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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–568 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 110–1196 

NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH 

SCIENCE RESEARCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, AERONAUTICS, AND 

RELATED SCIENCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 7, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

MARGARET SPRING, Democratic General Counsel 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director, and General Counsel 

KENNETH R. NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director, and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, AERONAUTICS, AND RELATED SCIENCES 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi, 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 7, 2007 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES

Brown, Ph.D., Otis D., Dean, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric 

Science, University of Miami; Member, Committee on Earth Science and 

Applications from Space, National Research Council, The National Academies ..................................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Colleton, Nancy, President, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; 

Executive Director, Alliance for Earth Observations ........................................ 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Freilich, Dr. Michael H., Director, Earth Science Division, Science Mission 

Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ......................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Moore III, Ph.D., Berrien, Distinguished Professor and Director, Institute 

for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire; 

Co-Chair, Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council, The National Academies ............................................ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

(1) 

NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH 

SCIENCE RESEARCH 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, AERONAUTICS, AND RELATED

SCIENCES, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building. Hon. Bill Nelson, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Good afternoon, and thank you all for coming. 

This is not a hearing on global warming, because the jury is already in and the conclusions have been overwhelming. There’s almost near-unanimity of the world’s leading scientists that the climate is changing, and we are responsible. 

It is especially sensitive for my state for the obvious reasons of 

being a peninsula with more coastline than any other state in the 

continental United States. 

So, today we’re going to examine the more specific issue of 

whether you scientists have the tools that you need to monitor our 

fragile planet, and to study how what we’re doing as humans is affecting it. 

This is simply a time in which we cannot afford any mistakes. 

For more than 40 years, NASA has developed satellites to study 

this planet, and they have ever-increasing accuracy. Go back to the 

1960’s TIROS satellites, those fuzzy views have now turned to the 

high-quality views that we have today. Space has clearly turned 

out to be the best vantage point from which we can study and observe this planet. 

We depend on these instruments, certainly to forecast our weather. If anybody ever doubts the utility of those instruments, just 

wait until you have an inbound hurricane, and you’re absolutely 

glued to either the website of NOAA, the Weather Channel, or the 

local channel, that’s giving you these accurate satellite views, along 

with NOAA’s predictions from the National Hurricane Center. 

We depend on these instruments to forecast the weather, to predict and respond to natural disasters, and to study our climate and 

the Earth’s ecosystems. They even help us measure the effects of 

land-use, deforestation, and pollution. NASA’s history is filled with 

successful missions, like Landsat, and the Earth Observing System. 

2 

Just a week ago, during our recess, I took off to Latin America 

visiting with several heads of state on a mission to build our relationships in that region of the world and throughout the Western 

Hemisphere. 

But one of the things that I wanted to do en route from having 

seen the President of Ecuador, going to see the President of Peru, 

was to go to the rainforest. There wasn’t any sense of me going to 

the rainforest in Brazil, because they were all off at Carnival. But, 

they were available in the rainforest in the east of the Andes in 

Peru. I wanted to see for myself the destruction of the rainforest, 

in this case the uplands of the rainforest. On the sides of those 

mountains there was destruction, not so much for logging, but for 

the growing of coca and other plants, and legitimate crops. 

I shared with them that I became interested in deforestation 21 

years ago, when I looked out the window of a spacecraft, coming 

across South America when, with the naked eye, I could see the destruction of the rainforest, because of the color contrast 203 miles 

away on the surface of the Earth below. In the same window of the 

spacecraft, I could look to the east, and see the result of the destruction of the rainforest. At the mouth of the Amazon the waters 

of the Atlantic were discolored for hundreds of miles out in the Atlantic from the additional silt. 

I want to understand that. I want to understand also, and this 

Committee wants to understand, how you all can help us understand so much of this delicate, fragile, but extremely beautiful 

place we call home that is suspended out in the middle of nothing. 

Today there is a reason for concern, for what my naked eye saw 

21 years ago, and what my naked eye saw a week and a half ago 

on the sides of those lower Eastern Andes. We’ve tried to adjust to 

all of this, and we have a next-generation weather and earth satellite system, NPOESS—it’s in trouble. 

The project is billions of dollars over budget, it’s years behind 

schedule, and the key climate science instruments have been 

thrown overboard to keep the program alive. And while the President’s 2008 budget request does include a miniscule increase, 

spending on Earth Science peaked in 2000, and has since decreased 

by 25 percent. 

Likewise, the number of Earth Science missions and instruments 

peaked earlier this decade, and is now in a slow decline. The President’s request this year is a billion and a half for these Earth 

Science projects, and you all would like them to be $2 billion. I 

want to hear from you, the Committee wants to hear from you. 

This is not so much a problem of misplaced priorities, but rather, 

NASA is being asked to do too much with too little. And in this 

tough budget environment, it’s tough to get these colleagues, it’s 

tough to get them here to a hearing, it’s tough to get them to join 

in supporting the program recommended by the Decadal Survey. 

Not at the expense of the other priorities, but by giving NASA the 

resources it needs to accomplish all of its vital missions. 

So, I want to welcome Dr. Freilich, Dr. Moore, Dr. Brown, Ms. 

Colleton. We’re going to do something a little bit different. I’m 

going to take all of your prepared texts, they will be a part of the 

record. We’re just going to have a conversation. When some of the 

other Senators come, I’ll just stop and I’ll let them jump right in. 

3 

1 NRC, Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve 

the Nation, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005. Also available online at 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11281.html. 

What we want to do is to get the maximum benefit of your thinking 

on what we should do. 

[The prepared statements of the witnesses follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERRIEN MOORE III, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR

AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF EARTH, OCEANS, AND SPACE, 

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE AND

APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL

ACADEMIES

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 and Director of 

the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space. 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. 

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 recently completed a ‘‘Decadal Survey’’ of Earth Science and 

Applications from space. (‘‘Decadal surveys’’ are the 10-year prioritized roadmaps 

that the NRC has done for 40 years for the astronomers; this is the first time it 

is being done for Earth Science and Applications from space.) Among the key tasks 

in the charge to the Decadal Survey committee were 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 an extensive report in response to this 

charge, which I am pleased to be able to summarize here today. Over 100 leaders 

in the Earth Science community participated on the survey steering committee or 

its seven study panels. It is noteworthy that this was the first Earth Science 

Decadal Survey, and the Committee and panel members did an excellent job in fulfilling the charge and establishing a consensus—a task many previously considered 

impossible. A copy of the full report has also been provided for your use. 

The Committee’s vision is encapsulated in the following declaration, first stated 

in the Committee’s April 2005 Interim Report: 1

‘‘Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live, how it supports 

life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future is one of 

the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the most 

important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve prosperity, health, and 

sustainability.’’ 

As detailed in the Committee’s final report, and as we were profoundly reminded 

by the latest report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 

world faces significant and profound environmental challenges: shortages of clean 

and accessible freshwater, degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, increases in soil erosion, changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere, declines in fisheries, and above all the rapid pace of substantial changes in climate. These changes 

are not isolated; they interact with each other and with natural variability in complex ways that cascade through the environment across local, regional, and global 

scales. Addressing these societal challenges requires that we confront key scientific 

questions related to ice sheets and sea level change, large-scale and persistent shifts 

in precipitation and water availability, transcontinental air pollution, shifts in ecosystem structure and function in response to climate change, impacts of climate 

change on human health, and occurrence of extreme events, such as hurricanes, 

floods and droughts, heat waves, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. 

Yet at a time when the need has never been greater, we are faced with an Earth 

observation program that will dramatically diminish in capability over the next 5– 

10 years. 

4 

2 It has been estimated that one third of the $10 trillion U.S. economy is weather-sensitive 

or environment-sensitive (NRC, Satellite Observations of the Earth’s Environment: Accelerating 

the Transition of Research to Operations, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 

2003). 

The Interim Report described how satellite observations have been critical to scientific efforts to understand the Earth as a system of connected components, including the land, oceans, atmosphere, biosphere, and solid-Earth. It also gave examples 

of how these observations have served the nation, helping to save lives and protect 

property, strengthening national security, and contributing to the growth of our 

economy 2 through provision of timely environmental information. The Interim Report documented that NASA had canceled, scaled back, or delayed at least six 

planned missions (Table 1), including a Landsat continuity mission. This led to the 

main finding in the Interim Report: ‘‘this system of environmental satellites is at 

risk of collapse.’’ 

Table 1.—Canceled, Descoped, or Delayed Earth Observation Missions 

[From the April 2005 Pre-Publication of the Interim Report of the Decadal Survey on Earth Science and Applications from Space] 

Mission Measurement Societal benefit Status 

Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Precipitation Reduced vulnerability to 

floods and droughts; improved capability to manage water resources in 

arid regions; improved 

forecasts of hurricanes. 

Delayed 

Atmospheric Soundings 

from Geostationary Orbit 

(GIFTS—Geostationary 

Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer) 

Temperature and water 

vapor 

Protection of life and property through improved 

weather forecasts and severe storm warnings. 

Canceled 

Ocean Vector Winds (active 

scatterometer follow-on to 

QuikSCAT) 

Wind speed and direction 

near the ocean surface 

Improved severe weather 

warnings to ships at sea; 

improved crop planning 

and yields through better 

predictions of El Nin ̃ o. 

Canceled 

Landsat Data Continuity— 

bridge mission (to fill gap 

between Landsat–7 and 

NPOESS) 

Land cover Monitoring of deforestation; identification of 

mineral resources; tracking of the conversion of 

agricultural land to other 

uses. 

Canceled 

Glory Optical properties of 

aerosols; solar irradiance 

Improved scientific understanding of factors that 

force climate change. 

Canceled 

Wide Swath Ocean Altimeter (on the Ocean Surface Topography Mission, 

OSTM) 

Sea level in two dimensions Monitoring of coastal currents, eddies, and tides, 

all of which affect fisheries, navigation, and 

ocean climate. 

Instrument canceled—descope of 

an enhanced OSTM 

Since the publication of the Interim Report, the Hydros and Deep Space Climate 

Observatory missions were canceled; the flagship Global Precipitation Mission was 

delayed for another two and a half years; significant cuts were made to NASA’s Research and Analysis program; the NPOESS Preparatory Project mission was delayed for a year and a half; a key atmospheric profiling sensor planned for the next 

generation of NOAA geostationary satellites was canceled; and cost overruns led to 

the NPOESS program undergoing a ‘‘Nunn-McCurdy’’ review. The recertified 

NPOESS program delays the first launch by 3 years, eliminates 2 of the planned 

6 spacecraft, and de-manifests or de-scopes a number of instruments, with particular consequences for measurement of the forcing and feedbacks that need to be 

measured to understand the magnitude, pace, and consequences of global and regional climate change. 

It is against this backdrop that I discuss the present report. 

The Decadal Survey presents a vision for the Earth Science program; an analysis 

of the existing Earth observing system and recommendations to help restore its capabilities; an assessment of and recommendations for new observations and missions needed for the next decade; an examination of and recommendations concerning effective application of those observations; and an analysis of how best to 

sustain that observation and applications system. A critical element of the study’s 

5 

vision is its emphasis on the need to place the benefits to society that can be provided 

by an effective Earth observation system on a par with scientific advancement. 

The integrated suite of space missions and supporting and complementary activities that are described in our report will support the development of numerous applications of high importance to society. The expected benefits of the fully-implemented program include: 

• Human Health 

More reliable forecasts of infectious and vector-borne disease outbreaks for disease control and response. 

• Earthquake Early Warning 

Identification of active faults and prediction of the likelihood of earthquakes to 

enable effective investment in structural improvements, inform land-use decisions, and provide early warning of impending earthquakes. 

• Weather Prediction 

Longer-term, more reliable weather forecasts. 

• Sea Level Rise 

Climate predictions based on better understanding of ocean temperature and ice 

sheet volume changes and feedback to enable effective coastal community planning. 

• Climate Prediction 

Robust estimates of primary climate forcings for improved climate forecasts, including local predictions of the effects of climate change; determination in time 

and space of sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. 

• Freshwater Availability 

More accurate and longer-term precipitation and drought forecasts to improve 

water resource management. 

• Ecosystem Services 

More reliable land-use, agricultural, and ocean productivity forecasts to improve 

planting and harvesting schedules and fisheries management. 

• Air Quality 

More reliable air quality forecasts to enable effective urban pollution management. 

• Extreme Storm Warnings 

Longer-term, more reliable storm track forecasts and intensification predictions 

to enable effective evacuation planning. 

I will now turn to a brief discussion of the budgetary implications of our recommendations. 

The President’s FY08 budget request for NASA Earth Science is a mixture of 

some good news and bad news. The primary bit of good news is the small bottom 

line increases for 2008 and 2009. These increases address the needs of currently 

planned missions already in development, the completion of which is consistent with 

the Decadal Survey’s baseline set of assumptions. 

Unfortunately, the out-year budgets reveal fundamental flaws in the budget and 

NASA’s Earth Science plans—the budgets are totally inadequate to accomplish the 

Decadal Survey’s recommendations. In 2010, the Earth Science budget begins to decline again and reaches a 20-year low, in real terms, in 2012. This decline reflects 

that the 2008 budget contains no provision for new missions, nor does it allow us 

to address the significant challenges facing our planet. These disturbing broad budgetary trends are captured in Figure 1. 

6 

Figure 1: The NASA Earth Science Budget in constant FY06 dollars (normalized 

for full-cost accounting across entire timescale; assumes 3 percent/year inflation 

from 2006 to 2012). Mission supporting activities include Earth Science Research, 

Applied Sciences, Education and Outreach, and Earth Science Technology. 

Before turning to NOAA, I want to emphasize that the problems in the out-years 

appear to be due entirely to the lack of adequate resources. In fact, at a NASA town 

hall meeting that followed the release of our report on January 15, 2007 at the 2007 

annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, the head of NASA’s Earth 

Science program, who appears today with me as a witness, stated that the recommendations in our report provided the roadmap for the Earth Science program 

we should have. 

The NOAA NESDIS budget picture is also a mixture of some good and bad news. 

In this case, the budget takes a small downturn in FY08, followed by significant 

growth in FY09–FY10, before turning down again in FY11 (Figure 2). It remains 

to be seen whether this ∼$200 M/year growth in FY09 and FY10 can enable restoration of some of the lost capabilities to NPOESS and GOES–R. There appears to be 

no budgetary wedge for new starts. Finally, for a variety of reasons, the NOAA 

NESDIS budget is far from transparent, especially in the out-years. 

Figure 2: The NOAA NESDIS Budget in constant 2006 dollars (assumes 3 percent/year inflation from 2006–2012). Mission supporting activities include NOAA’s 


307moore1.eps 307moore2.eps
7 

3 In a typical hurricane season, NOAA’s forecasts, warnings, and the associated emergency re- sponses result in a $3 billion savings. Two-thirds of this savings, $2 billion, is attributed to the 

reduction in hurricane-related deaths, and one-third of this savings, $1 billion, is attributed to 

a reduction in property-related damage because of preparedness actions. Advances in satellite 

information, data assimilation techniques, and more powerful computers to run more sophisticated numerical models, have lead to more accurate weather forecasts and warnings. Today, 

NOAA’s five-day hurricane forecasts, which utilize satellite data, are as accurate as its threeday forecasts were 10 years ago. The additional advanced notice has a significant positive effect 

on many sectors of our economy. See statement and references therein of Edward Morris, Director, Office of Space Commercialization, NOAA, Hearing on Space and U.S. National Power, 

Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, U.S. House of Representatives, June 21, 2006. Available at: http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/morris 

062106.pdf. 4 Ibid. 

Data Centers and Information Services, Data System Enhancements, Data Exploitation, and Information Services, and Facilities and Critical Infrastructure Improvements. 

As detailed in our report, between 2006 and the end of the decade, the number 

of operating U.S. missions will decrease dramatically and the number of operating 

sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their 

nominal lifetimes, may decrease by some 35 percent. If present trends continue, reductions of some 50 percent are possible by 2015. 

Were this to pass, we would have chosen, in effect, to partially blind ourselves 

at a time of increasing need to monitor, predict, and develop responses to numerous 

global environmental challenges. Vital climate records, such as the measurement of 

solar irradiance and the Earth’s response, will be placed in jeopardy or lost. Measurements of aerosols, ozone profiles, sea surface height, sources and sinks of important greenhouse gases, patterns of air and coastal pollution, and even winds in the 

atmosphere are among the numerous critical measurements that are at risk or simply will not occur if we follow the path of the President 2008 budget and the proposed out-year run out. 

Taking this path, we will also forgo the economic benefits that would have come, 

for example, from better management of energy and water, and improved weather 

predictions.3 Without action on the report’s recommendations, a decades-long improvements in the skill in which we make weather forecasts will stall, or even reverse; this may be accompanied by diminished capacity to forecast severe weather 

events and manage disaster response and relief efforts. The nation’s capabilities to 

forecast space weather will also be at risk, with impacts on commercial aviation and 

space technology.4

The world is facing significant environmental challenges: shortages of clean and 

accessible freshwater, degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, increases 

in soil erosion, changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere, declines in fisheries, 


307moore3.eps
8 

and the likelihood of significant changes in climate. These changes are occurring 

over and above the stresses imposed by the natural variability of a dynamic planet, 

as well as the effects of past and existing patterns of conflict, poverty, disease, and 

malnutrition. Further, these changes interact with each other and with natural variability in complex ways that cascade through the environment across local, regional, and global scales. To cope responsibly with these challenges requires information about our planet; it requires us to expand our scientific basis for foreseeing 

potential changes and patterns, and this science is dependent upon expanded spacebased observation. The needed new missions are set forth in the Decadal Survey; 

these missions need to be implemented in the coming decade. 

I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify, and I would be 

delighted to answer any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OTIS B. BROWN, PH.D., DEAN, ROSENSTIEL SCHOOL OF

MARINE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI; MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, NATIONAL RESEARCH

COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and members of the Committee: thank 

you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is Otis Brown, and I am Dean 

of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami. 

I am also a member of the National Research Council’s Committee on Earth Science 

and Applications from Space. 

As dean of the Rosenstiel School, I have first-hand experience how satellite observations provide real-world results. Following Hurricane Katrina, imagery from our 

Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing (CSTARS) assisted relief and recovery efforts in New Orleans, tracking to see when and where flood waters had receded to increase the effectiveness of rescue efforts. Also pertinent to the 

environmental challenges presenting themselves in the Gulf states, we employed 

satellite imagery that identifies the rate of subsidence in the Mississippi Delta and 

New Orleans—equally invaluable information when making decisions about the reality and requirements of rebuilding in this area and long-term environmental challenges. This same imagery is what we use to monitor water levels in the Everglades 

and outbreaks of red tide. And, uses for satellite data only continue to grow as we 

learn to ‘‘see’’ phenomena like changes in sea surface temperature, sea level, and 

the size of polar ice caps. I cannot emphasize enough how vital satellite imagery 

has become to earth observation and consequently our ability to predict, plan, prepare, and respond. 

I’ve been asked to discuss my perspectives on the ‘‘National Imperatives for Earth 

Sciences Research.’’ This topic includes areas relevant to many parts of the Federal 

Government. My testimony today focuses on the roles of NASA and NOAA. It also 

addresses some resource and coordination issues for these two agencies. 

As you may know I have been part of the team that recently produced a decadal 

plan for Earth observations from space, which provides a prioritized roadmap. Our 

vision is captured in the following declaration: 

Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live, how it supports 

life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future is one of 

the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the most 

important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve prosperity, health, and 

sustainability. 

As detailed in the NRC report, and further emphasized by the latest report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), our planet is faced with a 

number of significant scientific and societal challenges and their impacts on key 

parts of our society, economy, and health. The two-year study contained in the NRC 

report delineates how NASA’s Earth Science budget has declined 30 percent since 

2000, with more funding reductions planned as its priority missions of manned trips 

to Mars and a station on the Moon take further hold. The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) likewise faces funding challenges with its National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)—now 

3 years behind schedule and $3 billion over budget. Additionally, many of the satellite system’s advanced weather and climate instruments have been dropped to address cost and schedule challenges. Meanwhile, current satellites continue to age, 

and many of us foresee major shortcomings in satellite observations by the end of 

this decade that will undo much of the progress we have made in Earth observation 

and weather prediction. 

9 

So, at a time when our need for understanding the Earth system and the need 

for Earth observations have never been greater, we are faced with declining investments in Earth Science, and, an Earth observation program that will significantly 

diminish in capability over the next decade. 

The first question the National Research Council committee had to address was 

the national capabilities for Earth observations. We were troubled by the answer. 

We found that the current investment strategies had led to a system at risk of 

collapse. That assessment was based on the observed decline in funding for Earth 

observation missions in NASA and the consequent cancellation, downsizing, and 

delay of a number of critical missions and instruments in both agencies. Since the 

interim report, matters have only worsened, with further cancellations, descopings 

and delays of NOAA and NASA satellite plans. This will result in an overall degradation of the network of Earth observing satellites. 

There are many potential consequences. Some examples are: 

• Weather forecasts and warnings may become less accurate, putting more people 

at risk and diminishing the proven economic value of accurate forecasts—this 

is particularly important to this country since we must cope with many forms 

of extreme weather, be it in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods 

or winter storms. 

• Climate variability and the rate of change need to be better quantified. Earth 

is warming because of a small imbalance between incoming solar radiation and 

outgoing radiation from Earth. Without the recommended measurements, we 

will not be able to quantify how this net energy imbalance is changing, or when 

or if the planet will stop warming. 

• Climate models have improved steadily over the years, but are far from perfect 

and must be improved if we are to intelligently cope with climate change. Satellites provide unique observations of the Earth system and validate and improve these models. 

• Sea level is rising and glaciers and ice-fields around the world are melting, but 

we just don’t know how fast these are occurring. Without continuing quantitative observations provided via satellites, we can’t know how these rates 

change or the implications for coastal communities. 

• Satellite observations could well be pivotal in resolving a controversy about 

whether the frequency and intensity of hurricanes are increasing; observations 

of the atmosphere and oceans are essential. 

• The limited signals of cataclysmic activity come through vigilant observation. 

That means the risk of missing early detection of earthquakes, tsunamis, and 

volcanic eruptions will increase. 

• The bottom line is: Earth Science is based fundamentally on observations. 

While it is impossible to predict what scientific advances will not occur without 

the observations, or what surprises we will miss, we can be sure the rate of scientific progress will be greatly slowed—perhaps even undone to some degree. 

Without a doubt, it takes us backward rather than forwards. 

Significant advances in hurricane forecasting over the past three decades have 

come from orbiting satellites that take timely, high-resolution pictures and provide 

improved estimates of surface wind over the ocean. The satellite images are all over 

the TV for the public to view, but scientists, dissect them further. From sea level, 

sea surface temperatures and winds to red tide outbreaks and oil spills, satellite observations afford us a better, informed view of our Earth. 

The climate debate has been driven by debate over model capabilities and the lack 

of long-term critical observations relevant to climate. Many of the capabilities to 

make such observations exist in the research domain, but have not been 

transitioned into an operational setting. Our NRC report noted the difficulties in 

transferring NASA and NOAA research into operational use. That is because there 

is currently no process to include the necessary scientific input, resources and exploitation capabilities to either facilitate or to define this transition. Thus, we are 

seeing the winding down of the NASA Earth Observing System and its broad Earth 

observing capabilities and information delivery systems, with no apparent way for 

our Nation to harvest the fruits of this multi-billion dollar investment, or, to continue prototype research systems with proven operational value. The follow-on 

NOAA system, NPOESS, is late and more than likely will not overlap the NASA 

systems, and, most of the climate-related capabilities are not in its baseline. Put 

succinctly, much needed long-term time-series of Earth processes required for decisions in this changing world will be lost. This is due to the lack of a functional relationship between research (NASA) and operations (NOAA) for Earth observing sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\78568.TXT JACKIE
10 

tems, and, a lack of resources in NOAA to address all of its Earth observing requirements. 

The challenge in Earth Sciences is that the breadth of study is so large that it’s 

difficult to develop a set of priorities across disciplines. This is the first ever report 

to provide an integrated set of national priorities for Earth observing from space. 

It’s equally difficult for anyone to imagine how it affects them individually. Often 

times, it seems we speak in a foreign language about solar irradiance, vector sea 

surface winds, limb sounding of ozone profiles and water vapor soundings from geostationary and polar orbits—perhaps this is not the clearest way for the public to 

understand how humans have become dependent on tools that reside in outer space. 

What is important to understand about the plan our committee recommended is 

that its financial requirements are not astronomical. In fact, implementing all of the 

recommendations requires only that we bring the program up to funding levels comparable to the year 2000. The plan we recommend calls for undertaking 17 new 

NASA and NOAA missions in the period 2008–2020, as well as restoring some of 

the capabilities lost on NPOESS and GOES, and revitalizing a few delayed NASA 

missions like GPM and Landsat. Our recommendations for NASA can be implemented in an extremely cost-effective manner. The Committee understood the financial constraints and therefore had to find missions capable of tackling several scientific questions simultaneously. The result is that we reduced the number of possible new missions from more than 100 down to 17 broad-ranging, high-value, multipurpose missions. But to accomplish this, NASA’s Earth Science budget must be restored to year 2000 funding levels. We think this is very reasonable given the obvious societal needs and benefits. 

The truth of the matter is that this field of science is inextricably linked to our 

daily life and that of future generations. Climate variability and natural disasters 

are taking a significant toll on our economy, our environment, and our well being. 

And, that is why we must sustain the Earth observations that underpin national 

preparedness and response. Implementing these missions will not only greatly reduce the risk of natural disasters of all kinds to the people of our country and the 

world, they will also support more efficient management of natural resources including water, energy, fisheries, and ecosystems, and support the economy. Thus, the 

cost of the program is repaid many times over. 

The observing system we envision is affordable and will help establish a firm, sustainable foundation for Earth Science and real societal benefits through the year 

2020 and beyond. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, DIRECTOR, EARTH SCIENCE

DIVISION, SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE

ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear today to discuss the President’s FY 2008 budget request for NASA’s Earth 

Science program. I welcome the chance to discuss the important area of Earth 

Science, especially in light of the recently released National Research Council’s 

Earth Science Decadal Survey. 

NASA’s FY 2008 budget request includes $1.5 billion for the study of planet Earth 

from space. This represents an increase of $27.7 million over the FY 2007 budget 

request, and will fund a wide-ranging and balanced program of activities, including: 

developing, launching, and operating Earth-observing space missions; competitively 

selected research and analysis science investigations conducted by NASA and nonNASA researchers; Applied Science projects that help other Federal and regional 

agencies and organizations to efficiently use products from NASA Earth research to 

advance their missions; ongoing technology development efforts to enable the missions of the future; and, education and public outreach programs to make our 

knowledge of the Earth accessible to the world. NASA’s budget request supports a 

balanced program, allocating over 30 percent of NASA’s request for the Science Mission Directorate and within the Science Mission Directorate, allocating 27 percent 

of funding for Earth Science. 

NASA remains by far the largest single contributor to the interagency U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Much of the science community’s present 

state of knowledge about global change—including many of the measurements and 

a significant fraction of the analyses which serve as the foundation for the recent 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—is derived from 

NASA’s Earth Science program. To list just a few examples, using data from Earth 

11 

observing satellites NASA-supported researchers are: monitoring ice cover and ice 

sheet motions in the Arctic and the Antarctic; quantifying the short-term and longterm changes to the Earth’s protective shield of stratospheric ozone, including the 

positive impacts of the Montreal protocols; discovering robust relationships between 

increasing upper ocean temperature and decreasing primary production from the 

phytoplankton that form the base of the oceans’ food chain; and, using a fleet of satellites flying in formation (the ‘‘A-Train’’) to make unique, global, near-simultaneous 

measurements of aerosols, clouds, temperature and relative humidity profiles, and 

radiative fluxes. 

Our improved understanding of Earth System processes leads to improvements in 

sophisticated weather and climate models, which in turn—when initialized using 

the satellite data—can be used to predict natural and human-caused changes in the 

Earth’s environment over time scales of hours to years. 

Importantly, near-real-time measurements from NASA research missions (including the Tropical Rainfall Mapping Mission, QuikSCAT, the Atmospheric Infrared 

Sounder instrument on the Aqua mission, and others) are used routinely by the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and other U.S. and international agencies to 

improve weather forecasting. Similarly, high quality measurements obtained by 

operational weather satellites provide essential context for the scientific analyses of 

the NASA research mission data. 

As of today, NASA is operating 14 Earth observing missions. Five more missions 

are quite far advanced in their development, and will be launched in 2008 and 2009. 

Of these, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System 

(NPOESS) Preparatory Project (NPP) and the Ocean Surface Topography Mission 

(OSTM) will continue critical Earth System and climate measurements that were 

initiated by the Earth Observing System (for NPP) and the TOPEX/Poseidon and 

Jason-1 missions (for OSTM). The Glory mission will fly an instrument to extend 

our measurements of total solar irradiance, as well as an instrument that will provide unique, first-ever measurements of properties of atmospheric aerosols. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and the Aquarius mission will make new, firstof-a-kind global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and 

ocean surface salinity—both parameters of known importance to the study of climate change. 

The FY 2008 budget request also funds the reconstituted Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) for launch in 2011, and the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) for launch of its Core spacecraft not later than 2013, followed 

a year later by launch of the NASA GPM Constellation spacecraft. Extending the 

pioneering rain measurements initiated with the joint U.S.-Japanese Tropical Rainfall Mapping Mission, and providing a calibration standard for several other rainmeasuring instruments orbited by others, the GPM mission will provide us with accurate, global rain measurements much more frequently than currently possible. 

Knowledge of accurate rainfall rates and atmospheric water quantities is essential 

for the study of the Earth’s hydrologic cycle and its sensitivity to climate change. 

In addition, the GPM measurements will be used by operational weather prediction 

agencies around the globe to improve weather forecasts and severe storm predictions. 

Even as we are acquiring and analyzing measurements today, we are planning 

the satellites, field experiments, scientific investigations, and Earth System models 

of the future. The recently released Earth Science Decadal Survey provides, for the 

first time, a scientifically based, community consensus statement of the top priority 

future Earth System Science problems to be addressed, and it suggests a sequence 

of notional missions whose measurements could contribute to advancing our understanding of the Earth and its environment. 

We welcome the Decadal Survey—indeed, we asked for it. NASA, along with 

NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), requested and funded the National 

Research Council (NRC) to conduct this first Decadal Survey in Earth Science. We 

formally made the request in the fall of 2003 and the study began in earnest in 

2004. The massive undertaking was only completed this January. We are grateful 

for all of the efforts of the Co-Chairs and NRC staff, the members of the Decadal 

Survey Executive Committee, and the literally hundreds of Earth Science researchers who volunteered their time and their ideas. Their success in creating scientific 

consensus across the broad and diverse Earth Science community is a substantial 

achievement. 

The science priorities identified by the Decadal Survey will be our primary guide 

as we design and select Earth observing missions to be flown in the next 10–15 

years. In the space sciences, NASA has a long history of guidance by NRC Decadal 

Surveys. Indeed, even in the Earth Sciences where this is the first Decadal Survey, 

the President’s FY 2008 budget request for NASA was guided by recommendations 

12 

included in the interim report issued by the Decadal Survey committee in 2005. The 

FY 2008 budget request includes funding and predictable launch dates for the 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission, the Glory aerosol and solar irradiance mission, 

and the Global Precipitation Mission, all of which figured strongly in the interim 

report. 

Unfortunately, the Decadal Survey arrived too late for its specific recommendations to influence the FY 2008 budget process, but its scientific priorities will be 

used in development of the FY 2009 and subsequent budget requests. NASA’s FY 

2008 budget request also includes funding for an additional, unspecified, competed 

flight mission, which will launch sometime around 2014. We will be guided by the 

Decadal Survey as we choose the scientific focus and instrument complement for 

this mission, starting no earlier than 2008. 

In addition to its science priorities and the notional mission set, the Decadal Survey provides several recommendations relevant to the design and implementation 

of the Earth Science flight program. Survey recommendations in the areas of international collaboration and technology investment deserve particular consideration. 

We all recognize that a constellation of missions and many simultaneous measurements—such as those obtained by the A-Train spacecraft described above—are needed to understand the interactions between Earth system processes. No agency or nation can afford to develop and fly all necessary missions single handedly. 

The Decadal Survey emphatically recommends international collaboration, to 

maximize humankind’s benefits from our net investment in Earth Science, and to 

avoid unnecessary duplication. To this end, we have already begun discussions with 

our 5 closest international space agency partners: the Canadian, European, French, 

Japanese, and German space agencies. We have begun planning substantive bilateral meetings to be held this spring, to identify and refine areas of common interest 

and complementary expertise. We are also actively engaged—indeed NASA and the 

U.S. are leaders—in international coordination bodies such as the Committee on 

Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO). As with our present OSTM, Aquarius, and GPM missions, we anticipate substantial joint projects with international partners as we construct missions 

to address the Decadal Survey’s science questions. 

Science-driven technology investment is one of the keys to the design and implementation of any future mission set. It is essential to have the technology developed 

and tested in a relevant environment prior to the approval of any mission. This 

helps to avoid cost overruns that occur when problems arise with a new technology 

late in the mission development cycle. To foster advanced technologies for Earth 

Science, NASA’s strategy is two pronged as recommended by the Decadal Survey, 

with both focused technology and core technology elements. 

Where we know the missions we want to implement and what new technologies 

are required on a certain schedule, we make focused investments to assure technologies are available when we issue competitive solicitations for mission formulation and development. This is done through the highly successful Instrument Incubator Program, funded under the Earth Science Technology Office, which matures 

instrument technologies for future measurements. 

The second prong addresses the seed corn or ‘‘core technologies,’’ for advanced 

Earth observing missions of the future. Where we know that certain classes of technologies are needed for the types of measurements we would like to make in the 

future, or are simply convinced that investment in certain sensor or detector technology areas will yield fruit, we will issue open, competitive solicitations for the best 

ideas. Examples include advanced component development (which allows scientists 

and technologists to take an idea from the concept to the bench top demonstration 

stage), laser risk reduction (which has developed fundamental lidar technologies applicable to multiple NASA missions), and advanced information systems technology 

development (which provides advanced operations technologies which aid in reducing future mission costs). 

The Decadal Survey, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and NASA’s own 

planning in Earth Science all assume the presence of an operational system of environmental monitoring satellites that can make climate-quality measurements. The 

Nation needs such a system. That is why NASA is a member of the NPOESS governing body, and why NASA entered into a partnership with the NPOESS Integrated Program Office to develop the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP). NPP is 

designed both to continue essential measurements from NASA’s Earth Observing 

System satellites as well as provide a demonstration of instruments to be flown on 

NPOESS. 

The Nunn-McCurdy-certified NPOESS program, as you are aware, focuses 

NPOESS on its weather mission and deletes many of the capabilities previously 

planned for climate science. It is thus important to recognize that the NRC’s work 

13 

is not yet done. As the Decadal Survey Committee was finalizing its notional mission set and sequence, the full impact of the removal of the climate sensors from 

the NPOESS program was just coming to light. In discussion with the NRC, NASA 

and NOAA have structured a follow-on activity wherein a subset of the Decadal Survey Committee, augmented by others they may deem necessary, would hold a workshop and provide input on how the agencies might mitigate the impact of the 

changes to NPOESS. We expect that the NRC workshop will take place no later 

than early summer, in time to provide recommendations useful for helping to determine the FY09 budget. 

NASA is proceeding with a mission roadmapping activity to determine the focus 

and content of our specific future Earth observing missions. The roadmap will integrate the scientific recommendations and priority/sequence of the Decadal Survey, 

the joint and ongoing NASA–NOAA examinations of the NPOESS Nunn-McCurdy 

changes, and the contributions of our international partners. Through a series of 

concept studies conducted at NASA centers (some actually begun in anticipation of 

the Decadal Survey mission suggestions), we are carefully examining the Decadal 

Survey’s notional missions. The studies are assessing the technological readiness, 

system engineering challenges, and expected costs (including support for scientific 

validation and analysis of the mission data) of each notional missions. These concept 

studies are accessing the full capability of the NASA mission design and costing apparatus, to complement the estimates assigned by the NRC. As the roadmap 

evolves, community involvement will be assured through regular interactions with 

the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council, as well as existing 

discipline- and science-focus theme working groups which regularly inform our plans 

and examine our progress within the NASA Earth Science Division. 

The roadmapping process includes the anticipated update later this year to the 

NASA Earth Science Plan. Indeed when the Congress asked the Agency for a 

Science Plan in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–155), you recognized 

that the Decadal Survey would not be available in time to influence the Earth 

Science portion of that Plan. Therefore, NASA was asked to describe how it might 

revise that Plan based on the Earth Science Decadal Survey. The roadmapping activity and the Science Plan will address that question. 

While the scope and specificity of the roadmap clearly must exceed that of the 

Decadal Survey and must accommodate issues of programmatic balance and national needs, it is definitively not our intention to redo the Decadal Survey or to 

change the scientific priorities that it identified. 

As with decadal surveys in other parts of the Science Mission Directorate portfolio, this Decadal Survey is only the starting point for planning. However, planning 

in Earth Science is even more complex than in other divisions, given the web of 

partnerships and users of Earth Science data, and its societal impact. Considering 

the long time horizon in the NRC’s report, it will require several budget cycles to 

implement the program that we will derive from the Decadal Survey’s near- and 

mid-term recommended mission sets. Nevertheless, our planning process starts with 

the consensus scientific priorities articulated for us by the NRC. So I will close by 

re-iterating my gratitude to the decadal survey committee Co-chairs and members 

for their excellent work. NASA’s commitment to Earth Science research is commensurate with theirs. 

Table 1.—NASA Earth Science Missions Currently in Development 

NPOESS Preparatory Project (2009) 

Strategic mission; Systematic measurement 

Ensures continuity of several key climate measurements between the Earth Observing System and 

NPOESS. Implementation of the NPOESS Presidential Decision Directive of 1994. Joint mission 

with the NPOESS Integrated Program Office. 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission (2011) 

Strategic mission; Systematic measurement 

Ensures continuity of long-term global land cover 

change data. Post-LDCM land imagery acquisition 

by an operational agency is planned. Joint mission 

with USGS. 

Ocean Surface Topography Mission (2008) 

Strategic mission; Systematic measurement 

Ensures continuity of ocean altimetry data; planned as 

part of a transition to operational agencies. Joint 

mission with NOAA, CNES & EUMETSAT. 

Glory (2008) 

Strategic mission; Initializes a systematic measurement 

Addresses high priority objective of the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program. Measure global aerosols & 

liquid cloud properties and solar radiation. Mandated by the Presidential Climate Change Research 

Initiative of 2001. 

Orbiting Carbon Observatory (2008) 

Competed mission; Earth System Science Pathfinder 

Nearing completion of development. First global measurement of CO2 from space; small Earth Science 

mission. 

14 

Table 1.—NASA Earth Science Missions Currently in Development—Continued 

Aquarius (2009) 

Competed mission; Earth System Science Pathfinder 

In advanced stage of development. First global measurement of sea surface salinity from space; small 

Earth Science mission. Joint mission with Argentina. 

Global Precipitation Measurement (2013) 

Strategic mission—Initializes a systematic measurement 

Recommended by 2005 interim report of decadal survey committee; extend spatial coverage to global and 

temporal coverage to every 3 hours with constellation. 

Earth System Science Pathfinder; TBD (2014) 

Competed mission 

Focus and relative priority to be determined using 

decadal survey; solicitation no earlier than 2008 for 

2014 launch. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NANCY COLLETON, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR EARTH

OBSERVATIONS

Introduction 

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the Committee, special guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am Nancy Colleton, president of the Institute 

for Global Environmental Strategies, a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization. Our efforts 

are devoted to furthering knowledge of the Earth system and promoting the value 

and use of the technology tools that help us better understand our changing planet. 

The Institute’s efforts include everything from developing resources for K–12 science 

education and teacher professional development, to facilitating international cooperative activities in Earth Science and applications. 

I am here today representing one of our major initiatives, the Alliance for Earth 

Observations—an informal confederation of organizations devoted to promoting 

Earth observations for social and economic benefit. The Alliance has been a strong 

advocate of the importance of engaging the private sector (industry, academia, and 

non-governmental organizations) in the planning of Earth observation systems, primarily the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) and the multinational 

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). 

The Alliance membership is diverse and includes stakeholders such as system developers, data providers, geospatial technology firms, university-based research institutes, and a non-governmental organization that focuses on science applications 

for conservation. Since our effort began in December 2003, we have implemented 

an aggressive outreach effort to numerous business sectors (e.g., clean technologies, 

energy, agriculture, public health) to raise awareness of the importance of Earth observations. Attachment A includes a listing of the Alliance members. An Alliance 

Public Policy Statement on the Decadal Survey for Earth Observations is included 

in Attachment B. 

We are here today to examine one of the most critical tools of Earth Science: satellite observations. Whether we realize it or not, we all work in the field of Earth 

Science and benefit from satellite observations. Whether you are a policymaker, an 

investor, a farmer, a fisherman, or a truck driver, the Earth is changing and it is 

influencing our work, our decisions, our recreation, our resources, our economy, and 

our future. I am honored to participate in this important hearing, National Imperatives for Earth Science Research. 

Response to the Report 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to discuss the recent National Research Council 

report, Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the 

Next Decade and Beyond. I thank Drs. Berrien Moore and Rick Anthes on the leadership that they have provided as co-chairs of this study. I congratulate them and 

the other members of the Decadal Survey Committee on this exceptional report. As 

we all know, the quality and breadth of reports such as this don’t just happen; they 

require a very dedicated and concerted effort. 

Quoting from the report, ‘‘the United States’ extraordinary foundation of global 

observations is at great risk. Between 2006 and the end of the decade, the number 

of operating missions will decrease dramatically and the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their lifetimes, will decrease by 50 percent.’’ As my colleague, Governor Jim Geringer (former 

Governor of Wyoming) pointed out in his testimony on this topic on February 13th 

to the House Science and Technology Committee, ‘‘That means a fifty percent reduction in today’s already inadequate space-based information systems. . . . It is difficult to maintain your vision from a crumbling vantage point.’’ 

15 

I offer four primary observations to this Senate Committee for your consideration 

and deliberation: 

• The fact that the Decadal Survey Committee’s vision for a decadal program in 

Earth observations went beyond fundamental science to consider ‘‘increased applications to serve the Nation and people of the world’’ is a significant and 

much-needed shift in approach to the U.S. program. 

• The U.S. should buildupon our space-based Earth observation programs and 

move forward with the U.S. IEOS—incorporating space, aircraft, and in situ instruments, and the requisite analytical capabilities. 

• Clear leadership is essential to resolve the issues and attain the goals identified 

in the Decadal Survey. 

• The time to act is now. 

Increased Applications to Serve the Nation and the World 

This year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of Our Common Future, the 

groundbreaking report of the World Commission on Environment and Development 

led by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report begins 

as follows: 

In the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first 

time. Historians may eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on 

thought than did the Copernican revolution of the 16th century, which upset 

the human self-image by revealing that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. Humanity’s inability to fit its doings into that pattern is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening 

hazards. This new reality, from which there is not escape, must be recognized— 

and managed. 

Fortunately, this new reality coincides with more positive developments new to 

this century. We can move information and goods faster around the globe than 

ever before; we can produce more food and more goods with less investment and 

resources; our technology and science gives us at least the potential to look 

deeper into and better understand natural systems. From space, we can see and 

study the Earth as an organism whose health depends on the health of all its 

parts. We have the power to reconcile human affairs with natural laws and to 

thrive in the process. In this our cultural and spiritual heritages can reinforce 

our economic interests and survival imperatives. 

It is insightful that, even in 1987, world leaders recognized that not only would 

space technology help us understand the Earth, but that it could also be a unique 

tool to better manage our planet for social benefit and economic interests. 

But, it is disappointing that despite this powerful text published 20 years ago, we 

are gathered here today for a hearing examining the decline in U.S. space-based 

Earth observing capabilities. 

Since that time, our U.S. systems have focused primarily on answering scientific 

questions, with applications of this data and information as a secondary objective. 

And, although we have seen significant growth and impact of operational programs 

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), science requirements are still what drive the development 

of our space-based systems. 

The fact that the Decadal Survey Committee’s vision for an Earth observations 

decadal program went beyond fundamental science to consider ‘‘increased applications to serve the nations and people of the world’’ is a significant step and muchneeded shift in approach to the U.S. program. 

We must recognize that the technologies that we are discussing today are the 

same technologies that: 

• Enabled us to track and forecast Hurricane Katrina; 

• Enabled us to discover and visualize the ozone hole; 

• Allowed us to detect the impacts of the Indian Ocean tsunami and to determine 

the true extent of the devastation it caused; 

• Continue to identify receding Arctic glaciers; and 

• Were used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their studies. 

Just last week, we again witnessed the benefit of Earth observation satellite technology to our nation: 

16 

• NOAA weather satellites provided critical lead time for the Southeast tornadoes 

(in some cases 12–55 minutes); and 

• NASA’s MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) on the Aqua 

satellite enabled us to view the extent of dust storms caused by high winds over 

Northern Texas (Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle reported that 

downed power lines left some 37,000 homes and businesses without power. 

Grass fires were also reported). 

The benefits of space-based data will not end this week or next. In fact, the need 

for this type of information and the responsibility of the United States as a world 

leader to maintain and share this important capability will only increase with the 

stress of climate change. 

In a January 12, 2007, speech to the World Affairs Council, Lord Levene, Chairman of Lloyd’s, provided a global insurer’s perspective on catastrophe trends and 

climate change. He stated, ‘‘We cannot risk being in denial on catastrophe trends. 

We can expect to see U.S. mega-catastrophes with $100 billion insured losses soon. 

We urgently need a radical rethink of public policy, and to build the facts into our 

future planning.’’ He added, ‘‘The insurance industry will continue to play a vital 

role as enabler and rebuilder of the U.S. economy.’’ U.S. satellite assets and the 

products provided as a result of space-based observations are critical to ensuring 

that insurance and other sectors have accurate and timely information. 

Not only should the United States strive to answer key scientific questions, but 

it should respond to the needs of a broad, non-scientific user community, which relies increasingly upon operational missions by NOAA. By this I mean how can we 

ensure that our national research program and technologies are meeting the needs 

of policymakers, state and local water managers, energy executives, and emerging 

areas such as the carbon finance market? This will involve additional study and possible correction of our current research-to-operations processes based on new engagement with the diverse and emerging user communities to provide more input 

to our national planning for new systems. 

Move forward with IEOS 

Former Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, who testified to the Senate Commerce 

Committee in April 2006 on drought and the need for integrated information, also 

wrote in November 2006 to the Office of Management and Budget to express the 

need to fund IEOS, the U.S. contribution to the multinational Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). He wrote: 

Sir Francis Bacon coined the phrase ‘‘Knowledge is power.’’ Today it’s not about 

power but about empowerment as our country faces many challenges. More 

than ever we need better data-driven decisions. The first essential part is observation, the gathering of data. But we need more than data. Accurate and timely 

observations become information that leads to knowledge that enables decisions. 

We must reduce uncertainty to enable better risk management for businesses 

as well as protect citizens and save lives and property. 

In the December 2006–January 2007 issue of Environmental Finance Magazine, 

Vijay Gudivaka reported that ‘‘Companies are working overtime to get a better understanding of their environmental impacts.’’ The article discusses the need for more 

effective environmental data management and how companies are being challenged 

to develop data bases to better assess environmental, health, and safety information. Gudivaka writes, ‘‘Whatever system is being used to collect and distribute environmental information needs to keep meeting the requirements of the business—or 

it has to change.’’ 

Without an established information infrastructure that builds upon our spacebased Earth observation programs, we face many questions currently: Are our current systems meeting the needs of our businesses? Are our current systems protecting our citizens and property? . . . maintaining U.S. competitiveness? . . . ensuring that public and private sector decisionmakers, have, and will in the future 

have the information they need to respond to challenges like climate change? The 

Decadal Survey highlights the need to do more. My work with numerous business, 

academic, and non-government leaders also reveals that our systems must be improved to meet the requirements of business. 

Warren Isom, Senior Vice President, Willis Re Inc., and Board Member of the 

Weather Risk Management Association remarked at the Forum on Earth Observations last year, ‘‘The weather risk market—in fact the risk-management business in 

general—has a profoundly strong interest in serious, systematic attempts to improve, expand and intensify the capture of data relating to our planet.’’ 

17 

The current U.S. system must change to combine and integrate the valuable and 

extensive information sources and tools across all Federal agencies. This would create the IEOS, new interoperable systems that enable an unprecedented picture of 

our world, with a better understanding of intended benefits. 

The Alliance for Earth Observations believes that by embarking on the development of IEOS that the United States will: 

• Give its citizens the single most important and comprehensive technology tool 

to monitor and respond to our changing world, thereby protecting lives and 

property; 

• Give its Federal leaders and managers robust observational data and models 

that are fundamental to performance measurement, decision-making, and accelerating our understanding of environmental processes; 

• Provide U.S. industry with the data needed to better manage risk and resources, make transportation decisions, create new business opportunities in environmental information products and services, and thereby impact long-term 

environmental sustainability; 

• Enable our country to remain the world leader in energy development and management, agriculture productivity, marine transportation, public health and 

other areas; 

• Support the global community by working in partnership with other countries 

to share and integrate important data and information; and 

• Give future generations the knowledge and tools needed to leave a better world 

for each succeeding generation. 

IEOS will leverage Earth Science and technology for the benefit of U.S. citizens 

and the world. In the area of climate change, IEOS would provide accurate and 

timely observations as the foundation for guiding U.S. climate change policy, ensuring our Nation is moving in the right direction and providing the basis for knowing 

whether our policies are making the intended positive impacts we expect. The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), which is a key component 

of IEOS, would provide a proactive solution for U.S. citizens, delivering the ‘‘business intelligence’’ needed to manage the risk of drought. Regarding energy security, 

observations are critical to both the supply and demand sides of energy. On the supply side, all sources of alternative and renewable energy are highly dependent on 

environmental data. These energy resources include hydropower, wind, ocean energy 

(tide, current, wave), biofuels, photovoltaics, and geothermal sources. On the demand side, environmental conditions largely determine the overall demand for 

power as well as the variability in demand. By funding the IEOS, the United States 

would provide a new level of service to the American people to prevent, mitigate or 

manage the effects of natural hazards through linked and interactive systems that 

provide the United States and the world with greater forecasting capability. Even 

in the area of public health, IEOS would lead to: 

• Improved air quality forecasting; 

• Improved and earlier recognition of harmful algal blooms; 

• Earlier recognition of the need for beach closures; and 

• A national water quality monitoring system that, for the first time, would integrate disparate water quality systems into one comprehensive system—a major 

step forward for the United States. 

IEOS benefits can only be achieved through a common U.S. integrated information architecture. The benefits discussed in the previous paragraphs all depend on 

the development of a common observation and information system architecture for 

Earth observations. This architecture would facilitate information sharing between 

and among agencies as well as promulgate standards for terminology, data discovery, data access and transport, and service interfaces. This approach would enable our investment in environmental data, products and services to be leveraged 

by many communities of interest, generating value to both citizens and the economy 

through improved decisionmaking and incubation of a value-added market for environmental products and services. A robust and scalable architecture for an environmental enterprise would: 

• Leverage federally funded activities in other data-rich domains; 

• Enable communities of interest to easily and transparently access a variety of 

thematically diverse and geographically dispersed assets; and 

18 

• Enable any group or organization to easily connect their assets into the enterprise in an interoperable fashion without significant investment in information 

systems. 

IEOS would also advance the Global Earth Observation System of Systems 

(GEOSS), which is now supported by more than 66 countries and 46 international 

organizations. This U.S.-initiated effort is intended to allow Federal interagency and 

multi-national coordination to assure that disparate environmental-related data systems here at home and abroad are interoperable and compatible. An effective IEOS 

effort should have clear designation of responsibilities, be enabled by a web-based 

system that allows rapid communication, funded across agency boundaries with a 

clear purpose. IEOS/GEOSS would improve the capabilities for today’s decisionmakers by providing new information products. That is not the case today. IEOS 

has neither been funded nor has program leadership been designated. 

Clear Leadership Is Essential 

Clear leadership is essential to resolve the issues and attain the goals identified 

in the Decadal Study. The report before you calls for increased funding to improve 

our current national Earth monitoring capability. Yes, funding is important but the 

essential missing element is leadership. Scientific assessment, increased budgets, 

improved technical capabilities, and coordinated public-private engagement need 

designated, consolidated leadership. Critical elements including satellite and aircraft sensors, in situ instruments such as stream gauges, and geospatial information 

systems, have been fragmented among our Federal agencies, always a secondary 

mission, never the priority responsibility. 

Earth observation is not a priority mission for any designated agency at the cabinet level. Not within NASA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the 

Interior nor any other Federal agency. The important technologies that enable us 

to measure climate change and identify and monitor the impacts to our environment, our lives and our livelihood are the sole responsibility of no one agency or 

person. 

Who should be the lead agency or position for U.S. Earth observation capabilities? 

What is our national vision for Earth observations? How are requirements from the 

Federal operational sector such as NOAA, USGS, USDA and EPA reflected in our 

research and development programs within NASA and NSF? Are requirements from 

the private sector being addressed? 

Without a designated lead, we will not see: 

• These critical assets protected; 

• A national Earth observations strategy that appropriately addresses climate 

change; 

• The required investment for these programs appropriately reflected in agency 

plans and budgets; 

• Our national investment fully leveraged for societal and economic benefit; 

• The smooth transition from research to operations; 

• Our land-observing capabilities elevated to the level of atmospheric and ocean 

observations; 

• An improved engagement between government and the private sector (industry, 

Academia, and non-governmental organizations); 

• The much-called-for integration of our national Earth observation systems; and 

• The products needed to make the best decisions for our country and future generations. 

As a first step, I support the report’s recommendation that: 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in collaboration with the relevant 

agencies, and in consultation with the scientific community, should develop and 

implement a plan for achieving and sustaining global Earth observations. Then 

a single point of contact or program office at the Cabinet level should be established to assure complementary rather than duplicative or fragmented effort for 

all operational aspects of Earth observation and analysis. 

I urge that the private sector—industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations—be consulted regarding an integrated plan for Earth observations. 

Time To Act 

As we are often reminded, time passes quickly. 

In preparation for this hearing, I reviewed numerous reports, one of which is 

noted earlier in this testimony and is entitled, Linking Remote Sensing Technology 

19 

and Global Needs: A Strategic Vision. It was a report to NASA on applications. Ironically, the vision outlined in this 1987 report was as follows: 

The vision for the future is an Applications Information System available to all 

users—whether a large government agency or small local firm—that will provide overall benefits for the public good and further economic interests of the 

United States. 

What we knew 20 years ago, what the Brundtland Commission acknowledged in 

their groundbreaking report, and what we are reminded of today is that our nationally-funded Earth Science and operational technology programs are vital to our society and economy. If nothing else, I hope that the Decadal Survey will motivate you 

as policymakers and leaders to take action now—action to protect, leverage, and advance these assets so critical to protecting our nation, the world, and our future. 

Let us not 20 years from now simply acknowledge the words written by the Decadal 

Survey Committee, but rather be able to point to the Decadal Survey as a turning 

point for action and commitment to protect, further develop, and exploit these assets 

for benefit of the Nation and the world. 

20 

The Alliance was formed in 2004 to facilitate participation by the private sector— 

industry, Academia, and nongovernmental organizations—in U.S. and international 

planning for Earth observations, especially as it relates to GEOSS. The Alliance for 

Earth Observations is an initiative of the nonprofit Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. 


307coll1.eps
21 

The Alliance for Earth Observations commends the work started by the National 

Research Council Space Studies Board Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space in its recently released report: Earth Science and Applications from 

Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. This important report 

sheds light on the declining Earth observation capabilities of the United States and 

lays out priorities for the next decade for Earth observations from space. This report 

offers the foundation of a roadmap to bring the U.S. Earth Observation capability 

in line with expectations for meeting the global change and climate policy challenges 

we see so frequently in the headlines. Science information is needed to inform policy, and the ‘‘Earth Science Decadal Survey’’ as this report is called, points us in 

the direction we need to advance our national capability into the 21st Century. 

The members of the Alliance recognize the immense value to society—both in 

terms of economic benefits to our citizens and in meeting our responsibilities as 

stewards of our environment—of U.S. programs in space-based Earth observations. 

The Committee, capably led by Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President of the University 

Corporation for Atmospheric Research and Dr. Berrien Moore III, Professor and Director of the Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of New 

Hampshire, was comprised of an outstanding team of subject matter experts. In 

their report, they have provided a very valuable prioritization of scientific questions 

that need to be addressed along with recommendations for the space-based missions 

that should be developed and launched to provide the data needed to address important societal issues—in the near, mid, and far term. 

The Alliance recognizes the challenge in the current budget climate of augmenting 

funding for multiple agencies charged with executing the Nation’s operational and 

research Earth observations programs. In the recently released President’s Budget 

Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008, funding for satellite programs at the National 

Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey would not accommodate 

the recommendations of the report. The President’s Budget, if enacted in FY–08, 

would enable NOAA to proceed with current acquisition plans for both the polarorbiting and geostationary satellite programs, with their now-reduced instrument 

suites, and NASA to maintain momentum only on their current set of missions. The 

Alliance recognizes the importance of increasing U.S. Government funding to accomplish the recommendations in the report to advance our national Earth satellite programs. Funding would need to be implemented as top line budget increases, in order 

to not affect other important agency priorities. 

The Alliance agrees with the Decadal Survey and its predecessor reports from the 

National Academy of Sciences that current NOAA, NASA, and USGS budgets and 

programs do not include the programmatic structure needed to manage the research, development, and flight testing of new instrument technologies, and subsequent transition to operational missions, necessary to continue to evolve U.S. operational Earth observation capacity. Thorough technology demonstrations could have 

provided the risk mitigation needed to curtail decisions to cancel critically needed 

climate monitoring, ocean imaging, and advanced atmospheric sounding instruments from the NPOESS and GOES–R programs. Future plans and decisions can 

benefit from the report’s recommendations to invest in developing next generation 

technologies and systems to reduce cost and schedule risks to operational programs. 

Implementation of the report’s recommendation would be timely in addressing this 

longstanding problem. 

The Alliance for Earth Observations is a publicly and privately funded initiative 

of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies to promote the understanding 

and use of land, air and sea observations for societal and economic benefit. 


307coll2.eps
22 

Senator NELSON. So, Dr. Moore, do you consider the 17 missions 

recommended in the survey an all-inclusive wish-list? Or do you 

consider it the minimum responsible complement of the measurement tools? 

STATEMENT OF BERRIEN MOORE III, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED 

PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF 

EARTH, OCEANS, AND SPACE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW 

HAMPSHIRE; CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE 

AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, NATIONAL RESEARCH 

COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Dr. MOORE. First of all, Senator thank you for inviting myself 

and my colleagues. 

I think, given what this planet is faced with—and you have articulated that well this afternoon—I believe it is the minimal responsible recommendation that looks at the challenges facing the 

planet. 

And it is not a wish list. We had a wish list—there were 110 

wishes put forth, with a lot of enthusiasm. And we cut that with 

NASA receiving 15, NOAA receiving 3, and one shared jointly, 

making a total of 17. 

I know it’s expensive, but I believe there are ways that one can 

reach back to that restoration of $2 billion. It’s certainly not going 

to be done in 1 year or 5 years, but there’s a process that would 

be beneficial. I think it’s a reasoned response to the challenges. 

Senator NELSON. What would be the impact if only a fraction of 

those 17 were implemented? 

Dr. MOORE. Well, that would depend upon which fraction. 

For instance, let’s suppose that we don’t go ahead with Synthetic 

Aperture Radar that would give us the NSAR, the inframetric 

radar that gives us a much better understanding of earthquake potential. That’s very valuable to this country, and very valuable to 

the planet. 

If we don’t move forward with the recommended Aerosol Mission—we won’t be capable of making aerosol observations when forests are burned, releasing tremendous pollutant loads of aerosols. 

Some of those aerosols actually lead to global cooling, many lead 

to global warming. So the only way to arrive at a balance is 

through observations of the aerosols. 

We recommended a CO2 mission that would be active, that is, by 

using a laser that could determine the sources and sinks of carbon 

dioxide, all around the planet; all seasons, all latitudes. If we’re 

going to manage the carbon cycle, we’ve got to have that information. If you give that up, then that’s not there. 

So, that’s why we looked across what we thought was the appropriate suite—we know it’s a challenge. We know it’s a challenge. 

And in this budgetary climate, it’s a very great challenge. But, the 

planet is facing very serious issues that are not going to go away. 

Earthquakes are not going to stop, hurricanes are not going to 

stop, global warming is not going to stop. 

Senator NELSON. What specific actions do you think should be 

taken to improve the interagency collaboration on Earth Science 

missions that we seem to have had such difficultly with? 

23 

Dr. MOORE. Let me just go back to that from the point that you 

raised, that we have seen this decline in the NASA budget. And 

then we had a corresponding increase in the NOAA budget to accomplish the NPOESS and the new GOESS. Now, we have a perfect storm. We lost the money in the NASA budget, and the increase in the NOAA budget did not turn out to give us what we 

thought we were going to get, so it’s kind of a lose-lose situation. 

I think that there was a history of NASA essentially doing the 

R&D side, including the oversight, as we went into an operational 

sensor. It cost money, but NASA has the talent—the Goddard 

Space Flight Center, for instance, has the talent to give that kind 

of independent, tough oversight. I’d like to see us move back to the 

system that we had in place that brought about the NPOESS program, and the earlier GOESS program. We had trouble back then, 

but not like today. 

Senator NELSON. Anybody else want to jump in on that set of 

questions? Agency cooperation, collaboration? Dr. Freilich? 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL H. FREILICH, DIRECTOR, 

EARTH SCIENCE DIVISION, SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE, 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. FREILICH. Sure. 

First, let me say thanks to Dr. Moore, and all of the rest of the 

people on the Decadal Survey for the thoughtful identification of 

the science problems, and the guidance that it provides. We welcome the survey, in fact, we asked for it in 2003. 

We take the survey’s recommendations very, very seriously. In 

fact, in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget request—that’s before you—we 

are taking care in NASA of all of the precursor missions that were 

identified in the interim report, as well as the Decadal Survey. 

In the next 2 years, we’ll be launching five key climate spacecraft, and two more after that, up through 2013. The two later ones 

are the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM), and the Global 

Precipitation Measurement Mission—all of those were highly rated 

in the Decadal Survey. 

So, we take that guidance extremely seriously, and we will be 

taking the guidance from the Decadal Survey, as the Administration puts together its Fiscal Year 2009 budget, and beyond. 

Relative to your question of interagency cooperation—it is a real 

challenge for this country, and it has been the challenge for some 

time. It’s hard enough to design and implement and fly and validate and exploit the data from first copies of instruments, to then 

be able to do an interagency transfer, and have those measurements taken reliably on operational spacecraft, so that we can get 

the 30-year climate data records, which are essential—it’s very, 

very difficult. 

In response, I believe to Congressional language in the 2005 Authorization bill, NASA and NOAA are working quite hard together—we have a joint working group specifically focused on research to operations transition. While it is a challenge, and we 

haven’t solved, certainly, all of those problems, or even many of 

those problems, I think we are strengthening the relationship between those two agencies. I’m new in this job at NASA, but it is 

certainly one of my very strong objectives, and a high-priority obVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78568.TXT JACKIE
24 

jective, for us to work much more efficiently, much more substantively together. 

Senator NELSON. Well, since you are relatively new to this position, I welcome you to get in and try to straighten out some of the 

problems between NASA and NOAA, and NPOESS includes the Air 

Force, as well, doesn’t it? 

When Dr. Griffin was here last week, he questioned whether the 

Decadal Survey’s cost estimates are too optimistic. Is NASA, Dr. 

Freilich, going to do its own estimates of the recommended missions, and share the results with everybody else? 

Dr. FREILICH. Yes. We are embarking on an aggressive series of 

what we call concept studies, to look very, very carefully at the notional missions that were endorsed, especially the early ones, the 

highest-priority ones, from the Decadal Survey. The objective of 

these studies is to use the full costing and engineering analyses 

machinery of the NASA centers—JPL and Goddard, in particular— 

to address and understand the technological challenges inherent in 

getting the measurements that were identified by the Decadal Survey, and the full costs of these missions, including the launch vehicle, and especially, also, the science and the validation. 

We’re moving aggressively forward on that now, now that we 

have the Decadal Survey’s exact recommendations in terms of the 

measurements to be taken. When we have those engineering and 

cost analyses, we will much better be able to generate an integrated road map forward, taking into account the high-priority 

science that was identified by the Decadal Survey, the issues of 

NPOESS, and the removal of the climate instruments pursuant to 

Nunn-McCurdy, that you so eloquently discussed. And the contributions, interest and expertise of our international partners. So, 

we intend, within the next 12 to 15 months or so, to have an integrated, well-understood, road map forward to make progress. We’ve 

done the precursor missions—or I should say, we are finishing the 

precursor missions, and then we’ll be in a position to move forward 

on the high-priority science that the Decadal Survey guides us toward. 

Senator NELSON. And when do you think those cost estimates 

would be available to the Committee? 

Dr. FREILICH. We are working on them now, and we are—as I 

said, looking carefully at each one of those notional missions, also 

understanding what we need to do, and can do, to mitigate the 

NPOESS climate problem. And I think in some months—probably 

less than 6 months, we will have a fairly clear idea of the true full 

costs of those notional missions. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Brown, you—OK, I’ll get to Ms. Colleton in 

just a second—Dr. Brown, you’ve had some excellent testimony 

about Earth Science satellites, and Ms. Colleton. I want to ask you 

all about the impact of this research. 

STATEMENT OF OTIS D. BROWN, PH.D., DEAN, ROSENSTIEL 

SCHOOL OF MARINE AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, 

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI; MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON EARTH 

SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 

Dr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator. 

25 

Let me step back for a minute, and talk about a bit of history 

here, and it will frame my answer a little better, I think relative 

to impacts. 

The history from the seventies, eighties and nineties, is that each 

Earth Science community approached NASA individually, and said, 

‘‘OK, as oceanographers, we need this,’’ ‘‘As meteorologists or atmospheric scientists, we need this,’’ ‘‘As land-cover, land-use people, we need this,’’ ‘‘As climate scientists, we need this.’’ And NASA 

tried its best in the Earth Observing System to respond in an integrated way to all of these different ideas, requests and needs. 

The Decadal Survey was very different, in the sense that, as has 

happened in astronomy and other disciplines with NASA, NASA 

asked the community, ‘‘You know, you guys are all Earth Scientists, why don’t you get together and give us your best set of integrated priorities, rather than us having to decide what the priorities should be of everything you’ve asked?’’ That’s a fundamental 

difference, and this downsizing of more than 100 different possibilities to the order of less than 20, is a result of—I wouldn’t say 

smoke-filled rooms, not these days—but, you know, a lot of hard 

negotiation about saying, ‘‘How is it that we can really get the 

highest priority needs of the broad community on the limited set 

of missions?’’ 

So, this is a different set of mission requests than anything 

NASA has ever seen before. But, it had to be built on a base, and 

this gets into the impacts. The base is what’s in space now, the 

Earth Observing System and a number of other prototype research 

missions that are flying, things that have to do everything from 

trying to measure tropical rain rates, to surface vector winds— 

many different, very unique sorts of missions. 

But all of these missions are neither research or operational really. In most cases, they were launched as research missions, but 

they found operational niches within the government and private 

industry, not only in this country, but globally. 

And so, we’re in an interesting situation. How do we sustain 

these research missions that now have operational needs? Whether 

it’s for trying to better locate a hurricane, or it’s trying to better 

understand issues of drought or rain run-off and floods in tropical 

regions. All of these results are coming out of, what you would 

think, looking at the title of the mission, was a research mission, 

not an operational one. 

So, that’s a problem. There hasn’t been a real functional mechanism to say, ‘‘OK, we know it works, now how do we put it into 

a broader operational context?’’ 

So, one of the zero-order challenges for the Decadal Survey was, 

what’s the foundation you build the future on? That’s why—as you 

look at the high-priority missions, you might get what you think 

is a bit of a mixed message, because you hear people talking about 

NPOESS and climate sensors coming off of NPOESS and so on, 

and in fact, as you look at the projected set of missions from the 

Decadal Survey, it doesn’t really give you a simple answer to that 

question. 

So, let me address the impacts. Impacts, I think, can be direct— 

operationally now, we’re using surface vector winds from various 

different missions, actually, most all of them research, and in the 

26 

hurricane community they’ve been shown to improve forecasts. 

Case in point—tropical rainfall measuring from space. Again, this 

is a capability that has had a strong impact. 

I think you could say that as you look at the breadth of this 

whole suite of missions from the mid-nineties to the early part of 

this millennium, that many of them have been moved into this 

quasi-operational context. But that context sits between what 

NASA has traditionally done, and what NOAA does, as its charter. 

So that’s, why you won’t get a totally straightforward answer to 

your question. I think it’s demonstrable what can be done from 

space, it’s demonstrable how long, I think, it’ll last, but it’s the 

‘‘Then what?’’ question. And quite directly, in the Decadal Survey, 

we had to assume at the outset that NPOESS was going to happen 

on a certain timescale, with a certain implementation suite, and 

then go from there. 

And, I’d invite the co-chair, if he’d like to comment on this it was 

a very interesting and detailed, long-term debate within the survey, actually, about how to deal with a moving NPOESS suite of 

capabilities. 

Senator NELSON. Let me ask Ms. Colleton, what do you think? 

STATEMENT OF NANCY COLLETON, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE 

FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT STRATEGIES; EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR EARTH OBSERVATIONS 

Ms. COLLETON. I just wanted to make two points, my apologies, 

thank you. 

I just wanted to make two points in reference to the Decadal 

Survey. The first is that, I think what is most significant about the 

vision of the Decadal Program that was adopted by this committee 

that is primarily scientists, is that it went beyond looking just at 

fundamental science, and it looked at applications for the good of 

the Nation, and the world. And, I think this is a real much-needed 

shift as we see more and more private sector entities using this information. We’re seeing new developments in our information technologies, that are making this information available to more people 

than ever before. Think of Google Earth, think of Microsoft Virtual 

Earth—and those are just the beginning. We will be able to access, 

and manipulate, and have decision-support tools like never before, 

in the future certainly. 

So, I think it’s very important to recognize the essential part of 

applications. And, I agree with Dr. Brown, totally. When you look 

at, just for example, the TRIMM mission, the Tropical Rain Measurement mission—that mission is going on its 10th year, I believe. 

It started out as a research mission, it was—its success criteria 

was 3 years, it’s now in its 10th year. And it’s very, very important 

to our hurricane forecasting. And it was some time ago—I think it 

was 2 years ago—that there was question as to whether NASA 

would continue to fund the operation of TRIMM, and NOAA was 

saying, ‘‘But, we need those measurements for the upcoming hurricane season.’’ 

And so, there are going to continue to be those kinds of issues, 

until we have a clear research-to-operations transition plan for the 

Nation, which brings me to my second point. 

27 

I think one of the things that has not been addressed by the 

Decadal Study that I really believe, as a country, we need to look 

at—and that’s leadership. We recognize more and more how vital 

these systems are to our livelihood, our property, saving lives, I 

mean—being from Florida, you know well the importance of hurricane forecasting, and we still, you know, we see the kind of—the 

fact that we were able to evacuate 90 percent of Southeast Louisiana with 40 hours advance notice with Katrina. That’s better 

than we have ever been able to do. 

But, I believe that that transition where this information is no 

longer just available to the science community, but it’s becoming 

more operational all the time, and we have our economy, is using 

this information and relying on this information more and more. I 

think it calls for a new look at how we’re doing these programs, 

and leadership. Without leadership, these programs—the budgets 

for them—will never be protected. And, there will never be a longterm vision for, as a Nation, for what we should be doing in this 

area. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Moore? 

Dr. MOORE. Yes, let me pick up on that point. And, we had a specific recommendation—I should mention that the recommendation 

that we initially debated was how to reorganize the Federal Government, and we recognized we must be late in the days of the 

Committee to be reorganizing the Federal Government. 

And so we stepped back from that. And, and yet the motivation 

was precisely what’s being stated—if you look at the way we’ve, if 

you will, managed the Earth-observing business in the United 

States, it has a checkered history. 

Now, take Landsat—it’s been all over the place—the only place 

it’s not been is the Senate of the United States—it’s been in the 

Air Force, it’s been in the U.S. Geological Survey, it went over to 

NOAA, back to NASA, back over to NOAA, back to NASA—this is 

observing land surface where people live. This should not be tossed 

around the Federal Government. 

The situation with NPOESS, clearly the lessons will be learned 

for many painful years. So, what we set forth was the fact that we 

felt that the Office of Science and Technology Policy has a unique 

opportunity in the next 2 years, in an Administration which, by 

definition, will not succeed itself. As far as I know, the Vice President is not running for President. So, you are almost in an apolitical time for OSTP. I’m from New Hampshire, we’re not in an 

apolitical time in New Hampshire—but it is a different scenorio for 

OSTP to sit down with NASA and NOAA and the U.S. Geological 

Survey, with the Congress, and with the community and with the 

private sector, and say, ‘‘What could we advise the incoming government in 2008, to do about this Earth observing? Let’s see if we 

can’t get this thing on a more rational footing.’’ It is not easy. 

I think the primary problem is that the capabilities of agencies 

do not necessarily line up with their responsibilities. I think that 

is exactly where we have this problem with NOAA. Their responsibility was for this next-generation weather satellite. But they did 

not, necessarily have internal capabilities to manage something of 

that complexity. 

28 

So, I believe we’re going to have to really rethink the way in 

which we do business. It’s just not working. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Freilich, what about the expected gap between Landsat 7 and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission? What 

is going to be the scientific impact of that gap? 

Dr. FREILICH. I’m not a land scientist myself, in fact, I’m an 

oceanographer, like Otis Brown here. 

However, we have looked, and are continuing to look quite carefully at that. Climate time series are things to be cherished, it 

takes 30 years to get a 30-year continuous data set. We are investigating with our international partners, what other data sources 

might be available for the relatively short amount of time between 

the potential demise of Landsat 7, and the plan for launch and operation of Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which will be in 2011. 

There are many, many other countries which are flying, or plan 

to fly, land-observing missions. Not all of them at the same level 

of radiometric accuracy, many of them at the same level of spatial 

resolution, and coverage, as we have. So, we are actively dealing 

in NASA with our international partners, to try and assemble, as 

best as possible, a data set of land observations to enable the climate science to continue, and to enable this time series, which 

we’ve invested so much in as a Nation, to continue to be able to 

serve the climate science, as well as other communities. 

Senator NELSON. By the way, if we didn’t have enough to worry 

about, the Chinese now have the capability to knock down satellites. 

Let me ask Dr. Moore, are the new missions that are currently 

in NASA’s pipeline, such as the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, 

Glory, and NPP, are they consistent with the Decadal Survey recommendations? 

Dr. MOORE. Yes, they are completely consistent. 

And, I think that NASA had the interim report, which was released in April of 2005, as a basis to build the 2008 report. The interim budget dealt with the existing programs—Landsat Data Continuity, Glory, so forth, the ones that you’ve mentioned. And we 

said, ‘‘We really need to get these on track,’’ and the 2008 and 2009 

budgets do that. 

NASA did not have, in preparation of the 2008 budget, the final 

report of the Decadal Survey, which looked at the out-years, beyond the existing programs, which the 2008–2009 really address. 

And as a consequence, if we look at the run-out that, after 2009, 

things go negative again. 

I’m hopeful that Dr. Freilich leadership and with Alan Stern 

coming in, that in the 2009 budget, we will see that run-out turn 

around, because the real recommendations of the Decadal Survey 

deal with these new missions that are the absolute—they are the 

ones that are dead critical, in terms of the problems that the 

Decadal Survey was looking at, whether it was earthquakes or climate or severe weather or droughts or greenhouse gases. They’re 

the ones that address those issues. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Brown? 

Dr. BROWN. Two answers. One, as Dr. Moore said, the interim 

report jumpstarted the internal processes within NASA, so that 

they can address that particular suite of issues, including GPM. 

29 

The outstanding problem, though, that is unaddressed—at least 

from my perspective right now—is the loss of climate sensor capability on NPOESS. We don’t have an answer to that problem, in either agency right now. 

Senator NELSON. Are any of those projects what you would consider a lower priority? 

Dr. BROWN. No. Actually, in terms of the Decadal Survey, no. 

And as you might imagine, there were a lot of hard negotiations 

that occurred to come up with that list. And there was a consensus 

across the panels on the final list, that these really were the -priority missions that needed to be looked at in the next decade. So, 

I’m on board with those, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Well, let me ask to any of you, if the Earth 

Science Program were to proceed along the current path, which is 

the bare-bones NPOESS and only the new missions in the NASA 

pipeline, what are the risks, explain to our Committee, to our Nation’s coastal areas? 

Dr. BROWN. The risks are multi-fold, some would happen sooner 

rather than later, Senator. The longer-term risks are, you’ll have 

interruptions of climate quality data records in a number of areas, 

so you’re going to lose continuity and have to restart climate 

records that you really don’t want to lose, which are fundamental 

to look at long-term changes. For example, there are input solar irradiance versus earth radiation coming out, and understanding 

aerosol impacts. Those would be areas that could be at risk. 

Similarly you could—as you look at some of the other climatequality instruments on the NPOESS suite, see interruptions in the 

climate part of the record. 

The other part, which is the direct impacts has to do with the 

slips in NPOESS, what is that going to mean to polar orbiter, visible and infrared mapping coverage of the globe. We don’t know that 

yet, because we don’t know what that interval might be. But, if 

there is some interval, with much-reduced coverage, that’s going to 

undoubtedly have societal impacts, because that’s a primary sensor 

for many different sorts of warnings that might be put out. 

An area that I would specifically focus on has to do with, as we 

look at sea level rise globally, and all of the aspects that go into 

observing and forecasting it. It includes such esoteric things as trying to map out polar ice extents—and thickness, and so on. Which 

parts of those capabilities that will be diminished is going to have 

an impact, as we try to look at sea level rise? It’s going to mean 

errors, the error-bounds or our confidence in estimating these will 

change, for example. Thank you. 

Senator NELSON. Ms. Colleton, what do you think? How’s this 

going to affect ordinary Americans? Not necessarily on the Coast, 

but if you want to talk about the Coast feel free. 

Ms. COLLETON. Well, I think one of the important things that we 

have to consider is if, if there is a question about our space capability in the future, we have to look at other options. And, we’ve 

yet to talk about aircraft and in situ measurements, and how important those are. And one of the things that, clearly we’re beginning to start is the implementation of the Integrated Ocean Observing System, and all of the regional associations across the 

country that do coastal monitoring, et cetera. There was money in 

30 

the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget to begin that process, I 

don’t think it’s enough money, but programs like that will grow in 

importance, if those space capabilities are not available. And I 

think they—and the fact that we need to look at more of the integrated information between space, aircraft, and in situ information, 

and develop an integrated Earth Observing System that would 

have all of those capabilities, is very, very important. 

Senator NELSON. Just as an aside, one of the aircraft capabilities 

of NOAA is the G–4 that flies at 40,000 feet plus, and tracks hurricanes. It’s given them a 15 percent greater accuracy in prediction 

of hurricane paths, with the resulting additional early warning. 

That’s a single-point failure, we don’t have a backup aircraft. And 

I’ve been trying to beat the door down for the last several years 

about, ‘‘Well, you only need it for 6 months of the year, try to figure 

out when and where another agency could use it for the other 6 

months. You can share it.’’ But, I just spoke to the number two guy 

at NOAA, and they’re not going to. They don’t have any plans to 

come forward and request this. It’s just another indication of what 

you said, Ms. Colleton. 

Ms. COLLETON. And, again, I think it elevates the importance of 

taking a comprehensive look—not just at our space programs, but 

our U.S. common information infrastructure that we’re using, the 

in situ measurements we have, and aircraft. And looking to have 

someone responsible within our government to look at the whole 

picture, and determine if it’s appropriate or accurate for the challenges that we face. 

Dr. MOORE. Senator, could I just elaborate? 

Senator NELSON. Please, please. 

Dr. MOORE. The question that you asked—if we didn’t go ahead 

with the recommendations of the Decadal Survey, and we are living with the highly reduced NPOESS program, what would be 

some of the things that you wouldn’t have? Well, we wouldn’t have 

good measurements of ice sheets. We know that ice sheets are 

changing. We know the changes in ice sheets lead to changes in sea 

level. So, we would not have that. 

Second, we wouldn’t have good measurements of sea level. One 

of the missions that we recommend deals with instruments that 

not only will measure sea level, but will also measure lake levels, 

as well as major rivers. We wouldn’t have that information. 

In the GOESS program, they have eliminated the Coastal Waters 

Imagery. In the Decadal Survey, we recommended a mission that 

would not only handle coastal waters, but also air pollution, the 

measurement of air pollution. 

So, when you start down the list, I think the coastal communities 

are living right at the tipping point. And the recommendations that 

we’ve made were looking very much at the issue of, what are the 

applications? Who are the people at risk? 

Soil moisture—this is a major issue for coastal areas. There will 

be far less capability on the NPOESS mission than was planned. 

One of the missions that we recommended was to directly measure 

soil moistures. 

So, I think that we’ve tried to identify priorities by looking at 

these critical populations, and certainly the coastal community is 

31 

amongst the most critical population, particularly viewed worldwide. 

Dr. FREILICH. I would just like to point out that we presently are 

flying 14 Earth-observing satellites. We’ve talked a bit about sea 

level, and that is certainly one of the triumphs—we have accurate 

measurements of global sea level that started with the TOPEX-Poseidon joint NASA-French Space Agency Program. Presently, the 

Jason-1 altimetry mission is flying, and the very first of the new 

missions that are in the budget to launch—and it will launch in 

2008—is a yet another follow-on—the Ocean Surface Topography 

Mission. So, we have focused on very, very high priorities, and 

ocean surface topography, at least, is one global time series which 

is going to continue at extremely high accuracy, with good overlap 

between sensors. 

Senator NELSON. Ms. Colleton, how do state and local government use the data from these satellites? 

Ms. COLLETON. They use it in a variety of ways. I think probably 

the best example is in looking at drought, the drought monitor 

that’s available, you know we’re experiencing a terrible drought 

right now in Texas, and last week alone there were terrible dust 

storms, 35,000 homes and businesses without power, as a result. 

But, the satellite data is put into systems, information systems, 

that allow anyone, anywhere to access it. They can do this through 

the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, go to the drought monitor 

and determine what the outlook is, what’s currently happening, 

what the outlook might be for a few weeks ahead. 

So it’s not only with drought. One of the most exciting things 

that we’re beginning to see in the area of applications is the relationship between environmental information, and public health. 

And again, it’s just an emerging thing. But we can look, for example, at malaria, and look at parts of the world, for example, that 

may have characteristics that might promote the next malaria outbreak. How is that helpful? Because it helps NGOs get medicine to 

certain parts of the world, producers to distribute it, et cetera. 

One other area that I think will be very, very important with 

emerging applications of remote sensing, or satellite Earth observations is that we—again, we’re just beginning to look at—is the application of this information to the carbon finance market, and how 

this technology becomes an innovation for climate change. We’re 

looking at renewable fuels, we’re looking at emission reductions, 

but are we looking at Earth observations and how it can be used? 

I mean, for one, for example, just in monitoring, it will show us 

whether or not our policies are working. So, I think for state and 

local government leaders, this information has a lot of applications. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Freilich, why don’t you give us some commentary on why you think NPOESS has had so many problems? 

What has NASA learned about the structure, so we can apply it to 

future collaborations? 

Dr. FREILICH. An excellent question, Senator. 

NPOESS is a step forward from the Earth Observing System 

that NASA was flying and from the operational weather satellites 

that NOAA and the Department of Defense separately had been 

flying, and are flying right now. 

32 

In some instances, the instruments that were anticipated to fly, 

or that were chosen to fly on NPOESS were quite mature, and we 

had built them, NASA had often demonstrated their capabilities, 

and their utility, and they transitioned well. 

For instance, on the NPOESS Preparatory Project, one of the instruments, the so-called ATMS, Advanced Technology Microwave 

Sounder instrument, is in good shape. The technology is moving 

along, it was mature, it is, in fact, already integrated onto the 

spacecraft. 

In some other areas, I think that corporately, we were reaching 

rather far. We were attempting to get to the next generation of instruments to fly on an operational spacecraft, when perhaps we 

had not fully examined the technology, and the implementation 

issues associated with them in the context of research missions. 

Historically, NASA did the research missions, as you heard previously from my colleagues. Many of our research satellites, virtually all of them, provide data in near-real-time. And, those measurements originally flown for research purposes, when they demonstrate their utility, are then used routinely in operational numerical weather forecasting, marine hazard warning, et cetera. 

So, that was the process that we had, and I think that we 

jumped a little bit, perhaps, in our eagerness to get a truly outstanding operational constellation of instruments. And in my personal opinion, that is not quite the way we had shown it in the 

past, and the way in which we had experience. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think it can meet its revised cost schedule and technical goals? 

Dr. FREILICH. NASA is a partner in the NPOESS program as a 

technology provider. In the short time I’ve been here, I’ve not had 

the time to study the details of where we are in NPOESS as a 

whole. I think that the Nunn-McCurdy recertification focuses 

NPOESS on its weather forecasting capabilities, and based on the 

analyses that went into that, we will be able to achieve those capabilities, that performance. 

As far as climate goes, I think that the Nunn–McCurdy re-certification is fairly honest, and it says that, given the resources that 

are available, we should not be focusing on climate measurements, 

and therefore, we as a country have to look at how to mitigate the 

removal of those measurements. It’s not that we shouldn’t focus on 

climate, but this program can’t afford to focus on climate. We 

should look to see how to mitigate the impact of removing those 

sensors, but get the measurements flown in different ways. And, 

we’re actively working with NOAA and other portions of the government through OSTP, in particular to try to come up with mitigation strategies. That will feed into our integrated road map that 

I talked about previously. 

Because, the science and the societal impact that were identified 

in the Decadal Survey really requires a background context, if you 

will, of measurements that we had thought were going to be obtained from NPOESS, and if they’re not obtained from NPOESS, 

we still have to make those measurements in order to advance our 

Earth-system science. 

Senator NELSON. Are there particular problems that you think 

we ought to be on the lookout for? 

33 

Dr. FREILICH. Sorry, I don’t quite understand the question, 

whether it’s—— 

Senator NELSON. In the revised cost schedule and technical 

goals? Do you think we can meet them all, or are there going to 

be some problems that we ought to be looking for? 

Dr. FREILICH. Every space mission that I’ve been associated with 

and that I’ve known about, has had challenges associated with it. 

There are clearly two instruments on the NPOESS preparatory 

project—the VIIRS instrument and the CRIS instrument, which at 

the moment, represent, quite significant technological challenges. 

They are not NASA-provided instruments, I might point out, but 

they’re critical instruments for the science that has been identified, 

and for the societal impact that we would like to extract from this 

national investment. 

Senator NELSON. Do you think the NPP will fill the gap between 

EOS and NPOESS? 

Dr. FREILICH. NPP, as well as international partner contributions, in particular, EUMETSAT and the MetOp series of spacecraft, and the instruments and spacecraft that we have in the Fiscal Year 2008 budget will bridge the gap. Those seven missions 

that I talked about that will launch out between 2008 and 2013 

which, by the way, not only includes the Ocean Surface Topography 

Mission, but also the orbiting carbon observatory that Ms. Colleton 

talked about, which is also going to launch in 2008. Those missions—and the ones that we’re flying now—will certainly not only 

continue, but expand the range of variables that we’re presently 

measuring, and then the question just becomes a programmatic 

one, of when the follow-ons take place. Now that we have the clear 

guidance from the Decadal Survey, we can begin to build those integrated programs. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Moore, you want to talk to us about 

projects that were dropped from NPOESS, and tell us what you 

think about the status of them, then Dr. Freilich, why don’t you 

comment on that and to what degree you think you’re going to be 

able to get them in the budget? 

Dr. MOORE. Well, there are several. I’ll begin with the less expensive ones. Perhaps they could come back into the budget via 

NOAA. And these are very important for climate. 

The total solar irradiance monitor—this monitors the solar output—was dropped. And, the instrument to measure the energy 

coming off of the planet was dropped. Now, if you’re going to do climate work, the concern about climate is the change in the energy 

balance, because of the greenhouse gases. You’ve got to have the 

total solar irradiance, and you’ve got to have the energy coming off 

the planet—those are of the first order. The Decadal Survey recommended those back to NOAA because we felt that—not only 

were they important, but they were not budget breakers. In fact, 

I think it would probably be in the noise of the uncertainty about 

the NPOESS budget. So, that would be a very clear recommendation. 

The other was the altitude distribution of ozone in the atmosphere. That was eliminated—they were going to continue to measure the total amount of ozone in the column of air, but not see in 

34 

detail, the altitude. We really need to understand that. So those 

are three things that we felt could be put back on the NOAA side. 

On the other aspects, it appears that there will probably be far 

less capability of measuring soil moisture. And therefore, one of the 

early recommendations to NASA was a soil moisture mission. Now, 

this is a good example of where I think a NASA mission does not 

fulfill the NOAA and Air Force responsibility. This would be a scientific mission, but there will have to be the capability of taking 

the data from this scientific mission and incorporating that into the 

operational side of NOAA and the Air Force. 

What worries me, is that in the reduction of the budget for 

NPOESS, there will be a loss of that capability to utilize that data 

for operational purposes. So, we’re recommending a wide swath altimeter, to look at ocean altimetry, sea level height, as well as rivers and lakes. The altimeter was lost from the NPOESS mission. 

This is a recommendation to NASA, but once again—will there be 

the capability of utilizing this data? 

Finally, the NPOESS mission was advertised, and still is advertised, as not only a weather mission, but a climate mission—the instruments are said to have climate capability, that means that 

they’re very stable, they make a very precise and accurate measurement. 

Well, the NPOESS program has something they call ‘‘weather 

centrals.’’ These are the places that the data is processed for 

weather prediction purposes. Where’s the climate central? In order 

to produce climate data records, as Mike Freilich said very well, to 

produce these long time series, they require data that is often reprocessed three, four, five times. The reason for that is, instruments age—(just as we age)—and performance changes. So, as the 

instrument changes, the algorithms that process the data need to 

be changed. The algorithms need, for climate signals, to be the very 

best we can get—not the fastest. For weather purposes, speed is everything. So, where’s the climate central? Despite our very clear 

recommendation in the interim report, and again in the final report, we’ve never had NOAA respond to that. Yet, if you’re going 

to have a climate mission, you need to produce climate data. 

So, first of all, I think there are serious issues with respect to 

the instruments. Second, we’ve tried to make a recommendation to 

NOAA on these energy balance issues—some of the measurements 

that we’ve recommended to NASA are high-priority measurements, 

third, there will still be the cost of ingesting this data, and finally 

there’s the issue of the climate central. 

Senator NELSON. What do you think, Dr. Freilich? 

Dr. FREILICH. OK, let me go down the list that Dr. Moore presented. 

We’ve already talked about ocean surface topography and altimetry, the OSTM mission will be launching in 2008. Dr. Moore mentioned the radiation balance, and in particular, the total solar irradiance. The Glory mission, which we’ll launch at the end of calendar year 2008, is in the final stages of implementation now. It 

has two instruments on it. One of them is an aerosol polarimetry 

sensor, but the other is a total solar irradiance sensor. So, that 

mission is funded, will be launching at the end of 2008, or the very 

beginning of 2009—and that will continue that extremely imporVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78568.TXT JACKIE
35 

tant time series. Which, by the way, requires absolute overlap of 

the measurements. We, unfortunately are not in a position where 

we can build total solar irradiance instruments which have sufficiently good absolute accuracy to tolerate a gap. But, we have a 

TSI, a Total Solar Irradiance instrument, which will launch on the 

Glory mission, and that one is good. 

As far as the Earth Radiation budget instrumentation, the 

CLARREO mission, as Dr. Moore pointed out, is a joint set of 

measurements between NASA and NOAA. It is one of the potentially lower cost missions, we’re looking at it carefully, and certainly one of the high-priority science ones, and we’ll be looking 

very carefully—it’s one of the four earliest missions that the 

Decadal Survey recommended, and we’ll be looking very carefully 

and be guided by the Decadal Survey, as I’ve said many times, in 

putting together our integrated plan. So, it’s going to be quite high 

up, in our focus early on. 

Senator NELSON. And what year do you think that will come in? 

Dr. FREILICH. I can’t say right now, because we have to put the 

plan together, and it has to account—as I said before—for all of the 

measurements that are required to advance the science. We need 

to be able to balance the resources that are available with all of 

the measurements that we need, including the new measurements 

for the Decadal Survey science, such as soil moisture, and the context measurements that would have been provided by NPOESS, 

had it gone as expected. So, as in so many other things that we 

do—and as is emphasized so strongly in the Decadal Survey, where 

they talk about balance between disciplines, and balance between 

research and flight projects, and balance between airborne and in 

situ measurements—we have to deal with balance for the Nation, 

certainly, for NASA, and inside the Earth Science Division. But 

that’s the whole point of our integrated roadmap, which we are embarked on right now, given the clear objectives that have been set 

out by the Decadal Survey. 

I might also point out, sir, if I can, that the Fiscal Year 2008 

President’s budget requests funding for a mission—a competitively 

selected, unspecified Earth Systems Science Pathfinder mission— 

that is a medium-sized mission and will launch in approximately 

2014. As part of our integrated roadmap, we are taking that line 

into account. So, I think that, an answer to your question is that, 

when we put the integrated roadmap together, there is money in 

the President’s budget for a medium-sized mission to launch in 

2014, and the question is, precisely what scientific focus should it 

have? 

Senator NELSON. Would it consider the other two that were left 

off, for the measurement of the soil moisture and for the altitude 

distribution of ozone? 

Dr. FREILICH. Let me deal with them separately. The altitude 

distribution of ozone is a relatively small and relatively mature 

technology that we have. In fact, the total ozone and the atmospheric profile were supposed to be two instruments originally, but 

that were closely linked to each other, and we will look very, very 

carefully at getting that one flown rapidly. 

That is not in the same class of investment technology, or anything else that we’re talking about for the other ones. 

36 

In terms of soil moisture, there are a number of possibilities that 

were laid out in the Decadal Survey and they dovetail, actually, 

fairly well in some cases with the Global Precipitation Measurement Mission. And we’re looking carefully, as I keep saying, at an 

integrated approach to make the best use of the resources that we 

have—so that if we can, in fact, overlap some of these and kill multiple birds with fewer stones, we’re looking very, very, carefully at 

doing that. 

NASA’s contributions to the Global Precipitation Mission has two 

parts to it. The first is a core spacecraft, joint with our Japanese 

Space Agency partners, that will have a couple of different instruments on it—an active precipitation radar, and a passive radiometer. That will launch in 2013. In 2014, however, this budget line 

includes the so-called GPM Constellation spacecraft, which we need 

in order to get the good, accurate global precipitation measurements, that GPM as a unit, is intended to provide. 

However, the radiometer that is on that spacecraft may, perhaps, 

be able to be adapted, enhanced, whatever—I don’t want to do design in front of the Senate, in fact, I’m not even capable of doing 

design in my office, being an oceanographer. However, those are 

the sorts of questions that we’re asking ourselves, as we put together the integrated roadmap—how best to get the measurements 

that we need that advance the science with the resources that we 

have available. 

Senator NELSON. And what about the idea of weather centrals 

becoming climate centrals, as Ms. Colleton mentioned? 

Dr. FREILICH. I’m not sure that I heard that weather centrals 

should become climate centrals, what I heard Ms. Colleton and Dr. 

Moore say, was that capability, that function, must be recognized 

as scientifically and societally very important. NASA, in general, 

does not do that sort of work, because that’s an operational kind 

of capability. However, we really, really need it in order to advance 

both the science and the societal impact. 

Senator NELSON. Ms. Colleton, do you want to expand on that? 

Ms. COLLETON. I think that Dr. Moore said it appropriately. 

Senator NELSON. Turn on your mike. 

Ms. COLLETON. Sorry—I’ll learn by the time this hearing is over, 

to turn on my microphone, I apologize. 

But, I think Dr. Moore said it accurately—the way that the 

NPOESS program is structured right now, there is this focus on 

weather centrals, that rely and push for speed in delivery, where 

the climate centrals aren’t being considered at this point, and those 

require more sensitive types of instrumentation, and processing. 

Is that correct, Dr. Moore? 

Dr. MOORE. I think that, the weather centrals have their job, and 

it’s best to let them focus on that job. A climate central needs a 

different oversight, a different scientific oversight, it requires advanced computing—as does the weather—but perhaps it should be 

structured differently, and separated from the task of the weather 

centrals. 

Our concern is that, right now, it’s not in the budget, it doesn’t 

appear to be in the planning, speaking to NOAA, and I do not see 

any way to simply try to piggy-back it on something else. I think 

it’s a very serious enterprise, and it’s not being addressed. 

37 

The other comment I wanted to make was when I addressed the 

issue on the solar monitoring and so forth—I was taking into consideration that NASA on the Glory mission gets us to about 2013 

with this solar monitoring. But then it stops, because it’s deleted 

from the NPOESS mission. So, our recommendation is that, it’s not 

expensive, it is highly important, as Mike said, you’ve got to have 

it overlap with whatever is on-orbit at that time, making that 

measurement, because you need to get a consistent time series. 

And therefore, it was natural to put it on, put it back on the first 

NPOESS spacecraft. 

But, it requires resources. And what I’m afraid of is, the 

NPOESS situation is not in closure yet, and we may see additional 

pressure on the program, and therefore there will not be the ability 

to respond to these very real needs that we’re going to have. And 

I just don’t see how they’re going to be met, unless things change. 

Dr. BROWN. Senator, a final comment from me on that. Let’s, 

and, go back to the earlier discussion that we had on the Decadal 

Survey committee. And that was that, you know, should you restructure the Federal Government to deal with these challenges of 

the NPOESS program? 

What you see, though, is when restructuring had to happen because of Nunn-McCurdy, there was no climate sponsor to step up 

and say, ‘‘That’s my responsibility I want to preserve that. Here’s 

a budget to do that.’’ That, I think, is a fundamental issue as we 

move into this new suite of satellites. Who is going to be the climate sponsor for Earth Observing Systems? I don’t know what the 

answer is. I’m not going to presume that, but I do think that is the 

question. 

Senator NELSON. Any further comments from any of you all? Yes, 

ma’am? 

Ms. COLLETON. If I could, we’ve spent a lot of time talking about 

NPOESS this afternoon. But I think, again, we have to consider, 

NPOESS is supposed to go through 2024, and are we considering 

what follows? Or, are some of these missions that are getting set 

back longer and longer times. Again, I would call—I would hope 

that you would call—for a long-term strategy for Earth observations. We do not have one. We do not have a national strategy, we 

need to address these climate questions, it’s imperative, and I 

would hope that you would call for such an action. 

Senator NELSON. Dr. Moore, you were about to say something? 

Dr. MOORE. Yes, one final comment—I recognize that when we 

put forth 17 missions, and say we need to get back to the year 

2000, that’s a major step. We could have classed those missions, 

grouped them into three large spacecraft, and said we’re only recommending three missions. We thought we were recommending a 

more robust strategy by breaking it up. 

So, let’s think about how we might exploit that robust strategy. 

Mike Freilich has spoken, I think, very positively, we all appreciate 

it in the community—about the Decadal Survey. Let’s see if we 

can’t find a way to actually embrace it, beyond these road-mapping 

exercises. And so, what I would like to suggest is, we’ve recommended 17 missions to NASA. Let’s look at the first six or seven 

of them. Let’s start with them. Say, $10 million a year for seven 

missions to do the kind of detailed cost analysis, do the kind of deVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:27 Feb 04, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\78568.TXT JACKIE
38 

tailed high technological risk parts, the so-called ‘‘tall poles’’—let’s 

start working those right now. So, $70 million to take on the first seven—what would happen? 

Well, first of all, we would all join forces in the community because 

we would see a positive response. The country, I think, would begin 

to feel positively too, that we’ve got this thing back on track. Industry would look at this and say, ‘‘Well, Earth Science is a place that 

we need to put our industrial money.’’ I know the industry, quite 

often will say, ‘‘Well, if NASA’s going to invest ‘‘X’’ number of dollars, we need to invest that, because we’re competing against our 

peers out here.’’ So, when you’re in a hole, the first thing you do 

is stop digging. Instead we would start to dig steps out of the hole. 

So, by making that kind of investment—$70 million is a lot of 

money, but in other ways, it’s not a lot of money. 

Senator NELSON. Anything from you all for the record? 

Dr. FREILICH. Thank you very much. 

Senator NELSON. Well, thank you for your time. I did not introduce you all, we just started right in on our conversation. Dr. 

Freilich is the Director of the Earth Sciences Division of the 

Science Mission Directorate at NASA, Dr. Moore is Director of the 

Institute for Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University 

of New Hampshire, Dr. Brown is the Dean of the Rosenstiel School 

of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, and 

Ms. Colleton is the President of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, and is the Executive Director for the Alliance for 

Earth Observations. So, you all have added mightily to our knowledge, and our attempts to try to get this right. So, thank you very 

much. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ