAA should commission three independent reviews, to be completed by October 2005, regarding three missions or instruments: (a) the

Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which has been endorsed by the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy and was planned by NASA to

continue the vital record of Earth land imaging after Landsat–7, which is

currently failing, (b) the Glory mission to measure and characterize atmospheric aerosols and solar irradiance, which is now canceled, but which NASA

had previously proposed to accelerate in response to the President’s Climate

Change Science Program, and (c) the suitability of the instrumentation

planned for NPOESS to measure ocean winds and direction.

The guidelines for these reviews are set forth in the Interim report.

4. Mr. Chairman, we also recommend that NASA significantly expand existing

technology development programs to ensure that new enabling technologies

for critical observational capabilities are available to support mission starts

over the coming decade. One of the problems of having nothing in the mission queue after the Global Precipitation Mission, other than smaller, principal investigator led explorer-class missions, is that focused technology development is no longer supported. Amongst the areas requiring increased

technology investments are:

• Space-based interferometric synthetic aperture radar, whose numerous

applications include monitoring of Earth’s crustal movements caused by

volcanic or seismic activity;

34

• Wide swath ocean altimetry, which will provide the first synoptic observations of global ocean eddies, coastal currents and tides, and internal

tides; and

• Wind lidar, which will facilitate long sought measurements of global wind

profiles, particularly over the oceans where three dimensional measurements are sparse and where most weather phenomena originate.

5. We also recommend that NASA:

• Increase the frequency of Earth Explorer selection opportunities and accelerate the frequency of launch opportunities by providing sufficient

funding for at least one launch per year (that is, a return to the schedule

the program originally envisioned and followed prior to recent delays),

and

• Release the next announcement of opportunity for this program in FY

2005.

NASA developed its Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP) program as

‘‘an innovative approach for addressing Global Change Research by providing periodic ’Windows of Opportunity’ to accommodate new scientific priorities and infuse new scientific participation into the Earth Science Enterprise. . .[using]. . .relatively low to moderate cost, small to medium sized

missions that are capable of being built, tested and launched in a short time

interval.’’ But some of the missions now being planned may not be launched

until nearly 10 years after they were selected.

6. Last, we recommend that NOAA, working with the Climate Change Science

Program and the international Group on Earth Observations create a robust

and sustained observing system from space that includes at a minimum a

set of essential baseline climate observations. In addition NOAA should create a climate data and information system to meet the challenge of the production, distribution, and stewardship of high-accuracy climate records from

NPOESS and other relevant observational platforms. These functions are

within NOAA’s mandate to understand climate variability and change, but

cannot be accomplished through the current NPOESS program or its data

system architecture.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, our committee is also concerned about diminished resources for the research and analysis (R&A) programs that sustain the interpretation of Earth science data. Because the R&A programs are carried out largely

through the Nation’s research universities, there will be an immediate and deleterious impact on graduate student, postdoctoral, and faculty research support. The

long-term consequence will be a diminished ability to attract and retain students

interested in using and developing Earth observations. Taken together, these developments jeopardize U.S. leadership in both Earth science and Earth observations,

and they undermine the vitality of the government-university-private sector partnership that has made so many contributions to society.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am prepared to answer any questions that you may have.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Moore.

Dr. Killeen.

STATEMENT OF DR. TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN, DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

Dr. KILLEEN. Good morning.

I thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and the

other Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with

you today about NASA’s role in the Earth sciences.

My name is Tim Killeen. I am the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, which is sponsored by the

National Science Foundation, and the President-Elect of the American Geophysical Union.

I am a space scientist who has built hardware for NASA in the

past and a former professor at the University of Michigan where

I taught Earth system sciences for many years.

35

I would like to make three simple points today.

First, NASA plays a crucial role in the country’s vibrant Earth

sciences program. Decisions about NASA priorities and funding on

Earth science can accelerate or impede progress in this vitally important field.

Second, rapid advances in NASA Earth observing capabilities,

when coupled with the acceleration of modeling and information

technologies, have positioned us on the brink of an extraordinary

new era in Earth science research, one in which we can quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as a system with tremendous societal and economic benefits.

Third, the importance of Earth science and the central role of

NASA argue for careful, thorough, and deliberative assessment to

inform program planning, especially when major changes are being

considered. In my opinion, the current pace of budgetary and program change at NASA is inconsistent with such an approach and

could result in irrevocable damage to programs and scientific teams

that have taken decades and billions of tax dollars to build.

If I could have the first slide, please.

It is clear after many years of pioneering satellite observations

that Earth is a system of tightly coupled parts that interact in complex ways to produce the whole. For me personally, this ‘‘blue marble’’ photograph taken over 30 years ago by Apollo 17 astronauts

on the way to the Moon symbolizes this complex system. It has become a societal icon.

The study of such interactions has, in fact, become known as

Earth system science and has led to numerous insights about how

the Earth functions and how it is evolving and changing over time.

To understand, for example, how the atmosphere supports and

protects life, one must appreciate the complex and tightly-coupled

circulation dynamics, chemistry, interactions with the oceans, with

ice, with biosphere and land surface, all driven by solar radiation.

And the natural system that we live on—live in is susceptible to

changes due to human activity, creating still more complexity and

variability. We must strive to understand and predict such variability in order to safeguard and manage human societies.

Earth system science, informed by comprehensive and accurate

ground- and space-based observations, is the tool kit for this.

Let me provide you with a single example of what I am talking

about.

Just last week, President Bush mentioned proposed rules to limit

air pollution from power plants.

The next slide, please.

These animations were the first NASA-produced global observations of air pollution moving around the globe. Sources of carbon

monoxide seen here include industrial processes. See, for example,

the source regions in the Pacific Rim, and fires, look at Amazonia.

This global-scale data from space, thanks to NASA’s commitment

to research and innovation, has helped transform our understanding of the relationship of pollution and air quality. We now

know that pollution is not solely, or even primarily, a local or regional problem. California’s air quality, for example, is clearly influenced by industrial activity in Asia.

36

NASA Earth observation capabilities, such as these, thank you,

coupled with the Agency’s strong support for modeling and scientific research and analysis, have been essential to the advancement of Earth system science. It is very important to maintain this

balance within the NASA program both because research and analysis is the process by which useful information is derived from remote sensing systems and because university-based research activities produce and nurture the human capital that provides a foundation for the entire space program.

In this slide, the effect of funding reaches far beyond the year in

which they occur.

Advanced Earth observations and modeling, I assert, will lead directly to major societal benefits to the country, including improved

national security, weather forecasts and warnings, climate outlooks, management of natural resources, including water, agriculture, and energy, and mitigation of natural disasters, such as

droughts, floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions.

I fully understand that NASA faces many difficult choices arising

from pursuit of ambitious goals in a period of national budget constraints. However, I believe it is important to proceed carefully

when making decisions regarding key national assets and programs such as these. Understanding the complex, changing planet

upon which we live, how it supports life, and how human activities

will affect its ability to support life into the future is one of the

greatest intellectual and practical challenges facing humanity.

I urge the Members of the Committee to do all that is possible

to protect and help to manage, in a thoughtful and strategic manner, the critically valuable scientific infrastructure and human capital that are unique to the NASA Earth Science program.

And I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member, in particular, for the opening comments.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Killeen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN

I thank Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member Gordon, and the other Members of

the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today on NASA’s role in the

Earth Sciences. My name is Tim Killeen, and I am the Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is sponsored by the National Science

Foundation. I am also the President-Elect of the American Geophysical Union

(AGU). My academic background is as an experimental space scientist who has participated in several NASA space science programs and a former professor at the

University of Michigan, where I taught atmospheric, space, and Earth system

sciences for many years.

The topic of this hearing is of tremendous importance to our understanding of the

planet on which we live. I would like to make three fundamental points today, using

examples of past and future contributions by NASA to the study of Earth:

• First, NASA plays a crucial role in this country’s vibrant Earth sciences program. NASA is the dominant federal funding agency for U.S. scientists and

engineers who address fundamental questions about our planet, provide practical knowledge about the way the Earth functions, and reveal how human

activities affect the environment upon which all life depends. NASA funding

for Earth science provides the intellectual capital and scientific infrastructure

to produce work that is not just intellectually exciting but critical to human

existence.

• Second, rapid advances in NASA Earth observing capabilities, coupled with

revolutionary advances in information technology, have positioned us for an

extraordinary new era in Earth science research—one in which we can quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as a system, with the temporal

37

and spatial fidelity needed by decision-makers at many levels of our society:

local, regional, and global. This will lead directly to major societal benefits including:

Æ improved national security

Æ better weather forecasts and warnings

Æ more targeted climate outlooks

Æ better management of natural resources including water, agriculture, and

energy

Æ more effective mitigation of natural disasters such as drought, floods,

landslides, and volcanic eruptions.

• Third, the importance of Earth science and the central role of NASA in this

field argue for careful, thorough, and deliberative assessment to inform program planning, especially when major changes are being considered. The current pace of budgetary and program change in NASA is inconsistent with

such an approach and could result in irrevocable damage to programs and scientific teams that have taken decades and billions of tax dollars to build.

I fully understand that NASA faces many difficult choices arising from the pursuit

of ambitious goals in a period of national budget constraints. However, I believe it

important to proceed carefully when making decisions regarding important national

assets and programs such as those represented within the NASA Earth Science effort.

A. The Importance of Earth Science and NASA’s Role

It is clear after decades of pioneering satellite observations that Earth is a system

of tightly coupled parts that interact in complex ways to produce the whole. The

study of such interactions has become known as Earth system science, and has led

to numerous insights about how the Earth functions and how it is evolving and

changing over time. To understand how the atmosphere supports and protects life,

for example, one must appreciate the complex and tightly coupled circulation dynamics, chemistry, interactions with the oceans, ice, biosphere, and land surface: all

driven by solar radiation. And today, the natural system is clearly susceptible to

changes due to human activity, creating still more complexity and variability over

many scales of time and space. In any foreseeable future, we will have to understand this ‘‘system of systems’’ in order to help create, maintain, safeguard, and

guide human societies. Earth system science, based on comprehensive and accurate

ground- and space-based observations, is the toolkit that enables such investigation.

Furthermore, the manner in which we explore other worlds will be informed by the

understanding of our own.

38

For me personally, this ‘‘blue marble’’ photograph taken over 30 years ago by

Apollo 17 astronauts on the way to the Moon perfectly represents this complex system. You have all seen this incredible picture hundreds of times in advertisements,

reports and public media. It is perhaps one of the most significant, but under-sung,

societal icons we possess. At NCAR, it is featured in a wall mural.

There are many ways to illustrate the importance of NASA’s role in supporting

Earth system science in the U.S. In sheer budgetary terms, NASA is the single largest environmental science program supported by the Federal Government. The widely respected budget analyses of the American Association for the Advancement of

Science (AAAS) indicate that NASA provided 34 percent of the total funding for the

environmental sciences in 2004. Much of this spending is devoted to the design, development, and operation of scientific instruments, the spacecraft that carry them,

and the data systems required to process, analyze, archive, and distribute data to

the scientific community and other users. But it should also be remembered that

NASA provides significant resources to university investigators through the research and analysis component of its program.

In fact, leaving spacecraft and data system costs aside, AAAS analyses show that

NASA was the third largest provider of competitively awarded extramural funding

for the university environmental science community in 2004, trailing only the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Even small reductions in the NASA program have large effects in the university community. This

matters both because research and analysis is the process by which useful informaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
39

tion is derived from remote sensing systems, and because university-based research

activities provide the human capital (undergraduates, graduate students, young researchers and engineers) that underpins the entire space program. The effects of

funding perturbations reach far beyond the year in which they occur. The design

and development of an Earth observation satellite takes a decade or more, and keeping young scientists and engineers engaged in such work requires some degree of

steady ongoing support.

Another way of showing NASA’s importance to this field is by looking at what has

been accomplished. The scientific and practical results from NASA’s Earth science

program are much too extensive for me to catalogue here, but two examples can illustrate the unique contribution that NASA has made to our understanding of the

Earth’s atmosphere and its variations.

Example 1: Ozone depletions

The first example is probably well known to you. The ozone ‘‘holes’’ in the Antarctic and Arctic were monitored from space by various NASA satellite systems, including the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS). The diagnosis of the physical and chemical mechanisms responsible for these dangerous changes to our protective ozone shield was made possible by the combination of observations, modeling, and theory supported by NASA. In fact, it was a NASA high-altitude aircraft

that made the ‘‘smoking gun’’ measurements that convinced the scientific and policy

communities that chlorine compounds produced by various human activities were

centrally responsible for the observed ozone loss. Following these observations,

international protocols were put in place that are beginning to ameliorate the global-scale ozone loss. The TOMS instrument has provided an ongoing source of data

that permits us to track the level of ozone in the stratosphere, the annual opening

and closing of the ‘‘ozone hole,’’ and how this phenomenon is changing over time.

These continuing measurements and analyses and the effective regulatory response

have led, among other things, to a reduction in projected deaths from skin cancer

worldwide.

Example 2: Air Pollution Observations

Last week, President Bush mentioned proposed rules to limit air pollution from

coal-fired power plants. Air pollution is clearly an important concern. NASA has

played a major role in the development of new technologies that can monitor the

sources and circulation patterns of air pollution globally. It is another tremendous

story of science serving society through innovation. In this case, through an international collaboration, NASA deployed a one-of-a-kind instrument designed to observe global carbon monoxide and its transport from the NASA Terra spacecraft.

These animations show the first global observations of air pollution. Sources of carbon monoxide include industrial processes (see, for example, source regions in the

Pacific Rim) and fires (for example in Amazonia). These global-scale data from space

have helped change our understanding of the relationship between pollution and air

quality—we now know that pollution is not solely or even primarily a local or regional problem. California’s air quality is influenced by industrial activity in Asia,

and Europe’s air quality is influenced by activities here in America.

40

From such pioneering work, operational systems can now be designed to observe

pollution events, the global distribution of chemicals and particulate matter in the

atmosphere, and the ways in which these substances interact and affect the ability

of the atmosphere to sustain life—such a system will undoubtedly underpin future

efforts to understand, monitor, and manage air quality globally. Without NASA’s

commitment to innovation in the Earth sciences, it is hard to believe that such an

incredible new capability would be available today.

B. The Promise of Earth Observations in the Next Decade

The achievements of the last several decades have laid the foundation for an unprecedented era of discovery and innovation in Earth system science. Advances in

observing technologies have been accompanied by vast improvements in computing

and data processing. When the Earth Observing System satellites were being designed, processing and archiving the data was a central challenge. The Terra satellite produces about 194 gigabytes of raw data per day, which seemed a daunting

prospect at the time of its definition. Now laptop memories are measured in

gigabytes, students can work with remote sensing data sets on their laptops, and

41

a large data center like NCAR increases our data holdings by about 1,000 gigabytes

per day. The next generation of high performance computing systems, which will be

deployed during the next five years or so, will be petascale systems, meaning that

they will be able to process millions of gigabytes of data. The ongoing revolution in

information technology has provided us with capabilities we could hardly conceive

of when the current generation of Earth observing satellites was being developed.

We have just begun to take advantage of the synergies between these technological

areas. The U.S., through NASA, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this

technological opportunity.

Example 3: Weather Forecasting

Weather forecasting in the Southern Hemisphere has been dramatically improved

through NASA’s contributions, and this experience illustrates the power of remote

sensing for further global improvements in weather prediction. The lack of surfacebased data in the Southern Hemisphere once meant that predictive skill lagged considerably behind that achieved in the Northern Hemisphere. The improvement in

the accuracy of Southern Hemisphere weather forecasting is well documented and

almost entirely due to the increased use of remote-sensing data. But improvements

in the quality of satellite data were not sufficient. Improvements in data assimilation—a family of techniques for integrating observational results into predictive

models—were also necessary. The combination has resulted in rapid improvement

in Southern Hemisphere forecasting, which is now nearly equal to that in northern

regions. Data assimilation capabilities continue to advance rapidly.

One can now easily conceive of forecast systems that will fuse data from satellites,

ground-based systems, databases, and models to provide predictions with unprecedented detail and accuracy—perhaps reaching natural limits of predictability. A new

generation of weather forecast models with cloud-resolving spatial resolution is coming online, and these models show significant promise for improving forecast skills

across the board. Use of new NASA remote sensing data from upcoming missions

such as Calipso (Cloud-Aerosol and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite) and CloudSat will

be essential to fully validate and tune these new capabilities which will serve the

Nation in providing improved hurricane and severe storm prediction, and in the development of numerous decision support systems reliant on state-of-the-art numerical weather prediction capabilities.

Example 4: Earth System Models

Data from NASA missions are central to constructing more comprehensive and detailed models that will more realistically represent the complexity of the Earth system. Cloud observations from MODIS (the Moderate Resolution Imaging

Spectroradiometer) and precipitation measurements from GPM (the Global Precipitation Mission), for example, are critical to improving the representation of clouds

and the water cycle in such models. Observations from MODIS and Landsat are

fundamental to the development of more sophisticated representation of marine and

terrestrial ecosystems and atmosphere-land surface interactions. The inclusion of

this detail will help in the creation of true Earth system models that will enable

detailed investigation of the interactions of Earth system processes and multiple environmental stresses within physically consistent simulated systems.

In general terms, Earth system observations represent the only means of validating Earth system model predictions. Our confidence in short-term, regional-scale

weather predictions is based on how closely they match observed regional conditions. Assessing the performance of global-scale, longer-term model predictions likewise depends on comparing model results with observational records. Scientific confidence in the ability of general circulation models to represent Earth’s climate has

been greatly enhanced by comparing model results for the last century with the observational records from that period. At the same time, the sparse and uneven nature of past observational records is an ongoing source of uncertainty in the evaluation of model results. The existence of much more comprehensive and consistent

global measurements from space—such as the data from the NASA Terra, Aqua,

and Aura satellites—is a giant step forward in this regard, and, if maintained, will

enable much more rigorous evaluation of model performance in the future.

In summary, Earth system models, with increasing temporal and spatial resolutions and validated predictive capabilities, will be used by industry and governmental decision-makers across a host of domains into the foreseeable future. This

knowledge base will drive new economies and efficiencies within our society. I believe that requirements flowing from the needs and capabilities of sophisticated

Earth system models will be very useful for NASA in developing strategic roadmaps

for future missions.

42

C. The Importance of Careful Planning

The central role of NASA in supporting Earth system science, the demonstrated

success and impact of previous and current NASA missions, and the promise of continued advances in scientific understanding and societal benefits all argue for a

careful, analytical approach to major modifications in the NASA Earth science program.

As noted above, the development of space systems is a time-consuming and difficult process. Today’s actions and plans will have long-term consequences for our

nation’s capabilities in this area.

The link between plans and actions is one of the most important points I want

to address today. From the outside, the interagency planning process seems to be

experiencing substantial difficulties in maintaining this link. The NASA Earth

science program is part of two major Presidential initiatives, the Climate Change

Science Program (CCSP) and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

(GEOSS). With regard to the CCSP, it is not apparent that the strategies and plans

developed through the interagency process are having much impact on NASA decision-making. In January 2004, then-Administrator of NASA, Sean O’Keefe, called

for acceleration of the NASA Glory mission because of the direct relevance of the

mission to understanding the roles of aerosols in the climate system, which is one

of the highest-priority science questions defined in the CCSP research strategy.

NASA is now proposing cancellation of the mission. As I have emphasized throughout this testimony, the progress of and benefits from Earth system science research

are contingent upon close coordination between research, modeling, and observations. The close coordination of program planning among the agencies that support

these activities is also a necessity. This coordination currently appears to be fragile.

The effect of significant redirections in NASA and reduction in NASA’s Earth

science effort are equally worrisome in the case of the Administration’s GEOSS initiative, which is focused on improving the international coordination of environmental observing systems. Both NASA and NOAA satellite programs are vital to

this effort. The science community is very supportive of the GEOSS concept and

goals. There are over 100 space-based remote-sensing systems that are either operating or planned by various nations for the next decade. Collaboration among space

systems, between space- and ground-based systems, and between suppliers and

users of observational data is critical to avoiding duplication of effort and to getting

the most out of the investments in observing technology. The tragic example of the

Indian Ocean Tsunami demonstrates the need for such coordination. The tsunami

was detected and observed before hitting land, but the absence of effective communication links prevented warnings from reaching those who needed them in time.

A functioning GEOSS could lead to major improvements in the rapid availability of

data and warnings, and the U.S. is right to make development of such a system a

priority. But U.S. credibility and leadership of this initiative will be called into question if our nation is unable or unwilling to coordinate and maintain the U.S. programs that make up the core of our proposed contribution.

D. Answers to Questions Posed by the Committee

My testimony to this point has outlined my views on a series of key issues for

the NASA Earth science program. Much of the text found above is relevant to consideration of the specific questions posed by the Committee in its letter of invitation.

In this section, I provide more direct answers to these questions to the extent possible and appropriate.

How should NASA prioritize currently planned and future missions? What

criteria should NASA use in doing so?

I believe that NASA should work with the scientific and technical community and

its partner agencies to define a NASA Earth science plan that is fully compatible

with the overall CCSP and GEOSS science strategies. In my view, the interaction

with the scientific and technical community should include both input from and review by the National Research Council (NRC) and direct interaction with the strong

national community of Earth science investigators and the aerospace industry who

are very familiar with NASA capabilities and developing technological opportunities.

Competitive peer review processes should be used appropriately in assessing the

merit of competing approaches and in key decision-making. I believe NASA should

also find a means of involving users and potential users of NASA-generated data

in this process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of workshops.

Sufficient time should be allotted to this process for a careful and deliberative evaluation of options. This science plan should then guide the process of setting mission

priorities.

43

Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential missions would

be an important part of this planning exercise. I would recommend consideration

of a set of criteria that include:

• compatibility with science priorities in the CCSP and GEOSS science plans

• potential scientific return from mission

• technological risk

• direct and indirect societal benefits

• cost.

I believe that the decadal planning activity underway at the NRC in response to

a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this process.

What are the highest priority unaddressed or unanswered questions in

Earth science observations from space?

I believe this question is most appropriately addressed through the community

process suggested above. There are many important Earth science questions, and

prioritizing among them is best done in a deliberative and transparent process that

involves extensive input from and discussion by the science community. I would personally cite soil moisture, three-dimensional cloud characteristics, global vector tropospheric winds, pollutant characteristics and transport, carbon fluxes, and aerosol

distributions as all high priority measurements to make on a global scale.

What have been the most important contributions to society that have

come from NASA Earth sciences over the last decade (or two)?

NASA Earth science programs have played a key role in developing our understanding of the Earth as a coupled system of inter-related parts, and in the identification and documentation of a series of global-scale changes in the Earth’s environment, including ozone depletion, land use and land cover change, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. Other examples of societal contributions include improved

weather forecasting, improved understanding of the large-scale climate variations,

such as the El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation that

alter seasonal patterns of rainfall, and improved understanding of the status of and

changes in marine and terrestrial ecosystems that contributes to more effective

management of natural resources.

What future benefits to the Nation (societal applications) are possible that

NASA Earth sciences could provide? What gaps in our knowledge must we

fill before those future benefits are possible?

In a broad sense, NASA Earth science activities are part of developing a global

Earth information system that can provide ongoing and accurate information about

the status of and changes in the atmosphere, oceans, and marine and terrestrial

ecosystems that sustain life, including the impact of human activities. The continued development of observation systems, sophisticated Earth system models, data

assimilation methods, and information technologies holds the promise of much improved predictions of weather and climate variations and much more effective prediction and warning of natural hazards. Much has already been accomplished to lay

the groundwork for such a system, but many important questions remain. Some of

the most important have to do with the functioning and human alteration of the

Earth’s carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles, and how these cycles interact; the regional manifestation of global scale climate change; and the reactions of ecosystems

to simultaneous multiple stresses.

Summary

In closing, I hope that my short list of examples suffices to emphasize the fact

that it is not possible to conceive of a vigorous and healthy Earth system science

effort in the United States without a strong ongoing NASA program. The scientific

community is in the initial stages of a knowledge revolution enabled by the vast increases in the capabilities of, and synergy between, observation and information

technologies. The advances in Earth system science that are being enabled by these

capabilities are critical for understanding the Earth system and how it is changing.

Such understanding is an important contribution to natural resource management,

natural-hazard mitigation, and sustainable economic growth. I understand that

NASA faces many difficult choices arising from pursuit of ambitious goals in a period of budget constraints, but I urge you to take account of the unique and central

role of NASA observing programs in our nation’s climate, weather, and Earth system science efforts as you oversee development of the plans and strategies that will

guide NASA in the coming decade and beyond.

44

BIOGRAPHY FOR TIMOTHY L. KILLEEN

Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research; President-Elect, American Geophysical Union

Education

B.S. Honors 1st Class (Physics), University College London, 1972

Ph.D. (Atomic and Molecular Physics), University College London, 1975

Professional Experience

1972–1975 Research Student, University College London

1975–1978 Research Assistant, University College London

1978–1979 Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Michigan

1979–1984 Assistant Research Scientist, University of Michigan

1984–1987 Associate Research Scientist, University of Michigan

1988–1992 Affiliate Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

1987–1990 Associate Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of Michigan

1992 Visiting Senior Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

1990–2000 Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, University of

Michigan

1993–1998 Director, Space Physics Research Laboratory, University of Michigan

1997–2000 Director, Global Change Laboratory, University of Michigan

1997–2000 Associate Vice President for Research, University of Michigan

2000–Present Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research and Senior Scientist, High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric

Research

Honors and Awards

NASA Achievement Award, Dynamics Explorer Spacecraft, NASA, 1985

Excellence in Research Award, University of Michigan, College of Engineering, 1993

Excellence in Teaching Award, University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric,

Oceanic and Space Sciences, 1995

NASA Achievement Award, Polar Spacecraft, NASA, 1998

Excellence in Teaching Award, University of Michigan, College of Engineering, 2000

AMS Fellow, 2005

Professional Affiliations

American Geophysical Union, President-Elect

American Meteorological Society, Fellow

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Professional Activities

Co-Chair, NASA Sun-Solar Systems Connections Roadmap, 2005

Principal Investigator, NASA TIMED Doppler Interferometer Investigation

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Killeen.

Dr. Solomon.

STATEMENT OF DR. SEAN C. SOLOMON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TERRESTRIAL MAGNETISM, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON

Dr. SOLOMON. Thank you, Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Member

Gordon, and Committee Members. I am very pleased to be with you

today.

I am both an Earth scientist and a planetary scientist. I am a

former President of the American Geophysical Union, and I am a

45

principal investigator for one of NASA’s missions to explore another planet.

Five years ago, I was asked by Ghassem Asrar, in this audience,

to chair a working group to guide the science community in the development of a long-term vision for solid Earth science at NASA.

And over two years, our group deliberated. We gathered advice,

and in 2002, we published our recommendations. That effort of

ours served as a microcosm for the Earth science decadal survey

indeed for the challenge NASA now faces as it integrates top priorities across all of its programs.

Today, I would like to summarize the criteria that our group

used to prepare that strategy, the most important questions we felt

should guide NASA’s programs and solid Earth science and most

critical mission opportunities that our group recommended NASA

pursue.

The surface of the Earth, of course, is where we live. Though

largely solid, the interior of the Earth is far from static. The

Earth’s internal motions and interactions of the solid Earth with

the atmosphere and the hydrosphere and the oceans continually

change our planet’s surface. And some of those changes occur very

slowly, but some are, indeed, catastrophic: earthquakes, volcanic

eruptions, landslides, floods, tsunamis, and other natural disasters.

If I could have the first view graph.

We understand the workings of the Earth, particularly the solid

Earth, are linked through the notion of plate tectonics that the

outer layer of the Earth is divided into rigid plates that are in relative motion and interact primarily at their boundaries, where

earthquakes, volcanoes, and mountains are concentrated. We have

such boundaries in California and Oregon and Washington and

Alaska.

NASA’s critical contribution to plate tectonics was to provide the

first direct measurements of the motions of the plates through

space geodata techniques. Research frontiers now are focused on

exactly what is happening at the plate boundaries, what are the

governing processes, and how does the solid Earth interact with

the rest of the Earth system.

Our working group developed four criteria to select among future

programs. A question to be addressed by NASA’s programs should

be of fundamental scientific importance, criteria number one. It

should have a strong implication for society, number two. It should

be amenable to substantial progress through new observations,

number three. And there should be unique contributions that

NASA could provide.

With these criteria, the working group identified six grand challenges, questions of highest priority, in the area of fault zones,

landform change, sea level change, volcanic activity, internal dynamics, and the Earth’s dynamic magnetic field.

Next slide, please.

In the near-term, the highest priority new mission that our

group recommended for solid Earth science is a satellite dedicated

to Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, also known as InSAR.

Such a mission, depicted in this animation flying over southern

California, is technically feasible and addresses five of the six

grand challenges for the solid Earth, and it is a critical element of

46

the EarthScope project in partnership with the National Science

Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The mission will open

the globe to new measurements of surface movements in earthquake zones, such as depicted here.

And on the next slide.

It would provide critical observations as well as other areas, such

as active volcanic centers. What you see are four volcanic areas in

South America thought to be inactive until InSAR observations

showed that they were, in fact, inflating, as you see here in these

Interferograms. But these volcanoes could have been in Oregon or

Washington or Alaska, for that matter. InSAR, as well, can address

that movements of the Earth’s major ice sheets, coastal zones,

areas susceptible to flood or landslides, and can reveal the underlying processes as well as provide a basis for hazard mitigation and

response.

Of course, the recommendations of our working group are for the

solid Earth component of the Earth system, and those must be integrated into the broader spectrum of NASA programs for all of

Earth sciences.

But it is important, as I think this committee recognizes on the

basis of the opening remarks, that our nation’s space agency, as it

carries out its many missions of exploration, does not lose sight of

the special role that it can play in unraveling the mysteries of our

own planet.

For the foreseeable future, ladies and gentlemen, the Earth is

our only home. We owe it to our children and theirs to understand

how to live here to the betterment of all.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Solomon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN C. SOLOMON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the House

Science Committee. I am pleased to join you today to comment on NASA’s programs

in Earth science.

By way of introduction, I am both an Earth scientist and a planetary scientist.

I am the Director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a former President of the American Geophysical Union—with

more than 40,000 members the world’s largest professional society in the Earth

sciences, and the Principal Investigator for one of NASA’s missions in solar system

exploration.

First, let me begin by affirming my conviction that NASA has a continuing, strong

role to play in the study of our planet. As the lead federal agency for technical innovation in space, with a clear charter for advancing basic knowledge of how this planet operates and for applying that knowledge to address problems of substantial societal importance, NASA can contribute to an understanding of the Earth and its

workings in unique and fundamental ways. As this committee has expressed on

many occasions, NASA’s responsibilities in the Earth sciences are worthy of sustained national support.

Second, I applaud the Earth science community for undertaking a decadal survey

of Earth science and applications from space. This survey, co-chaired by Dr. Moore

and operated under the aegis of the National Academy of Sciences and the National

Research Council, is long overdue. Like the decadal surveys that the astronomy

community has produced for the last four decades and the decadal survey that the

solar system exploration community published in 2002, this decadal survey for

Earth science and applications from space will provide a rationale for the most important missions and programs that NASA should undertake in the coming decade,

established on the basis of sufficient community input and set out with sufficient

clarity so that the program is seen by all as both achievable in scope and compelling

in vision.

47

In 2000 NASA’s Associate Administrator for what was then the Office of Earth

Science asked me to chair a working group ‘‘to guide the science community in the

development of a recommended long-term vision and strategy from solid-Earth

science at NASA.’’ Over a period of two years that Solid Earth Science Working

Group gathered advice from the community, and in 2002 we published our recommendations for a NASA program in solid-Earth science and applications for the

coming quarter century. That effort served as a microcosm for the ongoing Earth

science decadal survey and indeed for the challenge that NASA now faces as it integrates the most important objectives across all of its programs. Today I’d like to

summarize the criteria that our working group used to prepare its strategy, the

most important questions that our group felt should guide NASA’s programs, and

the most critical mission opportunities that our group recommended NASA should

pursue to address those questions.

The surface of the Earth is where we live. Though largely solid, the interior of

the Earth is far from static. The Earth’s internal motions—and interactions of the

solid Earth with the oceans, hydrosphere, and atmosphere—continually change the

surface of our planet. Some of those changes progress at rates that seem nearly imperceptible over human lifetimes, but others concentrate catastrophically during

earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. Space offers a particularly special vantage point from which to study these

phenomena, because of the broad, synoptic view and the global coverage afforded.

Many of the workings of the solid Earth are linked by plate tectonics—the theory

that the Earth’s outer layer is divided into nearly rigid plates that are in relative

motion and interact primarily at their boundaries. NASA’s solid Earth program

made a critical contribution to this theory, when space geodetic techniques provided

the first direct measurements of plate motions previously inferred only from the geological record. The frontier research areas now are in understanding the details of

deformation and volcanism near plate boundaries and the interaction of the solid

Earth with the rest of the Earth system.

The Solid Earth Science Working Group utilized four criteria for selecting the

most important questions in solid Earth science that could be addressed by NASA.

First, the question should be of fundamental scientific importance. Second, the question should have strong implications for society. Third, the question should be amenable to substantial progress through new observations. And fourth, there should

be unique contributions that NASA can make toward providing answers. These are

quite general criteria that can be applied equally well across other NASA programs.

On the basis of these criteria, the working group identified six grand challenges,

questions of the highest priority for NASA’s solid Earth science program over the

next 25 years:

1. What is the nature of deformation at plate boundaries, and what are the implications for earthquake hazards?

2. How do tectonics and climate interact to shape the Earth’s surface and create natural hazards?

3. What are the interactions among ice masses, oceans, and the solid Earth and

their implications for sea-level change?

4. How do magmatic systems evolve, and under what conditions do volcanoes

erupt?

5. What are the dynamics of the mantle and crust, and how does the Earth’s

surface respond?

6. What are the dynamics of the Earth’s magnetic field and its interactions

with the Earth system?

Addressing these challenges involves leveraging partnerships with other NASA

programs, with other federal agencies, and with international space agencies. Nonetheless, there are specific technological capabilities and orbital opportunities that

only NASA can provide. The Solid Earth Science Working Group identified several

observational strategies—each combining spaceborne and ground measurements

with technological advances—where NASA should provide leadership: surface deformation, high-resolution measurements of topography and topographic change, variability in Earth’s gravity and magnetic fields, imaging spectroscopy of Earth’s changing surface, space geodetic networks and the International Terrestrial Reference

Frame, and promising new techniques.

In the next several years, the highest-priority new mission for the solid Earth

sciences is a satellite dedicated to Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar

(InSAR). Such a mission is technically feasible today and addresses five of the six

grand scientific challenges for the solid Earth. Operating at a frequency that can

penetrate vegetative cover (L-band) and that has weekly access to any land area,

48

such an InSAR system could measure surface displacements at the one mm/yr level

over 50 km horizontal extents. InSAR satellites flown by European and Canadian

space agencies have revealed the enormous potential of such a technology, but at

radar frequencies and repeat viewing rates that are not optimum for understanding

solid Earth phenomena. The recommended mission would open the globe to new observations of ongoing surface movements in major earthquake zones, at active volcanic centers, on the Earth’s major ice sheets, along coastal zones, and in areas susceptible to floods and landslides. Such observations are likely to reveal diagnostics

of the governing phenomena and can provide a regionally complete basis for disaster

mitigation and response.

A NASA-led InSAR satellite is a critical element of the multi-agency EarthScope

project, whose other elements—supported by the National Science Foundation—include seismometers, GPS sensors, strainmeters and a San Andreas Fault drilling

project that together will address the nature of deformation within western North

America as well as the structure and governing geological processes of the North

American continent. A NASA InSAR satellite has also been requested by the U.S.

Geological Survey to assist that agency with their ongoing assessment of seismic

hazards and their mitigation within the United States.

The recommendations of the Solid Earth Science Working Group, of course, cover

only one component of NASA’s Earth science programs. The NRC decadal survey

and NASA’s own roadmapping activities, both currently underway, promise to provide a broader framework of recommended programs within which the component

addressing the solid Earth and its interactions with the other elements of the Earth

system will hold a natural place.

NASA is an agency that is carrying out a truly impressive range of human and

robotic missions designed to explore our space environment, our planetary neighbors, and the entire cosmos. It is important as NASA carries out its many missions

of exploration that we do not lose sight of the special role that only NASA can play

in unraveling the mysteries of our own planet. For the foreseeable future, Earth is

our only home, and we owe it to our children and theirs to understand how to live

here to the betterment of all.

BIOGRAPHY FOR SEAN C. SOLOMON

Sean C. Solomon is the Director of the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism of

the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a position he has held since 1992. He received his B.S. from Caltech in 1966 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1971, after which

he was a Professor of Geophysics at MIT for more than 20 years.

A seismologist, marine geophysicist, and planetary scientist, Solomon has worked

on a wide range of problems in earthquake seismology, geodynamics, and the nature

and evolution of the terrestrial planets. He served on science teams for NASA’s Magellan mission to Venus and Mars Global Surveyor mission, and he is the Principal

Investigator for NASA’s MESSENGER mission now en route to orbit the planet

Mercury.

From 2000 to 2002 Solomon chaired NASA’s Solid Earth Science Working Group,

which developed a long-term vision and strategy for solid-Earth science at NASA.

Solomon earlier served on NASA’s Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee,

Solar System Exploration Subcommittee, and Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee. He also sat on the National Research Council’s Space

Science Board and chaired its Committee on Earth Sciences. He currently serves on

NASA’s Strategic Roadmap Committee for Earth Science and Applications from

Space.

Solomon is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a past President of the American Geophysical Union. A former Alfred P. Sloan Fellow and John Simon Guggenheim Fellow, he received the Arthur L. Day Prize from the National Academy of Sciences,

the G.K. Gilbert Award from the Geological Society of America, the Harry H. Hess

Medal from the American Geophysical Union, and NASA’s Public Service Medal.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Solomon.

Dr. McNutt.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARCIA McNUTT, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Dr. MCNUTT. Chairman Boehlert, Mr. Gordon, and distinguished

Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity.

49

In my testimony today, I have chosen the tactic of simply answering your questions.

So let me go immediately to the first one, which is prioritizing

future missions.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I might add that that is a novel approach.

Dr. MCNUTT. My own institution, the Monterey Bay Aquarium

Research Institution, was founded and privately funded by David

Packard to be a sort of NASA for the oceans, albeit on a much

smaller scale. And like NASA, we constantly struggle at my institution to balance our various missions: exploration, societally-relevant research, technology development, and maintenance of time

series.

In my written testimony, I have described how we manage to

balance that diverse portfolio and many of the lessons we have

learned along the way in doing so. I regret I don’t have time to tell

you all about that today. You can read about it, but frankly, it is

not rocket science.

But let me pass on just one piece of advice from that portion of

my response.

I have heard some argue that NASA could prioritize better if it

handed out wholesale areas of NASA research, such as its Earth

sciences program, to another civilian agency in order to focus its efforts. Severed from the root of the technology program that feeds

it, innovation and the program would eventually wither, and it

would die.

Okay. Next question.

You asked me to list some of NASA’s greatest achievements in

the Earth sciences from the past decade.

Certainly one of the most unexpected surprises was the contribution of satellite altimetry to so many areas of ocean sciences, such

as measuring sea level, waves, currents, tides, air moisture, and for

mapping the topography of the sea floor using its gravitational effect on the shape of the ocean’s surface.

In my first figure, I show a dramatic comparison of our knowledge of the ocean floor topography in the South Pacific before, on

top, and after the availability of satellite altimetry data.

I recall 14 years ago serving as Chief Scientist on an oceanographic expedition to the South Pacific. One night, we were steaming full-speed ahead when I called to the bridge from the main lab

to say that based on my processing of the satellite altimetry data,

we were headed straight towards a major undersea volcano with a

very shallow summit. The mate on watch responded that nothing

was marked on the navigational charts, but they agreed to slow

down anyway. Less than 10 minutes later, I heard a seaman yell

out in the moonlight: ‘‘Breakers at 100 yards and closing.’’

Second—next slide.

I will mention a different NASA development, and that is the instruments to measure ocean color to monitor the concentration of

microscopic plants in the upper ocean. These small plants, called

phytoplankton, are responsible for producing half of the oxygen we

breathe, and they are the fundamental basis for nearly all of the

oceanic food chain. This is an image of ocean color around the island of Tasmania, south of Australia, and it was acquired by

NASA’s SeaWiFS satellite in about one minute. It would have

50

taken 10 years of nonstop operations of an oceanographic ship to

acquire the same amount of information, and all of the dynamic details, such as the effect of eddies and currents on the distributions,

would have been smeared out beyond recognition.

These satellite data have shown the changing productivity of the

oceans in response to El Nin ̃ o, reduction in polar ice extent, intensity of seasonal upwelling, and purposeful iron fertilization of the

oceans.

Such monitoring of the biological changes in the ocean help us

to understand the consequences of both natural and manmade

changes to the physical and chemical environment in which these

plants survive.

You also asked me to list the highest priority unanswered questions in Earth sciences that can be addressed from space.

If I could have the next slide.

Within the next decade, reconstruction of past climate records

from sparse data have demonstrated that the Pacific Ocean temperature and productivity of fisheries all change in lock step to a

thermal rhythm that waxes and wanes over decadal time periods.

This temperature variation, which is called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, involves temperature changes of one to two degrees. That is it. The figure shows that the ‘‘cool’’ phase of the PDO

ruled the Pacific in the early 1960s and it corresponded to the

crash in the sardine fishery in my own hometown, Monterey, California.

Landings of sardines fell from 3.6 million metric tons in the

1930s to less than 10,000 metric tons by 1965. During that same

time, when the sardine fishery was crashing, the anchovy fishery

offshore Peru became the largest single-species fishery in the

world. In the mid-1970s, the regime shifted, and the Peruvian anchovy fishery, in turn, crashed.

The most recent regime shift, which coincided with the 1997–

1998 El Nin ̃ o, was captured by a number of satellite sensors. Seal

level, as measured by altimetry, ocean temperature, and ocean

plant production, as measured by ocean colored, all shifted together

back into the ‘‘cool,’’ or the anchovy-rich phase.

So what forces caused the shift? What rhythms govern the time

scale? We don’t know. But much is at stake. The numbers of

seabirds in Hawaii, Monarch butterflies in Mexico, and salmon in

Oregon all appear to vary at the pace of the PDO.

We have only captured one shift with high-quality satellite

records, but the hope is that with patience, we will understand how

the system works and hopefully avoid another fisheries crash, like

the one that devastated Monterey.

In your last question, you asked me about the future of NASA’s

contributions to Earth sciences.

Well, there are exciting couplings emerging among the physical,

chemical, and biological aspects of the ocean, that point to a planetary metabolism that is best observed and most efficiently monitored from space. I have no doubt that upon further investigation,

we will find that many changes in the land-based biosphere are

also marching in step to that rhythm.

Understanding exactly what will happen before it happens is

clearly a powerful position to be in, because it enables to take acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
51

tions that benefit from the regime shift as opposed to remaining in

those that suffer from it.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you on

these critically important issues.

[The prepared statement of Dr. McNutt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARCIA MCNUTT

Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this morning on the issue of

NASA’s past, present, and future outlook for making contributions to the Nation

and the world in the area of Earth Sciences. My name is Marcia McNutt, and I currently serve as the President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, better known as MBARI. I am a Past President of the American Geophysical

Union, the largest professional society serving the geosciences. It has been more

than a decade since my own research was funded by NASA, and NASA contributes

only one percent of my institution’s annual operating budget. I mention these facts

merely to make the point that I have no financial incentive to provide you with anything other than my best advice.

Prioritizing Missions

First, you ask about prioritizing future missions. My own institution, MBARI, was

founded and privately funded by David Packard to be a ‘‘NASA for the oceans,’’ albeit on a much smaller scale. Like NASA, we constantly struggle at MBARI to balance our various missions. We must continue to explore the ocean in new dimensions while still conducting societally-relevant ocean research. We must apply

emerging technologies to next-generation ocean systems without abandoning critical

long-term time series.

There is no magic formula for making these hard choices. Tackling societally-relevant problems with near-term payback justifies the investment to today’s taxpayers, while exploration lays the foundation for the societally-relevant research of

the future and entrains the next generation. NASA is the only civilian agency that

has the required capacity, tradition, and track record to vigorously pursue the technology development that will fuel tomorrow’s discoveries. But at the same time,

NASA has an obligation to maintain certain critical time series as long as the societal relevance is high, the rate of discoveries continues unabated, and the incremental cost is low as compared with the cumulative prior investment. Unlike most

S&T products, the value of time series only increases with age since inception. I

have heard some argue that NASA could hand off wholesale areas of NASA research, such as the Earth sciences program, to another civilian agency in order to

focus its efforts. Severed from the root of the technology program that feeds it, innovation in the program would eventually wither and die.

So how do we at MBARI maintain a balanced portfolio given these different, but

essential missions? First, we determine what rough percentage of resources should

be reserved for each mission area, and enforce the quota vigorously. The quotas are

set so as to maintain critical mass and set a reasonable level of expectation in each

program area such that the associated researchers can make long-term plans. If our

overall budget grows, everything grows proportionally. If the overall budget shrinks,

everything shrinks proportionally. Within those mission areas, projects compete

with other like projects, but it would be unfair to pit exploration, for example,

versus societally-relevant research because different criteria need to be used to

measure their respective values.

Like NASA, my MBARI also undertakes high risk, long-lead time projects.

Through experience, we have learned a few important lessons:

1. Protect the rest of the research portfolio from being consumed by

the large, long-term project by respecting the percentage quotas. It

is the rest of the research portfolio that helps to manage risk, retain balance,

and nurture the seeds of the next big project.

2. Structure the big project so that it provides science return at many

incremental steps along the way. We didn’t have to discover this for ourselves at MBARI, because the Earth sciences community had already learned

this lesson the hard way through the Mohole Project in the 1960s. The initial

objective was to drill through the ocean crust into the underlying mantle

rocks. The project proved to be so technically challenging and so mired in

management missteps that after many years and many wasted millions of

52

dollars it took an act of Congress to kill it. Out of the ashes of the Mohole

Project arose the Deep Sea Drilling Project, now known as the Integrated

Ocean Drilling Program. The Mohole’s successor program had much more

modest and achievable goals that kept the scientific community excited and

engaged as remarkable discoveries were made in every ocean basin. The

seafloor spreading hypothesis was confirmed. Climate records extending back

more than 100 million years were recovered. And now, nearly 50 years after

the Mohole Project was first conceived, we are finally on the brink of drilling

into the oceanic upper mantle!

3. If the project is really big, get lots of help. We get help from institutions

like Woods Hole and JPL for our biggest projects. The drilling program discussed above involved 23 different nations and is, in fact, held up as a model

for international scientific cooperation.

4. Get realistic cost and schedule estimates for the big project before

undertaking it, including an assessment of the value of what will

need to fall off your agenda if you pursue it. And then make sure you

can afford it. If you have structured the big project for incremental science

return (see #2 above), then it won’t matter if you don’t achieve your goal

right away because the discoveries along the way will maintain the project’s

momentum, keep the research community engaged, and justify the investment.

NASA’s Greatest Achievements in the Earth Sciences

You also asked me to list some of NASA’s greatest achievements in the Earth

Sciences from the past few decades. There are so many—the discovery of the ozone

hole, the direct measurement of plate tectonic drift from space, the detection of postseismic crustal deformation that influences the pattern of future earthquakes using

Synthetic Aperture Radar, . . .. The list goes on. Knowing that you will be hearing

from Drs. Solomon and Killeen on the accomplishments in the area of solid Earth

and atmosphere, respectively, I’ll concentrate on the oceans.

Certainly one of the most unexpected surprises was the contribution of satellite

altimetry to so many areas of ocean sciences. NASA pioneered the technology for

measuring sea surface height from 800 km altitude in space to 10 centimeter accuracy nearly 30 years ago. The technique was so successful for measuring sea level,

waves, currents, tides, and air moisture, and for mapping the topography of seafloor

using its gravitational effect on the shape of the ocean surface, that a number of

other agencies both foreign and domestic launched follow-on altimeter missions.

NASA continues to operate altimeters from space today, and each generation improves in its accuracy and scientific return.

Figure 1 shows one dramatic comparison of our knowledge of the ocean floor topography before and after the availability of satellite altimetry data. I recall 14

years ago serving as chief scientist on an oceanographic expedition to the South Pacific. One night we were steaming full speed ahead, when I called to the bridge from

the main lab to say that based on my processing of the satellite altimetry data, we

were headed straight towards a major undersea volcano that might have a very

shallow summit. The mate on watch responded that nothing was marked on the

navigational charts in the vicinity, but he agreed to slow down anyway. Less than

10 minutes later I heard a seaman yell out in the moonlight: ‘‘Breakers at 100 yards

and closing!’’ Because the mate had already backed down on the engines, the ship

was able to turn before crashing into the reef.

53

As a second, very different example, I will briefly mention NASA’s development

of instruments to measure ocean color to monitor the concentration of microscopic

plants in the upper ocean. These small plants, called phytoplankton, are responsible

for producing about half of the oxygen that we breathe and are the fundamental

basis for nearly all of the oceanic food chain. One teaspoon of seawater can contain

as many as a million of these fast-growing plants. NASA satellites have monitored

the temporal changes in the concentrations of these minute plants from 700 km in

space for a little more than two decades. This image of ocean color around Tasmania

south of Australia was acquired by the SeaWIFS satellite in just about one minute.

54

It would have taken 10 years of non-stop operations of an oceanographic ship to acquire the same amount of information, and all of the dynamic details, such as the

effect of eddies and currents on the distributions, would have been smeared out beyond recognition. These satellite data have shown the changing productivity of the

oceans in response to El Nin ̃ os, reduction in polar ice extent, intensity of seasonal

upwelling, and purposeful iron fertilization of the oceans. Such monitoring of the biological changes in the ocean help us to understand the consequences of both natural and man-made changes to the physical and chemical environment in which

these plants survive.

Highest Priority Unanswered Questions

In your second question, you asked me to list the highest priority unanswered

questions in Earth Sciences that can be addressed from space. Again, I will choose

an ocean example. Within the last decade, reconstruction of past climate records

from sparse data have demonstrated that the Pacific ocean temperature and productivity of fisheries all change in lock step to a climate rhythm that waxes and wanes

over decadal time scales Figure 3). This temperature variation, called the Pacific

Decadal Oscillation or PDO, involves temperature changes of just one to two degrees

and has also been well correlated with changes in sea level recorded by satellite altimeters. The Figure below shows that the ‘‘cool’’ phase of the PDO that ruled the

Pacific in the early 1960’s corresponded to the crash in the sardine fishery in my

own hometown, Monterey, CA. Landings of sardines fell from 3.6 million metric tons

in the 1930’s to less than 10,000 metric tons by 1965. During that same time, the

anchovy fishery offshore Peru became the biggest single-species fishery in the world.

In the mid-1970’s, the regime shifted, and the Peruvian anchovy fishery crashed.

The most recent regime shift which coincided with the 1997–98 El Nin ̃ o was captured by a number of satellite sensors: sea level (as measured by altimetry), ocean

temperature, and ocean plant production (as measured by ocean color) all shifted

together back into the cool (anchovy dominated) phase. So what forces cause the

shift? What rhythms govern the time scale? We don’t know, and its long life span

55

(20–30 years between regime shifts) means that we must be patient. But much is

at stake. The numbers of seabirds in Hawaii, monarch butterflies in Mexico, and

salmon in Oregon all appear to vary at the pace of the PDO—despite the fact that

the temperature variations are one to two degrees! We have only captured one shift

with high-quality records, but the hope is that with patience we will understand

how the system works, and hopefully avoid another fisheries crash like the one that

devastated Monterey.

Future Prospects

In your fourth question, you asked me about the future of NASA’s contributions

to Earth Sciences. I hope that I have already made the point that there are exciting

couplings emerging among the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the

ocean that point to a planetary metabolism that is best observed and most efficiently monitored from space. I have no doubt that upon further investigation, we

will find that many changes in the land-based biosphere are also controlled by similar rhythms, just as scientists have been able to demonstrate the connection between the El Nin ̃ o event in the eastern tropical Pacific and, for example, drought

in South Africa. Understanding exactly what will happen before it happens is clearly a powerful position to be in, because it enables us to take actions that benefit

from the regime shift, as opposed to those that suffer from it. I am personally very

excited about the prospects of monitoring salinity directly from space, in order to

get the second necessary component for understanding the thermo-haline circulation

that transports so much of the planets’ mass and energy. I see the potential for

monitoring the planet’s carbon cycle from space through both direct measurements

and better modeling of the thermohaline circulation. For example, we estimate that

the oceans take up a net 2,000 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, but that number is the small difference between two very large

numbers: 90,000 million tons of CO2 taken up by ocean plants and other processes

56

versus 88,000 million tons of CO2 returned to the atmosphere from the ocean

through the upwelling of deep ocean waters. Clearly our ‘‘balance of payments’’ (so

to speak) in terms of the carbon budget is very sensitive to both the physical and

biological states of the ocean, which in turn vary with both the El Nin ̃ o and the

PDO oscillations. There is so much to learn, and only when we have a better understanding of all of these cycles and where we are within them will we be able to

make wise policies to protect and sustain our Earth environment.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you on these critically important issues.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARCIA MCNUTT

Marcia McNutt is the President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in Moss Landing, California. MBARI is a nonprofit research laboratory funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to develop

and apply new technology for the exploration of the oceans.

McNutt is a native of Minneapolis, Minnesota, where she graduated class valedictorian from Northrop Collegiate School in 1970. In 1973, she received a BA degree

in Physics, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from Colorado College in Colorado

Springs. As a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow, she studied geophysics

at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, where she earned a

Ph.D. in Earth Sciences in 1978.

After a brief appointment at the University of Minnesota, she spent the next three

years at the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California, working on the problem of earthquake prediction. In 1982, she joined the faculty at MIT in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. At MIT, she was appointed the Griswold Professor of Geophysics

and served as Director of the Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied Ocean

Science and Engineering, a cooperative graduate educational program between MIT

and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

McNutt’s research ranges from studies of ocean island volcanism in French Polynesia to continental break-up in the Western U.S. to uplift of the Tibet Plateau. She

has participated in 15 major oceanographic expeditions, and served as chief scientist

on more than half of those voyages. She has published 90 peer-reviewed scientific

articles.

In 1997, McNutt took over the leadership at MBARI. McNutt has encouraged the

institution to tackle the sort of research problems that traditionally have been difficult to support under federal grants and contracts, such as high-risk ventures, development efforts with long lead times between conception and scientific return, and

interdisciplinary research. She has also encouraged her researchers to develop affordable technology for ocean exploration and observation that can be passed on to

the larger oceanographic community.

McNutt’s honors and awards include membership in the American Philosophical

Society and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1985, she was awarded

a Mary Ingraham Bunting Fellowship from Radcliffe College. She also holds honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Minnesota and from Colorado College.

In 1988, McNutt won the Macelwane Award from the American Geophysical Union,

presented for outstanding research by a young scientist. In 2003 she was honored

as the Scientist of the Year from the ARCS Foundation. In 2004, she received the

Outstanding Alumni Award from the University of California at San Diego. She is

a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, the

American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the International Association of Geodesy.

McNutt served as President of the American Geophysical Union from 2000–2002.

She also chaired the President’s Panel on Ocean Exploration, convened by President

Clinton to examine the possibility of initiating a major U.S. program in exploring

the oceans. She currently serves on numerous evaluation and advisory boards for

institutions such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Stanford University, Harvard

University, Science Magazine, and Schlumberger.

Chairman BOEHLERT. And thank you for your direct response to

our questions, but you left us with a bigger questions with your,

‘‘Breakers at 100 yards and closing,’’ and then you went off in a

new direction. I assume the ship did, too.

Dr. MCNUTT. The ship, because it had slowed down, was able to

turn in time, and we missed the reef.

57

Chairman BOEHLERT. And that permitted you to be here with us

today.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. Thank you.

Chairman BOEHLERT. You are welcome.

Dr. Williamson.

STATEMENT OF AND DR. RAY A. WILLIAMSON, RESEARCH

PROFESSOR, SPACE POLICY INSTITUTE, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Dr. WILLIAMSON. Chairman Boehlert, Ranking Minority Member

Gordon, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here

today to testify on NASA’s Earth science efforts and their impact

on U.S. citizens.

For nearly 25 years, I have followed and analyzed the development of U.S. Earth science and applications capabilities. During

that period, federal investments in Earth science research and

technology have led to powerful methods for improving weather

and climate forecasts, including advanced warnings of changing

weather, damaging weather, transportation planning and monitoring, agricultural planning, energy efficiency, and other

geographically- and environmentally-influenced activities.

Yet despite the substantial progress over the years, a lot more

can and should be done. And it should be done to assure that the

benefits of future Earth science research actually reach the American public. NASA’s Earth science research is critical to that goal.

It is a major national asset.

In recent research co-funded by NASA and NOAA, my colleagues

and I have explored the scope and scale of social and economic benefits provided by NASA’s Earth science research and by NOAA’s

applications of some of that research. We determined that realized

benefits were quite substantial, but not well quantified. Nevertheless, all available studies indicate, with little doubt, that improved

weather and climate forecasts have saved millions of dollars in

property damage, prevented the loss of life from severe storms, and

contributed millions or even billions of dollars to industrial efficiency.

Now other members of this panel have sited other examples of—

many examples of Earth science research. I want to add one that

is also—is on my list but hasn’t been mentioned, and that is the

significant science and technical support in the development of a

$3.5 billion, that is yearly, satellite and aerial remote-sensing data

and applications industry, which is now growing at a rate between

nine and 14 percent per annum.

At present, as I have mentioned, we cannot draw quantitative

conclusions about the total social and economic benefits of NASA’s

Earth science information. This means that benefit studies cannot

yet be used with confidence to guide future investments in space

systems. Since NASA is at the cutting edge of Earth science research in this country, it should focus more attention on this important subject in order to guide its future research.

Mr. Chairman, I see four major issues related to NASA’s ability

to support the country in Earth science research.

First, as has been mentioned, declining Earth science budgets

and delayed or canceled Earth science missions.

58

Second, U.S. leadership in the international Global Earth Observation System of Systems. We initiated that effort nearly two years

ago, and it stands to bring greater benefits than ever to the United

States and to the world. Congress should support that leadership.

Three, the general lack of quantitative and qualitative data on

the benefits of Earth science research. In other words, what are we

buying with our dollars, and how much has it gotten us.

Four, insufficient attention to developing the methods and paths

to NASA’s—take NASA’s research efforts into operations and to applications for end-users, in other words, the American public.

In summary, NASA’s Earth science program has provided substantial benefits to the United States. I see several ways in which

this committee could be especially helpful in assuring that the public actually reaps the benefits of this research.

One, eliminate the steady decline in the proportion of NASA’s

budget devoted to Earth science. NASA’s Earth science program

produces real benefits to the American public and should be maintained at a level that maintains strong U.S. leadership in Earth

science research.

Two, provide additional resources to support U.S. leadership in

the Global Earth Observation System of Systems.

Three, authorize NASA to direct a greater attention to the quantification of the benefits of Earth science research applications to

America’s industry and the public sector and the policy implications of those benefits.

Four, include an exploration of the issue of transition from Earth

science research to useful applications in the Committee’s next

hearing related to Earth science and applications.

In the eyes of many, Earth science research is not nearly as sexy

or as cutting-edge as exploration beyond Earth orbit. It doesn’t get

the headlines. It certainly doesn’t command the same sort of public

attention as the astounding results from the Hubble Telescope or

the Cassini Mission to Saturn. Nevertheless, Earth science research truly does involve exciting new technological developments

and may be, in the long run, vastly more important in direct impacts to the economy and the public welfare than these other examples.

Just imagine what our lives would be like if our Earth science

and meteorological satellites all suddenly failed. It is hard to imagine. Tomorrow’s weather would again become guesswork, and electricity would start to cost us more. Local and regional environmental trends would be next to impossible to determine and monitor, as we have heard. Ships in the North and South Atlantic

would be vastly more susceptible to iceberg collisions, and other

hazards, such as underground volcanoes. Even the security of our

homeland would be lessened and our defense efforts hindered. It is

not well understood, I think, how much of NASA’s Earth science

efforts have drifted in and supported our homeland security—or

could support our homeland security and our defense applications.

In short, we would stand to lose the substantial benefits that we

have already gained from Earth science research applications. Continued aggressive support of these R&D and operational efforts is

an essential component of the future of the economy and security

of our nation.

59

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present

my views on these issues.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Williamson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAY A. WILLIAMSON

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to be here today to

testify on NASA’s Earth science efforts and their impact on U.S. citizens. This is

an important and crucial subject in these days of increasingly tight federal budgets

for science and the development of useful applications of science results. For nearly

25 years I have followed and analyzed the development of U.S. Earth science and

applications capabilities, first for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment

and since 1995, as a Research Professor in the Space Policy Institute within The

George Washington University.

During those two and a half decades, the United States has made dramatic

progress in Earth science and applications. Investments in several geospatial technologies have contributed to the development of powerful methods for improving

weather and climate forecasts (including advance warnings of severe weather),

transportation planning and monitoring, agricultural planning, energy efficiency,

and other geographically—and environmentally—influenced activities.

Whether through NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, or though university

research funded by the National Science Foundation, the federal investment has

been key to bringing the science and the resulting methods and technologies to a

status that they can truly benefit not only the Federal Government including important defense and homeland security programs but also State and local authorities,

the private sector, and especially the average citizen. Yet, despite the substantial

progress over the years, a lot more can and should be done to make sure that the

benefits of science research actually reach the American public.

Benefits of Earth Science Research

Mr. Chairman, among other things, your letter of invitation to testify in this hearing asked about past accomplishments from the NASA Earth science program and

what future benefits can be expected. In a recent research project co-funded by

NASA and NOAA, my colleagues at the Space Policy Institute and I explored the

scope of social and economic benefits provided by NASA’s current Earth science research and NOAA’s applications of science results to weather and climate, and determined that in sum they were quite substantial. However, reliable estimates of

the total of such benefits do not exist and the available socioeconomic studies focus

on specific examples of benefits to particular industries, geographical areas, and

types of storms or damage. All of the available studies indicate with little doubt that

improved weather and climate forecasts have saved many millions of dollars in

property damage, prevented the loss of life from severe storms, and contributed further millions of dollars to industrial efficiency.

Both NASA and NOAA have made substantial contributions to the development

of more accurate, longer-term weather and climate forecasts. NASA has provided

the lead in new instrumentation, new understanding of the basic chemistry, physics,

and biology of Earth systems, and advances in modeling and data assimilation techniques. NOAA has provided long-term, routine observations focused on improving

forecast models and other decision support tools directly benefiting the end user of

weather and climate information. More specifically, benefits of NASA’s Earth

science research include, but are certainly not limited to:

1. A much deeper and broader scientific understanding of Earth systems and

how they function, which in addition to contributing to general scientific

knowledge, also provide the basis for applied use of this important knowledge;

2. Development of sophisticated satellite sensors capable of monitoring Earth

systems for the benefit of U.S. citizens;

3. Significant scientific and technical support in the development of a $3.5 billion dollar satellite and aerial remote sensing data and applications industry

that is now growing at a rate between nine and 14 percent per annum [1];

4. Data, models, and other decision support tools for weather and climate forecasts, including forecasts of damaging storms. Data from the TRMM satellite, for example, enable forecasts to predict hurricane paths and rainfall

amounts much more accurately [2].

When we examined the economics and related benefits literature related to

NASA’s Earth science research for quantitative economic studies or value analysis,

60

we found relatively few in-depth studies. Further, although most studies cited sizable benefits, each study was carried out using a different valuation methodology,

or was focused on a narrow element of the industry under study. Taken together,

these two factors mean that few quantitative conclusions can be drawn about the

total social and economic benefits of NASA’s Earth science information to U.S. industry and to Federal, State, and local government applications. This means that

benefits studies cannot yet be used with confidence to guide future investments in

space systems.

Yet our studies show that the supportable, qualitative benefits of Earth science

research are quite high to nearly all sectors of industry and to the public sector.

Since NASA is at the cutting edge of Earth science research in this country, it

should focus more attention on this important subject in order to assist in guiding

its future research agenda. This is not to say that expected practical benefits alone

should determine NASA’s future research agenda, since such an approach might stifle creative, breakthrough research efforts, but such benefits should play a role in

the decision process when difficult decisions are being made among projects.

The Electric Energy Industry

In order to understand the range of issues surrounding the development of benefits estimates, we focused on the potential social and economic benefits to the electric energy industry of improved weather and climate forecasts and other information derived from a combination of satellite data and other weather information.

This industry, on which the United States depends as a critical part of the infrastructure of economic growth and well being, relies deeply on accurate weather and

climate forecasts to estimate its customers’ future demand for electricity and the

company’s needed future fuel supplies. Because satellites operate either globally or

over very large regions, they provide synoptic views of meteorological conditions

over substantial portions of the globe that cannot be monitored cost-effectively from

aircraft or ground stations. In fact, some 90 percent of the data now used in weather

forecasts derive from satellite measurements.

Our study shows that electric utilities derive the greatest economic benefit from

weather forecasts that are accurate over 2–4 days. Improved 7–10 day weather forecasts would also provide additional economic benefit for utilities.[3] The companies

use monthly and seasonal weather forecasts for scheduling maintenance and for

meeting EPA-set yearly emission allotments. Longer-term forecasts assist in planning for new power generation facilities.

The industry also depends on such forecasts for severe weather warnings. As

noted above, most of the data inputs for these forecasts derive from satellites. The

latter data are especially important in geographic areas at risk from severe storms.

Our study also shows that the industry has need of other types of satellite data.

For example, some companies use NASA’s MODIS data to estimate snow cover and

Landsat data to assist in meeting environmental regulations on transmission line

rights of way. All of these data contribute an economic benefit to the industry,

which, in a competitive environment, will generally result in greater efficiencies and

in lower electricity prices to customers.

Satellite information can also provide significant benefits in planning and operating electric production dependent on renewable sources of energy such as wind,

sunlight, and water. At least seventeen (17) states have now mandated the use of

renewable energy sources in generating electrical power; in the future, other states

are likely to add similar regulatory requirements. Satellite-based remote sensing

can aid in realizing the potential of exploiting renewable energy resources by helping in the optimal location of generating facilities as well as in the operational decisions of generating facilities and electric power grid management. The future growth

and development of this increasingly important sector of energy generation would

be significantly assisted by NASA satellite data which can provide a principal ingredient for this effort to assist in the siting and operations of these energy sources.

More accurately measuring the economic value of the contribution of satellites

would help in guiding federal policy toward the electric utility industry. However,

the use of weather and climate forecasts and other satellite data in this industry

represents only part of the total benefit inherent in the environmental information

gathered by spacecraft. Many other weather-dependent economic sectors, including

water resources, agriculture, construction, recreation, and the general public would

also profit from a better understanding of the benefits and mechanisms of both

weather forecasting and the use of those forecasts. These economic benefits are most

evident in the ability of better weather forecasts to reduce the risks and uncertainty

in planning and performing a wide variety of economic and social functions.

61

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOS)

In July 2003, the United States invited other countries to enter into discussions

regarding the establishment of an Integrated Global Earth Observation System

(IEOS) that would gather as much information as possible from current Earth observation systems operating in space, the atmosphere, and on Earth, with the goal

of establishing comprehensive data and information systems to guide our management of planet Earth. That initial meeting was a resounding success and led to the

current 10-year Implementation Plan agreed to by more than 30 countries in July

of 2004.

The Implementation Plan, which consumed considerable effort in all countries

party to the agreement, is only the beginning of many years of additional effort to

bring the plan to fruition. NASA plays a very important role in this effort, supplying

new, more useful satellite data sets and assisting with development of models and

other tools to make the data sets truly useful.

This international system can provide significant additional benefits to the United

States, as well as to the rest of the world, in many ways such as reducing hunger

and providing better warnings of impending natural disasters. I note, for example,

that one of the chief tasks of GEOSS will be to focus on methods and means to reduce the impact to life and property from natural disasters, such as earthquakes

and Tsunamis. Satellite data and methodologies have an important place in this effort through their ability to gather real-time data on a worldwide basis which is one

very key element of the modeling, forecasting, and warning system.

Having established its leadership in GEOSS, the United States must now follow

through on its implementation. This will require sufficient funding for the U.S.

effort, the Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) both in continuing

NASA’s Earth science program at a robust level, and in supporting the involvement

of other agencies in the endeavor. As noted in a recent report by the American Meteorological Society, ‘‘there will have to be a long-term robust research program designed to add value to the operation of IEOS.’’[4]

Such support should also include research on the expected benefits from such expenditures and sustained efforts to include the inputs of information users—the

final stakeholders in the IEOS process. After all, there is only so much public money

to go around, especially in an era of increasing budget deficits, and understanding

the areas likely to return the greatest benefits will help NASA managers and Congress make better funding decisions among the many worthy research projects and

proposals.

Bringing Benefits to Users

Despite the importance of maintaining a vigorous Earth science program at

NASA, obtaining more accurate, more detailed scientific data from satellites does

not automatically lead to economic benefits to users of the information. The many

and complex steps between the development of forecasts and other decision support

tools from satellites mean that expected benefits are not always fully realized by

the end user. Hence, considerable effort must be expended to improve both the understanding of all parties involved in the process. This especially includes the communications between the research community and the ultimate users of the information.

Second, the transfer of Earth observations information from the producing agencies of the government to the end users must occur in a timely manner and in easily

used formats. At present this is not always the case. With better appreciation of the

roles and needs of the research, modeling, and end user communities, economic and

social benefits of weather information can improve. We need a series of efforts to

improve the flow of research results to information end users. I cite as an excellent

example, H.R. 426, the Remote Sensing Applications Act sponsored by Representative Mark Udall, which would institute a series of competitively awarded pilot

projects to encourage public applications of Earth observations data.

Yet, such efforts to incorporate beneficial Earth science results into the wider

community will not be enough. In general, NASA and the agencies that use its data

to improve their operations also need to focus on more effective technology transfer,

communication, and coordination among them. After all, NASA is in the research

and development (R&D) business, and the user agencies as well as the private sector mold NASA’s data and other research results to specific users in the transition

from research to operations. It is always easier and more accurate to quantify the

end-use applications than the R&D. Yet, they are so inter-linked in a ‘‘but for’’ chain

of events that benefits achieved by the end users would not and could not exist

without NASA’s research. NASA’s Earth Science Applications Program is on the

right track in centering its efforts on working with the user agencies to improve

62

their processes. However, it will need continued support and encouragement from

Congress and from within NASA itself.

Conclusions

In summary, NASA’s Earth science program has provided sustained benefits to

the United States. Nevertheless, in order to do more focused, cost-effective planning

for the next steps in Earth science research, the United States needs a comprehensive, long-term effort to estimate both the measurable economic impacts and nonquantifiable social benefits of Earth science research and applications.

I see several ways in which this committee could be especially helpful in assuring

that the public actually reaps the benefits of Earth science research:

1. Eliminate the steady decline in the proportion of NASA’s budget devoted to

Earth science. NASA’s Earth science program produces real benefits to the

American public and should be maintained at a level that maintains strong

U.S. leadership in Earth science research.

2. Provide additional resources to support U.S. leadership in GEOSS.

3. Authorize NASA to direct greater attention to the quantification of the benefits of Earth science research and applications to America’s industry and

public sector, and the policy implications of those benefits.

4. Include an exploration of the issue of ‘‘transition from Earth science research

to useful applications’’ in the Committee’s next hearing related to Earth

science and applications.

In the eyes of many, Earth science research is not nearly as ‘‘sexy’’ or as cuttingedge as exploration beyond Earth orbit. It certainly doesn’t command the same sort

of public attention as the astounding results from the Hubble telescope or the

Cassini Mission to Saturn. Nevertheless, though it may not be as much in the public

eye, Earth science research truly does involve exciting new technological developments and may be vastly more important in direct and near-term impacts to the

economy and the public welfare than these other examples. Modern society has

come to depend on the new knowledge and technologies that NASA’s Earth science

program provides. Just imagine what our lives would be like if our Earth science

and meteorological satellites all suddenly failed. Tomorrow’s weather would again

become guesswork and electricity would start to cost us more. Local and regional

environmental trends would be next to impossible to determine and monitor. Ships

in the North and South Atlantic would be vastly more susceptible to iceberg collisions and other hazards. Resource exploration and resource management would be

much more difficult to undertake. Even the security of our homeland would be lessened and our defense efforts hindered. Finally, we would be deprived of the benefit

of seeing for ourselves the satellite weather maps on the evening news or over the

Internet. In short, we would stand to lose the substantial benefits that we have already gained from Earth science research and application to the detriment of society. Continued aggressive support of these R&D and operational efforts is an essential component of the future of the economy and security of our nation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present my views on these important topics. I welcome questions or comments.

REFERENCES

1. Charles Mondello, George Hepner, and Ray A. Williamson, ‘‘10-Year Industry

Forecast: Phases I–III—Study Documentation,’’ Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 70, No. 1, January 2004, pp. 7–58, 2004.

2. National Research Council, Committee on the Future of the Tropical Rainfall

Measuring Mission, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on

Earth and Life Studies, ‘‘The Future of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission: Interim Report,’’ December 2004.

3. Ray A. Williamson, Henry R. Hertzfeld, and Avery Sen, ‘‘Weather and Climate, Satellite Data, and Socio-Economic Value in the Electric Energy Industry,’’ Unpublished report, soon to be available at http://www.gwu.edu/∼spi,

reports.

4. The American Meteorological Society, ‘‘IEOS/GEOSS Implementation

Issues,’’ Washington, DC: American Meteorological Society, December 2004.

BIOGRAPHY FOR RAY A. WILLIAMSON

Ray A. Williamson is Research Professor of Space Policy and International Affairs

in the Space Policy Institute, The George Washington University. He is Principal

63

Investigator for the NASA–NOAA funded study of the Socioeconomic Benefits of

Earth Science Research, and was recently Co-Investigator of the U.S. Department

of Transportation-funded Consortium: Disaster Assessment, Safety and Hazards for

Transportation Lifelines. He is co-author of a recent major report on the U.S. remote

sensing and geospatial market, and was Chair of the Space Policy and Law Department in the International Space University 2004 Summer Program.

From 1979 to 1995, he was a Senior Associate and Project Director in the Office

of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress. While at OTA, Dr. Williamson was

Project Director for more than a dozen major space policy reports on a variety of

space subjects.

Dr. Williamson is a faculty member of the International Space University (ISU),

Illkirch, France, teaching general space policy and Earth observations for the ISU

Masters of Space Studies and Summer Session programs. He has lectured on space

technology and policy in regional, national, and international forums.

Dr. Williamson received his B.A. in physics from the Johns Hopkins University

and his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Maryland, and spent two years

on the faculty of the University of Hawaii studying diffuse emission nebulae. He

taught philosophy, literature, mathematics, physics and astronomy at St. John’s

College, Annapolis for ten years, the last five of which he also served as Assistant

Dean of the College.

Dr. Williamson is a contributing editor to the journals Space Policy, and Imaging

Notes. From 1998–2001 he was a member of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering

Board of the National Academy of Engineering. He is also a Corresponding Member

of the International Academy of Astronautics.

Published books include:

2001: Commercial Observation Satellites: At the Leading Edge of Global Transparency, ed., with John C. Baker and Kevin O’Connell (RAND and ASPRS).

2001: Dual-Purpose Space Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for U.S. Policy-making, (Washington, DC: Space Policy Institute)

2001: Space and Military Power in East Asia: The Challenge and Opportunity of

Dual-Purpose Space Technologies, editor, with Rebecca Jimerson, (Washington,

DC: Space Policy Institute).

2000: Science and Technology in Historic Preservation, editor, with Paul Nickens

(Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers).

Recent articles, reports, and presentations include:

2004 ‘‘The Evolution of Earth Science Research from Space: NASA’s Earth Observing System,’’ (with John McElroy). In Space Science, Vol. 6 in Exploring the Unknown, Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program,

Washington, DC: NASA.

2004 ‘‘10-Year Industry Forecast’’ (of the U.S. remote sensing and geospatial industry) (with Charles Mondello and George F. Hepner), Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, January 2004, pp. 7–58.

2003 Co-Chair, Tracks to Space, (survey of space technologies, innovation strategies,

and major technology thrusts in China, Japan, Russia and the United States)

International Space University, Summer 2003.

2003 ‘‘Multi-criteria evaluation of safety and risks along transportation corridors in

the Hopi Reservation,’’ Applied Geography, (with D. Fuller, M. Jeffe, and D.

James) accepted for publication.

2003 ‘‘Weather Satellites and the Economic Value of Forecasts: Evidence from the

Electric Power Industry,’’ IA–03–IAA–3.1.03 (with H. Hertzfeld and A. Sen).

Presented at the 54th Annual Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Sept.

28–Oct. 3.

2002 ‘‘Rocketry and the Origins of Space Flight,’’ (with Roger Launius). In To Reach

the High Frontier: A History of U.S. Launch Vehicles, Lexington Kentucky, The

University Press of Kentucky, pp. 33–69.

2002 ‘‘The Biggest of Them All: Reconsidering the Saturn V,’’ In To Reach the High

Frontier: A History of U.S. Launch Vehicles, Lexington Kentucky, The University Press of Kentucky, pp. 301–333.

2002 Remote Sensing for Transportation Security, with Stanley Morain, Amelia

Budge, and George Hepner, National Consortium for Safety, Hazards, and Disaster Assessment, July 2002 (peer-reviewed report).

2002 ‘‘Lending A Helping Hand: Using Remote Sensing to Support the Response and

Recovery Operations at the World Trade Center,’’ Photogrammetric Engineering

and Remote Sensing, September, Vol. 68, No. 9, pp. 870–875.

2002 ‘‘Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Mapping

the Ancient Trails of Southeast Utah,’’ presented at the Eurisy Conference,

64

Space Applications for Heritage Conservation, Strasbourg, France, November 5–

8, 2002 (with Winston Hurst and Michael Jeffe).

2002: ‘‘The Socioeconomic Benefits of Earth Science and Applications Research: Reducing the Risks and Costs of Natural Disasters in the USA,’’ (with Henry

Hertzfeld, Joseph Cordes, and John Logsdon) Space Policy 18 (2002): 57–65.

2002 Remote Sensing for Transportation Security, with S. Morain, A. Budge, and G.

Hepner, National Consortium for Safety, Hazards, and Disaster Assessment,

July 2002 (report).

2002 ‘‘Legal and Policy Issues in Satellite Remote Sensing,’’ in Project 2001—Legal

Framework for the Commercial Use of Outer Space, Karl-Heinz Bo ̈ckstiegel, ed.,

Vol. 16, Schriften zum Luft- und Weltraumrecht, Ko ̈ln: Carl Heymanns Verlag

KG, pp. 165–178.

2001 ‘‘Using Geospatial Technologies to Enhance and Sustain Resource Planning on

Native Lands,’’ Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, February,

Vol. 67, No. 2, pp. 167–169.

2001: ‘‘Remote Sensing Policy and the Development of Commercial Remote Sensing,’’

in: John C. Baker, Kevin O’Connell, and Ray A. Williamson, eds., Commercial

Observation Satellites: At the Leading Edge of Global Transparency.

2001 ‘‘Satellite Remote Sensing and Transportation: Increasing Safety, Reducing

Hazards,’’ presented at the 52nd International Astronautical Congress, October

1–5, 2001, Toulouse, France, IAF–01–B.5.02 (with Douglas Fuller).

2001 ‘‘100-Eyed Argus: The Promise and Challenge of Commercial Remote Sensing,’’

presented at the American Society of Photogrammetry Annual Meeting, St.

Louis, MO, April 2001.

2001 ‘‘International Legal and Policy Issues in Commercial Remote Sensing,’’ presented at Project 2001, the International Colloquium, on the Law of Outer

Space, Koeln, Germany, May 29–31.

2000 ‘‘The Implications of Emerging Satellite Information Technologies for Global

Transparency and International Security’’ (with John C. Baker). In: Kristin

Lord and Bernard Final, Power and Conflict in the Age of Transparency. New

York: St. Martin’s Press.

1998 ‘‘Satellite Remote Sensing and Maintaining Environmental Security: The Market Perspective,’’ In G. Haskell and M. Rycroft, eds., New Space Markets,

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 283–290.

DISCUSSION

THE IMPORTANCE OF EARTH SCIENCE AT NASA

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Williamson, for focusing on

the very real and tangible benefits that the Earth science program

brings to us on the planet Earth.

You know, these aren’t the easiest of times in terms of budgetary

consideration, and we are not surprised when distinguished scientists come before us and say, ‘‘At least give us as much, if not

more.’’ It is impossible to honor all of those requests, but I am

somewhat concerned that NASA is being viewed, by some, as almost a single-mission agency, and it is much more than a singlemission agency. And I am proud to identify with the various missions of NASA, including the President’s Vision for Space Exploration.

But Mr. Diaz, thank you very much for your testimony, and I

noted, with particular interest, the comment that we are clearly

emphasizing a continuing commitment to Earth science and

NASA’s commitment to study the Earth science. And you say that

is clearly reflected in our national objectives, maybe in the objectives, but not as clearly reflected in the budget submission. And I

see programs being canceled. I see the fate of the GPM mission, the

Global Precipitation Mission, which the Academy says is extremely

important and we should go forward.

65

And so, you could have fooled me, I guess I say in response to

your assertion that this is a very high priority. It is important, but

it is not as high a priority as some of us would like.

And I would like to ask the other witnesses across the board: can

you give us a sort of insight as to your view of NASA’s particular

role in Earth science and why it is so important?

Dr. Moore.

Dr. MOORE. I think that you put it perfectly with the word

‘‘science,’’ that many of the extraordinary benefits that Dr.

Williamson mentioned, practical benefits, came from first the research, scientific basis. My best analogy—because the Earth

sciences are somewhat different from the astrophysics, say Hubble,

my best analogy is the medical sciences. I think the Earth sciences

are in the same relationship. They have a responsibility for science,

because they are scientists, as well as the applications of that

science.

My concern is that the scientific part may be undermined. I certainly recognize that we have to look at this collaboration with

NOAA. But it certainly cannot be a collaboration of centrally moving observational capabilities to NOAA and not, at the same time,

bringing new observational capabilities into the agenda with rich

scientific funding. That is what worries me is that there could be

a decline at NASA, and maybe even an increase at NOAA, but the

balance would not be right.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Dr. Killeen.

Dr. KILLEEN. NASA plays a crucial role in the fabric—the intellectual fabric of capacity and human capital in the Nation. I think

the AAAS mentions that NASA provides 34 percent of the funding

to our whole national Earth science capability, environmental

sciences capability. So it is a dominant agency. But its role is—the

focus, as Berrien points out, on the research, on the seed corn, on

the new technologies, on the innovation that then can be extended

and utilized more broadly to support society through operational

capabilities.

And I think the history has shown that it does that extremely

well. The doors have opened on plate tectonics, air pollution,

weather, climate, many of the examples you say could be filled up

with—there are numerous examples where we could point to

NASA’s innovation opening intellectual doors. I think we stand at

a point in history where the work of the past decades has suggested that we need to take this life science analogy and look at

the Earth as a system. We are capable of looking at the Earth as

a system and actually investigating its metabolism, its function

across a whole range of parameters and factors. NASA will support

that. NASA is probably the only agency in the world that has the

wherewithal, the track record, and the access to the human capital

to make that happen. And that is going to be something that is so

important for future generations, and it is going to drive economic

benefits.

If you think about the U.S. economy, roughly B of it has some

sensitivity to environmental change: leisure, tourism, energy,

transportation. And we are going to need decision support systems

66

to support those enterprises that take into account the changes

that occur locally, regionally, and globally as well.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Dr. Solomon.

Dr. SOLOMON. First of all, I agree with what Dr. Moore and Dr.

Killeen have said.

To me, NASA’s special role is the combination that they bring of

scientific exploration and discovery and technological innovation.

And I don’t think they are matched anywhere in the federal system

or even internationally. That gives them a special perspective, an

opportunity to contribute to scientific issues.

And as previous speakers have said, the scientific issues driving

Earth science are highly relevant to all of us who live on this planet. If we are trying to understand why earthquakes occur, why—

where they do and when they do, from a purely scientific standpoint, that is a first-order question in Earth dynamics. But if you

are living on a fault in California or Colorado or Oregon, it is more

than an academic issue. The same thing can be said about other

natural hazards where space can provide a perspective, and what

is needed are new ideas, new technologies, new observation tools

to open up the discoveries that will allow us to understand these

systems. That is what NASA does best. And I see NASA playing

a special role for continued investigation of the Earth for the foreseeable future.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you.

Dr. McNutt.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yeah. NASA is simply the only civilian agency that

has the required capacity, tradition, and track record to undertake

the technology development to fuel tomorrow’s discoveries. Imagine

if we had a business community in the U.S. and we cut it off from

the venture capital completely. And imagine what would happen to

our business community. That is exactly what you would be doing

to Earth sciences. NASA provides that venture capital.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I like your style. You put it in very practical terms. But I want to make sure that everyone understands

this is not some esoteric discussion among scientists. This is something that has very real, very practical implications on our daily

lives, as Dr. Williamson pointed out, in terms of billions of dollars

in economic activity and saved lives and hundreds of millions of

dollars in saved—Dr. Williamson?

Dr. WILLIAMSON. Oh, I think to echo some of my colleagues’

points, the—a lot of the benefits that I have talked about in my

testimony and other people this morning and at other times have

discussed, started the understanding that you needed to pursue

those practical benefits down the line really started at NASA. And

you know, I know when I worked as a staff member for the Congress a few years ago, I used to get a little impatient with scientists, my fellow scientists, who would come to us at the Office of

Technology Assessment or in one of these hearings and argue for

more money for science for the sake of science.

But in fact, I don’t see that happening. I see a very reasoned exposition in the National Research Council report that actually looks

in detail at why one wants to support certain kind of critical missions. And the GPM is certainly one of those.

67

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Here is the situation. We have a call of the House for a vote. We

will have time for Mr. Gordon’s questions, and then we will take

a brief recess and hope we can get back in a timely manner. And

I would urge all of my colleagues to return. This is a very important hearing.

Mr. Gordon.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

EARTH SCIENCE CUTS

Mr. Diaz, I recognize that your job here today is to defend the

cuts and cancellations that NASA has made to the Earth science

budget, and you may feel like the victim of a drive-by shooting, but

these are all very legitimate concerns and questions. And they really—they are predicated on the fact, as Mr.—or Dr. Killeen pointed

out, that NASA has a great history and providing—and you have

been a part of it, of research that is real-world to the country, and

that we are afraid that this research and billions of dollars in foundation could be irrevocably damaged here in this window. So these

are legitimate concerns.

With that said, I would like to better understand, if you could

help me, NASA’s rationale for making some of the cuts. For example, NASA’s fiscal year 2006 funding request for the Combined

Earth-Sun Science Program is some $645 million lower than the

funding plan for fiscal year 2006 that was contained in NASA’s fiscal year 2004 funding request. That is a 24-percent reduction in

NASA’s Earth-Sun Science fiscal year 2006 funding plan in just

two years. Why did NASA decide to cut its planned funding request

for the Earth-Sun Science Program so much, and where did the

NASA-diverted funds go?

Or take another example. Just last year, then-Administrator

O’Keefe told the American Meteorological Society that we hope to

accelerate the flight of Glory Mission to as early as 2007 to provide

earlier availability to this space-based pilometer. Yet we now find

that fiscal year 2006 budget request that NASA is, in fact, canceling the Glory spacecraft and has no clear plan for flying Glory

instruments any time soon. Was Administrator O’Keefe misinformed, or was the money intended for Glory diverted to some

other purpose?

And finally, I mention NASA’s decision to cut the out-year-funding plan for Earth science contained in last year’s budget request

by a significant amount. Why, given all the stresses on NASA’s

Earth science budget, did NASA decide to cut NASA’s out-year

funding plan for Earth science instead of taking the alternative

course of slowing the pace of new exploration initiative? Mr. Diaz?

Mr. DIAZ. Well, there are a lot of questions there. And if we have

the time, I would like to first start by saying I find myself in this

unusual position of being refreshed by the observations of everyone

in the panel who have talked about the wonderful success that

NASA has achieved. And as you said, it does feel good to have been

part of that.

And yet I also find myself in a situation where I can understand

the concern, because of the change in strategy that is taking place.

68

The reason that I feel more confident is largely because I believe

that when we come out of this transition, we will be much better

positioned to do the work that we have been doing in the past than

we would otherwise. What has been said is that we have made

major investments over the past 15 to 20 years, and that is exactly

correct. But a lot of that investment, I would hesitate to say how

much of it, has gone into what I call infrastructure, platforms that

hold instruments. The wonderful achievements that people are

talking about here have to do with the achievements associated

with the instruments that fly on these platforms. The platforms

themselves are very similar to the ones that—if not identical, to

the ones that NOAA flies for operational programs.

And so the strategy that we are on is one that would try to minimize the investment that needs to be made by the government

overall in infrastructure to support these instruments. And many

of the changes that——

Mr. GORDON. Well, is NOAA going to be given the funds to go

along with these additional——

Mr. DIAZ. NOAA already flies these platforms, and——

Mr. GORDON. So there is no additional expense that will be incurred?

Mr. DIAZ. As I said in the past, I don’t have the particulars with

respect to the NOAA budget, and I cannot tell you whether or

not——

Mr. GORDON. Well, don’t you think—I mean, that is—you are

saying you are going to the swimming pool, but you didn’t check

to see if there is any water in it.

Mr. DIAZ. Well, I—we know that they are building the platforms,

and it is not clear to me how much money they are spending on

them, but they are building the platforms.

Mr. GORDON. Well, one of the things that I have been very encouraged by your conversation is you want to have an openness——

Mr. DIAZ. Right.

Mr. GORDON.—and a dialogue. Well, don’t you think part of this

dialogue ought to be checking with NOAA and with the Administration? I mean, but even if what you are saying can be done and

that there—and that basic science and applied science can be combined here, it still has to be paid for.

Mr. DIAZ. Yes.

Mr. GORDON. So I mean, I am not even sure that, again, it can

be consistent. But even—but if your premise is correct, don’t you

think you need to check and see whether or not it is going to be

funded and—as part of this dialogue you are having?

Mr. DIAZ. Well, I think what I—well, we have assurances and

have gotten assurances that the development of the platforms has

been funded and that there is space on them for us. But I just use

that as a backdrop trying to get to answering your question.

There were—in the course of the past two fiscal years, your numbers are correct, and we have reduced overall in the Earth System

Science as well as the Sun-Earth Connection combined, by that

amount of money. If you look at what we did in Earth sciences

alone, that is what was Earth science in 2004, because I can’t compare—because they weren’t combined in 2004, there was a reduction taken in 2005 and virtually no reduction in 2006.

69

I can answer the question about the details. I am not sure that

you have the time at this point.

Chairman BOEHLERT. When we have—we do have to go, because

we are down to four minutes.

Mr. DIAZ. Okay.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will resume, at this point, when we

come back. But I just would like to observe, you talked about the

handoff——

Mr. DIAZ. Right.

Chairman BOEHLERT.—and I am enough of a track man to know

it takes two hands for a handoff. And one hand is extending to

hand off, but there has got to be a recipient with a plan and a program and the funding behind the program. And so—and we don’t

see that.

So we will take a brief recess and be back as soon as possible.

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will resume, and before recognizing

Mr. Calvert, before we were so rudely interrupted by the House demanding our presence there, we were having a very important discussion. And there is a minute left on Mr. Gordon’s time, and then

we will go to Mr. Calvert.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NASA AND NOAA

Mr. GORDON. I guess quickly, Dr. Moore, would you like to respond to Mr. Diaz’s comments?

Dr. MOORE. Yes. I think I know where you are going or what you

are thinking there. This relationship between NASA and NOAA, is

that what we are——

Mr. GORDON. And also following up on the Chairman’s earlier

comment. In layman’s terms, what are the particular sciences that

we could lose? I mean, are we going to have, in terms of weather,

agriculture, you know, what are some of the real-world——

Dr. MOORE. Right.

Mr. GORDON.—potential losses?

Dr. MOORE. As I tried to say earlier, I think that the partnership, the long-standing partnership between NASA and NOAA is

one of the most valued aspects of the United States government.

It is almost unique in the world, and it is extraordinary. And I applaud anything to strengthen that.

However, I think we have to also recognize that they are, by

mandate, very different agencies. NASA is a research and development agency. NOAA is an operational agency. NOAA has research

capability, but it is far, far smaller than the significant, as Dr.

Killeen pointed out, this very significant research capability of

NASA. My analogy, to use the medical one again, would be if we

somehow said we were going to move—essentially remove the NIH

and rely on the hospitals to do the research, granted hospitals do

research, we have research hospitals, but we certainly need the

NIH. I think in the same vein that the Earth science program at

NASA is central for NOAA’s long-term viability that the—that all

of the observational capability, such at NOAA, first came through

NASA and that that train—or that theme should not stop. The

70

areas of research we are just beginning to understand how the atmosphere is changing.

The point that Dr. McNutt made on climate variability, all of this

has come about in the last 10 or 12 years, and we still are just beginning to understand it.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Calvert, the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee

that has responsibility for the wonderful programs within NASA.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make a couple of comments and to ask a question.

TRANSFERRING EARTH SCIENCE FROM NASA TO NOAA

I feel compelled to come to the defense of NOAA and the United

States Geological Survey. I used to chair that Subcommittee before

Mr. Ehlers and—for a number of years, and I found the people at

NOAA and USGS to be top-rate, and some of the—and there is

science taking place there. I think that some folks are saying

that—if you would listen to some of the panelists, you wouldn’t

think that there is any other science taking place other than

NASA.

And I would like to ask Mr. Diaz a question. Has the Administration ever said that they are going to get out of the Earth science

business?

Mr. DIAZ. No, they have not.

Mr. CALVERT. No, that is not what I have heard you say. You are

talking about a national policy on Earth science, which I think is

an important thing. We a number of agencies—and I also serve on

the Armed Services Committee. The United States Navy is doing

a tremendous amount of research. We have the National Reconnaissance Office. It is—it puts up satellites. As a matter of fact, we

have one coming up next month and another one the month after

that. We have a number of agencies doing work, and I suspect

those agencies are not talking to one another. I know they are not,

because I looked at a map of underwater—of the obstacles that we

deal with underwater. I suspect the Navy has done a lot of things

that we, unfortunately, can’t talk about or look at that are significantly more involved than what NOAA has done or NASA has

done, for obvious reasons.

And so we need to have more interaction, so a national policy,

I don’t think, is a bad thing to pursue. You know, change is hard

in this town. And I do agree with the Chairman that we should

never make strategic decisions based on budget constraints. Strategy should always come first. That should always—whether it is on

the aeronautics side and having a vision for aeronautics as we have

on a vision for space, which I certainly support. We ought to have

a vision for Earth science and how we deal with that in the future.

But Mr. Diaz, I want to give you the opportunity, because you

are kind of outnumbered here today, to defend the Administration’s

position and how we can improve science and improve the interagency cooperation, which is not taking place today.

Mr. DIAZ. Well, as I said, I do find myself in this unusual position. Having worked with Berrien Moore for so many years, it is

heartening to hear him say that—how much we value what NASA

71

has done, and he didn’t say anything in his last statement that I

disagree with.

I will say that I think there has been an awful lot of change taking place and an awful lot of dialogue between the agencies that

is documented in at the program level and is also documented in

assignments that come from nationally-directed programs. But we

do not have a single place to point to that talks to the strategy that

NASA and NOAA are following to transition to this new environment. There is no intention that I have seen, nor do I see any evidence, of NASA abandoning Earth science. This is about

transitioning to a different way of doing it.

Mr. CALVERT. As I see it, a better way of managing the resources, and to come out——

Mr. DIAZ. Absolutely.

Mr. CALVERT.—with a—hopefully, a better outcome. I agree that

NASA should not be a single-purpose agency, but it should have

priorities, and I think its number one priority is space exploration.

And the technology to get the satellites in orbit at low-Earth orbit

or whatever orbit we choose to put it in to make sure that we have

the ability to get NOAA or any other agency that we need to deal

with the ability to do the type of science that we are looking at.

And so I just wanted to come to the defense of NOAA and the

United States Geological Survey and the job that they are doing,

and I think they are competent folks over there. And I hope that

as we go through this process, that we recognize the good work

that they are doing and look at ways we can do a better way of

interagency cooperation.

One last point. NASA lost a considerable amount of business in

the last number of years, I have only been Chairman of this committee for a little while, to the Department of Defense. For whatever reason, the Department of Defense took it upon themselves to

do research in aeronautics and space design outside of the NASA

preview. That was unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. And for whatever

reason, we need to help rebuild that relationship. And I think we

have a new Administrator that can look at the entire scope of what

NASA has done in the past, where have they gone and maybe lost

their sight of where they need to go. I am an old business guy. I

believe in business plans. And get them back on track. And I don’t

think the Administration is trying to hurt the Earth science industry. I think they are trying to help it.

So with that, thank you for letting me have the time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.

And just let me say how much we value your continued contributions to this committee and its deliberations. I couldn’t agree more

with you that the national policy is very good in theory, and I want

to have that national policy. And Dr. Moore, I hope in the study

you might maybe give us a road map on how we accomplish this.

I mean, a national policy makes sense for a nation. But maybe it

is NASA doing the basic research and maybe the applied research

is done elsewhere. That is part of a coherent, national policy. But

while I am comforted by your continued commitment to Earth

science, the fact of the matter is when you said to Dr. Moore how

much you welcome his comments on how valued Earth science is,

I welcome those comments, too. And I know how valuable it is.

72

That is why I hate to see the Earth science budget significantly reduced because of the great value in very real terms to the Nation

and its important impact on the Nation in practical terms, not just

theoretical discussions among scientists.

With that, let me recognize the distinguished gentleman, Mr.

Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member. I would like to thank you for the panel that we have assembled, the witnesses. Outstanding, each. And I think that you have

given a neophyte a wealth of information, and I greatly appreciate

what you have shared with us.

GLORY

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to refer to a table from the

NAS report, Table 3.1, styled canceled, descoped, or delayed Earth

observation missions. And I would like to just mention a few things

from this table, and I shall do so quickly.

Missions, global perception—pardon me, precipitation, measurement, this one is unclear, atmospheric surroundings—excuse me,

soundings from geostationary orbit canceled. Ocean vector winds,

canceled. LandSat data continuity, reformulated. And then Glory is

listed as unclear. I would like to focus on Glory, because there is

much talk about global warming. And there seems to be the notion

that it really does not exist. I was hoping that Glory would give us

additional feedback such that we could make some intelligent comments about this global warming debate that has been raging in

our country. My understanding is that Glory was to be a standalone mission in 2008. Thereafter, there was talk about a piggyback mission, that is with another mission on-board, with another

mission. And I see now that there is an NAS Committee interim

report, which addresses the possibility of it being suitable or capable of being timely placed with another satellite.

So my question is, after much consternation, are we going to

have a Glory mission, and if so, what type of timeline should we

expect?

Mr. DIAZ. Well, I assume that is for me.

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIAZ. Okay.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Diaz.

Mr. DIAZ. Okay. Yes, we do have plans in place and are developing the elements for a Glory mission. The current situation is

that the budget that we have supports the development of the instruments for a Glory mission with the expectation that we were

going to fly those on a—one of the NPOESS satellites. In the current situation, with the review ongoing of the NPOESS satellites,

we decided to continue the development of a spacecraft, which is

a spacecraft that was partially built and is being built by Orbital

Sciences here in the Washington area. We are continuing that with

the expectation that over the course of the next several months we

will make a decision as to whether or not to fly Glory as a standalone mission or to fly the instruments on a bus. If we fly it on a—

as a stand-alone mission, we will need to complete the development

of that spacecraft and then decide how to get it launched. But want

to assure you that we intend to fly the Glory mission and are conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
73

tinuing to develop the instrument. There is some uncertainty about

how we would ultimately get the instruments into space.

Mr. GREEN. And a quick follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

How have we budgeted the mission, because if we are not sure

that it will be stand-alone or piggyback, how are we managing to

budget that?

Mr. DIAZ. In terms of the runout, we have budgeted it, excuse

me, as if it was going to fly on one of the NPOESS satellites. In

terms of this fiscal year, the budget that we have available will

support the continuation of the bus development. And what we will

have to do, if we decide to fly it as a stand-alone, is to change the

budget in the out-years during the fiscal year 2007 budget process.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

And I just want to make sure you appreciate the fact that this

committee doesn’t think that global climate change, global warming

is a figment of somebody’s wild imagination. I might point out, neither does the President. He recognizes it as a serious issue, as he

should. But whether you are for or against on that argument, the

fact of the matter is people on both sides recognize the importance

of what Mr. Diaz and his people are doing and we are hearing from

these distinguished scientists confirming the importance of that.

Thank you very much.

The Chair is pleased to recognize Dr. Schwarz.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE EFFECTS OF EARTH SCIENCE CUTS ON UNIVERSITIES

To my fellow University of Michigan Wolverine, Dr. Killeen,

many universities have programs in Earth science and topics and

subjects that are pertinent to Earth science that are pretty well developed, University of Michigan, of course, being one of them, but

there are so many others. If NASA continues to decrease the size

of what it does in Earth science and in the Earth sciences, how is

that going to affect programs in places like Madison or Cambridge

or Berkeley or Durham, New Hampshire or other places? Is this a

deleterious effect, or does life go on without NASA going heavily

into Earth science and aggressively into Earth science.

Dr. KILLEEN. I think that there is a potential for a deleterious

effect on the development of human capital in universities, such as

University of Michigan, and other places. And I note that NASA

has 34 percent of the national investment in Earth sciences. Most

of that is—the predominant part of that is in satellites, platforms,

database management systems. But there is also a very significant

fraction in the research and analysis programs that extend into the

research laboratories in the universities and from graduate students, undergraduate research topics, curriculum development efforts as well. And those are very vitally important programs, I

think, across the Nation. So the research and analysis. And I think

at the last reckoning that NASA is, like, ranked number third in

terms of federal agencies in supporting that element of the program.

These are important for our students as they come forward. I

used to teach at the undergraduate level non-science majors, Earth

74

system sciences, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that

these young people coming forward in the universities are very interested in how the Earth functions, what is going on, and how

they can play a role. We used to talk about the need for a pre-life

course sequence as well as a pre-med. course sequence in these

major research universities. And the content of those curricular elements are similar to the slides that we have been showing today:

sea surface, oceans, atmospheres, tectonic plates. NASA has provided really exciting content that is enrapturing our youth and

building this human capital, and it is taking place across the country in research university campuses, certainly.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Can I deduce from that that there would be

fewer—and Dr. Moore, please jump in, if you feel like you would

like to, there would be fewer graduate students, post-doctoral scholars, research scientists on campuses were NASA to back off in their

Earth science pursuits?

Dr. KILLEEN. Well, I will defer to Dr. Moore, but certainly if the

funding goes down, in terms of research grants to university campuses, and NASA is a substantial contributor to this arena, then

there would be fewer opportunities for graduate students to come

forward. And those are the very individuals that we expect to design and implement the new technologies that will be transferred

to NOAA operationally 10, 15, 20 years hence. So I think there is

a pipeline of talent issue here.

Dr. MOORE. Well, we have already begun to sense the pressure

on the research and analysis budget and how that pressure translates to the availability of graduate fellowships. And even though

the fellowships say budgetarily are extremely small, under pressure, this begins to be felt, and we have already experienced it.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, sir.

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield back.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Doctor.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Udall, who had a wonderful opening

statement, and is going to spare us the reading of it. It will be inserted in the record with all of the other wonderful opening statements.

But now we will go with you for your wonderful questions.

Mr. UDALL. You can all see why it is such a pleasure and how

wonderful it is to serve with Chairman Boehlert.

I did want to, in particular, welcome Dr. Killeen, and remind my

good friend from the State of Michigan that Dr. Killeen now lives

in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado, and I don’t think he has

gone to the dark side and supports the Colorado University teams,

but——

Mr. SCHWARZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Were he still in Michigan, I believe he lived in Dexter, and he

would be a constituent of mine.

Dr. KILLEEN. No need to fight over me.

LANDSAT

Mr. UDALL. I want to direct my questions at Mr. Diaz on the

LandSat situation, but I did want to acknowledge Dr. McNutt, in

particular, on the second page of your statement, where you talk

about some of the long-term lessons you have put into place. And

75

I think the Committee and the community would be well-advised

to take a look at what you have discovered. So thank you. And I

think it—there is an application across the board.

Mr. Diaz, I mentioned LandSat, and as you know, the current

LandSat 7 is now past its design life and operating in a degraded

condition. How much longer do you—your engineers estimate that

LandSat VII will remain operational?

Mr. DIAZ. If you don’t mind, I have Dr. Asrar here with me who

has been intimately involved in that, and I would ask him to come

to the table and answer that specific question, if you don’t mind.

Mr. UDALL. If you could do it with dispatch, it would be appreciated.

Mr. DIAZ. Yeah. He is right here.

Mr. UDALL. We would like to hear from him.

Dr. ASRAR. Thank you very much. My name is Ghassem Asrar,

the Deputy Associate Administrator in the Science Mission Directorate.

We have been working with our partners, NOAA and USGS, to

do a complete assessment of the life expectancy, the reliability of

the system. The current projection is that probably maybe two or

three more years, although those are estimates. The same estimates that were used for LandSat 5, and we had projected LandSat

5 will not last longer than, probably eight or nine years. This is—

I believe it is celebrating its 15th birthday. So these are engineering estimates. Probably, maybe two to three more years. And then

in parallel, we are looking at other sources of data to mitigate any

risks associated with the discontinuity, should it come to pass. And

so we are preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, as we

will work our way toward the transitioning the LandSat capability

into the national operational infrastructure.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you for enlightening us in that particular

point.

I noticed concern about a gap that may be produced that you are

speaking to, but I want to ask Dr. Williamson, what user groups

would be most affected if there is a gap in the flow of this data.

Dr. WILLIAMSON. Well, there is a wide variety of user groups

throughout the world that use LandSat data for environmental

monitoring. As you know, the swath width and the resolution size

of each pixel in the image is much broader than it is for, say, the

commercial high-resolution satellites. And that has an advantage,

if you are doing exploration of the coasts and understanding largescale issues that are taking place along the coasts or inland. In

your State of Colorado, for example, LandSat imagery was very important in the fires that occurred, what, now three years ago, I

believe——

Mr. UDALL. Yes.

Dr. WILLIAMSON.—just south of you. And it—those images really

helped to understand the scope of the fire and the way it was progressing over a considerable amount of time. So you find a tremendous usage of those data throughout the world in similar kinds of

projects. So losing LandSat would be a serious issue in part because it is a unique instrument. There aren’t other instruments exactly like it. So it means that on the operational side, it becomes

very difficult to take the data that you have been used to using

76

from LandSat and then substitute other data and get the equivalent results. Other examples I could site would be down in Brazil,

for example, watching the—tracking the deforestation in Brazil.

The same thing in Russia and other parts of the world. And as has

been already said, the environmental—major environmental

changes that take place elsewhere in the world affect us as well.

And we need to understand those better.

Mr. UDALL. Yeah. Well, the old saying, ‘‘We are all downwind

from everybody else in the world.’’

If the Chairman might indulge me just for another question directed back at NASA and Mr. Diaz.

Given what we have heard and I think what we understand

about LandSat, what are you doing to address this potential data

gap, and how much money are going to budget to obtain LandSatlike data from alternative sources?

Mr. DIAZ. Again, Dr. Asrar is involved in actually working that,

so let me ask him to come back and talk about that.

Mr. UDALL. If I could, too, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit

some additional questions to NASA——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Sure. That would be——

Mr. UDALL.—along this line of questioning, but if we have a

minute to hear——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Sure. As all Members of the Committee

are going to be afforded that opportunity, and we would appreciate,

obviously, timely responses.

Doctor?

Dr. ASRAR. Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for the opportunity.

Given the sort of broad reach of LandSat, its utility throughout

the government, we at NASA haven’t been doing this unilaterally.

We have been working with all of our sister agencies and the Offices of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a national plan for dealing with the potential data gap. And all of the

users are at the table: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior, and NOAA. So the plan

that we are developing, given that it is a work in progress, we

thought of scoping what is required and what are the sources of

data and which part of the data could be obtained through international cooperations. For example, the 33-year record of LandSat

data is something that everybody is benefiting from. But there are

other nations, like India and, as of late, China, who have developed

comparable capabilities. They have these type of observations. On

the EOS spacecraft, there is an instrument called ASTER that has

comparable LandSat capability with much reduced swath, about 60

kilometers. We have another technology demonstration satellite on

orbit called Earth Observer I that has comparable LandSat capabilities. So we are going to bring all of the data sources together,

regardless of whether the government-owned or internationals to

fulfill the LandSat data continuity needs, and depending on what

are the best solutions, identify the resources within the government

to fulfill that. The major commitment is to maintain the continuity

and whatever resources are required to make it happen, I am pretty sure our government will be up to supporting that.

77

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Doctor. I think we are all concerned on

this panel that data conversion, that data integration is still a very

complicated and challenging one, and I think Dr. Williamson put

it very, very well.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much.

The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I don’t want to destroy the wonderful

spirit that we have at work here, but I do have some—a couple

pointed questions, maybe. And Mr. Chairman, it might be nice to

have at least one person on the panel who can actually stimulate

the discussion by having a different point of view. And just my suggestion in the future.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We always rely on you for that.

CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. I just can’t tell you how, you know,

just enlightening it is to understand that we are still considering

another global warming mission. You know. Glory. I mean, just—

I mean, how many billions of dollars do we have to spend on this?

I mean, is it actually going to change global warming to have yet

another satellite up there? My calculations since I have been here,

that we have spent tens of billions of dollars trying to prove global

warming, and every budget that we pass has this. And let me note

something that happened, Mr. Chairman, when I first—not when

I first came here, but sort of a few years into my tenure on this

committee. A very high ranking official from NOAA came to see me

to tip me off that El Nin ̃ o was going to happen in six months and

it would hit California. You know, we would hit it in about six

months and the effect that it would have. And let me note he was

exactly right. And that was—it really impressed me. And I said,

‘‘Gee, these guys really are focusing on some things that are useful.’’ And being a surfer and everything like that, I really wanted

to know the water was going to be warmer and the—more fish and

there might be some forest fires because of the rain coming down,

et cetera.

Anyway, the same fellow, by the way, in a hushed voice, leaned

over to me and said, ‘‘Just to let you know, but don’t tell anybody

that I told you, but all of these calculations about global warming

that they have made so far, they haven’t taken into consideration

the cloud cover on the days that the temperatures were taken. You

think that might have something to do with whether or not they

have a valid calculation?’’ And then—he was afraid to say that in

public, but he sort of whispered in my ear. I just—you know, it just

amazes me when you hear that so much what I would have to say

is just fear, expressions of fear when the President starts talking

about making just a restructuring of how we house and where we

put research in the government.

Let me ask Dr. McNutt. I mean, you stated—I mean, this goes—

this is something that I just would like to know how you justify

this that somewhere from its root of the technological program that

feeds innovation, the program would eventually die and wither—

or wither and die. Aren’t there just research programs that don’t

have to also have people who put machines together? And what

78

makes you think that all research is going to wither and die if not

tied directly to the technology that implements the research?

Dr. MCNUTT. What I meant by that is that if we—all we need

to do is take the same sensors we already have and continue to fly

them in space with no changes, no upgrading, then we probably

could hand those off to another agency and put it just in maintenance mode. But I don’t think anyone on this panel would support

the idea that there won’t be newer and better measurements that

really need to be made to answer some of those questions. For example, you bring up the issue of cloud cover. Cloud cover has to

do with aerosols. Aerosols are one of the most, right now, unknown

parts of the climate formula. And putting new sensors in space

would allow us to take some of those hushed questions that you are

hearing behind closed doors and actually answer them so that we

can make predictions for climate change.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I guess all of those clouds, you know, in the

past that people talked about before we had aerosol cans were just

not really relevant to whether or not the Earth has changed its

weather patterns over these last——

Dr. MCNUTT. Well, we are talking about aerosols not in aerosol

cans, so to speak.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Let me note that other testimony that

I have heard here indicates that a lot of our investment that we—

that even NASA already has in space, you know, our Earth Observing System, et cetera, that we have enormous unanalyzed data.

Isn’t this a travesty that here we are talking about how important

it is to keep NASA in the loop, but here it has organized itself in

a way that the product of what we are getting out of the investment, a huge amount of this data remains unanalyzed? Why—

wouldn’t we think that perhaps it might be better to give some

other agency that is actually more oriented towards analysis and

research some authority here rather than just keep giving it to the

engineers that run NASA? Go right ahead. I mean——

Dr. MOORE. I would like to comment on that.

I think that there was a time when your statement was true. But

I don’t think that is the current situation. And I believe that it is

not the current situation because of actions of NASA and also of

the technological infrastructure of the United States and the planet. Today, undergraduates and high school students and graduate

students, and even aging professors, look at NASA data every day

on our desktop. It is remarkably easy to analyze these fire hoses

of data, which 10 or 20 years ago, with punch cards, it was a very

tough thing to do. So in a sense, modern society has caught up with

Earth observation. And I do think you were correct in your assessment, but I don’t believe it is where we are today.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But does that still mean NASA has to continue to be the vehicle? I mean, I just—it——

Dr. MOORE. I think the issue here is that NASA is the primary

R&D Earth observing organization. And as such——

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But the question is whether it should be or

not. I mean, when we are talking about—NASA has its missions,

you know, and here we have—it has evolved into what it is today.

79

And when—I don’t imagine there is anyone on the panel that

would disagree with a hypothesis that there is some research that

the government pays for that is less deserving than other research.

I mean, I imagine there are—even among a panel that is so committed to assign money for research, there is some research that

would be better—the money might be used elsewhere. Well, when

you restructure—and like the President is talking about, that is

when you get rid of things that aren’t worthy of the investment.

That is where you make your choices as to what should have priority. And if you never restructure, it is just going to continue like

it is, which is yet another global warming project, yet another global warming project rather than having a—or whatever the projects

are, rather than trying to find out what things are more valuable

with the use of government money. When I was—I am sorry I am

going on here, but let me just note this that when I first—when

we first got the majority and I was the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and Research—and Energy Research, I

looked over all of the different projects that were being funded, and

I said, ‘‘How are we going to cut the budget, and how are we going

to make sure the money is being best spent?’’ And I just looked

down and said, ‘‘Which one of these projects is spending the most

money and having the least results?’’ And it happened—I know everybody is going to get mad, fusion energy happened to come up,

and of course, the academic community has never forgiven me for

that. But the fact is, they hadn’t come up with the results that

other people were coming up with. And shouldn’t we have a restructuring, in some way, that lets people use our science money

in the most—and channel it towards the—actually the most sufficient rather than keeping on—always keeping on the project. Once

it is—you know, once it is funded, it has eternal life. And I will

leave that question with the panel. But——

Mr. SCHWARZ. [Presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from North Carolina——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the Chair would indulge Dr. Killeen, just—

he had something he wanted to say about that.

Mr. SCHWARZ. University of Michigan, anything. Keep it brief.

Dr. KILLEEN. Thank you. Thank you very much for those challenging comments.

I think, on the panel, we are talking about an end-to-end system

of research—education, research innovation, transition to operations, support for the societal needs. They are quite practical, in

fact. The element that we are emphasizing, because we were asked

to, was the NASA element, which has been the R&D, the technology development, the invention of new instrument types, et

cetera, as opposed to the deployment of operational systems. So

that said, I think if we were—and we could all defend NOAA. In

fact, my institution works closely with NOAA on next-generation

weather forecasting and all sorts of things, and they are great people and do a wonderful job.

But if you think about the NASA’s past contribution, which we

have tried to highlight, in terms of technological innovation that

has meaning, for prediction of El Nin ̃ o, for prediction of the fiveday weather forecast, for the prediction of what is going to happen

in the next two hours in an airport when you are landing, for preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
80

diction of next season’s thermal structure in the Northeast where

the natural gas needs to deploy natural gas on a delivery, those are

all things that society needs for which we need a knowledge base.

And I think what might be at risk if NASA pulls back from its

R&D mission in the Earth sciences, is developing that knowledge

base that will support those kind of systems and tools into the future. And I could go on on this, but I won’t.

Mr. SCHWARZ. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TRMM

Just following up on that, there have been several members of

the panel, and of this committee, who have pointed to Earth observation as not something that simply satisfies a curiosity of academics or as, perhaps, and employment program for academics, but

it has a definite application. And certainly in weather forecasting,

it is useful to look at the comparison. This last—of where we are

now and where we have been. This last year, we had an unusually

active hurricane season. I think most of us who live on the East

Coast watch with fascination the storms form on the west coast of

Africa and march across, westward across the Atlantic, and make

landfall here. We had at least two storms that were category four,

which is an unusually powerful hurricane. Hurricane Charlie hit—

made landfall in Florida. It was a category four. It resulted in 31

deaths, which is, of course, tragic. Hurricane Ivan also struck as

a weak category four and resulted in 49 deaths, including 10 in

North Carolina, largely as the result of flooding from heavy rains.

And of course, that was tragic, too.

But the comparison of the kind of damage that came earlier in

our history when we were much less populated but did not see it

coming is dramatic. In, I am sorry, 1893, a storm of unknown intensity made landfall in Louisiana. The estimate is that there were

2,000 deaths from that storm. That same year, again, a storm of

unknown intensity, made landfall in South Carolina and Georgia.

The estimate of the loss of life is at 21,000. And of course, in 1900,

the—what we now estimate to be a category four storm, hit Galveston without warning and resulted in eight to 12,000 deaths. And

in 1928, a storm struck with very, very little warning in Florida

and resulted in 1,800 deaths. That is a striking contrast, the level

of loss of life that we suffered when we did not see it coming and

could not prepare versus what we see coming—versus where we

are now versus where we were then in our ability to prepare and

how much difference it makes. And I certainly do hope that we

grown in our ability to foresee other natural disasters and to forecast them to predict their—predict and prepare.

Mr. Diaz, I had a couple of questions about what NASA has decided, in at least one case, and more importantly, I think, how you

decide. Last year, Japan announced that it was withdrawing from

the partnership for the Tropical Rainfall Monitoring Mission,

TRMM, and NASA initially announced that it would discontinue

TRMM, even during that hurricane season. And the evidence, I

think, or the belief of scientists is that the information from TRMM

has aided in the forecasting of hurricanes, their intensity, and their

path and I think largely because of the intervention of Members of

81

Congress. Mr. Boehlert wrote a letter, Chairman Boehlert wrote a

letter. Mr. Lampson from Texas, who I think was then Chair of

the—or rather Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics wrote a letter to object and ask at least that TRMM

continue in operation through the end of that hurricane season.

Dr.—or rather Admiral Lautenbacher, is that the correct name,

who is the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, which I think has jurisdiction over NOAA, wrote to Mr.

O’Keefe and asked and said given our growing dependence on these

NASA satellite instruments, I would appreciate an opportunity to

work with you to develop a more formal mechanism for dialogue

with NASA as—well in advance of any termination date for research data streams.

Mr. Diaz, you said that there is an awful lot of dialogue, I think

was your phrase earlier, with the other agencies that depend upon

NASA. Is there now—actually, Admiral Lautenbacher asked for a

joint working group. And it is apparent that he thought that NOAA

had been left in the lurch, simply being told that NASA was discontinuing the TRMM project.

What are current plans for TRMM, one? And then second, are

you doing anything to develop that formal mechanism for dialogue

so that the other agencies that depend upon NASA do not simply

find out from reading the newspapers that NASA is discontinuing

programs that they depend upon?

Mr. DIAZ. Thank you for that question.

And let me start by saying what the current status is of TRMM.

Just—TRMM is currently being operated, as it always has been,

and it will continue to be operated until such time as either one

of two situations occur: either it becomes clear that it will exceed

the hazard criteria associated with uncontrolled reentry that NASA

policy requires for us to take action at, or until it becomes clear

that it is no longer valuable as a resource or is less valuable than

is worth continuing.

Now I will say that in the case of the former, we have some

standards, and we have continued to look at the condition of the

satellite and its ability to do a controlled reentry and have always

had that capability.

In the case of the latter, that is the value associated with it,

there was no formal process in place that had us interacting with

NOAA or, for that matter, the rest of the community.

In the case of TRMM, there was a joint working group put together under the auspices of OSTP, and we came to the conclusion

that TRMM ought to be continued as long as there was no hazard

associated with it. And so we are in the process of continuing to

monitor when that action would have to be taken, the de-orbit action.

But in the case of this value issue, we have put in place what

is called a senior review process, which is much the same as the

review process that we have in space science that will periodically,

typically every several years, look at the continued—or look at the

fleet of missions that are available to continue and prioritize them

with respect to continuing them from the standpoint of scientific

value. And in fact, as we sit here, the first of those senior reviews

for the Earth science satellites is currently ongoing.

82

In terms of what the expectation is with respect to TRMM, we

think within the next several months we will have to make a decision about deorbiting the TRMM mission. And if you don’t mind,

I would ask Dr. Asrar, who has more details, if you need anymore

details, to go beyond that.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you.

The gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to mention briefly that before my colleague from California, Mr. Rohrabacher left, I entered his rhetorical question

about how many more missions we would need on global warming,

and I said, ‘‘We will probably keep doing them until you believe it

is true.’’ And I told him he had the power to stop the missions.

TRANSFERRING EARTH SCIENCE FROM NASA TO NOAA

Having said that, Earth science is a very important part of

NASA, and I have to say, even though I am a scientist, when this

was first discussed, I thought, ‘‘That is kind of a waste of money.

Why should we waste all of that space hardware on Earth observation?’’ But I was dead wrong, because there is so much you can do

from space in terms of Earth observations. And we often tend to

neglect, as I did in my initial response, neglect our own planet. A

good example of that is we had several thousand people now climb

Mt. Everest. We had 100 or more—several hundred astronauts go

into space, and we have only had two people exploring the depths

of the ocean really at very significant depths. We tend to neglect

our own planet. And I, during the Easter recess, gave lectures at

two major universities on different parts of the country, but these

are both on the top of American universities. And in both cases, the

Earth scientists sought me out and said, ‘‘We are very concerned

about what is going to happen with Earth science if NASA pulls

the plug.’’

Well, I understand you are not quite pulling the plug, but you

are saying, ‘‘We will just move it over to NOAA.’’ NOAA does not

have the capability at this point. You can’t simply expect that if

new sensors are developed we can just plop them on one of the

weather satellites. There is compatibly issues, scheduling issues. I

think it is—in view of NASA’s excellent record on Earth observation, they have to continue to be involved, and not just say, ‘‘Okay,

we will help design the sensors. We will put them up into space,

but it is going to be your satellites. You have to manage that somehow.’’ I am really concerned, too. It sounds as if NASA—NOAA has

not been heavily involved in any way in the planning of this. If I

am mistaken on that, I would like to know. But it sounds to me

like the real problem is that NASA is low on money because you

have been given big new missions, and you don’t—weren’t given

the money to do it, so you are cutting and scraping as much as you

can to get rid of what you regard as non-essential to the new missions. And I believe it is very important for you to continue to be

heavily involved in Earth science.

And so I just think it is essential for us to keep a robust Earth

Observation System going and both at NOAA and at NASA. They

are complementary. And if we are going to transfer over to NOAA,

what you suggested could go over to them, we are going to have

83

to transfer some money from NASA to NOAA to do it, because we

are not going to find any new money these days. Since they are

both in the same Appropriation Subcommittee, I suspect it would

be quite easy to make that transfer.

So if you are trying to save money, you may not end up saving

money by doing this. I would be happy to listen to any responses

from anyone on the panel.

Mr. DIAZ. Well, I would like to make sure that we don’t leave the

impression that—number one, that this is being done unilaterally.

We are in conversation with NOAA very frequently, and we do

have agreements in place for many of the elements individually.

What we don’t have in place is an overall strategy that is articulated that does what I have mentioned. And so I do think that if

NOAA were sitting here today, they would recognize the fact that

the things that we are talking about transferring or the things that

we are talking about doing jointly, and I would rather think of it

as things that we are talking about doing jointly as opposed to

sending them things that we ought to be doing——

Mr. EHLERS. I hope you would, but I would also point out something else you don’t have, and that is the approval of the Congress.

Please remember that.

Mr. DIAZ. Okay.

Mr. EHLERS. You may proceed.

Mr. DIAZ. And the—in any event, I just wanted to make sure

that we did register that NOAA is involved in these conversations

and I think would acknowledge that, if they were here.

Mr. EHLERS. I appreciate that.

Anyone else wish to comment then?

Dr. Killeen? Anything from Michigan.

Dr. KILLEEN. Repeating theme.

I would like to comment on that. The central point of my testimony, for example, today is that a fundamental restructuring of

the national program, which is what we are talking about here,

should be done very carefully, deliberatively, with appropriate assessment of the effective contributions of the component parts. I do

believe that the NRC decadal survey that is being commissioned by

NASA and NOAA is a critically important part of that. It will take

time to fully come to grips with it. We are not looking at the final

report here, and I am not part of that panel. I am on the outside.

But that assessment, I think, is essential to be so that all of the

‘‘I’’s are dotted and all of the ‘‘T’’s are crossed and so there is confidence in the communities that are invested in this and in the Nation that we will be able to proceed forward with this big enterprise.

Mr. EHLERS. Anyone else?

Yes, Dr. Williamson.

Dr. WILLIAMSON. I think nobody on this panel would disagree

with the importance of occasionally restructuring how we think

about our research and applications effort in Earth science, but I

do think that we differ in detail on some of these matters probably,

but in general, I feel that dropping or delaying longer missions like

GPM and so forth, which are very important, not only to research,

but to helpful and beneficial applications is probably not the way

to go.

84

Mr. EHLERS. All right. I thank all of you, and I want to reassure

you, Mr. Diaz, this—my questions and statements probably sounded antagonistic. They were not intended to be that so much as a

warning. This is something—we regard this as a very major

change, and it is going to take a good deal of work, hard work and

coordination between yourself and NOAA, if it is to take place, and

also the concurrence, and I would also say, involvement of both the

research community and the Congress.

I—as a research scientist, I know how complicated research

science is and how essential it is to plan well. And it can’t be something that is just done because you want to get out from under the

financial burden. I hope it is—the goal on your part, as well as

NOAA’s is to improve the science that is done. And if you can do

that and improve efficiency at the same time, we will certainly be

open to looking at that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DIAZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. SCHWARZ. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Costa from California.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

USE OF EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAMS TO MANAGE THE WATER

SUPPLY

I, too, share a similar feeling that the gentleman from Michigan

expressed that I think many of the Members of this committee feel

in terms of the prioritization for the Earth sciences program within

NASA’s budget.

I have been informed that Dr. Williamson and perhaps Dr.

Killeen might be best to address a question that I have. For many

years, I have been involved on the application of addressing California’s current and long-term water needs. We have a saying in

California that water is the lifeblood of our state and if you want

to understand how California has developed economically and socially, you can trace it to one resource issue, and that is how we

have managed our water resources.

But I think it is applicable, frankly, as it relates to the world.

I think one of the sweeping issues we have today is the availability

of water to sustain our population throughout the world and not

only for communities for water quality, but also to provide for our

crops, which obviously provides the sustenance.

I am concerned, Dr. Williamson, about the applicability, as we

look at our water management tools in our water toolbox, about the

availability of the use of the Earth science program and specifically

the satellite technology as we try to address, not just in California’s

case, but throughout the country, availability of water as we try to

forecast for crop productions and crop—annual crop yields as we

try to attempt to ensure that we are doing our best to manage our

water resources.

Would you care to comment?

Dr. WILLIAMSON. Yes, I will. Thank you.

You know, a famous poet once wrote that there is water, water

everywhere, but not a drop to drink. And it usually is thought in

that case, specific case, it applied to the ocean. But we are beginning to face that in critical areas around the world and certainly

85

through the United—throughout the United States. And in your

State of California, you have faced, over the years, a lot of concerns

about that issue. And I appreciate that.

One of the tremendous advantages of satellite technology, and

supported by adequate research, is the ability for satellites to see

areas together in a so-called synoptic view, all together at one time.

And that ability to gauge water resources by observing the quality

of water in large freshwater areas and observing the sources of

water in—especially in the State of California. A lot of your water

is supplied by the snow in the wintertime in the northern parts of

California and the states somewhat east of you. And in fact, we can

begin to understand how much water is available by looking at

snow cover and snow depth and so forth, and satellite imagery, satellite measurements of all kinds are very useful in that endeavor.

So there are a number of different applications that are possible,

but we need better science to support those observations, and I

know that NASA has a program to look at those kinds of things

and that certainly needs to be continued. GPM is a good example

of a system that would assist in that effort.

Mr. COSTA. Dr. Killeen.

Dr. KILLEEN. May I comment, too?

Mr. COSTA. Sure.

Dr. KILLEEN. The problem with a regional access to water is a

wonderful case study of this need for Earth system science to

produce decision tools to help predict and manage resources regionally. And in my testimony, I hope—I was trying to make the case

that we are on the threshold of being able to do that with regional

fidelity that is unprecedented, and the U.S. is in the leadership in

this arena. If you think about water in California, it is dependent

on snow. It is dependent on precipitation. It relates to El Nin ̃ o and

La Nin ̃ a cycles that Mr. Rohrabacher was talking about.

Mr. COSTA. We used to think that droughts lasted five to seven

years. Today, by new studies that have come out, it is estimated

historically that droughts have lasted anywhere from 50 to 70

years because of new science that has come forth.

Dr. KILLEEN. There are long-term droughts that have lasted

longer than that in the continental United States in the historical

record, and so we need to understand the factors, the harbingers

that will—would change materially the provision of water to states

like California. It means a regional decision support system, which

is going to be derived from satellite data sets, data resimulation

into numerical models, large computational models that have fidelity and that are tested continued against reality to make sure that

they work and they are real. And these are the sort of important

scientific underpinnings for management of natural resources, such

as in your state.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, Mr. Costa.

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

EFFECTS OF DECREASED EARTH SCIENCE FUNDING

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I

thank the Ranking Member for I think what is a very important

hearing. I think, as I look at the panelists whose testimony I will

86

review, and I thank you for your indulgence of the several meetings, and even meetings in the anteroom with constituents. But

Mr. Diaz, let me thank you very much for your service. And I think

I will focus more particularly on some of the others. And I will ask

a broad-based question.

Let me just let it out of the bag. I am a strong supporter of the

human space flight and the Shuttle. I come from Houston. But I

have been on this committee now for going on 10 years, or maybe

almost 10 years. I have never stepped away from the valued importance of Earth science. And it disheartens me to know that our government is in the horns of a dilemma in borrowing from Peter to

pay Paul, unnecessary, from my perspective. Now it seems to me

that there is dynamic research going on in the private sector, academic institutions. So I am going to be asking broad-based questions. I want to know if that is the case. I want to know what value

it is to have a government entity actively engaged in Earth science,

you know, how does that—you know, we have always heard the

story that the Internet generated out of DOD and look where we

are today. And somebody might want to—I think someone is smiling because of who may have taken credit or not. But the point is

that we know that it was a government-based energy that came

forth.

So I want these broad-based questions which is, you know, how

are we harmed if we diminish our efforts in Earth science. That is

the first one. That perilous route are we now taking by the government’s major cuts that we are now experiencing and suffering in

the Earth science area? Mr. Diaz has to defend a budget that I

think is non-defendable. And then, in particular, I want to speak

about what Earth science NASA has been able to do and that is

dealing with the NASA Global Precipitation Management satellite

and the fact that we have had to cancel or scale back most Earth

science missions, this satellite is to be coordinated with launches

of related satellites by other nations, was first scheduled to be

launched in 2007, currently launching in 2010, and would be considered on schedule. Obviously, it is not on schedule because of the

budget.

The other point that I wanted to be pointed about, I went to Sri

Lanka right after the tsunami and walked the streets, heard the

stories of our government officials, meaning embassy, heard how

they got a call, how they heard and thought that someone in Hawaii had heard something but had no ability to communicate it,

and so it was an enormous tragedy, and to understand that NASA

has the capacity, potentially, to detect that kind of, forgive me for

being a non-scientist, that kind of disturbance, that kind of disruption, that kind of notice that might have been given to those oceanbased persons, and they could have had a greater saving of life.

So there is Dr. Moore, Dr. Killeen, I believe, Dr. Solomon, Dr.

McNutt, Dr. Williamson, and is there—is that, Dr. Williamson,

going that way. Would you kindly—my light is still green, but I am

going to yield to you. If you could just quickly go down the line

with those bullet points: the perilous route that we are taking, how

we are suffering with not doing this Earth science at the pace I

think we should.

Thank you, gentlemen and lady.

87

Dr. MOORE. Yeah, I think these cuts are significant, and therefore, they are damaging. You could not have significant cuts and

not have damage. An analogy that I have used earlier I would like

to return to. The United States government helps ensure the medical care for this country through the National Institute of Health.

The NIH funds fundamental research in medicine throughout the

country, both at universities and in the private sector and in national labs. NASA plays, in a unique way, that same role. The

uniqueness is in the Earth—the ability to have the Earth observing

from satellites. And so when we begin to cut into that research

base, we do damage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Dr. Killeen.

Dr. KILLEEN. I would say that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And now we are on the beige light. The next

light is red, so we—and it is facing me, not you, but—so that is——

Dr. KILLEEN. I think the Nation does stand to be damaged with

a reduction in—major reduction in support in the Earth sciences

and the NASA contributions there. You asked how will we be

harmed if this—it is hard to be precise in quantitative terms, but

we are a knowledge-based society, and we will be reducing the

amount of knowledge we will have in the future to support decision-making. If you only think about the ozone hole and what that

meant to us and the fact that NASA, in fact, was the agency that

allowed—it was provided the smoking gun that gave us the relationship between chlorine—man-produced compounds and loss of

ozone, and we were able to understand that problem and then react

to it with international protocols. One gets a sense that this is an

important capability that we need to sort of maintain for our community.

I am most concerned about the pace of change. Rapid change in

an enterprise like this can cause irrevocable damage, not only to

the building systems but also to the human capital and infrastructure for Earth science research.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Dr. McNutt? Oh, Dr. Solomon.

Dr. SOLOMON. Let me give a quick answer on top of Dr. Killeen,

and then Dr. McNutt can respond.

I think the danger in not carrying forward as ambitious and

thoughtful a program in Earth science as we can afford is two-fold.

One is knowledge, as others have said. And we have heard examples all morning and into the afternoon where space gives us an

opportunity to track hurricanes based—you saw firsthand the tragic consequences of a tsunami where having in place more sensors

and the capability to convey warnings would have saved lives. The

same is true with volcanic eruptions. The same may be true some

day with earthquakes themselves. So that knowledge is an opportunity cost that is very hard to gauge. But the more we have, the

better we can deal with the inevitable changes to our—to Earth.

We are not going to stop tsunamis, and we are not going to stop

volcanoes from erupting, but to know that they are going to happen

and to have warning systems in real time can make a real difference.

The other loss that we could sustain if we cut back, and any program as ambitious as Earth science and space or human space

88

flight, which is something that you follow, is the loss of interest of

the next generation. I think these programs are enormously appealing, and the young people who are choosing what careers to go

into, they are very smart, and they can see——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Trends.

Dr. SOLOMON.—trends. They can see where there is going to be

interesting things to do 10 or 20 years from now and where things

are shutting down.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that is the greatest devastation. You

are absolutely right.

Dr. McNutt.

Dr. MCNUTT. Yes. I wanted to briefly comment on the tsunami

and NASA’s role in it. Your reference was indeed right that the adjacent altimeter satellite was in the right place at the right time,

that it detected the tsunami wave. That was, I think, a chance occurrence. One couldn’t count on that as a reliable warning system,

and I think you have already heard testimony of systems that

could be put in place.

I will mention, however, another NASA contribution, and that

was in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, NASA satellites

were able to record, with quite high fidelity, the damage that was

done by the saltwater that affected the crops, the forests in the

area. This kind of information was important for assessing what

the economic damage would be and where help most needed to go

in order to bring relief to the affected populations. So I don’t think

NASA can be blamed for lack of a warning system, but I think they

should get some credit for the relief efforts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I was not intending to blame. I was saying

that enhancing what they had could, in fact, have put us in a better position that Earth science is valuable.

Dr. Williamson, thank you.

Dr. WILLIAMSON. Yeah, well, I—as you have noticed from my testimony, I tend to focus on the more practical aspects of whether the

outcomes of research and so forth. And it is certainly true that our

store of previous research and knowledge that we have built up

over that period has contributed tremendously, not only to our

quality of life, but directly to the economy. And I notice that we

have suffered a—somewhat of a reversal in the economic growth in

the last quarter over the previous quarter.

One of the things that needs to be thought through in these efforts is how the Earth science program actually contributes to the

economy. And I think it is a substantial contribution and certainly

NASA’s research, starting at the beginning, basically, it is basic research that provides the foundation for these wonderful applications that we all benefit from really needs to be continued and at

a reasonable important—you know, pace, if you will, and amount.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very

much, one, for your indulgence. If I might just ask unanimous consent to have my statement, my full statement placed in the record

and just place on the record the fact that this is a very important

hearing, particularly for those of us who are advocates of space exploration, and to say that we are not advocates of borrowing from

Peter to pay Paul or advocates from taking from one program or

another.

89

I happen to be a strong supporter of the International Space Station, and I think there is a wonderful partnership, potential partnership between Earth science research and the Space Station. The

most devastating aspect of the testimony of all of the distinguished

gentlemen, including Mr. Diaz, who I thank for his service, is that

we are killing—to use a very strong and harsh term, we are killing

the spirit of the future scientists of America, and I think we would

do a disservice to do that. I hope we can find a way in this bipartisan Committee to restore some of the funds for Earth science.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Without objection.

Mr. Diaz, Dr. Moore, Dr. Killeen, Dr. Solomon, Dr. McNutt, Dr.

Williamson, this has been a very edifying morning for all of us, for

me especially. I appreciate your coming to testify before the House

Science Committee. And if there is no objection, the Committee is

adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

(91)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

92

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Alphonso V. Diaz, Associate Administrator, Science Directorate, NASA

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. You stated at the hearing that ‘‘We are in conversation with NOAA very frequently, and we do have agreements in place for many of the elements.. . . [I]f

NOAA were sitting here today, they would recognize. . .the things that we are

talking about transferring or the things we are talking about doing jointly.’’

Please provide any Memorandum of Understanding or other document relating

to NASA working jointly with NOAA, or transferring projects or project elements

to NOAA.

A1. The NASA–NOAA partnership is governed by the NASA–NOAA Basic Agreement, with annexes to address specific areas. The two agencies are currently working on an annex to cover research and operations transitions that are now under

study. NASA and NOAA also have an agreement with CNES and EUMETSAT on

an operational ocean topography mission. Copies of these agreements are attached.

Q2. You also said at the hearing, ‘‘What we don’t have in place is an overall strategy

that is articulated that does what I have mentioned.’’ Are there any plans to articulate such a strategy? Who would have to approve such a strategy at NASA,

NOAA and the White House?

A2. OSTP has provided specific guidance on the incorporation of Landsat-type instruments into the NPOESS program as the means to secure long-term continuity

of land cover remote sensing. More broadly, the Executive Branch has developed

and approved a strategic plan for an Integrated Earth Observation System as the

U.S. contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. This plan primarily covers the operational components of a national observing system. The research components are coordinated through various interagency programs, including

the Climate Change Science Program. Both operational and research observation

plans are coordinated through the U.S. Group on Earth Observation (USGEO) of the

Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and

Technology Council. The USGEO is co-chaired by officials from OSTP, NASA, and

NOAA. In addition, senior officials from both NASA’s Science Mission Directorate

and NOAA are Principals of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

and must sign off on CENR plans.

Q3. The first recommendation of the Academy panel is that the Global Precipitation

Mission (GPM) be launched without delay. It is unclear whether GPM is funded

at an adequate level in the FY06 budget proposal to be able to achieve this

launch schedule. The FY 2005 budget request reduced the funding for GPM to

allow for a 2012 launch date. The FY 2006 budget maintains this reduced funding level, despite stating that GPM is now scheduled to launch in 2010. Is GPM

funded at the level to allow for a 2010 launch? How much funding must GPM

have to ensure that the mission launches in 2010?

A3. GPM is a mission in formulation, and therefore does not have a fixed life cycle

cost. In FY 2006, NASA has requested $24 million to support a 2010 launch date.

Q4. As part of the procurement for the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI), does NASA

plan to include two high-frequency channels (specifically, 166 and 183 GHz) for

the instrument? If not, why not?

A4. The two high-frequency channels are options, as is a second GMI unit, in the

current contract with Ball Aerospace Technologies Corporation to develop and build

the GPM Microwave Imager (GMI). The decision on exercising the high frequency

option will be made based on scientific merit and cost during the next several

months.

Q5. In your testimony, you mentioned that NASA is participating in a Joint Research to Operations Working Group with NOAA. What is NASA’s funding level

for this working group? Please describe the results of the interactions between

NASA and NOAA within this working group so far.

A5. The R&O Transition Plan being formulated by the JWG includes a systematic

approach to develop Capability Implementation Plans for each research capability

that is identified for transition to operations. The budget associated with

transitioning the capability will be included in the Capability Implementation Plan

for senior management review. The agencies will determine how transition cost will

93

be allocated, based on the approved version of the Capability Implementation Plan.

The funding for the working group so far has been to support the personnel in the

working group. There are 20 active members of the working group (10 from NOAA

and 10 from NASA). Even though the civil servant support has been deemed part

of the normal course of the job, the value of the civil servant time and contractor

support to this effort is valued at ∼$400 thousand.

An ad hoc Joint Working Group (JWG) was organized and has been holding regular bi-weekly meetings since October 2004. Dr. Colleen Hartman (NOAA) and Dr.

Mary Cleave (NASA) are the senior managers responsible for oversight of the ad

hoc JWG. Gary Davis (NOAA) and Ron Birk (NASA) are the co-leads for the ad hoc

JWG.

The following are results for the NASA and NOAA interactions through the ad

hoc Joint Working Group to date:

• Formulated and documented an organizational and performance framework

for this bilateral R&O activity, including agency and user community roles.

• Formulating, documenting, and coordinating joint agency concurrence to a

plan for implementing the R&O transition process that includes seeking independent evaluation and reviews of the plan.

• Defining, documenting, and facilitating the process for development and approval of Capability Implementation Plans (CIP) for transition or use of specific research and operational capabilities.

• Coordinating identification of candidate transition capabilities by integrating

agency and user community input.

• Forming Capability Implementation Planning Teams to prepare Capability

Implementation Plans for candidate transition capabilities.

• Recommending respective agency membership on Capability Implementation

Planning teams.

• Formulating a process for JWG reviews of individual Capability Implementation Plans (CIP).

The NASA Applied Sciences Program is focused on extending the results of Earth

science research to serve in operational systems through partnerships with federal

agencies and national organizations and is supporting the JWG.

Q6. In your testimony you mentioned that one way NASA and NOAA have worked

together was funding the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2003 report, Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment, Accelerating the Transition

from Research to Operations. One of the major recommendations from that report is that ‘‘a strong and effective Interagency Transition Office for the planning

and coordination of activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) in support of transitioning research to operations should be established

by and should report to the highest levels of NASA and NOAA.’’ Does NASA

support establishing and Interagency Transition Office as described in the NAS

report? If so, what is NASA doing to establish the Office? If not, why not?

A6. NASA and NOAA are actively engaged in establishing the Joint Working Group

on Transition Research and Operations (R&O). This joint working group includes

senior management from both agencies and a structured approach to involve key

personnel for each of the areas for transition. The approach is to establish agreement on specific capabilities to be transitioned and to assign teams with representatives from NASA and NOAA to participate in developing the Capability Implementation Plans.

Deliberations on the recommendations from the NAS 2003 report to establish an

Interagency Transition Office led to the development of the Joint Working Group

on Transition of Research and Operations. The JWG is formulating a Transition

Plan to systematically:

a. Identify the candidate capabilities for transition (including community participation).

b. Establish teams with the appropriate knowledge to develop Capability Transition Implementation Plans.

c. Formulate the detailed Capability Transition Implementation Plans with information on schedule, budget, resource requirements, and benefits to the

Nation.

d. Senior review of the Capability Transition Implementation Plans for subsequent decisions on budget and resource allocations.

94

This approach optimizes the capacity of involving the appropriate representatives

for the functions of:

a. Establishing and evolving the processes for transitions.

b. Identifying the candidate capabilities for transition.

c. Developing the capability transition implementation plans.

d. Reviewing the capability implementation plans.

e. Identifying and allocating budgets and resources to implementation the capability transitions.

Q7. What is the status of the NASA Earth Science and Applications from Space

Strategic Roadmap and what are the main conclusions of their work so far?

A7. The NASA Earth Science and Applications from Space Strategic Roadmap Committee completed its work with the submission of its report to NASA on May 22,

2005. The NRC has separate congressional direction to look at NASA science issues,

including the six science roadmaps. NASA has since provided to the NRC the

science roadmaps received on May 22. In June, members from each of the six

science committees will brief the committee results to the NRC. The NRC will plan

to provide a report or other input on the science roadmaps to NASA by August 1,

2005.

The concepts and recommendations identified by the Earth Science and Applications from Space Strategic Roadmap Committee are advice to NASA and are subject

to review by the NRC. The following are some of the concepts put forward by the

Roadmap Committee:

1. In addition to scientific objectives that motivate specific missions and modeling, the committee identified integration objectives that motivate the synergistic networking of systems.

2. The committee has identified a metric, the measurement maturity index, to

assist in the planning and management of investigations, assess their potential transition to operations, and as an aggregate measure of the balance of

investments in a research area. While needing more development, the committee believes this could be developed into a useful tool for planning future

investigations.

3. The committee identified a preliminary mission timeline, along with an approach (called ‘‘awareness clusters’’) to organizing and building over time the

integrated capacity to observe and model the Earth system.

The near-term recommendations of the Committee include:

1. Complete the current, approved NASA program in a timely fashion.

2. Begin advanced planning for several near-future missions identified in the

committee’s timeline.

3. Begin advanced planning for the first ‘‘awareness cluster,’’ including the

technologies, missions, models, networks, and educational and international

cooperation opportunities that support the science focus of the cluster.

4. Start at least one new mission in FY 2007 or FY 2008 and the others as soon

as possible after that.

Q8. The National Academy of Sciences interim report stated: ‘‘The committee is concerned that a significant reallocation of resources for the research and analysis

(R&A) programs that sustain the interpretation of Earth science data has occurred either as a result of the removal of the ‘firewall’ that previously existed

between flight and science programs or as an unintended consequence of NASA’s

shift to full-cost accounting.’’ Please describe the extent to which NASA has reallocated funding for the Earth Science R&A programs, and explain why this

has occurred.

A8. In recent years, NASA’s research budget has been largely stable. The research

and analysis (R&A) program, one of about 60 projects within the Earth-Sun Research Program, has been particularly stable, with minimal year-to-year fluctuations. There has been only one significant modification to this program in recent

years. The transition from ‘‘business-as-usual’’ to ‘‘full cost accounting’’ in FY 2004

led to an increase of approximately 20 percent in the R&A budget over the FY 2003

budget, but the imprecision associated with this transition led to an increase in requirements for center-related funding that was approximately 50 percent greater

than the increase in funds, leading to an effective reduction in purchasing power

of the R&A program of the order of 15 percent. The shortfall in FY 2004 impacted

contractors at the NASA centers and the broader research community. In FY 2005,

95

the R&A program was adjusted to accommodate these full cost transitions and per

the mid-year operating plan, is $10 million higher than the final FY 2004 operating

plan.

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What specific Earth Science-related responsibilities is NASA transferring or

planning to transfer to NOAA?

a. What are the timetables for the transfers?

b. What are the estimated budgetary impacts of the responsibilities transferred?

A1a,b. NASA has long served as the research, technology development, and satellite

development source for the Nation’s civil space-based remote sensing capability and

will continue to perform in this capacity. During the past several years, the NASA–

NOAA partnership has evolved across a broad front to meet the Nation’s need for

affordable operational and research observations. (1) techniques; (2) technologies; (3)

measurement responsibilities; and (4) remote sensing instruments and platforms.

NASA’s baseline budget reflects our expectation that the ongoing partnership with

NOAA will continue to evolve. However, the budgetary impacts associated with the

transfer of responsibilities in not known at this time. Each of these areas involves

joint NASA and NOAA efforts that lead to the transfer of innovative capabilities,

as summarized below:

Techniques—The focus in this area is on the utilization of remote sensing data to

improve the models that NASA and NOAA use to create weather and climate forecasts. NASA, NOAA and USAF have established the Joint Center for Satellite Data

Assimilation as a means to accelerate the use of research data to improve operational weather and climate forecasting. NASA has also been working with NOAA’s

National Hurricane Center to improve hurricane track forecasting via new model algorithms and data.

Technologies—New technologies will focus on the improvement of NOAA’s weather

forecasting capability based on science and technology through new spacecraft and

modeling. The next generation weather satellites will use satellite spacecraft that

are based on those developed by NASA and its prime contractor for the EOS Aqua

and Aura missions.

Instruments and Platforms—The development of advanced instruments and platforms by NASA in a research context that can be used in NOAA’s next generation

of operational environmental satellites. The NPOESS VIIRS and ATMS sensors, for

example, continue the imaging and sounding observations by the NASA EOS

MODIS and AIRS sensors, respectively.

Measurements—New instruments prepare the way for transition of measurement

responsibilities. This includes plans, underway since the late 1990s, to continue selected climate measurements begun by NASA’s Earth Observing System via transfer

of instrument technologies and measurement responsibilities begun by EOS Terra

and Aqua to the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). The first fruit of this effort will be the NPOESS Preparatory

Project, a satellite now in development jointly by NASA and the NPOESS Integrated Program Office. This mission will carry both the VIIRS and ATMS instruments as well as others. Based on the strategy of assuming that a number of the

critical measurements made by Terra and Aqua would be done through NPOESS,

NASA was able to reduce the planned budget for systematic Earth science measurements.

NASA may propose innovative next generation missions to begin during this time

frame, in keeping with the general strategy of transitioning mature measurement

responsibilities so that operational systems can benefit and NASA can move on to

the next frontier. In parallel, NASA, NOAA and their European counterparts have

been working over the last three years on a plan to transition ocean surface altimetry measurements begun by the NASA/CNES TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason missions

to a future operational system using the Ocean Surface Topography Mission now

under development as a ‘‘bridge.’’ Not all measurements begun by EOS are slated

for transition to NPOESS, but the significant ones that are, including the basic imaging and sounding done by Terra and Aqua, help in enabling the reduced budget

planned for Earth science to still accommodate a mix of continued long-term measurements, and first implementation of new types of global measurements, for example through the Earth System Science Pathfinder line of competed missions and the

Global Precipitation Mission.

Opportunities flow in the other direction as well, for example in the area of flight

of NASA research instruments on NOAA spacecraft. Currently, attention is focused

on future geostationary missions. NASA continues to build and launch Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites for NOAA, with the recent launch

146

of GOES–N on May 20, 2005. The next generation series will begin with GOES–

R. NASA and NOAA are discussing a strategy to reserve capacity on this series of

satellites for demonstration of advanced instruments of importance to both agencies.

Major measurement transitions in work:

• Climate quality atmosphere and biosphere measurements begun by Terra and

Aqua to NPOESS (∼2010) via NPP (∼2006)

• Upper atmosphere ozone measurements from TOMS & Aura to NPOESS

(∼2010) via NPP (∼2006)

• Land cover change measurements from Landsat 7 to NPOESS Operational

Land Imager (∼2010)

• Ocean surface topography from TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason to an NOAA/

EUMETSAT operational system via NASA/CNES development and NOAA/

EUMETSAT operation of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission (2008)

• Next generation geostationary satellites beginning with GOES–R (∼2012)

Q2. What do you consider the most promising future benefits that the Nation might

gain from continued investments in Earth Science research? What will be the

negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth Science research

and applications is diminished in the coming years?

A2. NASA’s Earth Science programs are our nation’s primary innovators in providing new information about the global Earth system using the unique vantage

point of space. NASA’s perspective is global, and emphasizes the ‘‘Earth system

view’’ that encourages understanding of the interconnections between various components of the Earth system (atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, cryosphere, and

lithosphere). NASA’s commitment to Earth science research and application directly

enables advanced understanding of the current interactions and future evolution of

the Earth system, as well as allows NASA to support the U.S. Climate Change

Science Program (CCSP).

The space-based missions carried out by NASA provide information about the

global distribution of Earth system parameters never before available on the spatial

and temporal scales that NASA can provide. Recent examples include ice sheet and

sea ice changes in polar regions (from ICESat), more accurate measurements of the

Earth’s gravitational field and their analysis to determine information about water

stored underneath the Earth’s surface (from GRACE), distribution and nature of

aerosol particles that affect climate, precipitation, and air quality (from Terra), and

distribution of precipitation over the ocean in the tropics and subtropics (from

TRAM). Future space systems will provide significant enhancements in our knowledge of the global three-dimensional distribution of clouds and aerosols, and then

high-resolution information about the global distribution of carbon dioxide (suitable

for inferring information about global sources and sinks), and ocean salinity.

NASA contributes to the record of long-term satellite measurements needed to

help evaluate change in the Earth system and help scientists separate between natural and human-induced changes. Examples include studies of ozone distributions

(from the TOMS series), solar irradiance (most recently from UARS, ACRIMSAT,

and SORCE), of ocean surface topography (from Topex/Poseidon and Jason), and of

the Earth’s overall radiation budget (most recently from the CERES instruments

aboard the Terra and Aqua spacecraft). The long-term need for precise and accurate

calibration is not something that has been available from operational platforms in

the past. NASA’s efforts also include a significant focus on modeling and data assimilation to be sure that new data can be understood and used to test hypotheses

of our current understanding of the Earth system’s behavior and to improve our capability to predict it in the future.

NASA strives to facilitate the use of its data in supporting policy development and

resource management through its applied science program, partnering with other

federal agencies to accelerate the process by which space-based data can be used

to serve society (e.g., improve weather and climate forecasting and prediction of natural hazards). NASA’s technology program constitutes an investment in future

Earth science, developing the observational tools and techniques that will enable

new views of the Earth in the future, making possible measurements not currently

possible today as we look to push back the frontiers in Earth remote sensing (e.g.,

more frequent temporal sampling, improved determination of the vertical dimension

in the measurement of Earth system parameters). A vigorous basic research program underlies all of the above so that as new information is gained, scientists can

innovatively incorporate new knowledge into their studies, develop and test

hypotheses, improve models, and develop newer techniques that will enable new

knowledge in the future.

147

Q3a. Two years ago, the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended the establishment of an Interagency Transition Office to manage the

issues involved in transitioning the capabilities developed in research instruments to the operational systems that support weather monitoring and forecasting.

Have NASA and NOAA taken any steps to establish such an organization? If

not, why not?

A3a. NASA and NOAA are actively engaged in establishing the Joint Working

Group on Transition Research and Operations (R&O). This joint working group includes senior management from both agencies and a structured approach to involve

key personnel for each of the areas for transition. The approach is to establish

agreement on specific capabilities to be transitioned and to assign teams with representatives from NASA and NOAA to participate in developing the Capability Implementation Plans.

Q3b. If so, when was the organization established who heads it, and what is its

charter?

A3b. An ad hoc Joint Working Group (JWG) was organized and has been holding

regular bi-weekly meetings since October 2004. Dr. Colleen Hartman (NOAA) and

Dr. Mary Cleave (NASA) are the senior managers responsible for oversight of the

ad hoc JWG. Gary Davis (NOAA) and Ron Birk (NASA) are the co-leads for the ad

hoc JWG.

The roles and responsibilities include:

• NASA and NOAA designated representatives lead the JWG. The JWG develops, implements, and facilitates a senior level collaboration process. This collaboration process is used to coordinate, evaluate, identify, and transition appropriate NASA research results (capabilities) for NOAA operational and applied research use; and appropriate NOAA operational assets (capabilities) to

support NASA research.

• Designated NASA and NOAA senior representatives jointly provide oversight

of and accountability for, this working group. These representatives are responsible for coordination of performance measures and goals, and compliance

with their respective agency policies and processes relevant to successful implementation and maintenance of a bilateral R&O process.

• An initial transition plan detailing the R&O process, including an initial set

of implementation plans for transition of specific research result capabilities,

will be submitted to senior NASA and NOAA leadership for approval by September 30, 2005.

Q3c. Does the organization determine how transition costs will be allocated between

the two agencies? If not, who does?

A3c. The R&O Transition Plan being formulated by the JWG includes a systematic

approach to develop Capability Implementation Plans for each research capability

that is identified for transition to operations. The budget associated with

transitioning the capability will be included in the Capability Implementation Plan

for senior management review. The agencies will determine how transition costs will

be allocated based on the approved version of the Capability Implementation Plan.

Q4. Based on correspondence between Admiral Lautenbacher and then-NASA Administrator O’Keefe, it appears that there was no advance coordination between

NASA and NOAA when NASA decided to terminate the Tropical Rainfall Monitoring Mission last year.

a. Is that correct?

b. If so, why wasn’t there adequate advance coordination?

A4a,b. There has been considerable coordination between NASA and NOAA regarding TRMM, dating back to 2001. NASA and NOAA personnel have discussed TRMM

re-entry plans in a number of forums, including workshops, correspondence, and

meetings. In April and July 2003, NASA sent letters to the two registered NOAA

TRMM real-time data users (John Paquette/NESDIS and Stephen Lord/NCEP) stating NASA’s expectation that TRMM’s decommissioning could begin as early as the

first quarter of 2004. In July 2004, ten days prior to the mailing of the correspondence cited by Rep. Gordon, nine senior NOAA staff members representing a broad

cross section of NOAA were notified via e-mail of the imminent decommissioning.

148

Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall

Q1. The FY 2006 budget request has combined the Earth Systems and Sun-Earth

Connections budgets. Please provide a detailed crosswalk between the FY 2005

budget request and FY 2006 budget request and its five-year runout with the

Earth Systems and Sun-Earth Connections budgets broken out separately.

A1. See attached budget crosswalk and five-year run-outs.

Q2. Due to a cut in funding, there are plans to end several extended missions in October of 2005, including Voyager.

Q2a. Will there be a new Senior Review to reconsider the planned terminations?

A2a. Yes, decisions on scientific priorities will be made once NASA receives input

from both the Sun-Earth Connection and Earth System Science Senior Review Panels. These panels, composed of external and independent senior researchers with relevant knowledge and experience, meet periodically to review proposals for innovative research, accomplished with existing space assets. The panels assist NASA by

evaluating the scientific merit of each extended mission on a ‘‘science-per-dollar,’’

basis in terms of the expected returns from new science goals.

Q2b. If so, when will it take place?

A2b. The Earth System Science review is currently in progress and the Sun-Earth

Connection review is expected to convene in the fall of 2005.

Q2c. Will funding for these missions be maintained until a new Senior Review is

completed? How much funding would be required?

A2c. NASA will permit the Sun-Earth Connection missions to operate while the

Senior Review process provides for a new assessment of the future scientific value

of these operating missions. This is expected to cost approximately $20.6 million in

FY 2006. At the conclusion of the Panels’ deliberations, NASA will use their assessments and findings to develop Agency decisions regarding the continued operation

of these missions.

149

150

151

Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. What priority is NASA’s Earth Science program as NASA pursues the President’s exploration initiative?

Q1a. How have the recent decisions to cancel, de-scope, or delay recent Earth observing missions or mission programs been made? In particular, please explain the

rationale for seeking the assistance of the National Academies in determining

what the highest priority areas should be and then making changes before the

results of that study are known?

A1a. NASA’s Guiding National Objectives specifically identify studying the Earth

system from space, and developing new space-based and related capabilities for this

purpose, as a priority for the Agency. Not only are NASA’s activities in Earth

Science are essential to the achievement of NASA’s mission, they directly support

three Presidential initiatives: Climate Change, Global Earth Observation, and Collaborative Oceans Research.

In all of NASA’s science disciplines, decisions often must be taken between

Decadal Surveys or triennial strategic plans, and are taken based on the best available data on science community priorities and prior strategic plans and surveys. As

such, the Science Mission Directorate generally chooses to stay the course on missions already in development, and if necessary, defer missions that were only in the

formulation stage, and cancel selected missions where an alternative source of data

could be identified.

By applying these criteria to NASA’s Earth science missions, only the Glory mission was descoped in the FY 2006 budget to an instrument-only build. The remaining Earth science missions were left largely unchanged, reflecting the need to respond to national priorities in Earth science and in recognition of the fact that the

results of the Decadal Survey would not be available until late 2006.

Q1b. What role is full-cost accounting and the fact that it was not accompanied by

the appropriate reallocation of salary and other infrastructure money to support those scientists working on critical Earth Science projects playing in these

decisions?

A1b. Adoption of full cost accounting practices has neither affected the strategy for

pursuit of Earth science by NASA in the era of the Vision for Space Exploration,

nor the process of prioritization of research and missions in the Science Mission Directorate. There are important questions to address in this arena, and this is the

subject of the National Research Council decadal survey for Earth science now underway. However, these questions exist quite apart from the topic of full cost accounting.

Funds previously carried separately for civil servant salaries and institutional

support were added to program budgets (including Earth science) in FY 2005 and

beyond. Implementation of full cost accounting and management posed some challenges in the start-up phase, but the magnitude of these problems should decrease

over time as we get more experience in working within this new environment. The

inherent difficulty in making this significant transition led to some short-term transient effects and some near-term challenges in FY 2005 that affected university researchers, civil servants, and contractors. We anticipate the process of soliciting, selecting, and funding science proposals from the community (in both academia and

NASA Centers) in the era of full cost accounting will be smoother in the coming fiscal year.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. Given the increasing vulnerability to extreme weather and climate variations as

seen by the tsunami and the various hurricanes that hit Florida, what initiatives, if any, does NASA currently have to explore such events? NASA has been

a major sponsor of such research in the past; what initiatives does NASA have

planned for the future? What effect will budget constraints have on these

projects?

A1. Tsunami: A capable tsunami warning system must be both reliable and cost

effective. Tsunamis are caused by plate boundary earthquakes, with the most devastating tsunamis occurring within a few hundred miles of the earthquake’s epicenter due to both the larger amplitude of the tsunami wave and the lack of sufficient warning. As with all geohazards, significant savings in life and property can

result from a tsunami warning system that provides the information necessary for

risk assessment, warning, and recovery. NASA’s research and technology sponsored

152

primarily by the Earth-Sun Science Division of the Science Mission Directorate

seeks to address these fundamental requirements.

NASA is participating within the IWGEO and with other federal and international organizations to insure the effective distribution of these research and development results. Imagery from four NASA spaceborne instruments shed valuable

insights into the Indian Ocean tsunami that resulted from the magnitude 9 earthquake southwest of Sumatra on December 26, 2004. These images offered several

unique views of portions of the affected region. The data helped scientists and government agencies to assist with disaster recovery and will be used in mitigating the

effects of future natural hazards and increasing our understanding of how and why

tsunamis strike.

Tropical Cyclones: One of the least understood issues regarding tropical cyclone

(TC) behavior are the factors that influence TC genesis and rapid intensification.

Hurricane Charley during 2004 is an example of a TC that underwent unpredicted

rapid intensification just hours before landfall in northern Florida.

NASA is leading a major field experiment based in Costa Rica during July 2005

called the Tropical Cloud Systems and Processes (TCSP) campaign. The aim of

TCSP is to investigate atmospheric and oceanic processes governing the formation

and intensification of hurricanes. Costa Rica provides the ideal mission location for

accessing a variety of TCs developing across the western Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico

and Eastern Pacific. In a manner similar to the highly successful series of NASA

CAMEX (Convection and Moisture Experiments) investigations, the NOAA Hurricane Research Division P3–Orion aircraft will fly joint missions with the NASA ER–

2 and Aerosonde aircraft during TCSP. The NASA ER–2 is a unique, high-flying

platform with a sensitive Doppler radar, passive microwave radiometer and atmospheric profilers that serve as a ‘‘virtual satellite’’ and can thus be positioned to optimally sample critical regions of developing tropical cyclones. One important goal of

TCSP is to improve the numerical representation of hurricanes using the specially

collected aircraft and satellite observations. For instance, TCSP scientists will work

closely with Florida State University (FSU) scientists to identify data sets to optimize the highly successful FSU Super ensemble hurricane forecast prediction tool.

It is anticipated that the TCSP mission will answer many key questions pertaining to the genesis of intense tropical vortices, in addition to raising many other

questions. For instance, NASA scientists have a keen interest in understanding

whether a core set of processes is unique to tropical cyclogenesis and intensification

anywhere around the globe, irrespective of geographic location. TCSP will address

many of the issues associated with TC genesis in close proximity to a central mountain chain (the Central American cordillera) and the fate of African Easterly Waves

as they interact with this terrain. However, the African Monsoon Meteorology Experiment (AMMA), slated for the eastern Atlantic in summer 2006, provides a potential opportunity to investigate many of the TCSP hypotheses in a different geographical setting. For instance, what is the influence of the Saharan Air Layer on

tropical cyclogenesis? Direct NASA participation with one or more ground-based

Doppler radars and possibly a high altitude research aircraft stationed downstream

of the African continent during AMMA will be ideally suited to better understand

why some tropical disturbances develop into Atlantic hurricanes, while others do

not. Historically, the most destructive hurricanes that make landfall on U.S. soil

originate from Africa during the late summer-early fall.

In addition, NASA has hurricane modeling research in the areas of advanced computational modeling coupled with the space borne observations. A major experiment,

in collaboration with NOAA, which combines advanced weather prediction model,

satellite observations, and powerful computing platform, is currently underway for

the 2005 hurricane season.

Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM): TRMM was originally designed to be

a three-year scientific research mission. It is now in its eighth year of operation,

having completed all of its original scientific research objectives and more. NASA

and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) will continue their close collaboration beyond TRMM through establishment of a new advanced capability for

the measurement of precipitation globally with the Global Precipitation Measurement mission (GPM). This mission will be a critical component of the International

Global Earth Observing System of Systems and will significantly improve upon the

temporal and spatial resolution provided by TRMM.

The GPM mission’s Core Satellite is planned to carry advanced dual-frequency

radar that will provide rain measurements exceeding the capabilities of TRMM. In

addition, GPM will use an international constellation of satellites to measure precipitation globally and much more frequently (approximately every three hours)

than TRMM. In addition to Japan, Europe, Canada, France, India, South Korea,

153

Taiwan, Brazil, and others have expressed and interest in participating in GPM. A

science team is currently in place to study the impact of precipitation variability on

specific processes within the atmospheric and/or surface water cycles, water budgets

and their closure. The precipitation science team is also interested in studying the

rate of water cycling through the atmosphere and surface, and the relationships of

linked precipitation-water cycle processes on weather and climate through both forcing and feedback. The range of investigations, in addition to modeling and data

analysis, includes algorithm improvements, validation, applications, and education/

outreach efforts. GPM is currently targeted for launch in late 2010.

Climate Variability: A subtle impact of extreme weather/climate variation, but

with far-reaching consequences, is the El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO

has its roots in a coupled atmosphere-ocean interaction over the western Pacific, and

NASA has been monitoring ENSO with the TRMM and QuickSCAT satellites since

the late 1990s. The QuickSCAT satellite provides observations of reversing trade

winds that accompany El Nin ̃ o, and NASA TRMM scientists have investigated several El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ a rainfall cycles of varying intensity and duration. No two

ENSO events are alike, and continued long-term monitoring of ENSO with TRMM

will increase our understanding of ENSO’s peculiar variations. Precursors to El

Nin ̃ o such as the short-term Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) have been identified

through TRMM’s unique combination of rain and ocean surface temperature measurements. As the key linkage between MJO and ENSO is established, there is the

hope that TRMM data sets will be used to increase the predictability of El Nin ̃ o and

its impacts on the United States.

NASA’s TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason–I are measuring ocean surface topography,

the MODIS instrument on the EOS platforms also provides high-resolution observation of sea surface temperature. The Estimating of the Circulation and Climate of

the Ocean project sponsored by the National Oceanographic Partnership Program is

currently assimilating long-term ocean observation data into a physically consistent

climate quality data set for the climate variability research. These efforts will be

augmented in the future with sea surface salinity data from the Aquarius mission.

One aspect of climate change that has received much attention recently is changes

in the Earth’s ice covered regions. NASA continues to advance our understanding

of these ice processes through a combination EOS missions, e.g., the Ice Cloud and

land Elevation Satellite (ICESat), the AMSR instrument on Aqua, and ongoing and

planned activities with operational and interagency partners, such as the Navy’s

SSM/I instrument, our partnership in Canada’s RADARSAT mission, and others.

The Research and Analysis Program currently supports—in addition to investigations funded by individual programs—two major climate-variability-related categories of interdisciplinary investigations. These are in the areas of sea level rise

and polar feedbacks in the climate system, both of which have been identified as

priorities of the Climate Change Science Program and Integrated Earth Observing

System (IEOS). We continue to work with our interagency partners to maximize investments in understanding the significant changes that have been occurring in the

Polar Regions, particularly in the framework of the upcoming International Polar

Year (2007–2008).

Q2. For years, there has been a major focus on the effects of greenhouse gases, the

thinning of the ozone, global warming, and the melting of the ice caps. It is my

assumption, and please correct me if I am wrong, that one of the functions of

a Global Earth Observing System of Systems (GEOSS) initiative would be to

monitor such activity?

Q2a. As an interagency and international effort, what effect will budget cuts to

NASA’s Earth Science program have on this initiative?

A2a. NASA Earth system science results of research and development of spacebased observations and improved modeling capacity are recognized as contributing

nearly 100 instruments on 30 spacecraft for the International Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). NASA Earth science applications are recognized

for contributing integrated system solutions to each of the nine societal benefit areas

highlighted in both the Strategic Plan for a U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) and the 10-Year Plan for a Global Earth Observation System of Systems. The entire NASA Earth Science budget contributes to goals and objectives of

U.S. participation in GEOSS. The contributions of NASA research results to GEOSS

is not a separate budget line or project. Thereby, any reductions in Earth Science

funding would decrease our contribution to GEOSS. NASA plans to contribute the

results of over $1B in Earth system science research and development per the President’s budget.

154

The International GEOSS and the U.S. IEOS include framework architectures

that can accommodate and benefit from the observations and predictions/forecasts

resulting from NASA research and development of space-based Earth observation

systems; including the ground segments, data handling capacity, modeling, computing, knowledge, and applied sciences and system engineering.

Q2b. Is it expected that NASA will continue with the GEOSS initiative in FY 2006

and beyond? At what funding levels?

A2b. NASA’s plans for research and development of Earth observation systems include support for national and international priorities and goals, including the U.S.

IEOS and International GEOSS. The GEOSS is architected to benefit from the full

scope of the results of NASA research and development programs, flight missions

and applied sciences partnerships on benchmarking enhancements to integrated

system solutions for the nine societal benefit areas. Per the response above, the

NASA budget for Earth science is the U.S. contribution to the research and development efforts that contribute to the goals and objectives of serving society as documented in the GEOSS 10-Year Implementation Plan.

Q2c. To date, what role has NASA’s Earth Science program played in the Administration’s new GEOSS initiative?

A2c. NASA leadership contributed to developing and refining the framework and

architecture of the U.S. IEOS and International GEOSS plans. The plans provide

guidance in the direction for evolving research capacity (including NASA contributions) to enable improved future operational systems. NASA contributes to the national interagency activity through participation in the U.S. Group on Earth Observation, a subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

(CENR). NASA senior officials serve in the roles of Co-Chair and other positions of

the USGEO and as alternate Co-Chair for the Architecture SubGroup of the international Group on Earth Observations.

NASA missions (e.g., Terra, Aqua, and Aura), program plans (e.g., Earth Science

strategies and implementation plans) and results (e.g., collaboration with EPA on

enhancing the national air quality Nowcasting system) are recognized through the

USGEO and GEO as contributions to the IEOS and GEOSS.

Q3. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and

have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administration’s changes

to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I

also notice that in the same fashion at the Administration’s request, NASA has

decided to combine the Earth Science and solar physics programs into one

Earth-Sun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science

Mission Directorate.

a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth Science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A3a,b,c. The combination of the former Earth Science Enterprise and Sun-Earth

Connection theme of the Space Science Enterprise into a single unified Earth-Sun

System Division has not led to cuts in any Earth science projects. Significant reductions were made between FY 2004 and FY 2005 President’s budgets. In FY 2006,

the budget submit using the new structure, resulted in no significant reductions to

Earth science.

The creation of a single unified Science Mission Directorate and the grouping of

the former Earth Science Enterprise and the Sun-Earth Connection theme of the

former Space Science Enterprise into a single unified Earth-Sun System Division

was done to better position us to take advantages of potential synergies between formally different organizations. However, the time elapsed since the agency transformation that effected these changes is too short to determine whether the benefits

are being achieved.

NASA’s Earth Science budgets are managed overall effectively. We feel that one

of the most important things that can be done to improve management is to assure

the stability of the program. Firming up of budgets early in the fiscal year is also

very important, as it allows for early establishment of targets.

155

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Berrien Moore III, Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans,

and Space, University of New Hampshire

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. In your written testimony, you state that the NAS committee recommends that

NASA and NOAA should commission an independent review regarding the

Landsat Data Continuity Mission. Please clarify why the committee believes the

Administration should perform another cost benefit analysis of the decision to

transition the Landsat measurements to the NPOESS platform, as outlined in

the Auguest 13, 2004 OSTP memo.

A1. In reference to the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Interim Report of the

National Academy of Science’s Decadal Study team recommended independent external reviews that involved the scientific and operational users that focused upon

suitability, capability, and timeliness of the (OLI).

Our understanding of what happened to the Landsat Continuity Mission can be

summarized as follows:

Efforts to begin implementing a successor mission to Landsat 7, called the

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), focused on a plan to purchase data meeting LDCM specifications from a privately owned and commercially operated satellite

system beginning in March 2007. However, after an evaluation of proposals received

from private industry, NASA canceled a Request-for-Proposals (RFP) for providing

the required data in September 2003. Soon after, the Executive Office of the President formed an interagency working group to discuss Landsat data continuity in

light of the cancellation. A memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology

Policy (OSTP), signed on August 13, 2004 by the Director of OSTP, Dr. John

Marburger, III, summarizes the outcome of these discussions. The memorandum

states ‘‘the Departments of Defense, the Interior, and Commerce and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration have agreed to take the following actions:

• ‘‘Transition Landsat measurements to an operational environment through

the incorporation of Landsat-type sensors on the National Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) platform;

• ‘‘Plan to incorporate a Landsat imager on the first NPOESS spacecraft

(known as C–1), currently scheduled for launch in late 2009;

• ‘‘Further assess options to mitigate the risks to data continuity prior to the

first NPOESS–Landsat mission, including a ‘bridge’ mission.’’

We know of no formal study that actually accessed the ‘‘bridge mission’’ nor do

we believe that the user community was adequately involved in the formulation of

the 13 August 2004 memorandum from OSTP. We certainly applaud the steps of

OSTP, NASA, NOAA, and USGS to help assure the longer-term future of Landsat,

but we believe that before giving up on the bridge mission and before settling on

NPOESS as the implementation platform for OLI, there should be an independent

study weighing all the options.

Q2. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do. Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its significance and how it differs from what is done by National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)?

A2. The Earth science accomplished through NOAA support is important and it is,

as it should be, focused upon helping NOAA meets its operational mandates. NOAA

is a science-based agency with regulatory, operational, and information service responsibilities. To fulfill these responsibilities, it is essential that NOAA maintain a

vigorous and forward-looking research enterprise that has both near and longerterm goals, but it must be recognized that the operational (near-term) requirements

will always be a significant pressure upon the research enterprise. Moreover, in addition to having to respond to operational concerns, the research budget at NOAA

is relatively modest in comparison to the Earth science research effort at NASA. Finally, Earth science depends upon significant technological advances in order to address the critical difficult challenges of today, for which there is no budget nor is

there a mandate for NOAA to mount significant technology development programs

that are needed to meet today’s and tomorrow’s scientific and operational challenges.

156

In sum, the differences are a) NOAA’s operational mandate, and b) the relatively

modest size of NOAA research budget (a significant portion is consumed by the 30

NOAA Laboratories and Centers and 19 Joint Institutes), and the subsequent lack

of a significant capability for advanced technology development.

Q3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA instruments on

NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding was provided?

A3. The advantages are increased collaboration, the ability to stage ‘‘pre-operational

instruments in an operational environment (which should smooth the transfer to operations) and expanded access to space. The main disadvantages are the narrow selection of orbits and launch opportunities, a rather limited envelope for power,

weight, and other spacecraft resources, and the potential constraint on data transfer

and data processing. In addition, there is a concern that if NASA hands the instrument over to NOAA, NASA then will not provide a Research and Analysis function

as it would for a purely NASA mission. This latter issue could be addressed by policy; whereas, the narrow selection of orbits, launches, and space, and ground resources are more troubling.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that the Nation

might gain from continued investments in Earth science research? What will be

the negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth science research

and applications is diminished in the coming year?

A1. Future benefits. Improved scientific understanding, which forms the foundation

for practical applications that enhance the prosperity and security of society. Businesses, government agencies, and even individuals rely on products and services

that have emerged from Earth science research programs. For example, improvements in the ability to forecast weather have had an enormous impact on society.

Today’s four-day weather forecast is as accurate as two-day forecasts were 20 years

ago. The error in the three-day forecast landfall position of hurricanes has been reduced from about 210 miles in 1985 to about 110 miles in 2004. Sea surface winds

and precipitation can be observed at accuracies that allow emergency managers to

more efficiently evacuate coastal residents in the path of hurricanes. As a result,

lives are saved and property losses are minimized. Increased knowledge about the

ocean-atmosphere-land system suggests that similar improvements are possible in

seasonal climate forecasts, which are needed for a variety of agriculture decisions.

Today, we can track vast clouds of dust and pollution from their source on continents across the oceans, permitting health alarms to be sounded effectively. We

can map deformations of the Earth’s surface and evacuate regions that may soon

experience volcanic eruptions or landslides. We can track changes in soil moisture

and then redirect food supplies to areas that may soon face drought and famine. We

can monitor long-term changes in the land surface, atmosphere, and oceans and

thereby characterize the impacts of human activities on climate. We have documented ozone loss in the stratosphere, resulting in the Montreal Protocol and termination of the production of the causative chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Despite many successes in applying Earth science information to improve lives,

security, and the economy, we have the ability to do much more. The increase in

knowledge produced over the last decade by Earth scientists is itself a tremendous

societal benefit with clear public policy implications. And the experience in applying

that knowledge lays a solid foundation for more systematically selecting new missions that address not only important scientific issues but also critical societal

needs. New observations, analyses, better interpretive understanding, enhanced predictive models, broadened community participation, and improved means for information dissemination are all needed. If we meet this challenge, we will begin to realize the full economic and security benefits of Earth science.

Negative Impacts. At NASA, the vitality of Earth science and application programs has been placed at substantial risk by a rapidly shrinking budget that no

longer supports already-approved missions and programs of high scientific and societal relevance. Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished

as mission after mission is canceled, descoped, or delayed because of budget cutbacks. These reductions and the change in priorities jeopardize NASA’s ability to

fulfill its obligations in (other) important presidential initiatives, such as the Climate Change Research Initiative and the subsequent Climate Change Science Program. It also calls into question future U.S. leadership in the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international effort initiated by the current Administration.

157

This substantial reduction in Earth observation programs today will result in a

loss of U.S. scientific and technical capacity, which will decrease the competitiveness

of the United States internationally for years to come. U.S. leadership in science,

technology development, and societal applications depends on sustaining competence

across a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines that include the Earth

sciences.

Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall

Q1. The White House has proposed putting the Landsat imager on the first NPOESS

satellite, currently being developed by NOAA and DOD.

• What are the technical and programmatic risks of putting the new Landsat

imaging sensor on the first NPOESS platform? How serious are those risks?

• Is the Landsat user community involved in determining the requirements to

be met if the Landsat sensor is added to NPOESS?

A1. The main technical and programmatic risks are as follows:

a. Technical

1. Adequacy of the large NPOESS platform to adequately meet the pointing

and jitter requirements of the Operational Land Imager (OLI).

2. Operational data interface from the Weather Centrals to the land processing system.

b. Programmatic

1. Adequate involvement of the community in the definition of the instrument performance requirements.

2. Impact of delay in the launch of NPOESS C–1 (first) platform, which

will compound the impact of the lack of a bridge mission (see my comments attached below that I submitted to one of Chairman Boehlert’s

questions).

3. Long-term commitment to process and distribute the data.

4. Uncertain policy of response to OLI instrument failure on orbit.

Q2. How do current NASA Earth science budgetary priorities and plans compare to

recommendations made by the National Research Council over the past five

years?

A2. Simply put, the current direction of Earth sciences is 180 degrees from the recommendations of the Earth sciences community as expressed through NRC reports.

NASA is cutting or delaying recommended missions that were in development, and

it is not responding to recommendations for other new missions; the Research and

Development monies are being cut and opportunities for graduate education are

being diminished. By and large, NASA is heading in the opposite direction from repeated recommendations of the Earth sciences community.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and

have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administration’s changes

to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I

also notice that in the same fashion at the Administration’s request, NASA has

decided to combine the Earth science and solar physics programs into one EarthSun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission

directorate.

Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

A1a. I believe that the Interim report captures the stand-alone projects most severely cut through its list (Table 3.1 from the Interim Report attached below) of missions that are either delayed, canceled, or descoped. In addition, I believe that the

next is the Earth System Science Pathfinder program, which currently does not

have sufficient funds to execute in a timely fashion the mission that have been seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
158

lected in the ESSP–3 set and no monies for ESSP–4 Request for Proposals. Addressing the issues implicit in the Table and ESSP would be my top priority.

Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

A1b. I do not have a strong view on combining Earth and solar physics—I know

that it can work productively since these sciences are combined in a single institute

at UNH and they were combined in the 1980s at NASA. I do not think that this

is a major issue.

Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A1c. The development a coherent Decadal View is the next critical step-this is the

responsibility of the community through the NRC study. When this is accomplished

and adequately reviewed, then I believe that NASA must align its program with

that expressed view. For the moment, we must stop the bleeding so that the patient

does not die.

159

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Timothy L. Killeen, Director, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do. Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its significance and how it differs from what is done by National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

A1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plays an important role in performing and supporting Earth science research in the U.S. NOAA

and NASA are the only U.S. civil agencies that fund the design, development and

operation of Earth observing satellites that provide global-scale measurements of

the Earth system, and both agencies also support a wide variety of modeling and

research activities that include efforts focused on weather prediction, climate

change, and oceans. There are, however, a number of important differences.

NOAA’s research focuses mainly on study of the atmosphere and oceans (as the

agency name implies), and is largely focused on supporting NOAA’s operational mission. NOAA certainly plays a leading role in research relevant to weather prediction, although many other agencies, including NASA and NSF are also active in

this area. NOAA plays a very important role in climate change research and, particularly, in climate change observations. NOAA’s ongoing work in measuring the

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is one of the fundamental building blocks of

climate change science, with a high quality record that extends back to the late

1950’s. Its effort to establish a climate reference network of precise and ideally

placed stations to measure temperature, precipitation, and wind speeds will likewise

prove very beneficial to scientists and decision-makers if it is strongly supported by

the Administration and Congress over the long-term. And NOAA ocean measurements and analyses have helped explain the role of the ocean in storing much of

the energy retained in the Earth system as a consequence of the human-induced

build-up of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. NOAA has also been a

leader in improving our understanding of climate variability as well as longer-term

climate change. The network of NOAA buoys in the tropical Pacific has helped explain the El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation and its impacts.

NASA has supported a broader program of Earth science and global change research that includes significant efforts in land use and land cover change, terrestrial

ecology, and solid Earth/geology, which are not prominent in NOAA research. In addition to its broader scope, NASA has been a much larger supporter of universitybased research. Leaving spacecraft and data system costs aside, AAAS analyses

show that NASA was the third largest provider of competitively awarded extra

mural funding for the university environmental science community in 2004, trailing

only the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Even

small reductions in the NASA program have large effects in the university community. As I noted in my testimony before the Committee, such reductions have a negative affect on the undergraduate and graduate education and training, and thus

on the technical capabilities of our nation’s future workforce. In contrast, NOAA is

not a significant provider of peer-reviewed competitive research opportunities for the

academic community, instead spending most of its research funding on intramural

work that is conducted in its own labs.

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA instruments on

NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding was provided?

A2. In general, there is no direct scientific advantage to placing NASA instruments

on NOAA platforms. There could be budgetary savings for NASA if it did not have

to pay for spacecraft development or operation. But NOAA would have to bear these

costs, which would require significant increases in the NOAA budget. It does not

appear that shifting the responsibility for some part of overall mission costs from

one agency to another will reduce the overall expense to taxpayers. The only scenario where one can imagine significant savings is if a single instrument can serve

both NOAA and NASA purposes. But the significant differences between NASA

science needs and NOAA operational needs make such opportunities difficult to

identify.

It is possible that societal benefits could accrue from tighter integration of NASA

and NOAA satellite activities related to weather forecasting if such integration resulted in more rapid and effective transition of advanced research capabilities to opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:28 Apr 03, 2006 Jkt 020736 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\FULL05\042805\20736 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
160

erations. However, NOAA and NASA activity in this area is already much more integrated than commonly realized, with NASA responsible for the construction, integration, and verification testing of the spacecraft, instruments, and unique ground

equipment operated by NOAA. Satellites are handed off to NOAA after they are

checked out on-orbit. This responsibility will be taken over by the Air Force when

the U.S. begins operation of the joint DOD–NOAA–NASA National Polar-orbiting

Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), which will replace the current generation of polar orbiting weather satellites in about 2008. Provision of

NASA research instruments to such a system could provide research and operational benefits, but this requires that the overall program is provided with sufficient budgets and managed in such a fashion that it can ingest and make use of

continued advances in capabilities.

There are important Earth science questions that can only be addressed by maintaining accurate space based measurements for very long periods of time, particularly in climate change, solar, and land cover change research. One can make a rational argument that a set of long-term research instruments should be included on

NOAA operational satellites that are expected to be maintained as part of our nation’s permanent infrastructure. But this only makes sense if there is a long-term

budgetary commitment to developing and maintaining the advanced instrumentation needed to produce research-quality measurements. Experience to date is not

particularly encouraging in this regard, with Landsat providing an unfortunate example of major difficulties in maintaining long-term support for high-quality research measurements, even when they also serve many practical, nearly ‘‘operational’’ purposes.

It should also be remembered that NASA is currently flying three large Earth

science satellite systems carrying a total of 15 different instruments, along with

about 14 smaller Earth science missions carrying 1–3 instruments each. NOAA currently operates four satellites at a time. Transferring even a small subset of NASA

instrumentation onto NOAA satellites implies a significant increase in the number

and/or capabilities of these systems (instruments require power, space, and communications capacity), which will require substantial additional funding over and above

the amounts required for instrument design and development. Such a step is also

likely to require substantial additions to NOAA staffing, perhaps by transferring

large numbers of NASA employees to NOAA. Conversely, significantly reducing the

number of research instruments that can be flown would significantly reduce the

scope of U.S. efforts to document and understand the planet upon which we live and

depend.

The primary disadvantage of flying NASA research instruments on NOAA operational platforms is the difficulty of merging the differing management requirements for operational and research systems. The primary purpose of NOAA systems

is protection of life and property, which translates into a set of overarching management requirements. Science will be a junior partner in such systems, and operational requirements are almost certain to override science requirements if there is

a conflict between them. This is appropriate, but also represents a potential cost to

our nation’s science efforts. For example, a key instrument failure requires rapid

launch of a replacement NOAA satellite, even if the other instruments are still

working. The old satellite is then turned off. Adapting research instrumentation to

such a system either requires (a) the purchase of multiple instrument copies so that

the ‘‘hot spares’’ can include replacement research instruments or (b) additional research funding to support continued satellite operations if operational instruments

fail.

In summary, it is possible that flight of NASA instruments on NOAA satellites

could provide benefits to both the science and operational communities, and to our

nation as a whole, but only if adequate budgets are provided over the long-term and

strong and effective interagency management mechanisms are put in place. Maintaining an appropriate balance of scientific and operational requirements and priorities would be very challenging in such an arrangement, but is critical to achieving

success. This kind of program integration is not likely to result in significant overall

savings or efficiencies unless single instruments can be made to serve operational

and research purposes. Reduction in the budgets devoted to Earth science satellite

missions and/or the numbers of Earth science instruments that are developed and

operated will slow the rate at which we improve our understanding of the Earth

system and how changes in the Earth system affect its capacity to sustain life.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that the Nation

might gain from continued investments in Earth science research? What will be

161

the negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth science research

and applications is diminished in the coming years?

A1. As I stated when I testified before the Committee, I believe that rapid advances

in NASA Earth observing capabilities, coupled with revolutionary advances in information technology, have positioned us for an extraordinary new era in Earth science

research—one in which we can quantitatively understand and predict the Earth as

a system, with the temporal and spatial fidelity needed by decision-makers at many

levels of our society: local, regional, and global. This will lead directly to major societal benefits including:

• improved national security

• better weather forecasts and warnings

• more targeted climate outlooks

• better management of natural resources including water, agriculture, and energy

• more effective mitigation of natural disasters such as drought, floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions.

The investments made in Earth science programs at NASA, the National Science

Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department

of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies are all important for enabling this progress. But NASA plays a unique role in our overall national efforts

as the only provider of research-quality (i.e., well documented and very accurate)

global scale measurements from space. Reducing our investment in NASA Earth

sciences program will slow the rate at which we improve our understanding of the

Earth system and how changes in that system affect its capacity to sustain life. Reduced investment will also slow the rate at which we develop new practical applications of scientific knowledge will provide the benefits listed above, even as other nations are increasing their investments and expertise in this area.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and

have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administration’s changes

to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I

also notice that in the same fashion at the Administration’s request, NASA has

decided to combine the Earth science and solar physics programs into one EarthSun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission

Directorate.

Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

A1a. This question is most appropriately addressed by NASA managers. I do not

have access to their internal decision processes about exactly how they will allocate

budget reductions that are proposed by the Administration and approved by Congress. As an Earth scientist, I am particularly concerned about a set of actions identified in the recent report from the National Research Council, including:

• Cancellation of the Ocean Vector Winds mission

• Cancellation of the Landsat Data Continuity mission

• Cancellation of the Glory mission

• Cancellation of the Wide Swath Ocean Altimeter

• Cancellation of the Geostationary Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer

• Delay of the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission

In a more general sense, I am quite worried about the possibility that additional

budget reductions will fall disproportionately on the Research and Analysis component of the NASA program, which supports the involvement of the academic community in NASA programs and enables the creation of knowledge and useful information from space-based measurements.

Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth Science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

162

A1b. I believe that it is up to NASA and those in the Congress and Executive

branch who are responsible for oversight of NASA to agree on the most appropriate

organizational structure for the Agency and its programs. However, I am concerned

that the combination of NASA’s Earth and Space science programs into a single organization and the reduction of funding for both Earth and Space science is part

of an overall process of reducing NASA science funding and applying it to other

agency priorities. I believe this is a serious mistake. In my view, our nation is better

served by a balanced NASA program that provides strong support to both science

and human space flight and exploration funding, and I would thus respectfully suggest continued maintenance of the traditional ‘‘firewall’’ between science and human

space flight funding.

Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A1c. As I stated when I testified before the Committee, I believe that NASA should

work with the scientific and technical community and its partner agencies in the

Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to define a NASA Earth science plan that

is fully compatible with the overall CCSP science strategy. In my view, the interaction with the scientific and technical community should include both input from

and review by the National Research Council and direct interaction with the community of investigators who are supported by NASA, and the aerospace industry

who are very familiar with NASA capabilities and developing technological opportunities. I believe NASA should also find a means of involving users and potential

users of NASA-generated data in this process, perhaps through public comment periods or a series of workshops. This science plan should then guide the process of

setting mission priorities.

Defining criteria to use in comparing and deciding upon potential mission would

be an important part of this planning exercise. I would recommend consideration

of a set of criteria that include:

• Compatibility with science priorities in the plan

• Potential scientific return from mission

• Technological risk

• Direct and indirect societal benefits

• Cost.

I believe that the decadal planning activity underway at the NRC in response to

a request from NASA and NOAA is a valuable step in this process.

163

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Sean C. Solomon, Director, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do. Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its significance and how it differs from what is done by National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)?

A1. There are two fundamental differences between NOAA and NASA. First, NOAA

is primarily an operational or monitoring agency, whereas NASA’s strength is the

ability to develop innovative technologies that enable new types of measurements

and new discoveries about how the Earth functions as a planet. Second, NOAA’s

charter is focused on the oceans and atmosphere, whereas NASA takes a planetary

perspective, one that integrates the land surface and interior with the oceans and

atmosphere as well as the Earth’s space environment. Both NASA and NOAA play

important roles for Earth science and for this nation, but those roles are distinct.

This nation is stronger because of the complementarity and cooperation between the

two agencies.

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA instruments on

NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding was provided?

A2. Certainly there are often economies to be gained in situations where NASA can

place an instrument on a space platform operated by another federal agency or

international partner. Such situations can save the cost of a dedicated satellite and

can provide greater access to space flight. The principal disadvantages, in contrast,

are that the choice of orbital characteristics, mission operations, or data management for one mission may not be optimum for another experiment, leading to compromises in experiment goals and lessened scientific impact. Each such opportunity

needs to be evaluated in light of the full trade-off among benefits and costs.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that the Nation

might gain from continued investments in Earth science research? What will be

the negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth science research

and applications is diminished in the coming years?

A1. We still have much to learn about how our planet functions. Continued investment in Earth science can deepen our understanding of how our atmosphere protects and sustains us, how Earth’s climate and weather are evolving, what controls

the availability of fresh water, how life influences and responds to environmental

processes, and what controls changes to the Earth’s surface and interior. A diminished investment by this nation in new technologies for studying our planet will impact deleteriously our ability to mitigate natural disasters; make the best use of our

land, ocean, and fresh-water resources; and better the lives of all of Earth’s citizens.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and

have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administration’s changes

to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I

also notice that in the same fashion at the Administration’s request, NASA has

decided to combine Earth science and solar physics programs into one EarthSun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science Mission

Directorate.

• What stand-alone projects within the Earth science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

• Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth Science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

164

• Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A1. The specific form of organization at NASA is less important than the vision

brought to the strategic planning process used to develop mission concepts and

prioritize new programs. During the late 1980s and early 1990s the Earth and space

sciences were combined into one office at NASA, and all elements of the Agency’s

sciences programs fared equitably.

There are ongoing efforts at strategic planning that should improve the effectiveness of NASA’s program in Earth science and applications. The first decadal survey

for Earth science and applications from space, now underway under the aegis of the

National Academy of Sciences, is an important indicator that the Earth science community has embraced the need to integrate its planning and prioritization processes.

NASA’s scientific roadmapping efforts that were completed earlier this year and are

now under review by the National Research Council constitute a parallel, complementary strategic planning activity that has produced focused recommendations

for the most important next steps for the Agency’s Earth Science program.

165

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Marcia McNutt, President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

Institute

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. During the hearing, much of the discussion concerned what NOAA does not do.

Could you please describe the Earth science that NOAA does support, its significance and how it differs from what is done by NASA?

A1. The closest analogy I can make in trying to distinguish the different roles visaa ́-vis NOAA and NASA with regard to Earth science is to say that NOAA is the

ultimate consumer of scientific information, whereas NASA is a creator of scientific

information. As a consumer, NOAA would thrive if it could satisfy its appetite for

Earth science information using systems developed, deployed, and operated by other

agencies. For many years, NOAA got its space-based Earth science information

using NASA satellites, sensors, and data systems. However, NOAA couldn’t guarantee that the diet for Earth science data that it had become accustomed to and

that it required to meet its mission-specific obligations would always be provided

by NASA, given NASA’s basic research objectives. Therefore, it made sense for

NOAA to replicate satellite missions that NASA had already developed, tested, and

proven once the NASA prototypes were no longer serviceable. In fact, this approach

was good for both agencies, because it freed up NASA resources in the Earth

sciences to work on better, more precise instrumentation and new sensors that could

measure important quantities that had never been acquired from space before.

If all that was at stake here was continuing a time series using existing instruments on standard platforms (e.g., the TOMS—Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer—missions that measure the evolution of the ozone hole), I would be comfortable

with the idea that NOAA could pick up that part of the program. However, that

is not what is being proposed. Missions in NASA’s Earth Science program that are

prototypes of new measurements from space are being canceled or indefinitely postponed. NOAA does not have the history or the technology base or the mission to

take on these new developments. Furthermore, NASA is developing new sensor systems for Earth science applications that don’t necessarily fit with NOAA’s oceanic

and atmospheric mission (e.g., synthetic aperture radar—SAR—for earthquake and

volcano hazard assessment) and that therefore would never be taken up by NOAA.

The SAR probably does fit in with the mission of the USGS, but space-based SAR

is never going to be developed and brought to operational status by USGS, at least

not in any affordable way.

The bottom line is the following. If NOAA were to take on all of NASA’s Earth

science research program, it would only be successful if it spun up a technology development group in order to create the new sensors and platforms necessary for the

next generation of important problems. But this would be a needless and expensive

duplication of what NASA is doing already. NASA’s mission is to explore the universe. Technology development is essential to achieve that objective. The technology

developments needed for exploration and research and (eventually) operations are

basically indistinguishable because they are all part of the same continuum. It has

made economic sense for many years for NASA to be the technology innovator in

Earth sciences, and leave it to the other agencies to adopt and continue the most

successful of those programs, as measured by the importance of the acquired data

to their missions.

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA instruments on

NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding was provided?

A2. I believe that it would be possible to fly a NASA instrument on a NOAA platform IF the platform could support the instrument, IF the orbit were conducive to

the measurement being made, and IF NASA were still fundamentally in charge of

the development of the instrument and the shepherding of the data stream while

the instrument is still in the developmental stages. After all, NASA has done exactly this with other international space agencies, so it should be possible to do this

with NASA. But these are a lot of ‘‘if’s, and as I understand it, this is not what

is on the table. NASA has reprogrammed money out of Earth science, so there is

no funding to transfer to NOAA to cover the costs, and more than just the launches

and the platforms have been cut from the program. The better way to do just this

is to leave the funding in a NASA Earth Science program, and create an interagency

transfer mechanism to permit NASA Earth Sciences to purchase the launch and the

166

space on a NOAA platform when that indeed is the most cost effective way to accomplish the mission.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that the Nation

might gain from continued investments in Earth science research? What will be

the negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth science research

and applications is diminished in the coming years?

A1. Some benefits we can already anticipate because they are already coming over

our horizon. For example, I firmly believe that a continued investment in NASA’s

Earth Science research and application program is critical to the Nation’s economy,

with the sectors most likely to benefit including energy, agriculture, and transportation. And these are certainly not ‘‘fringe’’ elements of the U.S. economy! What

these sectors all have in common is the necessity to make predictions to optimize

the scheduling and deployment of resources in order to provide services to society

in a cost effective manner. Why plant a crop poorly suited to the projected rain fall

in the coming season if another crop will thrive under those same conditions? A

largely failed crop is a needless waste of the grower’s resources and leads to high

prices at the grocery stores for the consumers.

Doubtlessly the most important benefits are the ones that we hardly dare predict

yet. But let me be so bold as to suggest an example. The GRACE (Gravity Recovery

and Climate Experiment) mission was launched in March, 2002, as part of the

Earth System Science Pathfinder program. The GRACE mission detects changes in

Earth’s gravity field by monitoring the changes in distance between two satellites

as they orbit Earth. GRACE’s measurements are so precise that the satellite has

been able to detect seasonal and longer period changes in groundwater storage beneath the land surface. As a resident of the Salinas Valley, I can attest to the importance of groundwater as a storage mechanism for temporally redistributing fresh

water from the season when rain falls—the California winter—to the other seasons

when it is needed to grow crops, fight fires, etc. Monitoring changes in water storage

in the planet’s great aquifers from space makes a lot of sense because the measurement is not limited to locations where there are wells and is insensitive to the complication that where rain falls may be different from where the water is stored. The

gravity signal averages out local variations and provides a consistent standard from

region to region and continent to continent. Fresh water is one of society’s most valuable and threatened resources. I anticipate that missions such as GRACE will be

important in helping us properly manage our fresh water supply.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. I also have the privilege of serving on the Financial Services Committee and

have had the opportunity to take a close look at the Administration’s changes

to housing programs. The Administration wants to consolidate Community Development Block Grants and six other HUD programs as well as ten other programs from federal agencies to move them into the Commerce department, drastically reducing funding in some cases and making minimal cuts in others. I

also notice that in the same fashion at the Administration’s request, NASA has

decided to combine the Earth Science and solar physics programs into one

Earth-Sun Science program that has been incorporated into the new Science

Mission Directorate.

Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

A1a. I will defer to Mr. Diaz to answer this question, as I understand that NASA

has not necessarily finalized its plan for which programs will sustain the most drastic cuts and that there are some semantic issues on whether at this point some missions are cut or simply ‘‘postponed.’’ However, I will add that in my experience,

drawing a project out over a longer time scale adds more to the cost to get the same

result. It is not an effective use of resources.

Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth Science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

A1b. I think it is a bad idea. I believe that the re-organization has a high likelihood

of marginalizing Earth sciences at the Agency. External scrutiny of the distribution

of resources between Earth and spaces sciences will be greatly reduced, allowing

space science to raid whatever budget is left in Earth science. Like it or not, Earth

167

is the only planet we will have to sustain us for a very long time. NASA’s research

is so key to our future on this planet that to downgrade its status in the Agency

is exactly the opposite of what should be done.

Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A1c. I am a fan of Goldin’s philosophy. I think we should be doing more of the type

of research that was encouraged through the Earth System Science Pathfinder

(ESSP) program. I prefer that to the large space platforms that try to house every

conceivable instrument, and result in undesirable trade-offs in terms of orbit, altitude, etc., and take forever to get launched.

168

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ray A. Williamson, Research Professor, Space Policy Institute, George

Washington University

Questions submitted by Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert

Q1. During the hearing much of the discussion concerned what the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does not do. Could you please describe

the Earth science that NOAA does support, its significance and how it differs

from what is done by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)?

A1. NOAA tends to support applied science, that science that directly supports the

needs of the American public, such as weather forecasting, how the U.S. coastline

is changing under the effects of global warming, and how periodic medium- and

long-term changes in ocean temperature may affect fish and marine populations

upon which the U.S. populations depend for sustenance.

NASA, on the other hand conducts research into more basic Earth science questions, such as how space technologies can support basic science research into the

underlying Earth systems and how they interact with each other. What are the fundamental mechanisms of weather and climate and how can this knowledge be used

to build more accurate weather and climate bio-physical-chemical models of Earth’s

weather and climate behavior?

Q2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of placing NASA instruments on

NOAA platforms, assuming that the appropriate funding was provided?

A2. The answer to this question depends heavily on the precise function of the instrument in question, and the specific orbital parameters of the NOAA spacecraft

compared to that of the NASA sensor under consideration. Each orbit has its own

particular characteristics. In some cases, an appropriate fit may be found between

NASA sensor and NOAA spacecraft. In other cases, the missions of both sensor and

spacecraft would have to be compromised substantially in order to put them together. In the case of the Landsat sensor and the Congressional mandate to maintain the continuity of data delivery from the instrument, placing a Landsat-equivalent sensor on the NPOESS satellites means that the Landsat sensor would fly in

a different orbit, causing several differences in the characteristics of the data acquired. Extensive experimentation with the resulting data by several different categories of users would be required in order to determine whether or not the differences are sufficient to require major changes in the operational characteristics of

the users’ data analysis systems. In the long run, such changes in operations might

cost more to the users than is saved through placing the instrument on the

NPOESS satellites.

Questions submitted by Representative Bart Gordon

Q1. What do you consider to be the most promising future benefits that the Nation

might gain from continued investments in Earth science research? What will be

the negative impacts on society if NASA’s commitment to Earth science research

and applications is diminished in the coming years?

A1. Continued investments in Earth science research can, if adequately funded, result in numerous benefits for the Nation, a selection of which are listed below. Conversely, reduced funding can lead to loss of these potential benefits, not only directly

from the loss of NASA’s involvement in promoting new applications of its research,

but also in the loss over the long-term of the scientific knowledge such research provides.

A Partial Selection of Potential Benefits:

• Much improved weather, climate predictability (e.g., 10 days advance forecast

in place of the current seven days)

• Improved safety of coastal populations and property at risk from tropical

storms through reduced loss of life and property damage

• Improved understanding of the generation, movement, and possible mitigation of greenhouse gases and pollution-causing chemicals

• Contributions to airline safety from space weather forecasts

• Reduced loss of life from improved predictability of earthquakes and volcano

activity

169

• Improved management of natural resources by federal agencies and crop

management by agricultural firms

Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall

Q1. The White House has proposed putting the Landsat imager on the first NPOESS

satellite, currently being developed by NOAA and DOD.

Q1a. What are the technical and programmatic risks of putting the new Landsat imaging sensor on the first NPOESS platform? How serious are those risks?

A1a. The current Landsat system is one of the most capable and versatile land observation systems available anywhere. When operating at full capacity, Landsat 7

was capable of producing maps of the entire United States each season, data that

are very useful for tracking seasonal changes. Data are used for a wide variety of

purposes, from land planning, environmental management, agricultural management, and for large-scale studies of environmental change. They are often the first

data sets that users turn to in order to have a general overview of the landscape

under study and often serve as a foundation for more detailed analysis with higher

resolution data with much less extensive coverage. For the sensor to be placed on

the NPOESS satellites, several technical issues would need to be resolved, the details of which depend strongly on the needs of data users, such as orbital height,

swath-width of the sensor, the number and placement of spectral channels, and the

frequency of coverage. Current users of Landsat data have built their processing

and analytic systems around the characteristics of current Landsat data. Hence, any

changes in the characteristics of the data sets have far reaching consequences to the

many users of Landsat data.

Q1b. Is the Landsat user community involved in determining the requirements to be

met if the Landsat sensor is added to NPOESS?

A1b. It is my understanding that the Landsat data user community is generally opposed to placing the Landsat sensor on NPOESS because most users do not feel that

it will continue to serve their needs. However, if the Administration decides to move

ahead with that transition anyway, the needs of the user community would certainly need to be taken into account in order to encourage those users to continue

making use of the data.

Questions submitted by Representative Al Green

Q1. At the Administration’s request, NASA has decided to combine the Earth science

and solar physics programs into one Earth-Sun science program that has been

incorporated into the new Science Mission Directorate.

Q1a. Which stand-alone projects within the Earth Science program will sustain the

most drastic cuts?

A1a. This is not a subject with which I have sufficient knowledge to provide an adequate answer.

Q1b. Do you believe the reorganization of NASA’s Earth Science program is a good

idea or a bad idea? Why?

A1b. In some respects, this is a good idea because it recognizes in the organization

the extremely close connection between solar events and their effects on Earth systems. For example, the study of solar-generated space weather, which has been a

subject of increasing scientific interest and applied concern because of the sometimes severe effects of space weather on technological systems, such as airline

flights and the electricity grid, could be affected positively. Further, the sun,

through space weather effects also affects terrestrial weather. However, organizing

NASA in this way means that the program managers must give careful attention

to coordination of the different aspects of the program to assure that they are able

to achieve their overall objectives for the program.

Q1c. Would you have any recommendations for improving the effectiveness of

NASA’s Earth Science program?

A1c. In my testimony, I noted the importance of following up NASA’s Earth Science

programs to document the scale and scope of the many benefits we derive from the

funds NASA spends on Earth science. In my view, the effectiveness of NASA’s Earth

Science program would be vastly improved through a sustained effort to document

and measure the benefits of Earth science research, both the science results and the

170

applications developed in partnership with other U.S. agencies. As noted in my testimony to this Committee, studies at the Space Policy Institute ‘‘show that the supportable, qualitative benefits of Earth science research are quite high to nearly all

sectors of industry and to the public sector. Since NASA is at the cutting edge of

Earth science research in this country, it should focus more attention on this important subject in order to assist in guiding its future research agenda. This is not to

say that expected practical benefits alone should determine NASA’s future research

agenda, since such an approach might stifle creative, breakthrough research efforts,

but such benefits should play a role in the decision process when difficult decisions

are being made among projects.’’

The Committee could assist NASA by ‘‘authoriz[ing] NASA to direct greater attention to the quantification of the benefits of Earth science research and applications

to America’s industry and public sector, and the policy implications of those benefits.’’

(171)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225